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 countrys 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 childs 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 boys 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 mens 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. Its about time the foreskin became sacred too.
My cousin used to do them. When I asked him why he said "A hundred skins a week and a chance to get ahead."
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.
So you're against the IRS then?
So pork and shrimp are out for you then?
Why shouldn't it be the boy's choice to make for himself when he is an adult?
Unless the parents are Jewish, there is no compelling reason why a baby boy needs to be circumcised. According to every professional medical organization that has an official policy on circumcision there is no medical indication for infant circumcision. No professional medical organization in the world recommends that boys should be circumcised.
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.
Do you feel that parents should be allowed to pierce their child's body or tattoo their child's body?
In our society body piercings and tattoos are decisions that adults make for their own body, not decisions that parents make for their child's body. Since there is no valid medical indication for infant circumcision, it is just another form of permanent body modification like genital piercing, tattoos, scarification, female genital cutting, etc. In my opinion the only person who can ethically make the decision to permanently modify someone's body is the person himself or herself once he or she is an adult.
Lots of girls get their ears pierced when they are babies.
Parents make those choices too.
Also, many parents make choices about plastic surgery on their kids. Kids ears stick out, and the parents get the surgery done to fix the ears.
My daughter has a scar on her forehead. We've been adviced to get surgery on it. Many parents would do the surgery. We've opted to let her decide when she's an adult. Either decision is okay.
I'm on your ping list and am anti-circumcision. I disagree.
I think we should set up a Freep Poll on the question of Circuminspection!
I would bet that the majority of American males are NOT being circumcized at this time??
Oh I don't know, used to hang out on a thread once, there was a poster whose screen name was foresking grower.
Regards to you and yours.
The only two forms of permanent body modification that American parents are allowed to make to their child's body are piercing their daughter's ears and cutting off their son's foreskin. Ear piercing is a relatively minor form of permanent body modification compared with male circumcision. If a girl does not wear earrings, the holes usually close up on their own. However, once a boy's foreskin is cut off, he can never get it back again.
Parents are not allowed to tattoo or scarify their child's body or to pierce their child's genitals. Piercing a boy's penis is a less severe form of permanent body modification than male circumcision.
Also, many parents make choices about plastic surgery on their kids. Kids ears stick out, and the parents get the surgery done to fix the ears.
Cosmetic surgery to correct a congenital abnormality, like pinning ears that stick out too far or removing a birthmark, is not the same as cutting off a normal, healthy part of a child's genitals without a valid medical indication.
My daughter has a scar on her forehead. We've been adviced to get surgery on it. Many parents would do the surgery. We've opted to let her decide when she's an adult. Either decision is okay.
It's great that you will let your daughter decide about the surgery. However, cosmetic surgery to remove a scar is not the same as cutting off a normal, healthy part of a child's genitals without a valid medical indication.
Because there is no medical indication for infant circumcision and because a foreskin is not a birth defect, male circumcision is more similar to other forms of permanent body modification (tattoos, body piercing, scarification, etc.) than it is to cosmetic surgery to correct a congenital abnormality or to correct an injury.
I know plenty of girls (under 18) that had breast enlargements, nose jobs, etc and other plastic surgery.
Here's a link of the regulations of tattoos and body piercings:
http://www.aaatattoodirectory.com/tattoo_regulations.htm
Some states don't allow minors to have them, while others require parental consent.
Also, pierced ears only grow closed if earings are not worn during the first few months. After that, they will remain open. I had mine pierced when I was a child, and mine will not grow closed if I don't wear earings.
"Doth protest too much?" LOL! How many posts have you had on this subject (I put the over/under at 30), and when does it become "too much"?
I'm glad you are happy with your parents' decision. Please don't lose any more sleep over the decisions others have made, because its not the earth-shattering issue you apparently believe it to be.
Why don't you fix her scar now while she is young and her skin will heal better instead of making her go through life with a big scar on her head. You are the parent, you make the decision, you don't wait until she's an adult. By the time she's an adult it could be too late. Don't make her face her difficult teen years with this problem. You know why many parents would do the surgery, it's because it's the right thing to do.
As a woman, I think circumcision looks nicer. Maybe it's cultural bias, but I won't be changing my mind any time soon.
I agree with you a 100%. And there is less risk of cervical cancer, STDs, and HIV.
Bingo. Makes my point.
However, its a common idea with Christians today (probably from the popular book in the '70s None of These Diseases) that the food regulations were all about physical health...and that puts the cart before the horse. Of course it was heathier not to eat nasty parisite-ridden wild bore in the ancient near-East.
However, the FIRST reason not to do so was a spiritual one--as pigs were an essential part of the neighboring pagan religions. If you grow up never eating pork--you won't share a ham sandwich with your evil pagan neighbors--so you won't get to be good friends...your kids won't marry them....and your posterity won't be swallowed up in a foreign pagan people. This is one reason the Jews still exist today (when did you last meet a Celt, an Amorite or a Babylonian?) as a seperate people--they don't eat like the rest of the world--hence they survive as a people. Has Kosher law ALSO aided in health? Why yes, of course--as God is a good God.
Still the first reason for it--in Old Covenant times was to keep the chosen people of God pure and separated from other evil pagan nations.
Of course we are no longer in Old Covenant times--and Christians have a Holy Spirit in them to help keep them pure--even when they share the ham sandwiches (or uncircumcision)of pagan peoples.
Though the spiritual situation has changed, do the side health benefits still remain? Of course.
I'd like to see the stats of male urinary problems and feminine cevical cancer rates in other (non-circumcising) Western countries compared to the USA. I bet we (and Israel) are amoung the best in the world for those problems.
To that, I can only say that no female should be surgically altered to please the aesthetic preferences of men; correspondingly, no male should be surgically altered to please the aesthetic preferences of women.
Those are two different body parts. One hanging down and one tucked up where you can't see it unless you're looking. To circumcise a woman would injure her for the rest of her life. A man heals and has a nice looking, shapely "tally wacker" for the rest of his life.
Just my humble opinion.
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.