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.
Well, considering I DO have a vagina, I would guess that I do know a little bit about women. LOL. In addition, I have had 4 children, one of whom is male, I have thought about and discussed circumcision- with female friends and with some men, too.
You might want to venture over to babycenter.com and check out some of the expectant mother forums and see the debate that goes on about this topic. There even used to be a debate board dedicated to the subject (it has been changed to read-only, because the topic was too "hot.") I also believe that Mothering magazine (and its associated bulletin boards at mothering.com) is very anti-circumcision. It's a fairly liberal and vocal (there is a gay parenting board for example) group over there.
Are you kidding me!? Have you ever witnessed a circumcision?
I have, once upon a time when I was a nurse. This is how it went:
Place naked, screaming, day old, infant spread eagle, on his back, in plastic mold (made especially for circumcision).
Strap restraints at ankles and wrist, arms and across chest of screaming infant.
Doctor pulls foreskin of screaming infant and slices off foreskin with no anesthesia.
Place gauze with infused antibiotic petroleum jelly over penis.
Place diaper on screaming baby.
Clothe baby and try and console infant boy who had surgery performed on extremely sensitive part of his body with no anesthesia.
After witnessing this I swore that none of my boys would be circumcised. I guess it helped that I am not Jewish and my husband is from Europe.
There is no way that my daughters went through this when they got their ears pierced.
Oh, be modest! Bragging is unbecoming. ;)
I know. That's why I just lie. ;)
You naughty naughty boy! :O
What would your mother say?
I'm sorry to say, but you are ignorant in your argument. I'm circumcised and am a healthy 23 year old adult. I'm not traumatized in any way.
Thank you for saying this. I am on a couple natural email lists. When this topic comes up I ignore it, since it's always a thread like this. Although, more one sided. I once said I had even prayed about having my boys circed and felt for whatever reason it was the right thing to do. Some of the women seemed to think I was feeling guilty about it and seemed to think I was wanting some sort of forgiveness.
Except some threads on here, the majority of people I have heard supporting circumcision are men.
The so-called barbarism of circumcision is less traumatic that ear-piercing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you know that how?
The issue concerns the children of the future. Arguments about contracting AIDS and penile cancer have more to do with promiscuity and cleanliness in that order. Ears get dirty we don't cut them off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just plain common sense, and nothing is so rare these days as "common" sense.
For those who still believe God commanded circumcision I still have only one question. How on Earth can you claim to believe in a perfect creator and at the same time believe that all his little male babies are created with a defect that he commands should be corrected by PAINFUL surgery? Say what you will but you have been brainwashed!
"William Jefferson Clinton, you stop that this instant!"
One of my friends had the operation when he was fresh out of college. It was undertaken at the advice of a doctor to improve his sexual function.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That makes about as much sense as having your feet cut off to improve your walking function.
It's a personal decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then let the baby boy decide on his own when he is old enough to do so! It shouldn't be anyone else's "personal" decision!
No offense to those who aren't circumsized, but frankly, I think it's nasty looking.
We circumsized our kid, and I'm glad we did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think ears are nasty looking, if they were all cut off flush with the side of the head it would be a much cleaner look.
CIRCUMCISION: Did you know I once had a wallet made out of foreskin?
If you rubbed it a little it turned into a suitcase.
I'm happily circumcised and NEVER EVER REMEMBER the act. I am thankful for doctors circumcising me. I don't ever worry about schmegma.
That's my 2 cents in this flame war. Schmegma is bad bad bad.
Men are born with foreskins for evolutionary reasons, many of which we probably have no inkling of.
Information:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html
http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
In 1949 my pa knew circumcision was not right and wouldn't let the doc touch me! My father was treated the same by his dad and I suspect non=circumcision goes back in my dad's family for hundreds of years
[Thanks dad!]
My son isn't cut, nor will my grandson be either.
And my whole family is devoutly Christian.
Circumcision can prevent full intimate contact between a man and a woman:
Quote:
I have dealt, time and again, with talk show hosts who say "If I had any more sensitivity, I couldn't stand it." I think the reason for this is that, without the Meissner's corpuscles in the ridged band of the foreskin to provide sensory feedback, a man doesn't know where he is in relation to the orgasmic threshold. Many men think their inability to control orgasmic timing is due to over-sensitivity rather than the fact the lack tens of thousands of important nerve endings that provide essential feedback
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html
Unquote
Circumcising male infants is backward, unnatural and long overdue for abandonment as a civilized practise. Let men make up their own minds to have it done when the are old enough to choose for themselves for religious reasons, or alleged health reasons. Its just as backward and unwarranted as the Muslim circumcision of females.
And there has been no evidence that male circumcision decreases a man's sexual pleasure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wrong!
My sons were both circumcised with a little plastic ring that just cuts off the circulation to the foreskin, letting it die and fall off. It didn't seem to bother either of them much for the few days it was attached.
All this hyperventilation and cries of barbarism are entirely misdirected and unnecessary. Yes, parents should have the choice of whether their male children have the procedure performed, but no it's not "genital mutilation" on par with the stuff done to girls in third-world countries. Not even close.
By the way, what I was a child, my tonsils were surgically removed---as were the tonsils of all children my age. The rationale was similar---to prevent infection. However, I understand this practice has been discontinued.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sometimes ignorance loses a round but it is still running strong in the case of circumcision. It is amazing that the majority seem to find something so natural as a foreskin to be somehow unnatural. This is truly a case of mass hysteria.
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.