Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

[Dave Rogers]

Wow. " In regards to female circumcision I don't think you have a clue to what you're talking about." I actually have an MA in anthropology from Columbia, have done extensive research on the subject and have talked to FGM survivors. You cannot compare the clitoral hood to a man's foreskin, PERIOD. Ask ANY doctor.

Female circumcision, as several people have said, is a different issue to male circumcision, and the one is not particularly relevant to the other. If you wish to argue against female circumcision, I seriously doubt anyone will oppose you; but if you wish to cite the more serious consequences of female circumcision as an argument in favour of male circumcision, then you are committing a simple non sequitur fallacy.

As to your last statement, get over it! Parents have a right to choose what is best for their child, as long as it does not harm them. You say that it harms children- ok, as soon as the medical world agrees with you, it can and should be banned. But that simply is not the case today, so why should you force your opinion on other people?

Because many people believe that needless removal of healthy tissue that cannot regenerate falls within the definition of the word "harm". At present it's illegal, as far as I'm aware, for a parent to have their child's earlobes surgically removed in infancy if there is no medical justification for doing so, whatever the parents' religious beliefs; why should the same legal protection not apply to the much more sensitive foreskin? At the moment, it's no more than habit that one is permissible and the other is not.

Dave

 

[jdp]

Wow. " In regards to female circumcision I don't think you have a clue to what you're talking about." I actually have an MA in anthropology from Columbia, have done extensive research on the subject and have talked to FGM survivors. You cannot compare the clitoral hood to a man's foreskin, PERIOD. Ask ANY doctor.

Well, it certainly doesn't show in your posts. For example clitoral hood:

In female human anatomy, the clitoral hood, (also called preputium clitoridis and clitoral prepuce), is a fold of skin that surrounds and protects the clitoral glans. It develops as part of the labia minora and is homologous with the foreskin (equally called prepuce) in male genitals.

Fold of skin that surrounds and protects the clitoris, fold of skin that surrounds and protects the glans penis. Do you still wish to dispute these are analogous structures?

As to your last statement, get over it!

So upon learning that there are actually men who resent circumcision, you've migrated from

"I do not know a single male who was circumcised who wishes that he still had his foreskin."

to get over it. It is my body after all. There was no therapeutic justification. Why should any one get over it? Does it make you uncomfortable now that you know there are men who are resentful?

Parents have a right to choose what is best for their child, as long as it does not harm them.

To what end? Would you circumcise a 17 year old boy against his will? He is still a minor under his parent control. How about a 16 year old. At what age are you willing to allow boys equal protection with girls? Would you allow a parent the right to cut off a child's earlobe on a whim? Why or why not? Would you allow a parent to put a tattoo on a child? Why or why not?

You say that it harms children- ok, as soon as the medical world agrees with you, it can and should be banned. But that simply is not the case today, so why should you force your opinion on other people?

Any surgery carries risks which is objective harm and non-therapeutic is taking a risk for no reason. So yes circumcision is harmful. And you have not given me a clear reason why I should accept having someone else's opinion carved onto my body. Talk about being forced.

You want to sue your parents for cutting off your foreskin? No one is stopping you:} For the record, as I am trying to have children myself, I talked to my doctor about this- actually quite recently- you know what he said? It's perfectly safe.

It is unlikely that a lawsuit would currently be heard in the US. It is difficult to even hold doctors who circumcise children without parental consent accountable for their actions so it's even less likely that a man can sue for damages at this time. But don't worry, that time is coming.

And by the way, here are what Dutch physicians are currently saying.

Doctors campaign against 'risky and painful' circumcision of boys.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If the hole gets much deeper, someone will never be able to climb out.

 

[ZirconBlue]

If both issues were of equal weight of course you could and you should give time to both. However, no matter how you feel about male circumcision, I cannot fathom an argument that male circumcision is as horrible as female circumcision.

Why are you wasting time on female circumcision? Murder is far worse.

Any surgery carries risks which is objective harm and non-therapeutic is taking a risk for no reason. So yes circumcision is harmful. And you have not given me a clear reason why I should accept having someone else's opinion carved onto my body. Talk about being forced.

This. The burden should not be on us to demonstrate why non-therapeutic circumcision shouldn't be done, it should be on those who support it demonstrate why it should be done.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Why are you wasting time on female circumcision? Murder is far worse.

Why waste time on atrocities at all? The Holocaust will be worse anyway.

 

[catsmate]

I do not know a single male who was circumcised who wishes that he still had his foreskin.

There are about 400 of them here.

Do you honestly think that this one rabbi speaks for the majority of the Jewish faith? Why is it that rabbis, from Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and other Jewish denominations continue to perform the bris? You may personally not agree with it, but please do not insinuate that rabbis are starting to say that the bris is barbaric.

What are you trying to say? Several rabbis have already stated that they think circumcision is barbaric.
Frankly I don't really care if you consider the bris "a beautiful ceremony"; I don't think it's worth the deaths (and other issues) circumcision causes.

I am very good friends with an immunologist (not Jewish)- he actually was circumcised later in life, by his own choice. He was the one who told me about studies done showing how male circumcision can lead to a reduction in STDS, particularly HIV (his area of expertise)- which can save the lives of thousands, if not millions of people, especially in Africa.

Interestingly most medical organisations would disagree with your "friend" including:

• The Royal Australasian College of Physicians
• The Canadian Paediatric Society
• The Royal Dutch Medical Association
• The British Medical Association

none of whom consider routine male circumcision has health benefits.

As for the oft listed health benefits.

• HPV: "the medical literature does not support the claim that circumcision reduces the risk for genital HPV infection" Van Howe's 2006 meta-analysis of studies.
• Cervical cancer: several studies, various findings; none of the studies in the US or Europe show a statistical significant effect.
• Penile cancer: probable reduction in risk; however given the rarity of that form of cancer the AAP and ACS do not find circumcision justified.
• HIV: various studies show the risk of infection is lower, equal or greater in circumcised men; the largest meta-analysis (after the WHO endorsed circumcision) shows no benefit. Try condoms.

 

[catsmate]

If both issues were of equal weight of course you could and you should give time to both. However, no matter how you feel about male circumcision, I cannot fathom an argument that male circumcision is as horrible as female circumcision. Female circumcision, even in it's most benign form carries a risk of infection, bleeding and loss of some if not all sexual feeling. At its worst, the labia is cut off and the vulva is sewn together- meant to be broken during intercourse. This can and has led to death, infection, bleeding and even a condition where the woman appears pregnant due to the build up of menstrual blood which cannot escape. Even if you think that a baby boy should have the right to choose circumcision when he is older, how can you compare the 2 situations?

Female circumcision is irrelevant to this debate. Feel free to start a thread or bump one of the existing threads on FGM.

 

[catsmate]

As has been said before, condoms do a much better job than circumcision.

Exactly.

And yes, female circumcision is mainly to stop women from having pleasure during sex, and it is just as despicable.

Very true. Tough male circumcision was also advocated as a "cure" for masturbation by people like Holt and Kellogg.

However, it is not a zero sum situation. It isn't a case of "let's focus less on male circumcision, because we haven't got enough attention left for female circumcision". It is in fact possible to pay attention to both at the same time, without loosing focus on either subject.

Very true. Female circumcision is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

 

[catsmate]

Circumcised babies do not recall the pain.

While this is often stated as a fact it is not true. As the AAP states:

Some common painful minor procedures, such as circumcision, do not always receive the warranted attention to comfort issues. Available research indicates that newborn circumcisions are a significant source of pain during the procedure and are associated with irritability and feeding disturbances during the days afterward.

There are a number of studies (Howard, Taddio and Lander for example) that shows that the baby feels pain.

Unless you show me clear medical evidence that circumcision is medically dangerous, I will defend a parent's right to choose it for their child.

As I stated in the other circumcision thread:

The Thymos study (2010) suggests 117. More coverage here. This study covered only the neonatal period and would exclude deaths from complications, such as infections, which would be likely to manifest later.
Baker's study (1979, available in part here) suggested 229
Gellis (American Journal of Diseases of Children DEC1978, available here) suggested that deaths form complications from circumcision outnumbered those from penile cancer.
John Brunetti (NY City Child Services) estimated 200 deaths pa in the US. [presentation at the 'Early Head Start' annual conference 2001]
Bollinger (in 'Death and the New Penis') examines a number of sources and suggests ~100 deaths pa.

Non-USA.
Gairdnder (BMJ DEC1949, available here) suggested 16-19 deaths pa in the UK in the late 1940s. Extrapolation would support 120-150pa in the US today.

Those numbers are the annual deaths caused by infant circumcision.

Perhaps you'd like to support your advocacy of circumcision by providing a cost/benefit analysis that would outweigh the 100+ fatalities?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Those numbers are the annual deaths caused by infant circumcision.

Perhaps you'd like to support your advocacy of circumcision by providing a cost/benefit analysis that would outweigh the 100+ fatalities?

But... Burying your foreskin under a tree in the garden!!



(What the **** is up with that, anyway?)

 

[jdp]

As for the oft listed health benefits.

• HPV: "the medical literature does not support the claim that circumcision reduces the risk for genital HPV infection" Van Howe's 2006 meta-analysis of studies.
• Cervical cancer: several studies, various findings; none of the studies in the US or Europe show a statistical significant effect.
• Penile cancer: probable reduction in risk; however given the rarity of that form of cancer the AAP and ACS do not find circumcision justified.
• HIV: various studies show the risk of infection is lower, equal or greater in circumcised men; the largest meta-analysis (after the WHO endorsed circumcision) shows no benefit. Try condoms.

From your list I would actually collapse the first three together since Cervical Cancer and Penile Cancer are thought to be caused by HPV infection. Aside from the fact that an adult can choose circumcision themselves if they find the potential risk reduction compelling, I would add that the availability of an HPV vaccine should deprecate circumcision as a meaningful prophylaxis for HPV for most rational people. Where HIV is concerned, the adult is still capable of weighing the potential risk reduction which in most first world western countries, over the lifetime of a heterosexual non-iv drug using male, will be nearly in significant.

 

[jdp]

But... Burying your foreskin under a tree in the garden!!



(What the **** is up with that, anyway?)

You think that's something? Ever heard of metzitzah b'peh?

 

[catsmate]

From your list I would actually collapse the first three together since Cervical Cancer and Penile Cancer are thought to be caused by HPV infection.

Well, yes.
But as reduction in penile cancer risk is the only generally accepted health benefit from infant circumcision I thought I'd separate the points.
Plus the results for cervical cancer are odd; none of the US/Can/Europe studies show a statistically significant effect but some of the Asian ones do. Possibly there's another factor at play there.

Aside from the fact that an adult can choose circumcision themselves if they find the potential risk reduction compelling, I would add that the availability of an HPV vaccine should deprecate circumcision as a meaningful prophylaxis for HPV for most rational people.

Absolutely.

Where HIV is concerned, the adult is still capable of weighing the potential risk reduction which in most first world western countries, over the lifetime of a heterosexual non-iv drug using male, will be nearly in significant.

I agree. One factor that's been raised regarding circumcision in the developing world as a HIV prophylaxis is the risk that circumcised men will be complacent or overconfident, possibly leading to greater risk.
Furthermore I haven't seen any meaningful statistics for the level of deaths and other complications from circumcision in the developing world. I assume they'd be rather higher than in the developed world.

I'd also be interested in a cost/benefit comparison of circumcision and provision of condoms.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

You think that's something? Ever heard of metzitzah b'peh?

Yes, but did you have to remind me of it? I think I need to puke now.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Interestingly most medical organisations would disagree with your "friend" including:

• The Royal Australasian College of Physicians
• The Canadian Paediatric Society
• The Royal Dutch Medical Association
• The British Medical Association

none of whom consider routine male circumcision has health benefits.

As for the oft listed health benefits.

• HPV: "the medical literature does not support the claim that circumcision reduces the risk for genital HPV infection" Van Howe's 2006 meta-analysis of studies.
• Cervical cancer: several studies, various findings; none of the studies in the US or Europe show a statistical significant effect.
• Penile cancer: probable reduction in risk; however given the rarity of that form of cancer the AAP and ACS do not find circumcision justified.
• HIV: various studies show the risk of infection is lower, equal or greater in circumcised men; the largest meta-analysis (after the WHO endorsed circumcision) shows no benefit. Try condoms.

hey Catsmate, thanks for posting this material along with the annual deaths.

It's amazing how people grouse about for any excuse they can for mindless tradition. I hear this ignorant cry about "health benefits", and when you ask for the proof, people get pretty irate. Now you are upsetting their world view, where there "must be" a good reason behind it. There is no health reasoning offered in the Hebrew Bible for circumcision - no logical reason at all actually.

My own speculation is that we should look at the one effect that does not seem to be in disagreement: circumcision makes it more difficult to masturbate, not to mention robbing you of a lot of nerve endings that would be nice to have during sex.

So much stupid religious tradition compelling us to suffer in order to honor a non-existent God. Sex is bad, masturbation is bad, wear the horse-hide shirt, nail yourself to the cross like the mythical Jesus. So sure, cut the man's penis hide off. I get it.

We chose not to mutilate our children. It's interesting to hear people minimize it. If you cut anything else off your child you would be convicted of battery, and if it were sexual you would be sodomized and spat upon in prison as the lowest form of criminal in society: the child sexual mutilator pervert.

Child protective services invaded our home for guess what: teaching our child to walk "too early". The peer-reviewed child development literature we were reading started them off at three weeks. We started at one month. They tried to make us go to a developmental delay facility because he was too far advanced for his age.

But if we had cut the tip of his dick off instead of teaching him to walk, we'd be OK by the State.

 

[jdp]

Absolutely.

One would think that would settle it; but it still turns up in the top ten most irrational reasons to circumcise a boy list.

I agree. One factor that's been raised regarding circumcision in the developing world as a HIV prophylaxis is the risk that circumcised men will be complacent or overconfident, possibly leading to greater risk.

I am concerned that this risk is greater than is currently believed and that there is a real danger of significant risk compensation. I'd also question the large scale up of a surgical procedure in a part of the world where poor medical facilities and nonsocial infections with HIV (among other things) are not necessarily unheard of.

Furthermore I haven't seen any meaningful statistics for the level of deaths and other complications from circumcision in the developing world. I assume they'd be rather higher than in the developed world.

Not for adults. I've never heard of an adult dieing as a result of circumcision, in a medical setting. I have though heard of infants dieing in modern first world hospitals though so for infants who knows; we don't even really know the rate of complications here in the US. Fortunately, it's a rare event.

Yes, but did you have to remind me of it? I think I need to puke now.

Religions can get away with anything.

 

[Naive1000]

Circumcision helps prevent/reduce HIV is a myth: the UN study was bad science and conclusions were reached before all the data was in. They got the data that supported their conclusion and then stopped without fully collecting all the data. As skeptics, it would seem we would take all studies with a grain of salt before deciding they are valid. Circumcision Myths & UN HIV Circumcision Study A Fraud.

And female and male circumcision are similar. Dismissing the similarities is just special pleading. Mutilation is mutilation.

I believe that there is a lot of religious bias in the US that keeps circumcision legal. Using the thought: If they can outlaw this practice what other religious practices could they outlaw.

 

[AmandaM]

No circumcision = no potential risks.

Circumcision = a medical procedure that carries risks.

That was enough for me. No risk versus risk.


Also, about 6 seconds on google found these 292 reasons to reconsider this "harmless" medical procedure:
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/

 

[Nicole Friedman]

But... Burying your foreskin under a tree in the garden!!



(What the **** is up with that, anyway?)

What the **** is up with that? This just goes to show me that many people in this forum have absolutely zero respect for religious beliefs if they do not happen to believe in them. You don't like circumcision? That's your right. You think it's barbaric? I may disagree but again it's your right to think so. You want to say that something a father did for his son, that he and his entire family thinks is beautiful is ****** up, you are nothing more than a jerk.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10. Do not swear in your posts, and do not attempt to bypass the autocensor.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Burying the removed piece of flesh under a tree 'may' be a beautiful act. However I would think it would be more beautiful to not remove a piece of the body, and perhaps plant a tree, or sow something more symbolic than a piece of you.

Its not about a lack of respect (and besides, you're agnostic, anyways, right?) its about a lack of desire to mutilate someone.