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.
Nope. Part of Abraham's covenant with God. Its not just for Jews...
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I haven't lost one minute and I certainly don't expect the
Earth to shatter, I just wish people would stop using made-up excuses to mutilate little boy's genitals, they should have the same rights as little girls.
Look up the protest reference, you don't seem to really understand it.
There are lots of risks with going into surgery.
She can't do it during puberty, so she had to do it when she was young.
She has to go under a general anesthesia. She already has brain damage and we don't want to.
Personally the scar has been nothing compared to the fact that she couldn't talk.
Why risk surgery for something to make her prettier? Now, if surgery could get rid of the brain damage, we'd do it in a heartbeat.
She's too old for the surgery now. She's 9, and she likes the scar. It makes her look like Harry Potter. If she had to choose now, she would not have the surgery.
Having a kid with special needs tends to make you focus on what really is important.
Like we don't have anything better to do. "Johnny, Billy. Tommy,.... it's time for your Wally inspection!"
What an idiot.
My sincerest apologies. I was under the impression that it was a scar from a bike accident or something.
I will pray for her continued success.
My sincerest apologies. I was under the impression that it was a scar from a bike accident or something.
I will pray for her continued success.
My sincerest apologies. I was under the impression that it was a scar from a bike accident or something.
I will pray for her continued success.
My sincerest apologies. I was under the impression that it was a scar from a bike accident or something.
I will pray for her continued success.
When my brother was born, he was in NICU for several weeks. Early on, my mother went to visit him one morning. He had a piece of plastic across both sides of his face. My mother asked the nurses what they had done.
They told her they taped his ears back with scotch tape, so they would no longer stick out. They continued with the tape for weeks, then finally removed it. His ears were in their proper place and no surgery was ever needed. It truly worked.
I seriously doubt that any health professional would prescribe scotch tape, today.
This is found in Genesis
17:23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.
17:24 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
17:25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
17:26 In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son.
17:27 And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.
Nope. The nurses bumped an IV in her head when she was having an EEG. It burned her forehead.
I figure parents can make these kinds of decisions themselves. They are the best to determine the risks vs the benefits.
We didn't circumcize my son, but I think it is a horrible idea to outlaw it.
While you are correct with your conclusion, which is back up by the vast body of serious science on the subject, you can easily observe there are those on this thread who refuse to deal with the reality.
I think the rampant denial is based on some form of self validation. (out side of religious reasons) The heavy denial posts are there in order to justify their own decisions. They see what they want to believe not the facts.
Nothing is going to change their minds and they will continue to mutilate the nerve endings of young boys no matter how many studies continue to show the stictly cosmetic nature of the procedure or how many adult men who have be thusly injured testify as to the loss of sensation.
People (out side of religion reasons) are clininging to the practice of circumcision because they don't want to be wrong at all costs.
You are in good company, many men in Africa think a circumcised vulva looks nicer. Most likely they won't be changing their mind any time soon either.
The most important risk factor for cervical cancer is HPV infection. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease.
If someone proposed cutting off part of a girl's genitals in order to protect adult men from sexually transmitted diseases, most people would be outraged.
In my opinion there is no ethical difference between cutting off part of a boy's genitals in order to reduce the risk of adult women who choose to practice unsafe sex and cutting off part of a girl's genitals in order to reduce the risk of adult men who choose to practice unsafe sex.
The difference between those surgeries and infant circumcision is that the girl wanted the breast enlargement, nose job, etc. She agreed to have the surgery. I doubt a doctor would perform that type of cosmetic surgery on a girl if the girl did not want it, even if the parents strongly requested it.
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.
Thanks for the link. Even in the states where minors can get a tattoo with parental consent, I doubt that a parent could tattoo their child if the child did not want it done. In those states both the child and the parents must agree to the tattoo.
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.
Thanks for the information. That is all the more reason to wait until a girl is old enough to decide for herself whether or not she wants to have her ears pierced.
I am much more optimistic. In my experience when parents learn that infant circumcision is not medically necessary and not recommended by any professional medical organization in the world, they are more likely to protect their son from unnecessary genital surgery. The national infant circumcision rate in the USA was 57% in 2003. It was even lower in the western states. Less than one third of the newborn boys in the western states were circumcised in 2003. Infant circumcision is definitely going out of style.
My son isn't circumcised.
Those who were intact but later circumcised said that afterwards, sex wasn't as good. Some describe it as feeling like "having sex with their elbow."
That reason alone is enough not to do it. Dads, give your son the gift of a fantastic sex life -- don't have him circumcised.
Besides, he can always choose to be circumcised at a later date, but he cannot get "uncircumcised" if you decide this for him.
Well said.
Read Acts 15.
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.