Circumcision: important religious freedom, or unjustified mutiliation?
 

Medical associations in Sweden and Denmark have [URL="http://www.jta.org/2014/01/26/news-opinion/world/swedish-danish-medical-groups-call-for-milah-ban"]recently called[/URL] for the banning of medically unjustified circumcision in babies or boys who are too young to give their own consent. The Swedish government is resisting this recommendation for a ban.

To be clear, we are talking about male circumcision here, for which the longterm medical effects are controversial. Female circumcision is acknowledged to be detrimental to the girl or woman and is outlawed in most countries.

The issue brings up a whole host of complex ethical questions about to what degree parents should be allowed to impose their religion on their children.

I am unsure where I stand on the issue of circumcision in young male children for religious purposes. Do others here have views about it?

Just to note that circumcision is not just for religious purposes. There are many instances where it is for perceived hygiene purposes in non-religious families.

There are perceived hygiene reasons, and then there are actual medical reasons, too. I think the onus is on the doctors to not automatically circumcise "because it's a thing" and to alert the parents that there are reasons to do so and to not do so. And then there's onus on the parents for not being fucking retarded.

I heard this account of a guy who was circumcised because his parents made that decision for him when he was barely born. He went through a treatment where whatever is left of the foreskin is "stressed" (basically by attaching a weight to it to lightly stretch it) and so the skin cells are encouraged to grow back. Note I am not saying he stretched whatever is left into a foreskin. The stretching causes the skin to continue to grow out.

As his foreskin grew back, both he and his girlfriend swore that their sex was getting a lot better. As it turns out, the foreskin has about the same density of nerve endings as fingertips and while his new one didn't have quite as much, it still contributed to the fun.

I believe that the insanely conservative views of the religion of the day (Judaism in particular) figured out that they could cut back on masturbation and sex by removing some of the pleasure (for similar reasons as female circumcision). You weren't supposed to have sex for fun. You were supposed to do it to make babies. It was a duty.


Still, this isn't as much of a problem in my eyes as the fact that it is done without the consent of the child. Anyone I ever encounter who supports the circumcision of babies, I recommend to watch a video of how it is done.

I have never heard a baby scream so loudly. Newborns are hypersensitive as it is, so where cutting off a foreskin might be akin to slicing off a fingertip on the best of days, it could be as much as ten times worse for the baby, who I clarify is NOT anesthetized.

I remember that in 1995, religion never even went into discussion -- it was a default [I]medical[/I] procedure (specifically in New Jersey). You had to [I]opt out[/I] for your newborn, or else the default action took place.
[QUOTE="Wiki"]By the turn of the [20th] century, in both America and Great Britain, infant circumcision was nearly universally recommended.[/QUOTE]

They seem to be stepping away from doing this by default:
[QUOTE="AAP"]After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the [URL="http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/Newborn-Male-Circumcision.aspx"]American Academy of Pediatrics[/URL] found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are [COLOR="Blue"]not great enough to recommend universal[/COLOR] newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, 2012, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.[/QUOTE]

When there is no medical cause to circumsize I think everybody should be allowed to decide for themselves. I wouldn't pierce the earlobes (or anything else) of a child, I wouldn't tattoo a child and I wouldn't cut a piece of skin off a child without the need to do so. These are all permanent alterations of the body which only the possessor of that body can decide about.

We chose to not have Xyzzy Jr. circumcised when he was born in 2000. Unfortunately, he developed a fairly rare complication at around age 11 and had to be circumcised. We were going to do it with some flint shards but in the end we took him to a nearby children's hospital and had it done by a surgeon with the proper tools and experience. Everything is fine now and we are sure that it will be an impressive story for him to tell later on in life. (When he came back from the hospital we were shocked at how bad things looked, and believe us, we have seen just about everything!)

(edit: the post was reply to Peter. As I am quite busy here and couldn't post till lunch break, Xyzzy got crossposted in between)
:goodposting:

Good Post. Nothing to add to it. Everybody is free to choose for himself, when he is enough grown up to understand the good and bad of it. Of course the doctors recommend it, it is a good business for them, not only the fee to do the operation, but they also sell the things for tissue grow.

I know a guy who chose to go through the "procedure" when he was 23 or so, because he believed that the "procedure" will help him with the erection. Like bigger, harder, longer time, etc (due to the fact that the gland, being "unprotected" in the flesh, will become less sensitive in time, or so). He went through the most painful week in his life (of course, under medical supervision). I met him after a while, but I was ashamed to ask how it is, and if it was a good choice. He is now married and has a normal life, kids, etc. I didn't talk to him in years.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;366061][...]We were going to do it with some flint shards[...][/QUOTE]
<sigh> Why didn't I join the Scouts? To think of the techniques I could have learned from you and other Scouting leaders!

While I have heard of cases in which circumcision was deemed necessary, my impression is that those are rare. My father was cut at about 5 years of age because he had developed adhesions.

There is also the evidence that being circumcised may reduce the chances for contracting HIV/AIDS. However, I suspect that there are other factors at play to make this connection. Particularly, one would need to consider a combination of unprotected sex in a setting of widespread HIV infections and reduced opportunities for proper hygiene.

I definitely consider that the practice became overwhelmingly common in the States from a mix of medical avarice, compliant medical insurance, and Puritanical anxiety over boys handling their genitals in the course of washing them. I also consider the practice to be unjustifiable cruelty without genuine medical need. My partner and I have also encountered at least one person who had lost part of the glans in a botched circumcision.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;366095]<sigh> Why didn't I join the Scouts? To think of the techniques I could have learned from you and other Scouting leaders![/QUOTE]

This is meant to be serious...

One of the sharpest edges known to man is that of broken glass. So if you ever need a sharp edge in an emergency, just break a glass bottle or a glass cup or a pane of glass.

[QUOTE=chalsall;366124]This is meant to be serious...

One of the sharpest edges known to man is that of broken glass. So if you ever need a sharp edge in an emergency, just break a glass bottle or a glass cup or a pane of glass.[/QUOTE]

The ancient Maya greatly valued obsidian for this reason. Among other things, it was used in blood-letting rituals.

A glass edge can be down to single molecular thickness.