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.
"It was the poster that you were replying to. I didn't see the quotes."
No problem.
Barbarism? Gee, tell that to all they guys in Viet Nam that went berserk with itching and infections until they went out to a hospital ship for circumcision. Their relief after getting cleaned up was immense. But I suppose having a skin cancer removed is barbarism to someone, somewhere.
No similarities implied excpet these are choices. I am against abortion but for circumcision.
What happened during the third decade, Dain? Just curious. LOL!
Keep in mind they also see nothing wrong with homosexuality and abortion.
So you are in favor of the United Nations making laws for all countries, and enforcing those laws? If not the United Nations, then who?
I don't believe in relativism when it's about people getting hurt or killed.
I'm a father.
I've seen both circumcisions and ear piercings.
The baby never remembers it. And when its healed, its done.
Ears are pierced on woman who remember it. And its always open for infection.
Does a foreskin serve any IMPORTANT biological function?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>YES!
You ain't lived until you've experienced a Spanish collar (paraphimosis).
You can't ever miss what you never had.
Since 80% of U.S. men have been circumcised, I expect that 8 out of ten replies here will be for it.
What gives you the right to remove this choice from me to my sons or from my mother to me?
Seems to me like you are attempting to remove everyones choice in the matter and install your own choice.
If you are against it, I have zero problem with that. Do not have one done yourself and do not have it done on your boys. You have ZERO right to inflict your position on me or my rights as a father. Forcing others to be against it also is what I call stepping over the line.
Women and minorities, they always have it worse.
"So" she said coyly, "Yor're not American Are You?"
Please explain to me what are the advantages of a foreskin..oh and include the appendix as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The appendix has absolutely nothing to do with it, file it under the straw man category, non-sequitor, whatever. As for the foreskin, any male who is un-circumcised is well aware that there is no health problem associated with it unless someone is too slovenly to clean himself, I could as easily claim that the toes should be cut off because some people don't properly clean between them.
Also, any uncircumcised male is well aware that his glans is far too sensitive to be allowed to rub against cloth, ergo circumcised males must have a loss of sensitivity or they could not bear walking around with the unprotected tip rubbing against clothing, if you are circumcised at birth you simply have no way of knowing about what you have lost, the purpose of the foreskin is to protect the tip of the penis for the 99 plus percent of the time when there is no sexual activity going on. Circumcision is a practice based in WILLFUL ignorance. It makes every bit as much sense as draining a person's blood to cure illness, I don't see that being done much lately.
I ask once again, how can people claim to believe in a perfect creator and at the same time claim that all his little boys are born with a defect that he commands should be corrected by PAINFUL surgery on an infant or at any other age? This truly is barbaric!
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.