Divorced parents clash over 12-year-old son's circumcision

[Solomon]
Cut the child in half!
Then, one half can be circumcised, and the other half can be natural.

*The parents let it happen*

No...it isn't.

Uh, no. But neither is it like getting an ear pierced.

Male circumcision is very safe--though fairly horrific in the rare case of a major screw up--and fairly, though not quite entirely, pointless from a health point of view. It is not eye gouging, and it is not female genital mutilation. It does, however, have significant enough cosmetic and sensory side effects that any health effects are generally dwarfed, and there's no legitimate reason for any responsible parent to choose circumcision for a child absent an otherwise untreatable case of phimosis. Overstating the case does not help the case.

I'm uncut and I've never had an infection.

My husband's had one in forty one years. Very rampant. Guess he missed his bath that Tuesday.

....

....

Ahem. Once again--INFANT FORMULA.

Remove the breasts. There is absolutely no function for the breasts other than for men to have something fun and round to suck on. They are no longer necessary to feed children. Removal of the breasts of all teen females will cut breast cancer deaths by 100 PERCENT in their lifetime.

Breast cancer in the United States

Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer (other than skin) and a leading cause of cancer mortality among women in the United States. Breast cancer rates in the United States are among the highest in the world...

That's according to a noted physician. Why aren't we removing the breast tissue of every single teen girl to protect her? She might get cancer. She's FAR more likely to get cancer than any man to get cancer in his penis. As many as 12 percent of women today may be diagnosed. So why aren't we removing this useless tissue while it's still healthy? Why bother asking them? They don't know any better until they're fifteen.

It's the same logic as the circumcision argument. In fact, it's far more logical. The very idea of it is appalling, isn't it? So why do men deserve any less respect for their bodies?

Isn't breast milk better for the baby than formula?

Other half has never had an infection, either.

Better? Yeah, but not by nearly as much as the press it gets would lead you to believe.

1) Most studies touting extreme advantages for breastfeeding are remarkably poorly controlled. Women who are poor are less likely to breast feed. Women who leave their children in day care are less likely to breast feed. Kids who are poor, and kids who socialize in large groups before their immune systems are fully developed are, shockingly enough, more likely than others to develop various sicknesses and more likely to experience greater severity of sickness. Breast feeding studies showing better health outcomes for breast feeding rarely if ever adequately control for these and other factors.

2) Most antibodies in breast milk are destroyed in the stomach and intestines or just pass through the system; few get absorbed into the blood. Breast milk offers temporary immune system boosts related to the gastrointestinal tract, but, contrary to popular belief, doesn't offer much in the way of long term or more wide-spread immune system benefits.

3) Formula is a lot better than it used to be, and is generally fairly complete nutritionwise. It's not as good as ideal breast milk, but it's also more uniform and not subject to problems based on maternal diet.

4) A lot of women have difficulty with breast feeding, and when they believe that only breast feeding is good for their baby they end up starving their baby.

Breast milk is better than formula in most cases, but the differences aren't all that big. They're certainly small enough that, from a purely medical public health standpoint, removing the breasts to prevent breast cancer would have benefits that far outweigh the detriments of formula feeding. I think the breast removal/circumcision analogy is pretty solid overall, and if taken to heart really does show the absurdity of circumcision. Removing breasts definitely would make a lot more medical sense than circumcising.

Oh I give up. I'm happy for everyone.

I'm not against breast feeding, Mrs. Albert, (far from it) but babies can thrive without it if there isn't a mother available is my point. Liet said it best. The benefits of prevention of breast cancer, and it would be 100 percent prevented, far outweigh the detriments of bottle feeding. So why aren't we removing that potentially deadly tissue from our daughters' bodies as soon as they enter puberty? What if a young girl's family member suffered from breast cancer? She's more susceptible if she has a family history. Why give her a choice? It's good for her. My God, it's 100 times more prevalent than penile cancer, and far deadlier than an occasional UTI. You can avoid AIDS by wearing a condom and not sleeping around. You can't avoid breast cancer by not having sex.

Why are we giving our daughters a choice?

And you know what's good for adults?

Pork chops! Eat your meat!!

Not only is that true, but in fact, not having sex increases the risk of breast cancer.