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 was so traumatized by circumcision I kept pulling on it every chance I got for 2 decades.]
LOL...I had an uncle years ago tell me when he went for the visit to the doc after his vasectomy he played dumb with the nurse and made her tell him what they wanted done. He told her he'd done it all those years for pleasure so he guessed he could do it one more time for medical science.
I knew a guy who was int the army with me who had foreskin. In the field it makes for an extremely great place for all sorts of crap to grow. It isn't sanitary to put it mildly. Anyway, he had to have it surgically removed because of constant infection problems with himself and his wife.
My son was born last year. The hospital gave us the choice, with no attempt to sway us either way. Before they took him next door for the procedure, the doctor showed us the tool. It has a little bell-shaped cover, to make sure they don't cut any more than they mean to. After they got done, the doc told me they had to get a different one, because the normal one wasn't big enough. That'll sure make a new daddy proud.
When I was in Turkey in the summer of 1996, I saw whole families gathered on the grounds of the mosques, the "guest of honor", dressed in an elaborate costume, was the young man about to be trimmed
Agree. Best decision I made as a parent was to keep my sons whole. For parents who didn't, I'm sorry. Don't be spiteful and mad. Just get on with things as your children will.
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.
Circumcision is a good thing. The only people against it are truly ... strange.
Furthermore it's a medical fact that foreskin makes men more susceptible to AIDS and other STDS.
Maybe it was because of the damage caused by their original injuries.
Smegma free for 44 years, thank you Mom and Dad!
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.
The Apostle Paul preached openly that it is clearly NOT required of Gentiles.
BTW: Israel really is a developed country.
I've heard that too. It's less "trauma" for the woman, just in the mechanics of how it works. I mean, probably 90% of 6.5 billion people are uncirc. Why it continues here is beyond me. If you aren't a clean person, it doesn't matter if you're cut or not, you're going to stink anyway. The cancer bit is the same either way. Shrug. I don't and won't have any boys, but I wouldn't cut them. If it becomes a problem later, so be it. Let them grow up and have their own choice on the issue.
She's not shy. LOL
Methinks you are correct.
Welcome to Freerepublic rabblerouser. You is ignorant.
Bull.
This findings in this article are not based on any reported medical studies.
Kind of reminds me of how the findings on homosexuality were changed in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)- from the classification of mental illness to "normal" behavior.
These medical associations always seem to make policy based on bias and/or political correctness alone.
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.