Posted on 04/05/2006 5:19:29 PM PDT by Giant Conservative
The debate about neonatal circumcision is over. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), neonatal circumcision is the result of ignorance, bad medical practice and American social and cultural pressure. Regarding the three most commonly cited justifications for neonatal circumcision (penile cancer, venereal disease and penile hygiene), the AAP now states that the benefits are negligible, which means that the majority of American men are walking around without foreskins for no good reason. Yet, the barbaric practice shows no sign of abating, and for this reason I plan to shed some light on the cultural dark spot of circumcision.
The U.S. stands alone as the only country in the world (including developed, developing and undeveloped countries) where neonatal nonreligious circumcision is routine for physicians and their unwitting patients.
In contrast, 80 percent of the planet does not practice circumcision, and since 1870 no other country has adopted it. China, Japan, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Scandinavia, Holland and Russia have never condoned the practice (except for religious purposes), and of the other countries that do practice neonatal nonreligious circumcision (Canada, Australia and Great Britain), there has been a regimented decline in circumcisions by about 10 percent per decade in accordance with the advice of each country’s own respective medical institutions.
If we take a look at the latter group of English-speaking countries, the statistics show just how wildly disproportionate the U.S. endemic is when compared with its English speaking cousins. In the second-highest-instance countries, Australia and Canada, the amount of neonatal nonreligious circumcisions is estimated to be about 30 percent, compared to Great Britain where only 1 percent of males can expect to have their foreskins cut off before they have even acquired one-word language acquisition to be able to say “No!”. In the U.S., however, the number of circumcised males is estimated to be approximately 80 percent. Only in America has medical science taken a back seat in the fight for the foreskin.
As Edward Wallerstein aptly points out in Circumcision: The Uniquely American Medical Enigma, “[i]n 1971 and 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision declared: ‘…there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.’” Subsequently, this decision has been endorsed by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 1978 and by the AAP in 1999.
And yet, Wallerstein highlights that “[t]he ‘firm’ declarations should have caused a marked drop in the United States circumcision rate. They did not.” The truth is that neonatal circumcision is deeply rooted in American culture: so much so, in fact, that many American parents actually believe they are doing their sons a service, when, in only one foul slice, the dangers of penile cancer, venereal disease and bad hygiene are purportedly quashed (along with premature ejaculation, masturbation, and general ugliness). But American parents have been grossly misguided.
The AAP affirms that the majority of reported benefits by which parents justify circumcision are groundless hearsay. Notably, penile cancer might be preventable through circumcision of the foreskin, just as the potential for most diseases is eliminable by the complete removal of the vulnerable body part — I bet I could guarantee you would never contract Hotchkiss brain disease if you let me cut your head off too — but the fact is that the foreskin is an important, healthy and irreplaceable part of a child’s body, and in the absence of overwhelming medical evidence proving the link between retention of the foreskin and penile cancer, the AAP has had no choice but to disregard this cultural claim.
Furthermore, as far as the argument that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting venereal diseases goes, Wallerstein crucially highlights that “health” circumcision originated in 19th century England, where the theory emerged that masturbation was responsible for such things as asthma, hernia, gout, kidney disease, rheumatism and even alcoholism.
The Victorian aversion to all acts sexual was fertile ground for genital mutilation to take root and, since the English cultural practice stormed the U.S., beliefs about the purported benefits of the practice have barely changed, while Great Britain has become a born-again circumcision virgin. Consequently, the link proposed between any disease and the foreskin is outdated fallacy — including venereal diseases.
As if that was not enough, the AAP also states that “there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene.” Consequently, parental supervision of the foreskin is a far more appropriate measure for reducing the chances of infection in a boy’s penis than a radical surgical procedure, especially when the short-term effects of circumcision can include anything from changed sleeping patterns to psychological disruptions in feeding and bonding between mother and infant, profuse bleeding, subsequent infection from surgery, and even death.
Moreover, the AAP recognizes that circumcision causes extreme pain and trauma for infants, since circumcised infants exhibit deterioration in pain threshold as much as six months later when receiving mandatory vaccinations, while the long-term physical and psychological damage is undocumented.
In short, the idea that neonatal circumcision is the answer to all of men’s ills is erroneous. Like the Jewish religious practice of circumcision, American nonreligious circumcision is dependent on the acceptance of cultural beliefs, and the sad truth is that Americans hold to the norm as tenaciously as they hold to the scalpel, although they do not entirely know why because they are not being told.
Religious circumcision is one thing, but circumcision for no good reason ... well, what is the sense of that? There is none! Removal of the foreskin is a cultural mistake, and I hope that on reading these facts you will break the ghastly cycle if the choice ever becomes your own. It’s about time the foreskin became sacred too.
Most men who want to restore their foreskin choose non-surgical foreskin restoration.
From a Christian perspective, I have circumsised both of my son's and will do so to the third that will be here in June. I know that God used it as a sign as a covenant between the males of the nation of Israel and Himself. I do not do it for that. I believe that God also knew of the other physical issues that can come from non-circumsicicion. I also believe that if followed in moderation, the dietary habits as well as hygene habits instituted by God to Israel as nation is beneficial to all.
Like I really want either of these people or groups representing me.
"My own preference, if I had the good fortune to have another son, would be to leave his little penis alone."
-- Benjamin Spock, M.D., Redbook, April 1989.
The forced amputation of a healthy part of an infant's or child's genitals in the name of medicine, religion, or social custom violates his human rights.
-- NORM: The National Organization of Restoring Men
I would not consider myself at all qualified to make a judgment on that issue. My point is that circumcisions are not harmful. If they are awful because they prevent enjoyment of sex then they are not harmful because I am circumcised and enjoy sex very much.
It has been my observation that posters who initiate "anti-circ" threads on FR also have serious Jew problems.
Doctors have been searching for a medical justification for cutting off a normal, healthy part of a boy's penis since the late 1880s. The first medical justification doctors used was the idea that circumcision helps prevent a boy from masturbating. Medical doctors at that time thought that masturbation caused epilepsy and other medical problems.
"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention." - College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. Infant Male Circumcision. Jun 2004.
You must also ride an ass to work to complete the picture of it would also help to scacrifice some heifers and lambs.
Come on... Gene Scott has passed on. Are you going to assume his mantle?
Never heard of him. But I find it extremely interesting that a custom virtually the whole world ignores is so common place in the United States.
And you posted this new-age pap...why?
Either that or they are failed urologists trying to drum up some business. Yes I see your point, sort of like the types who bleed for the Palestinians but don't care about any other third world people. The obsession people have with Jews is one of the few things that gives me religious faith. It is too irrational to explain otherwise, an obsession with a group of people who make up 1/4% of the world population and the majority of whom don't care about their own religion or people.
Because that's part of being a parent. Sometimes you make decisions for your kids.
My reference was to Gene Scott, a televangelist, who was an unabashed teacher of British-Israelism. The only one I've heard with this theology. Very entertaining in a cocky sort of way. He passed away within the last few years. Sorry, your language sounded a lot like his teaching.
If true then it's also interesting that Israel as a modern nation was formed in 1948...right after WWII. Doesn't take much to imagine that God might have revealed all of Israel's tribal descendents at about the same time.
My reference was to Gene Scott, a televangelist, who was an unabashed teacher of British-Israelism.
I've studied British-Israelism quite a bit and agree with the basic concept. It was a pretty common notion in early America that many religious settlers considered it (America) the "new" Israel and the notion of manifest destiny later was embraced by many.
And besides, people are restricted by law from doing harm unto others... indeed, preventing people from doing harm to others is the primary rational basis for having laws.
If someone's religion told them it was O.K. to strap a bomb to their kid's chest and send them into a restauraunt as a suicide bomber, no references to religious freedom would preclude anyone on FreeRepublic from agreeing that the law should step in and prevent that, because of the harm it causes.
So, the real question is, is circumcision a harm? I would say yes, and that therefore it should be precluded by law: let's say at national level. If I am right, and I am, then seeking for circumcision to be banned is quite righteous even as seeking abortion to be banned is quite righteous, for both pursuits follow the same reasoning: that harm to innocents is wrong and must be stopped.
And yes, it is a sanctity of life issue: its the right for innocent human life to prosper without an archaic blood ritual being perpetuated on them.
And really, "arcane" describes the position of those who defend such a weird practice as circumcision on the basis of some guy claiming he heard voices telling him to cut a circle of blood in his son's genitalia.
Sigh. . .I can't believe I'm perpetuating this thread, but for anyone who would like to know the AAP's true position on circumcision (in contrast to the ridiculous statements in the article that initiated this discussion), here is the link to their most recent evidence-based policy statement on the subject:
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686
My son is not circumcised. However, the practice is relatively safe. If people want to have their sons circumcised, they should be allowed to. It's their choice.
I feel the same way about any body piercings or tatoos or plastic surgery. They all have risks involved, but if people want to do these things, they should be allowed to do it.
I never said I was Jewish or that following the law offers salvation. I was saying that the dietary and health laws that God gave to Israel though done to show that they were seperate them from the people of other nations, are also beneficial for us today. I do not sacrifice heifers and lambs, I do think they taste good though, especially with sonny's BBQ sauce.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.