Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

[Aepervius]

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: 

Moderated content removed.

He is not a jerk. he simply does not have the religious baggage you have. For us it is a ritual empty of meanings. Once all religious meaning have been discarded, then only the medical facts stays. and those are plainly that circumcision is not a medical necessity.

In fact if you look up the history on why circumcision came in the US, this is very very laughable. Can't say for other regions & religion though. But for the US it is quite clearly a barbaric ritual make up to try to stop male masturbate, or at least make sure they don't enjoy it as much, more or less.

 

[Antiquehunter]

<snip>

In fact if you look up the history on why circumcision came in the US, this is very very laughable. Can't say for other regions & religion though. But for the US it is quite clearly a barbaric ritual make up to try to stop male masturbate, or at least make sure they don't enjoy it as much, more or less.

Based on anecdotal evidence, I'll just say that the intention expressed above has failed.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

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.

Mutilation is mutilation, if you are talking about mutilation.
For everyone saying that FGM and male circumcision is similar, you are simply wrong. The mildest form of FGM, removing the clitoral hood is NOT akin to removing a male's foreskin. Some of you argued that it's the same thing; the penis is nothing more than a larger clitoris. However, that may be true in the womb but not out of it. The clitoris has more nerve endings in a small area than anything else in the human body.
As for the person who said I was lying when my doctor said that it is perfectly safe, that is simply BS. Have there been accidents/infections? Of course; any medical procedure always carries a risk. But when you look in the medical literature, the risk, when done PROPERLY is almost zero. I've said everything I wanted to say. For those of you who really believe that male circumcision is barbaric, rather than just saying so on here, why not campaign politically to stop it? (Though I would hope that you focus on more vital issues first, such as Glass-Steagall legislation to help our economy) However, for my final words on this subject, I will say that there are so many real evils in this world, to focus on male circumcision just makes little sense. It seems that many of you have little empathy for people who do not share your opinions. Open your minds a little! Talk to a mohel; see what he has to say. I'm not saying that you will change your mind but minimally you can hopefully become a bit more empathetic as to why millions of people still believe that male circumcision is the best choice for their child.
And yes, he was a jerk- I get that many of you do not have "religious baggage". But that does not give you the right to dismiss a ceremony or ritual as ****** up because you do not understand it.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

In fact if you look up the history on why circumcision came in the US, this is very very laughable. Can't say for other regions & religion though. But for the US it is quite clearly a barbaric ritual make up to try to stop male masturbate, or at least make sure they don't enjoy it as much, more or less.

Yet for some reason what should have been a blip in the long history of no routine circumcision became deeply rooted in USA culture, I know for a time in the 40s and 50s we had a similar blip in the UK but it disappeared again very quickly. Wonder what it was that made the USA so different?

 

[Antiquehunter]

Mutilation is mutilation, if you are talking about mutilation. <snip>

We are. We're talking about circumcision. Which is mutilation. I don't think much more needs to be said. Your religious peccadilloes (which shock me, due to your expressed agnosticism) should not be carried out on an infant. Indeed to do so is akin to child abuse. Made even more ludicrous by the fact that you yourself stated that you are an agnostic.

 

[brodski]

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: 

Moderated content removed.

Does this make you a jerk for feeling that way about fgm? An important rite of passage in some cultures, or does the fact that you have decided that some genital cutting is ok but other genital cutting is barbaric male you immune from this charge?

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Though this wasn't directed at me, I will respond 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.

Respect needs to be earned. The best anyone can hope for without trying to earn it is tolerance.

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.

Correct.

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.

No, that's called being concerned for the well being of children who can't speak for themselves.

 

[pgwenthold]

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.

Do you apply the same logic to female circumcision?

 

[CriticalSock]

Mutilation is mutilation, if you are talking about mutilation.

Yes. it's also wrong. It's especially wrong when it's mutilation of a child.

For everyone saying that FGM and male circumcision is similar, you are simply wrong. The mildest form of FGM, removing the clitoral hood is NOT akin to removing a male's foreskin. Some of you argued that it's the same thing; the penis is nothing more than a larger clitoris. However, that may be true in the womb but not out of it. The clitoris has more nerve endings in a small area than anything else in the human body.

Of course there are similarities!

a) they both involve genitals
b) they both involve children (usually)
c) they both involve cutting

To say that they're not similar is simply wrong.

Of course to say that they're exactly the same would be equally wrong. I believe that female circumcision can be MUCH more damaging to the individual concerned.

As for the person who said I was lying when my doctor said that it is perfectly safe, that is simply BS. Have there been accidents/infections? Of course; any medical procedure always carries a risk. But when you look in the medical literature, the risk, when done PROPERLY is almost zero.

But it's NOT zero. someone earlier quoted the number of deaths annually from circumcision. It's in the hundreds for the USA alone. That's simply unacceptable.

I've said everything I wanted to say. For those of you who really believe that male circumcision is barbaric, rather than just saying so on here, why not campaign politically to stop it? (Though I would hope that you focus on more vital issues first, such as Glass-Steagall legislation to help our economy) However, for my final words on this subject, I will say that there are so many real evils in this world, to focus on male circumcision just makes little sense. It seems that many of you have little empathy for people who do not share your opinions. Open your minds a little! Talk to a mohel; see what he has to say. I'm not saying that you will change your mind but minimally you can hopefully become a bit more empathetic as to why millions of people still believe that male circumcision is the best choice for their child.

This thread is about discussing whether circumcision is right or wrong, and should be about nothing else. It would be derailing the thread to talk about anything else. However if you look at all the other threads on this forum you will find us discussing many other "evils" in this world.

Personally I feel empathy for those hundreds of dead children rather than the grown ups who ordered them to be killed for their religion.

And yes, he was a jerk- I get that many of you do not have "religious baggage". But that does not give you the right to dismiss a ceremony or ritual as ****** up because you do not understand it.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10.

If you believe that religion is wrong then a ceremony of mutilating a child and burying a part of that child under a tree is going to appear bad, horrific even. Only by looking at it through the lens of belief in that religion could you see it otherwise.

You're not an agnostic.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

While I realise that strictly speaking it's a non sequitur, it seems to me that a lot of people in the third world probably feel just the same about female circumcision.

Dave

 

[Aepervius]

Yet for some reason what should have been a blip in the long history of no routine circumcision became deeply rooted in USA culture, I know for a time in the 40s and 50s we had a similar blip in the UK but it disappeared again very quickly. Wonder what it was that made the USA so different?

Latent over the top puritanism ? Similar reason as to why the rapture movement started there ? Wanting to differentiate themselves from the old continent at all cost ? Might even be simply the "sight" of it was found pleasing by US women , and that was enough ?

I have no clue. But I would be interrested in the response.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Latent over the top puritanism ? Similar reason as to why the rapture movement started there ? Wanting to differentiate themselves from the old continent at all cost ? Might even be simply the "sight" of it was found pleasing by US women , and that was enough ?

I have no clue. But I would be interrested in the response.

I think Darat might have been alluding to the fact that it pretty much disappeared in the UK largely because the NHS refused to pay for it (without medical need). You can draw your own conclusions from that.

 

[zooterkin]

I think Darat might have been alluding to the fact that it pretty much disappeared in the UK largely because the NHS refused to pay for it (without medical need). You can draw your own conclusions from that.

That does raise the question (and apologies if it was answered before) of who pays for it in the US? Is it an out-of-pocket expense for the parents, or is it covered by their medical insurance (or whatever it's called)?

 

[jdp]

Mutilation is mutilation, if you are talking about mutilation. For everyone saying that FGM and male circumcision is similar, you are simply wrong. The mildest form of FGM, removing the clitoral hood is NOT akin to removing a male's foreskin. Some of you argued that it's the same thing; the penis is nothing more than a larger clitoris. However, that may be true in the womb but not out of it.

But we haven't even gotten to the clitoris yet. In your last post you were just talking about the clitoral hood and if for the time being we only restrict our discussion to a fold of skin that surrounds and protects the clitoris and/or fold of skin that surrounds and protects the glans penis. Why would you steadfastly defend one practice while condemning another? In what way would they type of female circumcision which removes the clitoral hood be meaningfully different from the male variety?

The clitoris has more nerve endings in a small area than anything else in the human body.

The foreskin and clitoral hood are also packed with nerve endings.

As for the person who said I was lying when my doctor said that it is perfectly safe, that is simply BS. Have there been accidents/infections?

How many accidents are you willing to accept when we're talking about a procedure that has virtually no therapeutic indication in most individuals being performed on arguably the most important part of one's body?

I've said everything I wanted to say.

A pity you're not more opened minded.

For those of you who really believe that male circumcision is barbaric, rather than just saying so on here, why not campaign politically to stop it?

There are active campaigns to try and stop it or were you not paying attention to the news from San Francisco over the summer?

I will say that there are so many real evils in this world, to focus on male circumcision just makes little sense.

Focusing on protecting children always makes sense, it's always a priority.

It seems that many of you have little empathy for people who do not share your opinions. Open your minds a little! Talk to a mohel; see what he has to say.

Not at all true. And I have spoken to such people on this matter; again I suggest you watch the movie and listen to the podcasts I posted earlier. They contain a lot of great discussion on the matter from a Jewish prospective. It's also shows one campaign that is on going for this matter.

 

[jdp]

That does raise the question (and apologies if it was answered before) of who pays for it in the US? Is it an out-of-pocket expense for the parents, or is it covered by their medical insurance (or whatever it's called)?

The answer to this question depends on the State you live in and the insurance you have. 18 or 19 States no longer pay for circumcision through Medicaid (elective that is). Typically in those states commercial insurers follow that lead. And for those in that situation they typically have to pay out of pocket. In other states it is covered by Medicaid but your commercial insurance coverage may vary.

 

[catsmate]

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

People. Bleh, sometimes I wonder if the universe wouldn't be better off without humanity.

I am concerned that this risk is greater than is currently believed and that there is a real danger of significant risk compensation.

Yep. But advocates of circumcision haven't studied this problem.

ETA: Actually there is at least one study that examined this issue. 'Acceptability of male circumcision for prevention of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: a review" By N Westercamp and R C Bailey. Specifically the section 'Potential for Behavioral Disinhibition'

If men and their partners believe that circumcision offers protection from HIV infection, they may be less inhibited (“disinhibited”) in their sexual activities and engage in higher HIV risk behaviors, thereby mitigating a partially protective effect of MC. Fortunately, the perception that MC provides full protection against HIV and STIs was found to be generally rare, but it was expressed by a few study participants in South Africa and in Nyanza Province, Kenya (Bailey et al., 2002; Rain-Taljaard et al., 2003). In focus groups in Kenya, Malawi and Zambia a concern about the possibility of behavioral disinhibition was inevitably expressed. Most participants did seem to appreciate the concept of risk reduction opposed to risk elimination (Bailey et al., 2002; Lukobo & Bailey, Submitted; Ngalande et al., 2006). Similarly in Swaziland 87% of study participants advocated having only one partner and 94% promoted condom use for circumcised men (Tsela & Halperin, 2006).

There is some evidence of behavioral disinhibition among circumcised men. A study in South Africa found a significant association between circumcision status and the higher reported number of non-spousal lifetime partners (Lagarde et al., 2003). Circumcised men in Uganda were found to engage in more HIV risk behaviors than uncircumcised men (Bailey et al., 1999). In addition to reporting more extramarital partners in the previous year (1.13 vs. 0.62, P < 0.01), circumcised men had an overall higher “risk profile”. A few respondents in another South African study expressed the belief that MC potentially encouraged adultery as newly circumcised men were curious to test the new shape of the penis (Rain-Taljaard et al., 2003).

The full text of the study is available here.

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.

This is why I'd like to see some proper analysis of risk and cost against provable benefits.
Surgery is always risky; advocating it as a prophylactic measure in the developing world without analysis of the risks is, in my view, grossly irresponsible.
At the very least:

• estimate the risks of complications for infant circumcision including deaths
• estimate the resource costs of infant circumcision and complications arising from the practice
• estimate the risks of complications for adult circumcision including deaths
• estimate the resource costs of adult circumcision and complications arising from the practice
• estimate the benefits; reduced HIV infection rate et cetera
• estimate the costs of risk compensation
• properly cost alternative health measures: education, condoms, vaccination
• estimate the opportunity costs: what could have been done with the limited health resources used for circumcision

As the risk of sounding like an economist, this is sometime I'd like to see done before advocating circumcision.

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.

A quick search shows no record of adult death attributed to circumcision.
In the US ~100-150 infants die each year and most studies say such deaths are under reported.

Religions can get away with anything.

Not quite anything, but there still seems to be a excess of latutude granted to people on the grounds of the beliefs.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Thank you for that there are some useful references to studies I wasn't aware of.
ETA: I'd also refer people to the other three parts of that article. Particularly interesting for me is part 4 'Ethics and Economics' and the cite of a (US) cost of $875M pa for the procedure.

 

[catsmate]

Yet for some reason what should have been a blip in the long history of no routine circumcision became deeply rooted in USA culture, I know for a time in the 40s and 50s we had a similar blip in the UK but it disappeared again very quickly. Wonder what it was that made the USA so different?

I suspect money. It's a fairly lucrative procedure in the US. In the UK the NHS may not have been so supportive.
US$875M pa if the data here is accurate.
ETA As Professor Yaffle said the NHS won't pay.

The NHS does not fund routine circumcision or circumcision that is carried out for religious reasons.
The NHS only funds circumcision that is used treat a small number of medical conditions (see below). In such cases, circumcision is usually regarded as a ‘treatment of last resort’ when all other treatment options have failed.

ETA2: A revealing quote from Thomas E. Wiswell, an advocate of routine infant circumcision, in the Boston Globe:

I have some good friends who are obstetricians outside the military, and they look at a foreskin and almost see a $125 price tag on it. Each one is that much money. Heck, if you do 10 a week, that's over $1,000 a week, and they don't take that much time.

[Wisell was attached to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center at the time, hence the "outside the military" reference]

 

[catsmate]

For everyone saying that FGM and male circumcision is similar, you are simply wrong. The mildest form of FGM, removing the clitoral hood is NOT akin to removing a male's foreskin. Some of you argued that it's the same thing; the penis is nothing more than a larger clitoris. However, that may be true in the womb but not out of it. The clitoris has more nerve endings in a small area than anything else in the human body.

Again this is completely off topic for this thread.

As for the person who said I was lying when my doctor said that it is perfectly safe, that is simply BS.

'Any physician who states that a surgical procedure is perfectly safe is a liar or a fool'. That was said to me a professor of medicine many years ago and it's still true.

Have there been accidents/infections? Of course; any medical procedure always carries a risk.

So you accept that there is a risk and that your doctor was wrong. A good start.

But when you look in the medical literature, the risk, when done PROPERLY is almost zero.

I've provided citation for the studies, most in the US, on death rates and complications for infant circumcision. The procedure and it's dubious benefits is not justified by science. Hence no medical organisation recommends routine infant circumcision.

Circumcision on religious grounds doesn't even have the thin patina of medical justification to support it. It should be banned. This is not an issue of freedom of belief or conscience this is a child welfare issue.

<snip> I will say that there are so many real evils in this world, to focus on male circumcision just makes little sense.

One must start somewhere.

It seems that many of you have little empathy for people who do not share your opinions. Open your minds a little! Talk to a mohel; see what he has to say. I'm not saying that you will change your mind but minimally you can hopefully become a bit more empathetic as to why millions of people still believe that male circumcision is the best choice for their child.

Perhaps we could discuss how may children have died under his ministrations?
Look I really don't care about opinions; I trained as a scientist, I prefer facts. Like the ones I cited.

And yes, he was a jerk- I get that many of you do not have "religious baggage". But that does not give you the right to dismiss a ceremony or ritual as ****** up because you do not understand it.

I think the problem is that we do understand it for what it is, mutilation of male children.

 

[catsmate]

I think Darat might have been alluding to the fact that it pretty much disappeared in the UK largely because the NHS refused to pay for it (without medical need). You can draw your own conclusions from that.

I really should have read further before replying to him.