Over the past 40 years or so, the circumcision debate in this country has been heavy on emotional, prejudical, guilt tripping anti-circumcision rhetoric thath dominates our web-sites, and much of the rhetoric is not based on sound medical/scientific facts.

Rather than discussing the issue in a adult and educated fashion, opponents have embarked on abusive and personal attacks on people who do not share their point of view, and medical opponents in this country have also contributed to this rhetoric by their treatment of parents who wish to have their sons circumcised.

We are all entitled to our views on this controversial issue. The current position of lay and medical opponents treating other Canadians who do not share their point of view with contempt and dis-respect, is simply unacceptable and needs challenging.

Many web-sites are a ‘pot hole’ of rhetoric that insults people’s intelligence, and this too needs addressing.

Nancy Ripton made an interesting comment that she was in the minority of parents in Canada who were having their sons circumcision. I beg to differ, she is not. Many parents are having their sons circumcised in private clinics, and increasing number of parents who caved into the anti-circumcision rhethoric, and did not originally have their sons circumcised, are now finding their sons are needing the procedure for health reasons opponents are forever debunking.

Clearly there is a need for a sound and intelligent discussion on this medical issue, rather than all the negative hype that is the hallmark of the anti-circumcision movement in this country.

At the turn of the 20th Century, there was a move a foot in European countries to start circumcising their male population to reduce Veneral Disease which was quite rampant in many European countries. This move came up against a roadblock, a vast majority of Europeans were against the idea as they equated circumcision with the Jewish and Islamic people, and this is still the main reason why European, Asia and many Latin American countries do not circumcised their males.

I have asked European male friends of mine why they were not circumcised, and their immediate reply was – “I’m not Jewish.

How many contributors to this column are aware that it was against the law in the former Soviet Union for any Soviet males to be circumcised, and doctors were hired to actually physically examine Soviet Jewish/Islamic males to ensure they adhering to t he Law.

Further evidence of this view point, a man’s genital status (ie whether he was circumcised or not’) was an identification criteria used by Nazi Germany in their overall mass extermination plan for the Jewish people in Europe. Then of course there is the biblical and historical evidence of how the ancient Romans dealt with the circumcision issue, which wasn’t much different from Nazi Germany’s.

In the many debates over the circumcision issue, one sees/hears the view being expounded that our male population should be allowed to make this decision at a later age as to whether they will be circumcised or not.

Interesting enough, not once has it ever been aired/printed as to what males who have gone thru a post-natal circumcision at a later age feel about this.

Over the years I have repeatedly heard males who have gone thru late circumcisions convey that they wished that their parents had not caved into to the bullying, guilt tripping tactics used by medical opponents to discourage them from having their sons circumcised. I have also heard, and know of families who went thru this, and later their sons had to be circumcised for health reasons opponents are quick to debunk.

One of the things I have encountered over the years is that those who are opposed to circumcision really do not respect the opinions of others who do not share their point of view. We have seen this at the medical level in the way medical opponents have handled parents requests.

How many of contributors to this column are aware, there is a move afoot on the part of opponents to have an International Law passed againsts male circumcision. Attempts have already been made here in Canada and the US to have such laws passed in both countries.

Clearly the issue has to be discuss in a responsible and civil manner, so that both views are fairly aired and respected. There may never been a total agreement on the issue, but at least we can walk away with a better understanding of the issue.

Yes, it does look better and kids don’t get teased as much and get a complex later in life..

I truly can’t believe you would ask your sons if they would want to get circumcised later in life. I would of looked at my parents cross eyed.

Whom remembers anything when they were 3 years of age, let alone the past couple of months. Get real!

I can’t even comment on your last point.

“and it looks better.”
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it certainly doesn’t look better when it is botched.

“Right, I’m going to let my boys decide when they get older. Who’s kidding who.”
Why ever not? Most fathers in the world do (and most sons won’t have a bar of it).

“Get it done in the first 2 wks of birth and ask them if they remember. I don’t!!!”
Some say they do, but even if they don’t they’re reminded every day – especially if it doesn’t work so well.

“In addition, most fathers want their boys to look like them as well.”
It would be bad luck for the sons of men who’ve lost limbs or eyes if that were true.

While there is no question that the circumcision rates are down in Canada, the current circumcision statistics that are often being bantered around by groups like CIRP and the Canadian Pediatric Society do not reflect the actual number of circumcisions being performed in this country.

For example, correspondence I have exchanged with the Canadian Institute of Health Information regarding their figures, I was informed that the CIHI is aware that many infant circumcisions are being performed in other settings. While this information is noted in their methdological notes, there is often no mention when these figures are quoted, that many infant circumcisions are being performed in hassel free private clinics, therefore current statistics being given out to the public is not an actual reflection of the number of circumcisions really being performed.

Contrary to what is forever being bantered around that male children are being circumcised to look like daddy, this too is not an accurate reflection as to why many families are still having their sons circumcised.

While it may be the case in some families, for many families over the years they have had male family members and friends undergo post-natal circumcisions for health reasons opponents are quick to debunk. In addition, many circumcised male children born between the mid 1930s to present were not all sired by circumcised fathers, so this notion that male children are being circumcised to look like daddy is also not an accurate reflection as to w hy parents are still having their sons circumcised.

Another misconception widely expounded in that males in this country have been routinely circumcised. This is not correct, and Stats Canada who have been collecting statistics on the number of neo-natal and post-natal circumcisions being performed in Canada would verify this point.

Non-religious males, that is Canadian males not of the Jewish/Islamic faith have not and are not being routinely circumcised at birth. If this was the case, then there would be a larger percentage of circumcised males in this country, and this simply not the case.

I found it shocking that one contributor indicated that 20% of gay circumcised males in Britain had AIDS, while there was no indication of the AIDS status of the 80% uncircumcised gay males in Britain.

It is interesting to note that the Canadian Pediatric Society is always touted as the ‘expert’ on the circumcision issue, yet this medical body are not the care givers to our growing and aging male population.

If past and present medical students in this country were required to spend some time in our STD , Veneral Disease and Urological Clinics the current anti-circumcision attitudes in this country would be greatly reduced.

Similiarly, if doctors in this country were required to report for statistical purposes the genital status of males being treated for ongoing genital infection problems prior to their post-natal circumcisions, and the same information required about the partners of women being treated for similiar problems, there would also be a mark changed in atittudes towards the circumcision issue.

I wonder how many Canadians are aware that in the fall of 1980, the Supreme Court of Canada passed a ruling which requires doctors to give both sides to controversial medical issue of which there are two sides to the circumcision issue. If a cross Canada survey was conducted on how parents have been treated when they requested circumcision for their sons, it would reveal that medical opponent have ignored the Supreme Court ruling, and instead of provding parents with an unbiased presentation on the circumcision issue, they have in turned embarked on their own campaign to eradicate circumcision from being performed in Canada.

Clearly there is a need for this issue to be discussed in an unbiased manner, and less emotional approach than what we have seen over the years. We are all entitled to our opinions, and the often nastiness that has crept into this debate is really uncalled for, and serves no useful purpose.

Women considering circumcising sons to protect them from HIV should consider that one study (in Rakai, Uganda) found that the partners of circumcised men were no less likely to get HIV – in fact 12% of the partners of intact men got it, compared to 18% percent of the partners of circumcised men, but they cut the test short before it could reach statistical significance. Women are already at much more risk from men than men are from women; circumcising men might make it even greater.

A quick look at Stacy’s links indicates they all reflect the prevailing pro-circ bias. circinfo.com is the site of Prof. Brian Morris who never saw a reason for circumcising he didn’t like (including “to prevent ‘bathroom splatter'” and “to prevent zipper injuries”) and cherry picks his data shamelessly. The McGill study of penile sensitivity didn’t measure the foreskin… and so on.