Circumcision: male genital mutilation?
Circumcision is not just a religious act, it is also the most common surgical procedure carried out in the United States for supposedly medical reasons. The claim, sometimes made, is that newborn male circumcision is a harmless procedure that brings significant health benefits for the child in later life. That assertion is now being challenged by Intact America, a new group campaigning against the practice. Intact America presents ten reasons why parents should not circumcise their children:
1. Because there is no medical reason for "routine" circumcision of baby boys.
2. Because the foreskin is not a birth defect.
3. Because you wouldn't circumcise your baby girl. In the United States, girls of all ages are protected by federal and state laws from genital surgery to which they do not consent, whether practiced in medical or non-medical settings, and regardless of the religious or cultural preferences of their parents.
4. Because your baby does not want to be circumcised.
5. Because removing part of a baby's penis is painful, risky and harmful.
6. Because times and attitudes have changed. Today, nearly half of all baby boys in the United States leave the hospital intact. The circumcision rate in the U.S. was 56% in 2005 (and much lower in some parts of the country), down from 81% in 1981. More and more parents are choosing to keep their son intact.
7. Because most medically advanced nations do not circumcise baby boys.
8. Because circumcision does not prevent HIV or other diseases. Despite common misinformation, studies show no conclusive link between circumcision and sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention.
9. Because caring for and cleaning the foreskin is easy.
10. Because children should be protected from permanent bodily alteration inflicted on them without their consent in the name of culture, religion, profit, or parental preference.
The group challenges common "myths" about circumcision here.
According to the World Health Organisation, 30 per cent of the global male population are circumcised, and 68 per cent of those circumcised are Muslim. Globally, the majority of circumcisions appear to be carried out in adolescence, rather than in early childhood, as a religious or cultural rite of passage. Jewish law prescribes that newborn boys are to be circumcised eight days after birth in a religious ceremony honouring the Abrahamic covenant. In the book of Genesis (17:1-14), circumcision is given to Abram as "a token of the covenant" made between him and God. In the same covenant ritual, Abram's name is changed to Abraham.
Notwithstanding the long religious tradition associated with circumcision, the practice remains extremely controversial. Some campaigners regard male circumcision as a form of abuse similar to female genital mutilation.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~58~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Why do we still do this, it is unforgivable to subject babies to this form of abuse, and forcing older children to udergo it by force, its out of date and should only be done for genuine medical reasons. The foreskin is there for a reason or nature would have sorted it out long ago.
Stop this mutilation in the name of religion, its barbaric!!!!!
Complain about this comment
#1 - keith - "The foreskin is there for a reason or nature would have sorted it out long ago."
I essentially agree with your comment about circumcision, but I am intrigued by the phrase "nature would have sorted it out long ago".
Why would "nature have sorted it out"?
Is "nature" so predictable and purposeful? Is "nature" supposed to comply with certain desires and expectations?
You make "nature" - which is a blind and impersonal force - sound like a person, who is supposed to act morally or according to some anthropological blue-print.
Or is this just a case of the naturalists not being able to face up to the fact that nature really is blind and without purpose, but who can't face the "unacceptable" alternative concerning the origin and development of life?
Complain about this comment
Male and female circumcision are equally harmful to the health and well being of children.
With respect to male circumcision the practice disrupts the infant maternal bond,externalizes the glans leading to life long toughening which may lead to sexual problems. The emotional impact of both practices can be depression, social isolation and attempted suicide.
The Tasmania Law Reform Commission is currently examining the legality of male circumcision as are Professors of Law in the UK
A new international campaign to protect all children from these practices was launched in London last year by the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Tasmaina, NORM UK, FORWARD, and NOCIRC.
There are many Jewish and Muslim people opposed to male circumcision as they too have learnt the harmful nature of this practice.
It is time to protect male children legally in the same way that females are protected.
Complain about this comment
It's no skin off my nose...
Complain about this comment
Another name for "nature sorting it out" is evolution. If the foreskin had been harmful - especially since it's so intimately involved with reproduction - those with one would have been weeded out by that harm, leaving those without one. And to answer your first objection, the same is not true of the appendix, which is genetically associated with the rest of the intestine; but men are occasionally born without a foreskin.
Complain about this comment
The only way to discuss this is to go through the ten points above and comment on them. Are these really ten reasons not to circumcise an infant?
"1. Because there is no medical reason for "routine" circumcision of baby boys."
Well this is the hottest potato, isn't it. Whether there is or isn't medical reason to circumcise a baby is the most important consideration here. It would appear that this is correct, there is no medical reason to circumcise routinely, unless you consider future possible infection or vulnerability in the case of possibly unhygienic people (in which case they should remove the sphincter and a lot of other body parts also). This is definitely a good reason not to circumcise.
2. Because the foreskin is not a birth defect.
Well neither is the umbilical cord, but you remove it. Not a very good reason of itself.
3. Because you wouldn't circumcise your baby girl.
This seems logical but, IF health concerns are valid, then baby girls and baby boys may be treated differently for valid medical reasons. Again, not a very good reason not to circumcise if there were reasons to do so that wouldn't affect girls.
4. Because your baby does not want to be circumcised.
This calls upon the nature of circumcision as a personal choice rather than a necessary medical procedure. If there were valid health reasons, then the parents could justifiably make any necessary medical choice on behalf of the baby and it wouldn't matter whether the baby 'wanted' it or not. But if there isn't, then this would perhaps be a choice more like whether to get a tattoo or not.
5. Because removing part of a baby's penis is painful, risky and harmful.
It may be painful, but risky? If it's standard practice how risky can it be?
6. Because times and attitudes have changed.
More people are doing such-and-such, so you should do it too. That's the argument here! Irrelevant.
7. Because most medically advanced nations do not circumcise baby boys.
That isn't a reason either. A proposal like, 'Let's cut off the end of this wee lad's penis!' stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of what "most medically advanced nations" are doing.
8. Because circumcision does not prevent HIV or other diseases.
A good reason not to circumcise. If it doesn't have any other health benefits (as per #1) and it doesn't prevent
STDs, why continue to do it?
9. Because caring for and cleaning the foreskin is easy.
Okay.... though whether it's easy or hard shouldn't be the basis of a decision... I guess this is an adjunct to #1 and #8.
10. Because children should be protected from permanent bodily alteration inflicted on them without their consent in the name of culture, religion, profit, or parental preference.
Yes, the only valid basis of a permanent bodily alteration to an infant is for the health of the infant. Culture, religion, parental preference, profit (what are they doing, selling it?), are invalid reasons for doing so. Here we could call on Richard Dawkins' belief that inflicting religious belief upon a child is abusive... the Jewish rite of circumcision being one very obvious and potent form of this infliction.
I should mention one very valid reason they fail to mention which is important.... the potential lessening of sexual sensation. (That, too, is disputed.)
Still, 4 out of 10 ain't bad!
Complain about this comment
Good points, John_Wright, but bear in mind that this group is Intact AMERICA.
2. In America, the foreskin almost IS regarded as a birth defect, defined for medical students as "the part removed by circumcision" and left out of anatomy texts, sex guides etc. (The umbilical cord is unique; it falls off by itself, so it's not a birth defect but nor is it an integral part of the baby.)
3. One big reason for circumcising boys in the US (and a certain Dr Wiswell has just about made a career of it) is Urinary Tract Infections, which are rare, and more common in girls.
5. When there's no pressing need, any risk is an important counterindication, but the risks are greater than people imagine. The actual death rate is unknown (a scandal in itself), and circumcision deaths are commonly blamed on side-factors such as anaesthetic or consequences like haemorrhage or sepsis. Lesser damage may go unnoticed till puberty or later, and the man may think what he has is normal.
6. Non-religious circumcision was introduced to prevent, "cure" or punish masturbation (without success at the first two, of course, though it may have delayed its onset and driven it further underground). We no longer believe masturbation is harmful, let alone a cause of epilepsy, TB, etc.
7. ... and no harm befalls. The English-speaking world tried circumcision, found it did no good, and has almost completely given it up. The US continues largely out of habit.
9. In the US, the difficulty of cleaning is seriously given as a reason. "Boys can't be trusted to clean it" (Boys need to be encouraged to handle the willies? Yeah, right!) and "I wouldn't know what to do" are adjuncts.
4 & 10. And men may bitterly resent that this was done to them before they had any chance to have a say. It seems to me their resentment is entirely justified: how much more intrusive and invasive can it get?
You are quite right about sexual sensation, not just the quantity (circumcised men commonly say "If I had any more sensitivity, I'd have a heart attack" suggesting something is wrong with what they do have) but the quality - the foreskin has been described as conferring "a symphony of sensation" and some men circumcised in adulthood have compared the difference to going colourblind.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Here is another good study to look at that shows that effect of circumcision in reducing HIV is overplayed by pro-circ researchers:
Long-term population effect of male circumcision in generalised HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa. Michel Garenne. African Journal of AIDS Research 2008, 7(1): 18.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Docs/garenne-2.pdf
Complain about this comment
Post that was removed removed (without explicit link)
Sexual dysfunction is rife in the USA:
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/99/990210.sex.trib.html
This is because most men have been circumcised. Circumcision has a negative effect on sex for both woman and man. A site was set up to show what impact circumcision has on sex for the woman in particular. Just search for sexasnatureintededit.
Unfortunately circumcision is now being used to fight the African AIDS epidemic on the basis of 3 African trials:
http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003362/frame.html
Unfortunately, although these were randomised control trials , they still suffer from flaws:
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
Circumcision is probably the cause of the epidemic judging by the number of botched circumcisions there are:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hC19-onQAmwsBrdtqjVmg9EnCjQQ
that open wound is going to increase the transmission rate from the normal 1 in 2000 for a man who has vaginal sex with an HIV-infected woman.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/gray2/
Circumcision is associated with becoming a man. Having sex with an open wound isn't a good idea as I just said.
There is also a lot of sexual violence and a lot of women are raped:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31835572/ns/world_news-africa/
There are studies which show that being circumcised is associated with violence later in life. It is likely that it does have some negative pychological effects:
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/
Complain about this comment
The foreskin is also a very handy little piece of spare tissue if you need to surgically correct certain injuries involving the eyelid.
The scrotum is great if you need to fix the elbow ;-)
Complain about this comment
Plus don't forget the loss of head hair in men in later life, Helio. The pubic hair is an excellent source of material for transplant.
Complain about this comment
Foreskins in America are being sold and used to test cosmetics and generate billions of dollars so that the cosmetic industry can claim their products have not been tested on animals.
Unfortunately children die from circumcision in American and in the UK. Profit is the motivating factor driving those who continue in the mass circumcision of children in America.
The foreskin is a central part of male human anatomy. It was easy for western countries to look at female genital mutilation and claim that it is harmful as it has not been part of our cultural traditions.
In those countries where FGM and MGM is practiced it is very difficult for parents to accept that they have harmed their children as they may also have been harmed themselves but do not associate that harm with the surgery.
Complain about this comment
You mean I could get some money for my foreskin? Hmmmm....
Complain about this comment
Who wants to start the bidding? ;-)
Complain about this comment
Fore dollars.
Complain about this comment
Woman's Hour recently covered this subject majoring heavily on the issue of prevention of cervical cancer. They oppose female circumcision as forced mutilation, but they are happy to have their baby boys shocked, traumatised and mutilated at risk of serious sexual dysfunction and loss of erogenous zones, etc. I protested the imbalnce in the article on Woman's Hour and guess what? The production team did what BBC production teams always do: they claimed they got it right. The BBC is beyond control and has no appropriate complaints procedures. The rampant feminism of Woman's Hour is so outdated - they should be moved to a slot late at night.
Complain about this comment
William Crawley:
Simple answer: It is genital mutilation....Nothing more than this....
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS