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.
I don't recall referring to abortion in this thread but I am definitely against it and yes, it is a far worse evil than circumcision.
You need to get your facts straight, I didn't complain about rubbing, I still have a foreskin. I simply said that the fact that a circumcised male is not bothered by it means that he has lost sensation as a result of circumcision. This is a fact.
As far as children making adult decisions, I simply don't think that even a parent should be making the decision to unnecessarily remove a portion of a child's body that has no need of being removed. The mere fact that you think it is ok only indicates the shallowness of your own thinking.
Perhaps those who are circumcised just don't know what they're missing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I can assure you that they most certainly don't and the vehemence with which some of them denounce anyone who says so makes me chuckle. As Shakespeare wrote,"methinks the gentleman doth protest too much", it serves to indicate someone who doesn't want to admit that he may have been shortchanged 8 0 )
The only thing I know is a friend of mine had it done at 30 years of age. He told me later he wished he had never done it. I am intact and plan on staying that way.
LOL!
Thanks for the info. So far, my husband and I have not regretted our decision. My son can make the decision for himself as he gets older on whether or not to keep the foreskin.
So if we see a guy walking down the street with an orgasmic look on his face, we can know that his foreskin has somehow retracted, and his glans are now rubbing about in his tighty whities?
I have no problem with your decision and hope it works out for you. However, to call circumcision barbaric or refer to it as genital mutilation is moronic.
I once watched a public tv discussion on the subject. They actually had a support group of men (mainly gay) whining about their "loss". It was the most pathetic thing I have ever seen.
How much of a girl's genitals can someone cut off before female circumcision becomes barbaric?
Some forms of female genital cutting are less damaging than male circumcision, for example genital scarification and genital piercing. Is scarifying or piercing a girl's labia an acceptable cultural or religious practice or is it genital mutilation?
Sunna circumcision of girls is similar to male circumcision. Sunna circumcision cuts off the hood of a girl's clitoris. Is cutting off the hood of a girl's clitoris or cutting off her labia minora an acceptable cultural or religious practice or is it genital mutilation?
Why should there be a different ethical standard for cutting the genitals of girls and cutting the genitals of boys?
If someone proposed cutting off parts of girls' genitals in order to protect men from sexually transmitted diseases, most people would be outraged.
Anything that is less damaging than circumcision is not damaging at all.
No, it won't be an orgasmic look, that is the whole point of what I have been saying, in a case like that the man would be very uncomfortable and would probably be looking for a private place to rearrange himself. Try rubbing dry cloth on your wife's clitoris and ask her how she likes it. If you can still move after she finishes with you you might have some idea of what I am saying.
Hey, you have made a believer out of me. I'm gonna go back and slap the Sh*t out of that ob-gyn that robbed me of all that pleasure and pain.
You are misinformed. People opposed to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys do not all agree about abortion, homosexuality, or any other issue.
Some opponents of non-therapeutic circumcision are strongly pro-life and some are strongly pro-choice. Like most Americans, most opponents of non-therapeutic circumcision have a point of view on abortion somewhere in between the two extremes.
Opponents of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys also have varing attitudes regarding homosexuality.
Are you in favor of changing state and federal laws against female genial cutting in order to allow parents to scarify their daughter's labia or to cut off the hood of their daughter's clitoris?
He robbed you of a lot of pleasure, probably not much pain, but I don't expect to actually convince you, you have too much at stake to face up to the facts. The truth is you can never actually know of what you have been robbed because it can never be restored to you.
Outlawing circumsion would greatly diminish the industry that uses foreskins to make wallets that can expand to steamer trunks.
I was hoping to get my flap re-attached. Are there doctors that provide this service?
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.