The Terrible Cost Of Unnecessary Surgical Procedures On Boys
I don't understand why we consider circumcision of girls barbaric, yet are so automatic about circumcising boys. There's the African AIDS study argument -- that circumcision prevents AIDS. Sure it does -- in that population. But, in ours, we can educate kids on wearing condoms -- and do -- and AIDS is really not a threat to the heterosexual and non-drug-using population.
Here's a press release I got this morning:
Native American boy bleeds to deathThe lawsuit involving a South Dakota Native American infant, Eric Dickson Keefe, from the Rosebud Indian Reservation, who bled to death from a circumcision in 2008, was settled this week for $230,000. The case involved an Indian Health Service doctor who circumcised the child at the end of the working day allowing for no period of post-surgical observation. Testimony showed the mother faced a long drive home on rural roads with other children in her care.
"This was sheer negligence and an ethical failure to consider the risk," says George C. Denniston, MD, MPH, President of Doctors Opposing Circumcision, a physicians' group based in Seattle, Washington, which assisted with the case. "Circumcision is unnecessary surgery, which the parents are never told holds a risk of death for their child."
Keefe bled to death during the night from his open circumcision wound in June, 2008. Medical professionals say that the loss of only two and one-half ounces of blood can cause the death of even a large eight-pound infant. "That amount of blood, just a few drops per hour, was easily hidden in the super-absorbent disposable diaper baby Keefe was diapered with." notes Denniston, "Parents are never told about that risk."
Doctors Opposing Circumcision has provided expert advice for numerous circumcision death cases. "Exsanguination, or bleeding to death, is hard to detect," says Denniston, "since the child slips away quietly, and no one wants to disturb what appears to be a sleeping child."
Death from circumcision is relatively rare, although a recent study* estimates that around 117 children in the United States die each year from circumcision. "These are entirely avoidable deaths," says Denniston, "caused by a pointless surgery that the child would never choose for himself."
*Bollinger, D. Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths. Thymos: J Boyhood Studies, 2010;4(1), 78-90.
As I've said before, we have absolutely no right to perform medically unnecessary surgical procedures on a child -- procedures people justify for bogus medical reasons, but that are really about mutilating a child in the name of religion or custom.
A newborn child cannot consent or refuse consent, and we don't give babies nose jobs or tattoos, and we shouldn't be cutting off parts of their body unless they will die or suffer serious health consequences if we don't. (And maybe having problems with phimosis doesn't count. If there is such a problem, you deal with it then.)
The practice is an indefensible barbarism.
Spartee at April 11, 2011 6:37 AM
I can't believe this is still a common practice. If parents-to-be would just educate themselves, I think they would decide against it. It doesn't take much...just read a few articles on the subject for crying out loud (pun intended). My boys, aged 28 and 26 are not circumsised, while all of their friends are. WHY? WHY? WHY? It seems like such a no-brainer but people continue to mutilate their sons "because everyone else does". If you're not interested in what is best for your child, you shouldn't be having children.
Just sayin' at April 11, 2011 8:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2030419">comment from Just sayin'It's just crazy. Imagine asking for an elective appendectomy at birth in case your baby daughter gets appendicitis at some point.
Amy Alkon at April 11, 2011 8:55 AM
"I don't understand why we consider circumcision of girls barbaric, yet are so automatic about circumcising boys."
Come come now; yes you do, and so does everyone who considers this such an important cause:
1) a tradition that the majority of the people of the country ascribe to
2) some measurable hygienic effects, as opposed to none for the female version
3) aesthetic appeal in this country, shaped mainly by the majority of examples seen being circumcised, making it seem to be the "norm".
"A newborn child cannot consent or refuse consent, and we don't give babies nose jobs or tattoos"
A lot of people get their kids' ears pierced at an outrageously early age, yet I have never heard neither hue nor cry about it. At what point do these acts become barbarism? Is it the size of the piercing, or the number?
What started as a simple reply to this issue, and hopefully my Final Word that I could just point to in future and say "ibid" has grown to the size of a blog post, so I went and posted it here...
"A topic I wish I could just nip in the bud "
http://bit.ly/hNXowm
Vinnie Bartilucci at April 11, 2011 9:13 AM
"There's the African AIDS study argument -- that circumcision prevents AIDS"
Getting your penis amputated by a witch doctor prevents AIDS too: "He was given a three-year suspended sentence, but he continued doing the same thing. In the past 5 years close to 20 initiates died in his schools and 15 had their penises amputated...We identify the perpetrators, but if parents are not willing to open cases against them, they are freed to continue circumcising and killing these boys"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10350471
Martin at April 11, 2011 9:25 AM
I'm with Vinnie.
For Jews it's a cosmetic religious ritual.
I would much rather have it done when I don't remember it.
EarlW at April 11, 2011 9:43 AM
Input obligatory Jewish religious ritual.
Output obligatory Miss Alkon's dislike of religion.
That's not going away.
hadsil at April 11, 2011 10:16 AM
As hadsil says, it's a religious obligation for Jews. Last I checked, we had freedom of religion, and that includes the freedom to raise our children in our faith. You don't like it, that's your problem.
kishke at April 11, 2011 10:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2031172">comment from hadsilInput obligatory Jewish religious ritual. Output obligatory Miss Alkon's dislike of religion. That's not going away.
This is about my questioning everything. If I participated in Judaism, even on a cultural level, I wouldn't find this a wonderful thing. Don't be quick to assume you know my thinking. One think you can know about me: I try to challenge all my beliefs and look at them and make sure I don't believe them just because, but because they're actually warranted by evidence.
Amy Alkon at April 11, 2011 10:50 AM
oh c'mon now, how many dudes shreaked in horror at the one or two high school kids who were not circumsized and showering with them. They were freaks. I for one am very grateful my folks had me clipped.
ronc at April 11, 2011 10:55 AM
I try to challenge all my beliefs and look at them and make sure I don't believe them just because, but because they're actually warranted by evidence.
You have your biases like everyone else, and after reading this blog for years, I feel confident in saying that you are definitely biased against religion. Which is of course your right, but let's not pretend the bias does not exist.
kishke at April 11, 2011 11:03 AM
What Ronc said, word for word. No skin burquas for my John Thomas!
Eric at April 11, 2011 11:09 AM
"As hadsil says, it's a religious obligation for Jews. Last I checked, we had freedom of religion, and that includes the freedom to raise our children in our faith."
Which does not include physical mutilations of them. No individual has the right to cut someone based on their religious beliefs. And no one's religious beliefs entitle them to disregard another perosn's lack of consent. Do you think my religious beliefs entitle me to preach Chritianity to Jewish children in a kindergarten?
I don't.
Jim at April 11, 2011 11:33 AM
I can't believe I'm writing this, but:
1. There is NO medical/hygienic indication for circumcision in any country with running water and soap.
2. The surgical procedure performed in US hospitals is far more invasive than the traditional Jewish procedure, and does remove erogenic tissue.
3. And it's performed by completely inexperienced interns who are handed a "snip kit". Jews don't let anyone near our sons until he's trained for almost a year under an experienced mohel.
4. And it's performed without anesthesia. Most mohels now use anesthetic cream and/or injections.
5. Phimosis cannot be diagnosed in infancy. In fact, it is normal in infancy.
6. Jews only circumcise for religious reasons. If I did not believe G-d commanded it, I would not do it.
Ben David at April 11, 2011 11:36 AM
"oh c'mon now, how many dudes shreaked in horror at the one or two high school kids who were not circumsized and showering with them. They were freaks."
Yeah they were, the shriekers, I mean. That's pretty perverted, you have to agree. How perverted do you have to be to be afraid of the human body?
"You have your biases like everyone else, and after reading this blog for years, I feel confident in saying that you are definitely biased against religion. "
She makes no secret of it, they way she never misses a chance to slam honor killings, burqas and all that other mess. You're not in very good company.
Jim at April 11, 2011 11:37 AM
Which does not include physical mutilations of them.
It's not a mutilation, as evidenced by the many who have it done for aesthetic reasons, some of whom have weighed in on this blog.
And no one's religious beliefs entitle them to disregard another perosn's lack of consent. Do you think my religious beliefs entitle me to preach Chritianity to Jewish children in a kindergarten?
According to this argument, a Jewish parent should not be allowed to preach Judaism to his own children, since they are not at the age of consent. Is that your position?
kishke at April 11, 2011 12:02 PM
She makes no secret of it, they way she never misses a chance to slam honor killings, burqas and all that other mess. You're not in very good company.
Just because you choose to equate honor killings with circumcisions does not make them equal. I am in the company of honor killers only in your mind, which doesn't trouble me at all.
kishke at April 11, 2011 12:04 PM
hmm, I find it very odd that someone in the Rosebud nation was having this done... there must be more to it, even if they were Christians. Beyond that, I think there are greater problems in the world... More children die of co-sleeping in Texas alone per year than die of this practice, and how much of that is like the case in question, Negligence.
Barbaric... Not convinced, OTOH, not caring too much. Glad I'm snipped, because it's easier. #1 son who isn't, doesn't seem to care. It's too late even if he does care. The adult surgery is always complicated, far more so than on a kid...
SwissArmyD at April 11, 2011 12:12 PM
My kiddo's due June 29th, and husband and I have agreed that as non-religious people there's absolutely no good reason to circumcise. Also - what is the norm elsewhere in this country is not the norm in Belfast, Maine, where I'm at. Only one doctor in this county and the surrounding counties will even perform circumcisions.
I've also asked various mothers and fathers around here with whom I'm friendly - I work with kids and their parents in an after-school program - what they think of the practice - and I haven't met a single person here who had any of their children circumcised.
That said, yes, it's obvious I don't know everyone here. But my guess is that you're less of a "freak" in the locker room as an uncircumcised male than certain members of this discussion might lead you to believe.
Jessica F. at April 11, 2011 12:37 PM
While most infants don't bleed to death, this is not an uncommon occurrence and I have seen a few times (i.e. it will happen once per year per small/medium hospital).
In this day and age I don't know why we ascribe such sacredness to a practice used in the iron/dark ages. At those times they might have made sense. For halal and kosher practices, you wanted to make sure the animal was not sick (not that the goal was making the animal suffer but you wanted to see that the beast acted appropriately to getting its throat slit and that is was not sick or already dead). As for male circumcision, it was used as a hygienic practice when you really did not have soap and running water (it helped eliminate smegma, although if you are a reasonably clean male, and don't allow crap to accumulate under the foreskin, this is not a problem).
In both cases, other than habit and tradition there is no reason for either to keep happening. I am definitely not a PETA person (or even really into 'animal rights') but arguing that slitting a throat with a really sharp knife somehow makes it 'painless' is completely absurd. Same goes for circumcision. You can crush the shit out of the foreskin with a gomco clamp or cut it with a knife but to argue that the infant is really not feeling the pain is pure crap.
I wonder when we will finally leave the iron age...
Doc Jensen at April 11, 2011 2:06 PM
Let's get some perspective here. More kids are killed in backyard pools, bath tubs, and car acccidents by far. If you're really interested in child safety, focus on making CPR and properly installed car seats mandatory before you can drive baby home from hospital.
If we're going to ban circumcision, can we go after all those fucked up parents who put their 3 year olds in beauty pagents dressed up like Vegas whores?
UW Girl at April 11, 2011 3:42 PM
As kishke says, "mutilation" is an aesthetic judgment, and loaded.
You can say, without hyperbole, that it's practically unnecessary and has non-zero risk, and that some methods of performing it may be unnecessarily painful, without any concern on my part.
"Mutilation", however, is basically namecalling - it's just saying "I think it's double icky bad!"
(And on the other arguments, the fact that you can say "it's male genital mutilation" - and even granting that it "can damage erogenic tissue" - it's still basically nothing like "female genital mutilation", as the current phrase puts it.
It sure doesn't seem to act at all like clitoridectomy or sewing-the-vagina-shut.
FGM is intended to curtail physical pleasure for the woman; circumcision is not and almost never does so.
So let's not ruin a plausible-but-not-open-and-shut case against it by falling into the sort of hyperbole that makes "oh, crap, it's the circumcision-obsessives again" be the death of rational internet discussion.
And to pile on with UW Girl, the real problem in the case in question?
An incompetent Doctor.
The IHS/BIA are blots on America far more than the practice of circumcision is.
Need I point out how much a press release from an activist group is a bad source for anything approaching rational analysis?)
Sigivald at April 11, 2011 4:18 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2033584">comment from roncoh c'mon now, how many dudes shreaked in horror at the one or two high school kids who were not circumsized and showering with them.
People shrieked (and laughed) in horror at me throughout my childhood. I recovered.
Amy Alkon at April 11, 2011 4:51 PM
The only reason that Jews perform circumcision is because it is commanded by G0d. The fact that it is done improperly by nonJews or by secularists for "medical" or "cosmetic" reasons does not invalidate the religious ritual. Indeed, I know of people who had to prevent the hospital from performing a circumcision in order to ensure that a competent mohel [Orthodox Jewish expert in circumcision] performed the rite. It is only because people treat it as a surgical procedure and have it done too early (often the day of the birth) or by doctors who have not been properly trained that many of the difficulties arise.
If it were being done for health reasons, the religious laws involved would not have the details that they do. It is the same as the reason that Jews do not eat pork. As the Talmud says, if it were being done for health reasons, we would not be allowed to provide it to nonJews.
Sabba Hillel
Sabba Hillel at April 11, 2011 4:52 PM
"oh c'mon now, how many dudes shreaked in horror at the one or two high school kids who were not circumsized and showering with them. They were freaks. I for one am very grateful my folks had me clipped."
You'd be the minority now. Most boys nowadays aren't clipped. Wonder if the intact dudes shriek like girls too, or if that's just a snipped-man thing?
momof4 at April 11, 2011 5:03 PM
mom, please provide a source for your statement about "most boys are not snipped anymore". The only stat I could find says 56 percent of boys born in the US are circumcised, and I bet if you look at whites only, or middle class folks, it is probably closer to 75 percent.
ronc at April 11, 2011 5:52 PM
Want to stamp out circumcision in a little over a lifetime?
Don't let government (free} hospitals or medicaid programs do it. Don't let insurance companies pay for it.
You would be amazed at how many people will find a good reason "not" to do something they have to pay out of pocket for.
This will leave those that truly have religious or health reasons for wanting the procedure free to do what they want, as long as they are the ones footing the bill.
Isabel1130 at April 11, 2011 8:18 PM
It always disturbs me how people will bend over backwards to defend a practice that has no rational justification.
The circumcision of infants is not even defensible on religious grounds as some people are attempting to argue.
Why isn’t that a good defense one might ask?… Because no religious text invoked god commanding that any infant be circumcised. So far as god is concerned in those texts he is just as happy with someone being religiously circumcised later on in life when they are an adult, no specific age is listed.
As a result the most important consideration here is that a non-medically indicated surgical procedure is being performed upon a human being who has not given their consent to that procedure.
In a country where we value freedom of religion one must invariably accept that people should get to choose which religious rituals they engage in, infants are given no such choice.
If they want a circumcision when they are older and can make the decision for themselves more power to them. From a religious standpoint it has more meaning if someone elects to participate as opposed to having the decision made for them when they are incapable of expressing their own opinion.
As for comparisons to female genital circumcision such as this one:
“It sure doesn't seem to act at all like clitoridectomy or sewing-the-vagina-shut.”
This really misses the point and also mischaracterizes the nature of MOST female circumcisions. The types being spoken about above are the most severe forms and also the rarest.
In fact, the most common form of female circumcision is completely analogous to male circumcision which involved the removal of the clitoral hood and nothing else. The clitoral hood and the foreskin are morphologically similar and are actually derived from the same tissue during fetal development.
There are also less severe forms of female circumcision known as genital pricking which involves poking the clitoris with a needle to extract a single drop of blood. That is LESS invasive than the removal of the foreskin.
Interestingly enough, all forms of female circumcision are illegal in the United States, including genital pricking. Yet at the same time the removal of infant boys foreskin is a common medical procedure.
The very same logic and reason that we have used to make it illegal to prick infant girls with a needle would certainly apply to the more serious case of taking a sharp implement to the foreskin of our infant boys.
Reality at April 11, 2011 8:36 PM
"FGM is intended to curtail physical pleasure for the woman; circumcision is not and almost never does so."
The problem is in the "almost never". What is an acceptable risk? I was unaware before viewing multiple photos of horribly disfigured penises that circumcision can have very detrimental outcomes, which are often hidden out of shame and embarrassment. There are certainly males out there suffering loss of pleasure and basically no sexual lives because of botched cirumcisions.
I agree, however, that most of this is likely due to poorly trained or outright negligent practicioners. We see many cases of disfiguring plastic surgery outcomes, for instance, yet we don't ban plastic surgery altogether.
When done well, circumcision certainly provides a more aesthetically pleasing, hygenically appealing outcome. I say this as someone who spends a fair amount of time on nude beaches, and the clipped/non-clipped comparisons are pretty glaring, especially for those men who have a lot of excess skin drooping over.
So, I admittedly have a bias, as I suspect most women do, one way or the other. Most of the women I speak to prefer clipped, especially for oral. It's just, well, more appetizing, and anything that encourages couples to have more oral sex is a good thing in my opinion.
Therefore, I hate to see the circumcised penis go the way of the dinosaur, but, as a result of discussions and better education here on the subject, I totally get the moral dilemma of performing it on infants. I wish there was an easier, less painful way men could opt to have it done later...the same way we women get boobs or tummy tucks or lipo to make our bodies more sexually appealing.
And, at the very least, we need to make sure that when it is performed it is only done by highly trained doctors or mohels.
lovelysoul at April 11, 2011 9:00 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2034331">comment from Sabba HillelThe only reason that Jews perform circumcision is because it is commanded by G0d.
Muslims stone women for adultery for the same reason. Neither is acceptable.
Would it be okay with you if people started a religion called Boopyism and told you their god said they had to cut off two of a baby's toes off each foot as part of their "covenant."
Amy Alkon at April 11, 2011 10:38 PM
lovelysoul says:
"When done well, circumcision certainly provides a more aesthetically pleasing, hygenically appealing outcome. I say this as someone who spends a fair amount of time on nude beaches, and the clipped/non-clipped comparisons are pretty glaring, especially for those men who have a lot of excess skin drooping over."
That is all well and good, but we are not in the general practice of performing cosmetic surgery on infants to make them more sexually appealing as adults. In fact, male circumcision is the only legal exception in western societies.
Any argument that attempts to justify a parents ability to perform cosmetic surgical procedures on their children without medical indication or their childs consent for the purpose of making them more “aesthetically pleasing” to the opposite sex has implications that I do not believe most people are willing to accept.
For example, if it is acceptable for a parent to alter the structure of their sons penis without his permission for the purpose of making him more attractive to women when he is older, then a similar case could be made for parents to alter the structure of their daughters breast tissue without her permission for the purpose of making her more attractive to men when she is older.
Most people would find the thought of a father or mother forcing their daughter to submit to a breast augmentation procedure to make her more “aesthetically pleasing” when she is older to be barbaric and criminal.
Just because society has grown accustomed to something is not a justification for the practice. It must be justified on it’s own merits, and any argument for such a practice must similarly be extended to all other similar procedures. If that extension makes anyone uncomfortable, that is a good indication that the argument isn’t all that convincing.
Reality at April 11, 2011 10:48 PM
Who is this "we"? I have no intention of circumcising any boys I may have, and am married to an uncut man. But then, I'm not from an ethnicity where it is divinely commanded.
NicoleK at April 11, 2011 11:13 PM
What annoys me is pop culture trying to brainwash people into thinking regular penises are freaky. Like on Sex and the City and other shows they make a big deal about how gross penises are in their natural state. And they made Charlotte, the WASP, be the freaked out one.
I feel the same was about pierced ears.
NicoleK at April 11, 2011 11:17 PM
Not for it. My boy is uncut, if he wants to cut the skin of his dick off when he is past the age of consent, I'll pay for it. Somehow, I don't think he'll see it as a pressing issue.
"She makes no secret of it, they way she never misses a chance to slam honor killings, burqas and all that other mess. You're not in very good company."
Unlike circumcised infants, you do have freedom of choice. Feel free to leave the site if you don't like reading differing opinions.
Angel at April 12, 2011 3:41 AM
I'd like to point out a few things
1. Re hygeine: There is a study out of africa which shows female circumcisions reduse the rate of HIV in women, I dont think any of you will be pushing for it though
2. Re hygeine: No one rationally suggest surgey on female genitelia to combat urinary tract infections, why do we on males
3. At birth until puberty the skin is FUSED to the head of the peins, in order to cut it off they have to SCRAPE the skin off of the flesh,Try doing that to your finger - and then tell me it has no effect on the nerves in the penis itself
4. The pain reposnse in circumsized vs non circumcised chldren is markedly different
5. no penis is the same, given that no one can tell at birth how long the peins will be at full size after puberty how can anyone make an inform decision as to how much 'excess' skin to cut off of an infant?
6:Re hygine: use a potato peeler to gouge off some skin somewhere, then pour a little urine ands smear a little shit on on it. Let me know what happens. AS the foreskin is still fused to the head of the peins and must be scraped off that means the entire head of the penis is one giant open wound, how is an open wound in a diaper full of humn excrement hygenic?
7. Re cancer. 1 in 20 uncircumscised men get foreskin cancer in their 80's. 1 in 12 women get breast cancer by their mid thirtes - why is noone suggesting preventitive infant masectomies?
For all of you defending the pracice as "tradition" and "my right" I notice you can come up with a single rational argument for the practice.
Also did you know that the Dr. who originally pushed circumcisions for the masses did so in an atempt to curb masterbation and the male sex drive?
lujlp at April 12, 2011 6:36 AM
Unlike circumcised infants, you do have freedom of choice. Feel free to leave the site if you don't like reading differing opinions.
Did I say I don't like reading differing opinions, idiot? In fact, I have no problem with them, which is why I've been coming here for years despite disagreeing with lots of what Amy believes.
kishke at April 12, 2011 8:02 AM
Would it be okay with you if people started a religion called Boopyism and told you their god said they had to cut off two of a baby's toes off each foot as part of their "covenant."
Silly comparison. Cutting off toes causes permanent damage, crippling a person, circumcision causes no damage. I'm not for any religion that tells people to cripple their kids. Fortunately, there is no such religion, except in your fevered imagination, so the question is moot.
kishke at April 12, 2011 8:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2035789">comment from kishkecircumcision causes no damage.
Um, did you read the blog item? Maybe it's just the way I think, but I'd say causing a baby's death counts as "damage." (And there are other complications and horrors caused in other children -- including cases of severed penises.) There should be no elective, unnecessary surgery on babies.
Amy Alkon at April 12, 2011 8:49 AM
"Most people would find the thought of a father or mother forcing their daughter to submit to a breast augmentation procedure to make her more “aesthetically pleasing” when she is older to be barbaric and criminal."
Well, to be fair, that's not even possible. Due to proportions, breast augmentation couldn't be performed on an infant or young girl, but, let's say, if some relatively minor surgery to inject breast growing stem cells were developed, there might be some demand for it. Not saying it should be, just that the comparison doesn't equate.
Here in south FL, where I live, women are increasingly getting not only breast augmentation but vaginal reconstruction and even reduction of their labial folds. Of course, these are elective surgeries - painful and risky. It kind of demonstrates the difference in men and women, as guys probably wouldn't touch that area in adulthood no matter how much more appealing it would make their member...well, unless there was truly a surgery to make it bigger. Now, that would be successful! (They could also get a snip or "foreskin tuck" then if they chose).
This is somewhat akin to the debate about growth inducing hormones given to short young boys. I know some parents who have opted for this, fearing their son's extreme shortness will negatively impact his chances in life, both socially and professionally (and there's actually a lot of evidence to back this up. Much more than for circumcision). I respect a parent's right to make that sort of decision. In that case, of course, it needs to be done during the period before adulthood, which means the child can't be of age to consent.
It's important to note the difference in parental motivation. Advocates of full female circumcision are intentionally seeking to cause a long-term negative impact to their child's sexual pleasure, whereas this is not anywhere near the case for male circumcision.
It may be misguided, unnecessary, or just a silly religious or aesthetic ritual, but it isn't performed with the motivation to cause lasting harm. Quite the reverse.
lovelysoul at April 12, 2011 8:52 AM
Okay, this is the perfect opportunity for me to get some advice from everyone on this site. My husband and I have been talking about starting a family and in these discussions I’ve brought up the issue of circumcision.
I’m against it; I think it’s barbaric and dangerous, and if I had a son, I absolutely don’t want to hand my infant over to be mutilated.
My husband, however, says that if he has a son, the boy WILL be circumcised. He is completely adamant about it. What’s incredibly stupid to me is that he thinks it’s mean for people to get their dog’s tails docked or their ears cropped, and he thinks there is no reason to get a cat declawed… which I’ve pointed out to him, but he still says he would get his son circumcised. He says that he agrees it’s “mean” to do, but that he would rather have it done while he’s a baby, and not have to “go through it” as an adult if our son decided he wanted to be circumcised. He says that he’s glad his parents did it to him, and that our kid would be glad that we do it to him.
So, this is where I’m torn. I think, ultimately, it’s my decision as mom, but as the topic has come up several times, on this blog in particular, that that’s not really fair. I agree, it’s not really fair for me, as mom, to just say “too bad, I get my way because I’m the woman.” This is something we both feel very strongly about. I’m so against it, and he is very insistent that we do it. It may never be an issue, we may have a daughter instead, but I honestly dread if we do have a son and have to come to a decision.
So, I’m asking for input on this.. what do I do? Do I let him make the decision, as the father, knowing he’d probably circumcise our boy, or do I act completely unfairly on this issue, and say “no way” this one time?
Angie at April 12, 2011 8:54 AM
Um, did you read the blog item? Maybe it's just the way I think, but I'd say causing a baby's death counts as "damage."
Yeah, I read the item. It's not damage caused by circumcision, it's damage caused by an idiot doctor who let the baby bleed out.
(And there are other complications and horrors caused in other children -- including cases of severed penises.)
Oh, pleaee. I live in a community of thousands, all of whom perform circumcision on their many children, and have never heard of such a case (or of a baby being left to bleed out for that matter).
There should be no elective, unnecessary surgery on babies.
Agreed. But that wouldn't cover circumcision, since it is religiously necessary. As I've said, freedom of religion is a basic right of our Constitution, no less than freedom of speech, which you are at such pains to defend.
kishke at April 12, 2011 9:06 AM
Lovelysoul:
Reading your first post I noticed you've come quite a ways from your initial posts on this topic the last few times it has come up. Congratulations on moving the needle. I did want to quickly point out some problems I see in your thinking though.
First, it is not at all difficult, more complicated, or more painful in any meaningful way for an adult to be circumcised. That's simply not the truth. Intact men always have the option if they choose to it. Second, with regard to parents who circumcise their daughters, there motives are not sinister. Like male circumcision in the US, it is their sincere cultural belief and they are doing what they believe is in their daughter's best interest. In both cases, the parents are mistaken; but in neither case is it necessarily due to a sinister motive.
These are minor points but they had to be said. Though I again congratulate you on understanding the issue better. :)
Kishke: Circumcision, like any other surgical procedure, always causes damage the question is whether the damage that occurs is outweighed by an objective benefit or the individual's subjective assessment of those benefits. There are no benefits to most children that would suggest a need for circumcision and therefore it's not appropriate for parents to have it performed on their male child any more than it is for some parent from Somalia to perform on their female child.
Joe at April 12, 2011 9:45 AM
Angie: Just say no; he'll get over it.
Joe at April 12, 2011 9:46 AM
"So, I’m asking for input on this.. what do I do? Do I let him make the decision, as the father, knowing he’d probably circumcise our boy, or do I act completely unfairly on this issue, and say “no way” this one time?"
Angel, when my son was born, 21 yrs ago, I was of the mindset that if the father was circumcized, the son should be, as boys want to emulate their dads. Plus, I'm of an age where almost all men are cut, and, as I've admitted, I have a personal bias towards that aesthetic.
But I honestly didn't know about the risks. We had a great doctor, and it took only a few minutes. My son didn't seem in distress afterwards, so I tend to think the whole "barbaric" rhetoric is a bit extreme. The belly button wound was much worse and apparently more painful than the circ wound. All I remember is having to put some salve (which was probably also an anesthetic) on his penis for a few days -it wasn't bleeding or anything like the story above. The belly button stump thing was much more frightening to me.
Bear in mind that being born is traumatic in general. Few births occur today without a fair amount of medical interventions, poking, proding, needles, IVs, and so forth. I'm not saying that's great, but most parents or potential parents should accept that their baby is not likely to have a totally painfree or nontraumatic experience (my own son went into distress after a long labor and had to be pushed back up the birth canal and taken by C-section - all of which was likely more traumatic than the circ).
So, if your husband is insistent, and/or you decide to do it, it's not the end of the world. Just get a good doctor who is well-experienced in performing them.
But perhaps you could send your husband to some of the websites that show the disfigurement that might occur. Not to mention the deaths.
Your husband may then decide that it's not worth the risks, and you'll be on the same page. I believe Lujlp can provide some links.
My son today says I shouldn't have circumcized him. That it was "stupid". He's not disfigured or suffering any ill-effects, just that, in his view, it was unnecessary, and - unlike probably your husband and men my age - he is not of a generation of boys who would find being uncut "freakish" or laugh about it in the locker room. There are enough uncut boys now that this is not a socially isolating condition. You might tell your husband this also.
If I had to do it over today, I probably wouldn't, but I'm not consumed with guilt over it either.
lovelysoul at April 12, 2011 9:59 AM
Thanks, lovelysoul, I know it's not likely to be the end of the world if it happens, but my problem is: why take the risk? It doesn’t have to be done, and I understand that if it IS done, it’s probably going to be fine.. but I can’t get over the “what if it’s not?” mindset.
I have been leaning more toward just saying he’s the man, he has the penis, he can make the decision about our son’s penis, and maybe if I just tell him that I trust his judgment to make the “right” decision, he’ll feel guilty and not do it.. but honestly, that seems wrong to me too.
If we were to find out we were having a boy, I would definitely insist that he visit those sites, which he has told me he doesn’t want to look at because “that’s not going to happen” to his kid.
I’m against circumcision, but I’m also against the idea that only a woman gets to make all the decisions for the baby.
Also, we’re 25, so we’re actually closer to your son’s generation, and I don’t think my husband finds uncut guys gross or anything; in fact one of his friends is uncut and has tried to tell my husband he’s happy to be that way, and that guys don’t actually ever see each other naked in the locker room, so no one would know. But it doesn’t seem to matter to my husband; he wants it done if we have a boy.
Angie at April 12, 2011 10:50 AM
Miss Alkon wrote:
"Would it be okay with you if people started a religion called Boopyism and told you their god said they had to cut off two of a baby's toes off each foot as part of their "covenant." "
Ergo
"Output obligatory Miss Alkon's dislike of religion."
hadsil at April 12, 2011 11:04 AM
I KNEW this topic was gonna get hot and heavy - it always does.
">>>The only reason that Jews perform circumcision is because it is commanded by G0d.
Muslims stone women for adultery for the same reason. Neither is acceptable."
I make a comment in my blog that to make a comparison, the two things compared must be "mathematically similar" - same shape, different size. Comparing circumcision and stoning by the connection of they're both commanded by a deity is invalid. I could reply with "God also commands us not to kill, so that means both are GOOD things."
I compared Circumcision to the Kosher laws: useful advice for better health when walking around in a desert, given extra weight by the contention they come from God. Stoning has no health benefit.
Vinnie Bartilucci at April 12, 2011 11:06 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2036139">comment from Vinnie BartilucciStoning has no health benefit.
It has social benefits -- keeping women in line.
Amy Alkon at April 12, 2011 11:18 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2036148">comment from hadsilMiss Alkon wrote: "Would it be okay with you if people started a religion called Boopyism and told you their god said they had to cut off two of a baby's toes off each foot as part of their "covenant." " Ergo "Output obligatory Miss Alkon's dislike of religion."
Silly, simplistic conclusion. We're talking about religion so I used another example to make a more effective comparison to show how nuts this is. Had I used an example from how to run a hardware store, it wouldn't have made the point.
Amy Alkon at April 12, 2011 11:21 AM
There are no benefits to most children that would suggest a need for circumcision
Oh, but there are benefits, religious ones.
kishke at April 12, 2011 11:53 AM
Whenever I think of circumcision I think of that scene in "Europa Europa"...
NicoleK at April 12, 2011 12:00 PM
Joe, thanks for noticing my evolution on the topic. You make a valid point that parents who circumcise girls are also making what they believe is a positive decision for their child's long-term well-being. Most likely, she won't be marriagable without it.
And that's where I think this debate gets quite tricky and also very interesting. If a certain feature is considered detrimental within a particular culture - whether it's being uncircumcized or not having rings in your nose - at what point should the state step in and deny parents the right to make what, to them, are reasonable choices regarding their child's quality of life?
I mean, we can't escape the fact that we are, in essence, imposing our beliefs on other cultures. Our culture celebrates the beauty of female sexuality, which, as a product of this culture, seems very reasonable to me, and all of us here, but to another culture it's not viewed in a positive light. To be uncut - or maybe not to have rings in your lips or tatoos on your face - is a stigma that has far reaching effects.
Likewise, if all men here were ridiculed for being uncut - if they were truly still laughed at in the locker rooms and couldn't find a mate because of it - parents would want the ability to avoid that emotional pain and social stigma for their son.
The options are to try to change the social climate, which it seems, with male circumcision, we've done, at least here.
Yet, the state is stepping in more and more to meddle with parental choices. When you can't pack a cookie or salty snack in your child's lunch because it might disfigure them with obesity, that is kind of the flip side of this coin.
lovelysoul at April 12, 2011 12:11 PM
When you can't pack a cookie or salty snack in your child's lunch because it might disfigure them with obesity, that is kind of the flip side of this coin.
That's a very good point, especially considering that obesity is a far greater danger to a child's health and well-being than circumcision. Yet, I don't see Amy agitating for the government to regulate the right of parents to feed their children whatever they like. Quite the contrary.
It's pretty clear that for some people, certain freedoms are more palatable than others, and with regard to the ones they find unpalatable, their small government principles go right out the window.
kishke at April 12, 2011 2:37 PM
Angie - if you and your husband are not Jewish, there is no reason to have your child circumcised.
I certainly don't think that general cultural/social arguments justify surgery, even if it is minor.
Also, if you are not Jewish, you probably do not have access to anything but the most invasive surgical technique.
Ben David at April 12, 2011 2:37 PM
The Goddess predictable rants with:
Would it be okay with you if people started a religion called Boopyism
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Does it involve oven cleaner and eating matzah for a week?
If not - sign me up!
Ben David at April 12, 2011 2:40 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2037355">comment from Ben DavidAngie - if you and your husband are not Jewish, there is no reason to have your child circumcised. I certainly don't think that general cultural/social arguments justify surgery, even if it is minor. Also, if you are not Jewish, you probably do not have access to anything but the most invasive surgical technique.
And if you are Jewish, you may have access to the surgical technique that will give your child herpes -- the one where the mohel performing the circumcision sucks the little boy's circumcised dick with his mouth.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/br_4.html
Amy Alkon at April 12, 2011 4:43 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2037356">comment from Amy AlkonAnother link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah#Metzitzah_technique
And let's note: "Less commonly practiced" doesn't mean not practiced at all.
Barbaric and disgusting.
Amy Alkon at April 12, 2011 4:44 PM
Kishke: "Oh, but there are benefits, religious ones."
Subjective religious beliefs are not a rational basis for allowing someone to make a proxy decision concerning a medical/surgical procedure. Taking Amy's example, rather then cutting off a toe or two one could suggest cutting off earlobes, tattooing, female circumcision, or ritual scarification. All of which, no matter how benign to the child, would not be legal.
Joe at April 12, 2011 4:47 PM
Lovelysoul:
You're welcome, as I said I am very happy to see the evolution of your thinking. I agree with you about the stickiness of the cultural issues but those are what we most need to examine. Remember that cultural familiarity can blind us to atrocities. We have long been at a point in our society where we should be able to take an objective look at something like circumcision.
And we are doing it, your son is a good example of this. He probably hasn't conversed on this topic as much as we have but yet he sees that it is a pointless procedure, in most cases. And I know he isn't alone; in his generation and younger, many will tell you the same thing. The reason they know this is that they've had more information than any before them, they know it's BS. Ultimately, circumcision will become a generational issue, younger people knowing it's pointless in greater numbers and older people trying to cling to superstition, except those who can think rationally about it after good solid discussions.
Joe at April 12, 2011 5:48 PM
"Ultimately, circumcision will become a generational issue, younger people knowing it's pointless in greater numbers and older people trying to cling to superstition, except those who can think rationally about it after good solid discussions"
That is probably true with our male circumcision because we have so much freedom to discuss the issue, and therefore, being cut or uncut, in this culture, is purely arbitrary (unless for religious reasons). But, honestly, my issue is that unless we are able to fight for and provide a better life for the women who are uncircumcised, in rejection of their own cultures, then we aren't really doing right by them. It strikes me as Western arrogance, which poses a real moral dilemma.
I mean, in tribal cultures, maybe having 14 or 20 rings in your lips or ears by the age of 13 is considered beautiful and desirable, yet, here, it would be viewed as child abuse. So, who are we to tell other cultures that this is "mutilation" because it violates our standards?
After all, we are one of the few cultures in the world that celebrates the clitorus, and, believe me, I'm all for it! I can't imagine being without mine. Then again, I'm totally American, so that is what I've been raised with and also what any male I might date or marry would expect. Not so with a girl from Somalia.
So, I'm troubled by the idea of telling other cultures and/or religions (such as Judaism) what they should or shouldn't do with their children, especially when there is heritage, stigma, and social repercussions attached.
lovelysoul at April 12, 2011 6:58 PM
Subjective religious beliefs are not a rational basis for allowing someone to make a proxy decision concerning a medical/surgical procedure. Taking Amy's example, rather then cutting off a toe or two one could suggest cutting off earlobes, tattooing, female circumcision, or ritual scarification. All of which, no matter how benign to the child, would not be legal.
The right to follow one's religious beliefs, subjective as you may consider them, is enshrined in the Constitution. The fact that circumcision is legal, and always has been so, would seem to argue against your claim that such a proxy decision is against the law. Can you identify the statute that limits the Constitutional right with regard to benign medical/surgical as you claim?
As for your examples, I know nothing of religions that require the cutting of earlobes and the rest, but if they are truly required religiously, I see no reason why they should not be permitted. I have read that female circumcision is not a religious requirement, but a cultural norm; I have no idea whether that's actually correct.
kishke at April 12, 2011 7:16 PM
Kishke said:
"The right to follow one's religious beliefs, subjective as you may consider them, is enshrined in the Constitution."
Religious belief is subjective by definition is subjective, not simply as "I consider it". The right to equal protection under the law is also enshrined in the constitution. We protect girls from ritual genital cutting, to any degree, for any reason. Why shouldn't boys also enjoy the same protection?
Kishke said:
"The fact that circumcision is legal, and always has been so, would seem to argue against your claim that such a proxy decision is against the law."
First off, you should learn to read more carefully. I didn't say that circumcision is against the law; it should be. I noted that similar procedures wouldn't enjoy the protected status that circumcision is given; and circumcision is given special status. We've convicted on (and I can provide articles to) tattooing, ritual scarification, and FGM all of which is comparable; none of which is, or should be, tolerated. The fact that circumcision is/has been tolerated means nothing. Slavery was legal in the US and supported by scripture here and abroad for hundreds of years. That didn't make it right.
kishke: "I have read that female circumcision is not a religious requirement, but a cultural norm; I have no idea whether that's actually correct."
It would depend on who you ask but ultimately it doesn't matter. All that is required is "belief" by someone that it's important for their religion. The First Amendment test does not require that the belief comply with standard religious "dogma."
Joe at April 12, 2011 7:56 PM
And since you seem to be all about the protecting religious rituals performed against other people, could you explain to me again why we don't let folks stone the adulterer?
I mean the bible calls for the death penalty in cases of adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, trespass upon sacred ground, profaning the Sabbath, and contempt of parents to name a few. Are you for protecting peoples right to execute that part of god's plan?
Joe at April 12, 2011 8:03 PM
I am for protecting people's rights to practice their religion wherever it does not cause harm to others. That excludes stoning. Circumcision clearly falls under that description, as evidenced by the fact that so many people choose to have it done without any religious imperative.
In addition, there is a long tradition in this country of allowing parents to raise their children as they see fit, provided they do not physically abuse them. Circumcision, distasteful as you yourself may find it, is a benign procedure, and certainly not abuse; again, as evidenced by its widespread practice in secular society.
In any other context, you would probably be shouting about how essential it is to protect our basic freedoms from governmental encroachment. Certainly Amy would. But when the freedom is that of religion, suddenly all changes, simply b/c of your personal dislike for a very widespread practice.
BTW, would you outlaw as well the right for parents to have their childrens' ears pierced? If not, why not? And, as I asked above, should the government criminalize the provision of unhealthy foods to children, given all the evidence of the extreme danger posed by obesity? If not, why not?
kishke at April 12, 2011 8:27 PM
kishke said: "I am for protecting people's rights to practice their religion wherever it does not cause harm to others. That excludes stoning. Circumcision clearly falls under that description, as evidenced by the fact that so many people choose to have it done without any religious imperative."
So you do selectively apply first amendment protection, interesting. Circumcision does cause harm, all surgery causes harm. It's the clinical benefit that we expect to derive from a surgery which balances against that harm. If there is no objective medical need for a circumcision then by definition it's harmful. So many people have done it because they've been misinformed about it's need and usefulness.
kishke said: "Circumcision, distasteful as you yourself may find it, is a benign procedure, and certainly not abuse; again, as evidenced by its widespread practice in secular society."
I disagree. Circumcision is not benign, as shown in the article that Amy posted, there are plenty of others. Circumcision also isn't wide spread in secular society. It is wide spread in North America, mostly just the US now. In all other countries, secular circumcision is rare.
kishke said: "But when the freedom is that of religion, suddenly all changes, simply b/c of your personal dislike for a very widespread practice."
People can practice their religion; but their rights stop where someone else's body begins.
joe at April 12, 2011 9:03 PM
No, circumcision does not cause harm. Amy's articles are about neglect or malpractice, not about harm deriving from circumcision itself.
It's the clinical benefit that we expect to derive from a surgery which balances against that harm.
You say the clinical benefit; I say other benefit as well, such as the religious.
So you do selectively apply first amendment protection, interesting.
That's right. Why, have I said otherwise?
Circumcision also isn't wide spread in secular society. It is wide spread in North America, mostly just the US now.
Don't nitpick. I'm referring to US society, as are you in your argument that it be made illegal.
Interesting that you haven't responded to my questions. Again, if parental rights "stop where somebody's body begins," should it be illegal to pierce a child's ears? Should it be illegal to feed a child fattening food? If not, why not?
kishke at April 12, 2011 9:22 PM
kishke says,
"I am for protecting people's rights to practice their religion wherever it does not cause harm to others. That excludes stoning. Circumcision clearly falls under that description, as evidenced by the fact that so many people choose to have it done without any religious imperative."
This is utter nonsense.
If you are really for protecting people's rights to practice their religion so far as it doesn't harm another human being, then clearly you would be against taking a knife or other sharp implement to the genitals of any non-consenting human being for the purposes of a religious ritual. Since you are an advocate of circumcision then clearly you are fine with the practice of religious rituals even if someone happens to be caused harm so long as that harm doesn’t pass some arbitrary level you have set as being acceptable without rigorous justification.
No religious text indicates that it is necessary to perform a circumcision on an infant.
In fact I challenge you to show us the passage in the torah or any other religious document of divine inspiration that shows a directive from god that infants be ritualistically circumcised. I’ve looked and can find no such divine requirement that this ritual be performed on an infant.
The practice of performing circumcisions on infants is something that came about due to human directives, not godly ones.
“In addition, there is a long tradition in this country of allowing parents to raise their children as they see fit, provided they do not physically abuse them. Circumcision, distasteful as you yourself may find it, is a benign procedure, and certainly not abuse; again, as evidenced by its widespread practice in secular society.”
Then why not allow parents to force their children to get tattoos, or piercing, or any other “benign” cosmetic procedure they see fit?
The legal facts are that parents do not have the authority to make their children submit to any old medical procedure they would like (as evidenced by the fact that female circumcision is illegal).
A parents job is to be an advocate for the rights of their child during the time that the child is unable to be an advocate for themselves. A parent who forces their child to submit to unnecessary medical procedures without that childs consent is acting in bad faith when it comes to that responsibility.
If circumcision is completely benign and has all the religious benefits you assert it to have then once the child is old enough to make an informed decision then they can elect to go through the procedure on their own.
Sorry, but your position has no justifiable foundation.
Reality at April 12, 2011 11:09 PM
One additional thought.
This whole notion about child obesity is a red herring.
Forcing a medical procedure upon a child would be the equivalent in this comparison of physically shoving cookies and cake down the childs throat until they were obese.
Allowing a child to eat lots of cookies at their leisure without physically making them eat them isn’t even remotely the same as what we are talking about here.
A parent who strapped down their child and force fed them lard until they were overweight would in fact be guilty of child abuse.
Circumcisions don’t simply happen by a parent being permissive, the parent has to take an active role and make it happen by force. Infants aren’t exactly known for suddenly ending up in the hospital on a surgical table when their parents aren’t looking. Children are known for sneaking snacks when mom and dad aren’t paying attention.
Reality at April 12, 2011 11:21 PM
In fact I challenge you to show us the passage in the torah or any other religious document of divine inspiration that shows a directive from god that infants be ritualistically circumcised. I’ve looked and can find no such divine requirement that this ritual be performed on an infant.
You haven't looked hard enough. Genesis ch. 17.
A parent who forces their child to submit to unnecessary medical procedures
It's not unnecessary. It's a religious obligation.
If circumcision is completely benign and has all the religious benefits you assert it to have then once the child is old enough to make an informed decision then they can elect to go through the procedure on their own.
The obligation is on the eighth day.
Then why not allow parents to force their children to get tattoos, or piercing
Parents are indeed allowed to have their childrens' ears pierced, and do so on a regular basis. Is this news to you? (For all I know, they're allowed to give them tattooes too - I certainly have seen minors with tattooes.)
If you are really for protecting people's rights to practice their religion so far as it doesn't harm another human being, then clearly you would be against taking a knife or other sharp implement to the genitals of any non-consenting human being for the purposes of a religious ritual.
Not at all. Circumcision is not harmful, and is even chosen by large numbers of people without religious obligation.
kishke at April 12, 2011 11:28 PM
Forcing a medical procedure upon a child would be the equivalent in this comparison of physically shoving cookies and cake down the childs throat until they were obese. Allowing a child to eat lots of cookies at their leisure without physically making them eat them isn’t even remotely the same as what we are talking about here.
Neglect of a child is no different than abuse. Allowing them to eat unhealthy foods is neglect. I don't know why you're cool with this kind of dangerous behavior, considering that you're so worried about circumcision, which causes no harm at all.
kishke at April 12, 2011 11:30 PM
SCREEEEAMINgly off the deep end with:
And if you are Jewish, you may have access to the surgical technique that will give your child herpes
- - - - - - - - - -
Uh-huh.
We all know about the widespread STD problem among Orthodox Jews.
... could you please post something important - like whether converting to Boopyism will get me out of cleaning the oven for Passover? I have until Friday...
Anxiously awaiting your reply Ms/Sir (sorry, I don't know the official form of address for "chief Boopy"...)
Ben David at April 12, 2011 11:54 PM
Kishke says:
“You haven't looked hard enough. Genesis ch. 17.”
I am quite familiar with the passage. I’ll quote the relevant portion for you and then ask you a few questions:
“Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
What god specifically wants is for Abraham and all of his male descendants to be circumcised. I make this clear because not every practicing Jewish male is necessarily a biological descendant of Abraham.
Secondly, he commands Abraham to undergo this procedure as an adult (not just a young adult mind you, he was nearly 100 years old according to the torah), so clearly having the procedure as an adult (or as a centenarian) isn’t a problem for god.
He then commands that in the generations to come that every male who is eight days old be circumcised. In a literal sense, this might seem to indicate that all male children need to be circumcised eight days after they are born, but this method of interpretation lacks sophistication, particularly in light of what is said next.
What god says next in this passage is that not only are males born to Abraham and his descendants to be circumcised, but also are the males who are “purchased with money from foreigners”. Now setting aside the obvious indication here that god is fine with the purchase and sale of human beings (a practice we have made illegal), the more subtle point is that these males being purchased aren’t a bunch of eight day old babies.
The sale of humans was of people who were able to work, which means they were older. This indicates that again, god doesn’t care if the person is circumcised as an adult.
The whole eight day thing is really a prohibition upon circumcising infants younger than eight days old, not a requirement that infants be circumcised on the day they turn eight days.
As a further justification of my point, after the exodus, babies born during travel were not circumcised. These males were only circumcised before they made it into Canaan. Clearly many of those males were older than eight given that the exodus lasted 40 years (even one of Moses children was not circumcised during this time).
Circumcision is in important religious ritual amongst the Jewish population, but so is the ethical treatment of other human beings. In fact the ethical treatment of other people trumps rituals. A male who chooses to undergo a circumcision when they are older would fully satisfy gods requirement just like Abraham, all those children born during the exodus, and all males purchased during a time when slavery was still an accepted practice.
I’ll remind you here of one of the ten commandments “thou shall not steal”… and then ask you who the foreskin belongs to? Is the foreskin of an infant boy something that belongs to him, or something that belongs to his parents?
Reason dictates that the foreskin belongs to the boy, therefore it is a violation of one of the ten commandments to take it without consent.
I also find it kind of funny that you are defending this practice as being “benign” and not barbaric when the same passage that you jump to as religious justification also supports the practice of buying and selling people.
I recommend that you stop taking these books literally and really try thinking about what they are saying critically. Lest you try to cure various ailments by sprinkling birds blood on yourself as opposed to seeking a medical professional.
Reality at April 13, 2011 12:16 AM
"Neglect of a child is no different than abuse."
Is that so?
So you honestly see no difference between letting a child go and munch on some cookies while they watch television versus holding that child down and stuffing the cookies down their throat yourself?
If you can't distinguish between these two things then I understand why logic and reason don't appear to be working here.
Reality at April 13, 2011 12:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2038860">comment from Ben DavidWe all know about the widespread STD problem among Orthodox Jews.
Actually, somebody wanted to hire me for a film on women who wrestle men for money (it's a sex thing, not WWF). A substantial number of their clients were Orthodox Jews -- who also patronize prostitutes, I was told. Furthermore, there were two sexual attacks on me in New York City (I am a pain in the ass, so I scared both off), but one was a redheaded Orthodox Jew who walked 19th Street when I lived there to get to 47th Street Photo (which was on 18th Street, despite the name...the offices, anyway). He followed me into my building and tried to kiss me. Total stranger, all in the weird-ass "Hey, 1956 Poland called and they want their look back" outfit, including the little ear danglies. I yelled and he ran out. Then, he'd hang his head when they all walked past in the morning, he and his crew of primitive belief-holders.
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2011 12:59 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2038864">comment from Amy AlkonOh, and read the link. The Herpes from Orthodox Jewish men sucking little boy dick is right there. In fact, I think I blogged about one of these stories when it happened.
More:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-york-city/470521-hassidic-jews-arrogrant-rude-kiryas-joel-2.html#ixzz1JO7tracQ
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2011 1:00 AM
Wow Kishke, you certainly seem to be an expert about the anatomy/physiology involved in circumcision seeing how you are making categorical claims that is not painful nor harmful. Do tell, what training do you have in this?
Doc Jensen at April 13, 2011 7:08 AM
you are making categorical claims that is not painful
Where did I say it's not painful?
kishke at April 13, 2011 7:35 AM
I also find it kind of funny that you are defending this practice as being “benign” and not barbaric when the same passage that you jump to as religious justification also supports the practice of buying and selling people.
Utterly illogical. I said circumcision is not physically harmful; this has nothing to do with slavery. Don't be an ass.
I recommend that you stop taking these books literally and really try thinking about what they are saying critically.
Honestly, your recommendation means less than nothing to me. When I need religious advice from you, I'll ask.
You're welcome to your ridiculous exegesis of the Biblical passage, but I'll stick with my tradition.
kishke at April 13, 2011 7:39 AM
I make a comment in my blog that to make a comparison, the two things compared must be "mathematically similar" - same shape, different size. Comparing circumcision and stoning by the connection of they're both commanded by a deity is invalid.
Posted by: Vinnie Bartilucci
Vinne with all due respect that like saying of a house fire and a forest fire that one of them isnt acctualy fire
lujlp at April 13, 2011 7:42 AM
So you honestly see no difference between letting a child go and munch on some cookies while they watch television versus holding that child down and stuffing the cookies down their throat yourself?
You're sidestepping the issue. Why are you okay with parents allowing their children to eat unhealthy foods? Tell me why the government shouldn't regulate family meals. Answer the question, please.(Besides, the parents do supply the food. It's not the kids paying for it. So they are actively contributing to the ill-health of their children. This just shouts out for governmental intervention! At least, according to you.)
kishke at April 13, 2011 7:44 AM
Vinne with all due respect that like saying of a house fire and a forest fire that one of them isnt acctualy fire
No, it's like saying that a house fire is dangerous while turning on your range is not.
kishke at April 13, 2011 7:45 AM
kishke, as to your claims that circumcsion is not painful, or harmful, the hormones produced by the pain response are far higher in infants following circumcision then in those who werent circumcised.
And a gain just from a physiological standpoint.
Penis sizze varries from 2-3 inches to over 14inches
Given that as a new born those preforming the circumcision have no idea how large the penis will be, how can they make an informed decision as to who much skin to cut off?
Now I do realise that in most jewish ceremonies only a small ring is suppoed to be cut, compred to exposing the entire head of the penis as they do in hospitals, but the fact remains that it is pointless, painful procedure with the very real capabilty of inflicting permenant harm and death.
As for infants being circumcised by day #8, well god took 7 days to form the enrire universe and fill the earth with life, so whos to say what really constitues a "day" as far as god is concerned?
lujlp at April 13, 2011 8:09 AM
Kishke says:
“I said circumcision is not physically harmful; this has nothing to do with slavery.”
An important component of your argument involved saying that circumcision was a requirement by god and as such had to be permitted in our society.
As a result you cannot escape the problem that is imposed when the very same passage that invokes circumcision as a religious requirement also talks about how god thinks it is perfectly okay to buy and sell people and how when you buy a male from a “foreigner” you are required to circumcise them too.
You can try to avoid this unpleasant fact all you want, but the words are quite clear.
We as a society have moved past the point of tolerating the purchase and sale of other human beings (something that god allows). It is high time we also move past the slicing and dicing of human beings without their consent.
The fact that you deem this to be an important “tradition” is immaterial. You are violating one of the ten commandments every time you cut off a piece of another human being without their permission. As a religious individual this should be a concern for you. The fact that it isn’t disturbs me and suggests that you are simply fighting to preserve a practice that has no secular or religious justification simply because you want to keep doing it.
Sorry, but there were lots of traditions in the torah that have been given up because rational people understand that it doesn’t make sense anymore. The forced circumcision of infants falls into this same category.
I also love how you keep saying that circumcision isn’t “physically harmful”. What on earth does this even mean?
If a group of people were to go up to an adult uncircumcised man, forcibly hold him down and slice off his foreskin without his permission that would be considered a crime. Those people would be guilty of assault.
I doubt a jury would find a defense of “ but we didn’t cause the guy any physical harm” to be convincing. They would still rot in jail for assaulting another human being. You know this to be true, so stop making this ridiculous argument that taking a knife to another human being and carving a piece of them off is not “physically harmful”.
In any other situation where a parent took a knife to their child for a ritualistic practice we would toss them in prison.
Saying “god made me do it” is not a valid defense in court.
Reality at April 13, 2011 8:40 AM
Kiske asks,
"Why are you okay with parents allowing their children to eat unhealthy foods?"
For the same reason I am okay with parents "allowing" their children to be circumcised when they are old enough to make an informed decision.
I am simply not okay with forcing children into these situations that have permanent affects on their lives.
I would not be okay with a parent forcing their child to eat unhealthy foods either.
There is a difference between forcing someone to do something and allowing someone to do something of their own choice. I am having trouble understanding why you can't make this distinction as well.
I would not be okay for example with a parent feeding their infant nothing but sticks of butter.
Reality at April 13, 2011 8:50 AM
$50 says none of the people attacking kishke have children of their own.
Ben David at April 13, 2011 8:56 AM
kishke, as to your claims that circumcsion is not painful,
Don't make things up. I never made such a claim.
kishke at April 13, 2011 8:59 AM
An important component of your argument involved saying that circumcision was a requirement by god and as such had to be permitted in our society.
Wrong. I don't need you to accept the validity of my religion or that circumcision is required by God. What I am arguing is that I am permitted to practice it under our Constitution, and that since the religion requires circumcision on the eighth day, circumcision must be permitted under law. Whether or not you accept the religion or the religious obligation is irrelevant to my argument, as are all digressions concerning slavery or the like.
kishke at April 13, 2011 9:03 AM
For the same reason I am okay with parents "allowing" their children to be circumcised when they are old enough to make an informed decision.
The age of consent is 18 throughout much of the US. Which means you are saying that parents should be forbidden, under law, to provide their children with fattening foods until the children reach the age of 18 and can make an informed decision. Good luck with that.
kishke at April 13, 2011 9:05 AM
Kishke Says:
"What I am arguing is that I am permitted to practice it under our Constitution, and that since the religion requires circumcision on the eighth day, circumcision must be permitted under law."
The constitution allows you the right to practice your religion within the limits of the law. Human sacrifice for example would be illegal regardless of what a religious text commands.
Someone can't declare themselves an Aztec and start slaughtering virgins.
Similarly, there are biblical requirements to kill witches. That doesn't give religious people the right to burn a person who practices Wicca.
The same religious protections that you demand for yourself also apply to everyone else. This includes children who have not yet made up their mind about what religion they want to follow.
Tell me, exactly how would you compensate your male children if they grew up and chose not to follow the same religion as you do?
You can’t exactly give them back their foreskin if they decide that your religion is not for them. What you refuse to acknowledge is the personhood of your children. They have religious freedom as well, and by making them participate in rituals that have permanent affects on the character of their body you are trampling over the rights they too are guaranteed by the constitution.
Or do your religious freedoms trump the religious freedoms of your children.
And don’t start with me about whether or not I accept the “validity of your religion”. I’m Jewish too, I simply don’t buy into bronze age rituals that have no place in a society where we have moved away from such practices in so many other ways.
I’ve been to enough religious circumcisions to know that the crowd of religious people standing around are not entirely comfortable with what is going ok. People walk away when the baby is about to be circumcised, they turn their heads away so they don’t have to watch, they move out of earshot so they don’t have to hear the baby cry. The fact that so many adults are made to feel uncomfortable about the practice should tell you something. It tells me that deep down these people recognize that something isn’t right about forcing a baby to endure this ritual.
You only have a religious obligation to be circumcised yourself. If any sons you have feel the same religious obligations they are free to get circumcised as well.
Saying that the constitution protects your right to take a knife to another human being is flat out wrong and you know it.
Reality at April 13, 2011 9:33 AM
kishke said: "No, circumcision does not cause harm. "
Sure it does. It's a surgical procedure which by itself causes harm, the difference is most have an objective medical reason to perform them. The fact that circumcision results in a scar is evidence of this harm.
kishke said: "Don't nitpick. I'm referring to US society, as are you in your argument that it be made illegal."
I just wanted to make sure you knew that Americans are the only first world secular society that are deluded enough to be doing this to boys on a large scale.
kishke said: "Interesting that you haven't responded to my questions. Again, if parental rights "stop where somebody's body begins," should it be illegal to pierce a child's ears? Should it be illegal to feed a child fattening food? If not, why not?"
I agree that piercing ears should probably be restricted until informed consent is possible and I would support such legislation. I can't see what practical reason exists for doing that to a child. But the scale of the problem is different. This can be illustrated by you providing me with say an article where a child died from an ear piercing. I mean, Amy provided an article where a child died from circumcision so fair is fair.
Providing a poor diet is already illegal as it could ultimately lead to malnutrition and charges of neglect. I don't quite see the corollary though because children have to eat and someone has to decided what to feed them. They don't have to be circumcised, they can choose that later. Just like a tattoo or piercing.
Joe at April 13, 2011 9:37 AM
kishke said: "Wrong. I don't need you to accept the validity of my religion or that circumcision is required by God. What I am arguing is that I am permitted to practice it under our Constitution, and that since the religion requires circumcision on the eighth day, circumcision must be permitted under law."
Yet you would deny that same protection to someone who wanted to stone the: adulterer, prostitute, homosexual, individual to tread on sacred grounds, profaned the sabbath, or were in contempt of their parent.
They can make the same claim that their sky fairy requires them to do it as you do. And both result in harm to another individual.
Joe at April 13, 2011 9:41 AM
kishke said: "You're welcome to your ridiculous exegesis of the Biblical passage, but I'll stick with my tradition."
Ridiculous is cutting off part of some kids dick because some schizophrenia old man from 4,000 years ago told you to.
Joe at April 13, 2011 9:45 AM
They can make the same claim that their sky fairy requires them to do it as you do.
All that says to me is that you don't believe there should be freedom of religion, since you don't believe in God. Well, tough, there is such freedom, and so long as there is, circumcision is protected.
And both result in harm to another individual.
No, they don't. Circumcision causes no harm beyond a bit of pain when it's done. To compare it to stoning is just silly, and I'm done responding to that specious argument.
And don’t start with me about whether or not I accept the “validity of your religion”. I’m Jewish too, I simply don’t buy into bronze age rituals that have no place in a society where we have moved away from such practices in so many other ways.
So you're Jewish. Big deal. The fact is that you don't accept the validity of the religion, as you state quite clearly. I don't know why it bothers you that I say that when it's so evidently true.
Ridiculous is cutting off part of some kids dick because some schizophrenia old man from 4,000 years ago told you to.
No, ridiculous (and dishonest) is pretending you see no difference between stoning someone to deah and performing a routine procedure that is chosen by millions of people without religious obligation.
Amy provided an article where a child died from circumcision so fair is fair.
No, she didn't. She provided an article where someone died because of malpractice and neglect. You're pretending it was because of circumcision. It wasn't.
I don't quite see the corollary though because children have to eat and someone has to decided what to feed them.
Parents have an obligation to provide for their children and to see to their welfare. They can feed them healthy food. By feeding them unhealthy food they are endangering them, far, far more than they would be endangered through circumcision. So I take it you would support legislation to criminalize parents who feed their children unhealthy foods. And remember, "unhealthy foods" will be defined by the government, whose track record on the matter is not exactly stellar. Not me. I'll keep my freedom, in matters of both health and religion.
kishke at April 13, 2011 11:49 AM
Just for you, Joe, a case where ear piercing nearly caused a girl's death:
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/archive/2005/06/21/The+North+East+Archive/6948157.How_an_ear_piercing_nearly_killed_my_girl/
So, are we to criminalize earrings for little girls? You say yes; I say you're nuts.
kishke at April 13, 2011 12:10 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2040529">comment from kishkeKishke, that link leads to:
Merger Will Ruin Our Education.
WE are writing to express our views on the proposed idea of the merging of Passmores and Stewards Schools. We think this is probably the worst thing that could happen to the schools.
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2011 12:15 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2040532">comment from Amy AlkonThe link is here:
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/archive/2005/06/21/The+North+East+Archive/6948157.How_an_ear_piercing_nearly_killed_my_girl/
And the girl is 10. She BEGGED to have her ears pierced. She had a say in this. Babies are being put through unnecessary surgical procedure -- a maiming -- because their parents' particular flavor of evidence-free belief in god says they should be maimed this way.
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2011 12:17 PM
No, they don't. Circumcision causes no harm beyond a bit of pain when it's done
Hormone levels take weeks to go back to normal, years later the pain response reactions in cut vs uncut boys is markedly higher, if done incorrectly skin bridges form(painful as hell) if done correctly and too muck skin is cut it results in a noticable bowing effect and a hairy shaft which is notnormal and leads to pain with the use of condoms. Lack of natural male lubricant leads to a thickening on the skin on the head which leads to desenstivity.
I'll have to dig it up but I ran across a study linking ED to circumcision. Ofcourse that could be dismissed with the cause v correlation argument, but still
Also the lack of natural male lubrication leads to miro tears inside of women.
Cricumcision may be shown to reduce skin STDs like herpes and warts(again that could be dismissed wth the cause v correlation argument as well) but it is also shown to lead to an INCREASE in blood borne STDs
lujlp at April 13, 2011 12:25 PM
Kishke, that link leads to: Merger Will Ruin Our Education.
I just tried it again. It works fine for me. Google "ear piercing death," you'll find it.
kishke at April 13, 2011 12:36 PM
And the girl is 10. She BEGGED to have her ears pierced. She had a say in this.
Oh, and 10-year-old girls are now old enough to make decisions about self-mutilation? Really.
kishke at April 13, 2011 12:37 PM
Also the lack of natural male lubrication leads to miro tears inside of women.
A source? And besides, if this is such a big problem, which I doubt, the women have the choice to avoid circumcised men.
Hormone levels take weeks to go back to normal,
So?
years later the pain response reactions in cut vs uncut boys is markedly higher,
What pain response reactions? Pain from what? No idea what you're talking about.
if done incorrectly skin bridges form(painful as hell) if done correctly and too muck skin is cut it results in a noticable bowing effect and a hairy shaft which is notnormal and leads to pain with the use of condoms.
So have it done correctly.
Lack of natural male lubricant leads to a thickening on the skin on the head which leads to desenstivity.
Source? By which I mean one showing the difference in this regard between circumcised and uncircumcised.
kishke at April 13, 2011 12:43 PM
I'm ata resurant at the moment, when I get home I'll pull up some pictures for you, wouldnt want to get arrested for looking a pictures of dicks in a familly freindly eatery
lujlp at April 13, 2011 12:56 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2040649">comment from kishkeAnd the girl is 10. She BEGGED to have her ears pierced. She had a say in this. Oh, and 10-year-old girls are now old enough to make decisions about self-mutilation? Really.
This is a cogent human being making a decision for herself. It may not be a wise decision, but it's up to her parents to veto it. There was a choice made here about what was or was not to be done to the girl's body, and it was hers. I'm fine with that. And I begged to have my ears pierced, and did, when I was 12. I would not be happy if somebody chose to cut off my clitoris because they believe some big guy in the sky likes it better that way.
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2011 1:09 PM
This being the same big guy in the sky comfortable with ordering tthe rape of female captives and death for allnumber of crimes that dont even get you a civil fine in this society.
Ive still yet to hear a rational argument as to why rape and murder as part of a religion is not as valid an act as assult with a weapon on an infant
lujlp at April 13, 2011 1:16 PM
"Babies are being put through unnecessary surgical procedure -- a maiming -- because their parents' particular flavor of evidence-free belief in god says they should be maimed this way."
It's a bit much to call it maiming, as if this occurs in every case. There are obviously men who have been maimed, which Kishke is dismissing as purely malpractice. I'm not sure this is true either, but clearly, some practitioners are negligent and have cause lasting harm. But let's not get extreme. The vast majority of circumcised men are healthy, happy, and have enjoyable sex lives.
There are sad cases, made even sadder because it is an elective procedure. It's kind of like lasik. I chose to have it done and have had wonderful results - 20/15 vision - but some people have been blinded or impaired.
Do we ban lasik or do we make it safer? I did a lot of research before choosing where to have mine done, and what doctor would touch my eyes, and the results probably reflect that.
A few years ago, I chose to have my daughter's tonsils removed, mostly because she snored heavily due to a narrow airway. This was an elective decision that could've gone terribly wrong. Any surgery could.
But her friends were beginning not to want to come for sleepovers, and it was embarrassing to her. Certainly loud snoring for a girl could be a social and romantic drawback. So, I made the decision, as her parent, that the likely benefits to her outweighed the relatively small risks.
That is what is happening here too. The risks are very small, and although it can be argued that there are no benefits, it can also be argued that there are some, certainly for those of the Jewish faith, where being uncut could be socially stigmatizing.
To say that parents shouldn't be allowed to weigh these factors and long-term effects for their own children seems wrong, although the permanent and universally recognized negative impact of FGM is a different matter.
lovelysoul at April 13, 2011 1:23 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2040712">comment from lovelysoulAny surgical procedure involves risk. And a parent has no right to put their child through unnecessary surgery, no matter how small the risk. As an epidemiologist who coaches me points out, even when a drug is deemed safe, there's typically that small percentage of people who don't fare well. For example, in Crohn's disease, many seem to benefit from helminth (worm) therapy, but for a small percentage, the worms infest and chemotherapy becomes necessary. Another example: Most people do well with "conscious sedation." I lost a good bit of longterm memory for about three weeks and suffered general cognitive diminishment.
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2011 1:43 PM
"As an epidemiologist who coaches me points out, even when a drug is deemed safe, there's typically that small percentage of people who don't fare well."
Yes, and with vaccinations as well. My girlfriend's infant daughter died immediately after getting her vaccines. Just a few weeks ago, I was criticized on this blog for not rushing to give my daughter the HPV vaccine because she's not yet sexually active, and I want to wait to make sure there are no side effects. There have already been a certain percentage of negative effects linked to that vaccine.
For every choice one makes as a parent there is someone who will say it's wrong.
My children are vaccinated. My son was circumcised. He isn't "maimed" or permanently effected. He has an apparently fulfilling love life with his pretty girlfriend. Would I make the same choice again? Probably not. But it's extreme to react as if this one choice ruined his entire existence.
lovelysoul at April 13, 2011 2:02 PM
Kishke said: "You're pretending it was because of circumcision. It wasn't."
If the hild wasn't circumcised, would he have bled to death?
Joe at April 13, 2011 2:23 PM
If the hild wasn't circumcised, would he have bled to death?
You argue like a child. The point is, bleeding to death is not inherent to circumcision.
kishke at April 13, 2011 5:22 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2041833">comment from kishkeHe argues like a highly rational person. Again, all surgery has risks. Nobody has any business performing unnecessary elective surgery on a child. He's exactly right: Without the circumcision, this child would not have bled to death. Because you can't dispute that, you resort to name-calling.
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2011 5:44 PM
You told memthat the circumcision didnt kill this child nBleeding is an inherit risk of circumcision. So I ask again, had this child not been circumcised, would he have bled to death?
Joe at April 13, 2011 6:09 PM
Kishke Says:
“So you're Jewish. Big deal. The fact is that you don't accept the validity of the religion, as you state quite clearly. I don't know why it bothers you that I say that when it's so evidently true.”
I wasn’t aware that the “validity” of the Jewish religion rested squarely upon whether or not someone supports chopping off pieces of children without their consent.
I always thought being a good Jew was about respecting human life, trying to be the best person I could be and following the general tenant put forth by Hillel which goes as follows:
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.”
I personally would find it hateful for someone to come up to me, hold me down, take a knife to me and chip off a piece of my flesh without my permission. As a result I would never think of doing such a thing to any other human being.
Now that I’ve gotten this out of the way, let me ask you a few questions and see what answers you come up with:
1 - What parts of an infant do you sanction cutting off at the directive of the parents? Is the foreskin the only thing on this list, or are other parts also fair game?
2 - If someone went up to you, forcefully held you down, restrained you and took a knife to your penis and cut it in a manner that would eventually heal but would leave a permanent scar, have they caused you harm? Has a crime been committed? What if they told you they were commanded to do this by their religion, would that suddenly make it okay?
3 - If someone went up to an uncircumcised adult, forcefully held them down, restrained them and took a knife out and circumcised them without their permission, has that person been harmed? Has a crime been committed? What if the person performing the circumcision said they were commanded to do this by their religion, would that suddenly make it okay?
4 - Is the torah, bible, quran, or any other religious text supposed to be taken literally? Do you take any of these books literally? If you do not take them literally what is your process of determining which parts are literal and which parts are metaphorical/allegorical?
I believe your answers to these questions will be quite informative.
Reality at April 13, 2011 6:59 PM
You know why most hospitals really push circumcision? It isnt health benifits, its money.
New born skin, makes great starter kits for skin cultures, due to the unique struture of male gential cells it also produces all sort of bio chemicals used in makeup products.
Now the site with the photos I normally use for this argumment has been taken down so I'll use wikipedia
upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/
9/9d/Erection_Homme.jpg
&
upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/
4/4b/Flaccid-erect.jpg
Note in the second photo the head of the peins when erect still has wrikles and dimples in it. That is keritinization, a thinkening of the skin in response to friction and exposure
lujlp at April 13, 2011 7:11 PM
Lovelysoul says:
“To say that parents shouldn't be allowed to weigh these factors and long-term effects for their own children seems wrong, although the permanent and universally recognized negative impact of FGM is a different matter.”
I love how suddenly when we are talking about taking a knife to a little girls private parts it is a “different matter”.
How is it a different matter exactly?
How is the removal of the clitoral hood any more “permanent” than the removal of the foreskin? Do foreskins suddenly grow back?
How are you measuring “negative impact” here?
In case you weren’t aware, not all female circumcision involves clitoridectomy. In fact that variety is only type 1 female circumcision. There are actually 4 different classifications of female circumcision, and not all of them are more invasive than the removal of the foreskin.
What I find interesting in this country is that ALL forms of female circumcision are illegal, yet male circumcision is still permitted. Even less invasive forms of female circumcision are against the law including taking a needled ritualistically to an infant girls clitoris and extracting a single drop of blood.
Are you honestly going to tell me that extracting a single drop of blood with a needled is more “permanent” and has more “negative impact” than slicing off the entire foreskin?
The only reason you find female circumcision offensive and male circumcision acceptable seems to be what you are culturally used to and does not appear to be guided by well reasoned arguments.
Perhaps you can explain to me why type 4 genital pricking is illegal but slicing off the entire foreskin is legal using a set of rational arguments. For the life of me I can’t come up with one.
The only thing I think when I consider this dilemma is that our society is doing right by our infant girls but is leaving our infant boys out in the cold, it is time for that to change.
Reality at April 13, 2011 7:13 PM
Without the circumcision, this child would not have bled to death. Because you can't dispute that, you resort to name-calling.
I can and do dispute it - see above and below. The name-calling - mild as it is - is just a bonus.
You told memthat the circumcision didnt kill this child nBleeding is an inherit risk of circumcision. So I ask again, had this child not been circumcised, would he have bled to death?
And I answer again, but for the last time: The proximate cause of death was not the circumcision, but the bleeding out, which occurred through neglect. Any circumcision that is not neglected will not result in death through bleeding. The cause of death was not the circumcision, but the bleeding caused by neglect. If you have your appendix removed and the doctor forgets to tie off an artery and you bleed to death, you didn't die b/c appendectomies are inherently dangerous; you died b/c your doctor is a neglectful fool. If you can't grasp the distinction, you are not a highly rational adult.
kishke at April 13, 2011 7:19 PM
Reality: So now you find out that in fact, to be a good Jew, you need to keep the commandments, one of which is circumcision. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.
As for the rest of your list of questions, I am not going to debate religion, God and all the rest. I've done it here before, and it goes nowhere; everyone just repeats what they think, no one convinces anyone else, and I just don't have the energy for it. My point here is that whether you accept religion or not, it is protected under the Constitution, and I maintain that this includes the practice of circumcision. If you have an argument with that, and it's one I haven't yet addressed, I'm glad to respond.
kishke at April 13, 2011 7:24 PM
Kishke Says:
"The proximate cause of death was not the circumcision, but the bleeding out, which occurred through neglect."
Oh please. Stop playing these games and dancing around the issue.
I could come up with the same asinine argument to suggest that if someone is shot in the arm and died that the person who pulled the trigger isn’t responsible because the person really died from blood loss. After all, the proximate cause of death isn’t the gun shot wound, but the loss of blood in that case too which could have in principle been prevented.
Just like your argument, that argument doesn’t hold any water.
The cause of the blood loss needs to be considered. In the case you are arguing the cause of the blood loss was the circumcision, in the analogue I put forth the cause of the blood loss is the gun shot wound.
The fact that you have to keep dancing around the issue as you are suggests that your position is not very strong.
To use legal rhetoric, if not but for the circumcision, the child in question would not have died of blood loss.
Reality at April 13, 2011 7:34 PM
Kishke,
Your refusal to answer my 4 simple questions I will take as an admission that you don't have any arguments to make.
You have lost this debate.
Reality at April 13, 2011 7:35 PM
I will take as an admission that you don't have any arguments to make. You have lost this debate.
Oh, please, your questions are irrelevant to the issue at hand. But if makes you feel better to say that I lost, go right ahead.
kishke at April 13, 2011 7:45 PM
Kishke,
Those 4 questions are in fact VERY relevant. In addition not one of them is related to a debate of religion or god such as you are trying to use as an excuse to weasel your way out of looking like a fool.
How exactly is this:
"1 - What parts of an infant do you sanction cutting off at the directive of the parents? Is the foreskin the only thing on this list, or are other parts also fair game?"
A question about religion or god?
You are full of shit and you know it.
Reality at April 13, 2011 7:48 PM
@Angie read this
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=19705
And then this
www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html
lujlp at April 13, 2011 7:52 PM
"Perhaps you can explain to me why type 4 genital pricking is illegal but slicing off the entire foreskin is legal using a set of rational arguments. For the life of me I can’t come up with one."
I don't understand it either. I thought the compromise that the hospital came up with of just doing a prick was fine. It allowed the ritual, which is, whether we like it or not, significant to certain cultures and religions to continue without causing permanent harm.
I measure negative impact in terms of long-term quality of life and the ability to enjoy the most significant milestones that most humans desire and pursue, such as sexual fulfillment, the ablity to fall in love, find a good mate, have children, etc.
Despite the terrible outcomes that do sometimes occur, most circumcised men are not suffering any negative impact. That is simply fact, and it's important not to lose sight of this.
I'm not justifying the practice, merely trying to keep some balance in this conversation. It's extreme to suggest that all circumcised men have been barbarically maimed.
And, it's also difficult to ascribe quality of life features to cultures unlike our own. Fact is, a Somali woman may not want to enjoy sexual fulfillment in the way that I understand it..or fall in love in the way that I understand it. But she likely does want to marry and have children, be respected, and fit into her society, and this poses a bit of a dilemma when denying a ritual that poses an obstacle for her.
I think most westerners only really know of FGM in terms of full clitoridectomies. Most are unaware of the different types, and I honestly have no idea how the various types differ in terms of negative impact. It may, in fact, be that removal of the hood enhances sexual pleasure and fulfillment (I've met women at Hedonism in Jamaica, for instance, who have had their hoods purposely removed or peirced particulary for this reason...something I was quite curious about, so I ask a lot of questions. Apparently, this gives even better orgasms).
lovelysoul at April 13, 2011 8:00 PM
Reality, stop playing silly games. You know perfectly well that 2,3 and 4 are almost all about religion. What's more, I've already addressed the relevant sections of 2 and 3 in my earlier comments - go back and read if you're interested. I'm not going round and round the merry-go-round, not even for you, sweetheart.
#1 too has been addressed, over and over. I'm not going to play your game.
kishke at April 13, 2011 8:00 PM
Kishke,
None of them are about religion unless you make it so. The purpose of my questions is to get answers from you about situations that are not religious in nature.
I think you refused to answer them because you realize that you would come off looking like a hypocrite.
Reality at April 13, 2011 8:22 PM
AGAIN - and this is a question all of you pro and netral people have been studious in your avoidence.
Let us for moment set aside all the other points of pain, late life erectile dysfunction, ans surgical errors and complications.
There is no way to predict how large an infants penis will become by the time they exit puberty in their late teens early twenties - so how can anyone reasonably deremine how much skin to 'safley' cut off?
One that single question alone you run into problems.
kishke, until you can reasonably explain why religiously sanctioned executions are wrong but circumcision isnt your religious exception argument isnt valid.
For those of you who liken it to an apendectimy - preforming preventitve apedectimes at birth is illegal, also as it turns out the appendix isnt as usless as once thought.
For those of you who fall back on the wisdom teeth argumet, guess what - our jaws are evolving and becoming smaller, with modern dental health most people keep all of their adult teeth and therefore have a surgical need to have them removed, also more and more people are being born without wisdom teeth - evolution in action
Does male circumcision cause as much damage to gentialla as the worst form of female circumcision? Ofcourse not, at least in the majority of cases.
But it does cause more harm then the least form of female circumcision - which is illegal and most of you find aborent and morally repugnent(even those of you who claim the same religious 'right' for your religion)
lujlp at April 13, 2011 8:34 PM
until you can reasonably explain why religiously sanctioned executions are wrong but circumcision isnt your religious exception argument isnt valid.
Executions harm others; circumcision doesn't.
kishke at April 13, 2011 8:42 PM
I think you refused to answer them because you realize that you would come off looking like a hypocrite.
Not at all. What's more, the relevant bits have all been addressed by me in the thread, except #4, which is entirely about the validity of religion, and thus entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
I get what you're trying to do. You're not making headway on the core issue, so you'd like to turn this into a discussion about religion. I'm not interested in that discussion.
kishke at April 13, 2011 8:45 PM
Kishke said: "And I answer again, but for the last time: The proximate cause of death was not the circumcision, but the bleeding out, which occurred through neglect."
Wrong. The proximate cause of death was bleeding out as the result of complications from circumcision. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, with circumcision comes risk of several immediate complications such as bleeding and death.
Kishke said: "If you have your appendix removed and the doctor forgets to tie off an artery and you bleed to death, you didn't die b/c appendectomies are inherently dangerous; you died b/c your doctor is a neglectful fool."
It's not like that at all. It would be like you died because the sutures used broke and caused a slow bleed that no one notices until it's too late. Death due to complications from surgery would be the cause. Even that isn't quite right though because in the case of an appendectomy, unlike circumcision in most cases, there was actually an objective medical reason to assume the risk. It wasn't done simply for the subjective whim of some third party.
Kishke said: "If you can't grasp the distinction, you are not a highly rational adult."
Right back at you Kishke; I am not the one advocating cutting part of boys dicks off though.
You advocate cutting off part of a kids penis because you've decided that it's part of some religion but then turn around and reject religious practices that support for which are not just in the same book but the exact same chapter. This is why religion is utterly ridiculous and a drag on mankind's collective advancement. You don't even follow what's in your own religious texts, you pick and choose what is worth protection and support like some cafeteria catholic except in your case I guess you're a cafeteria jew.
Really, who's being irrational.
Joe at April 13, 2011 8:55 PM
"There is no way to predict how large an infants penis will become by the time they exit puberty in their late teens early twenties - so how can anyone reasonably deremine how much skin to 'safley' cut off?"
Well, I would assume that this is somewhat adaptive. All that tissue is growing in relative proportion. If a ring is used and only enough to cover the head of the baby penis is removed, it doesn't seem that it causes any problems...for most men.
And, not to be nitpicky, but we do know the average penis size, and 14" is greatly, uh, inflated. Only about 2% of the male population even has a 10" penis (despite what many may believe). I could only find a 13"4 as ever legitimately recorded, and we don't know how that was measured. The correct way is from the top. I'm a bit of a size queen, and there are actually websites devoted to this topic, with men posting photos, measurements, etc.
One size queen told me that 8" to 9" is what most women (and the guys who have them) consider to be 10". That is pretty huge. The average is somewhere between 4"-6".
lovelysoul at April 13, 2011 8:56 PM
Kishke said: "Executions harm others; circumcision doesn't."
Wrong again. All circumcisions at the very least result in scar and loss of tissue. That by definition is harm.
Joe at April 13, 2011 8:59 PM
The proximate cause of death was bleeding out as the result of complications from circumcision. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, with circumcision comes risk of several immediate complications such as bleeding and death.
If the wound is properly treated, there is no appreciable risk. This incident occurred b/c someone was neglectful.
you've decided that it's part of some religion
Are you denying that it's a religious obligation upon Jews? If you are, you are too ignorant to talk to about this.
You don't even follow what's in your own religious texts
You really don't know much about Jewish law, do you?
kishke at April 13, 2011 9:01 PM
Wrong again. All circumcisions at the very least result in scar and loss of tissue. That by definition is harm.
Sorry, I don't agree that that's considered "harm." But if that's all you've got ...
kishke at April 13, 2011 9:02 PM
lovelysoul said: "I think most westerners only really know of FGM in terms of full clitoridectomies. Most are unaware of the different types, and I honestly have no idea how the various types differ in terms of negative impact. "
I think you're absolutely right lovelysoul. Most people in the West only think the worst of female circumcision. It's part of what skews our thinking of male circumcision. I've enjoyed your contributions so far BTW, it's clear you've really given this issue a lot of thought since the last time it was posted about here.
Your son's perspective I found very interesting too, were you surprised?
Joe at April 13, 2011 9:03 PM
kishke, it has been shown that the hormone levels corresponisding to pian and shock take weeks to return to normal levels - that is harm
It has been shown that thruout childhood that infants who were circumscised have a lower pain threashohold and react more strongly to situations that cause pain, and to situations that they think will cause pain - that is harm
lujlp at April 13, 2011 9:03 PM
lovelysoul, I'm aware that the average size is under 5", it makes me feel fairly blessed.
But it doesnt matter, there is no way to be SURE, therfore there is no way to know how much to cut.
kishke, but your argument cuting off a couple of fingers or toes wouldnt cause 'harm' either
lujlp at April 13, 2011 9:10 PM
"Your son's perspective I found very interesting too, were you surprised?"
Yeah, I was rather surprised that he knew as much about this topic as he does at his age. The internet, of course, provides a lot of info for our kids.
By contrast, I once had a gf whose 30 something yr old husband didn't even know he was circumcised. He started screaming, "Only Jews do that!" lol
lovelysoul at April 13, 2011 9:10 PM
luj: You're reaching. A few weeks of raised hormone levels is not "harm," and certainly not any kind of lasting harm. Again, if this is the best you can do, I'm not impressed.
The lower pain threshhold: Was this demonstrated in a double-blind study with a sufficiently large group? How did they measure the childrens' pain tolerance. In other words, how authoritative is this study? I'm guessing, not too authoritative.
kishke at April 13, 2011 9:13 PM
but your argument cuting off a couple of fingers or toes wouldnt cause 'harm' either
Cutting off finger and toes is crippling and/or disfiguring. I know you think circumcision is also disfiguring, but that view is widely disputed, as witness the many who do it for aesthetic reasons. I don't think anyone will dispute it in the case of fingers and toes.
kishke at April 13, 2011 9:16 PM
kishke said: "If the wound is properly treated, there is no appreciable risk. This incident occurred b/c someone was neglectful."
And if the appendectomy was properly done, there is no appreciable risk. Both are bullshit. The incident occurred because the child "crapped out" as it were. There is always a risk of bleeding out after circumcision just like there are risks for any surgical procedure. The difference is that in most cases those risks are either assumed directly by the individual and/or balanced out by actual need. Neither of which occurred here and this child (actually his mother) drew the short straw. The best part is though, he died for nothing. Why can't you just tell me, would the child have bled out if he had not been circumcised or would he have not?
kishke said: "Are you denying that it's a religious obligation upon Jews? If you are, you are too ignorant to talk to about this."
Not at all. Jewish mythology does call for such an atrocity but they also ask other things such as:
Leviticus 24:14-16 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
Do you deny that we are supposed to execute the blasphemer? If so then why? It's right there in black and white.
kishke said: "Sorry, I don't agree that that's considered "harm." But if that's all you've got ..."
A scar is not harm? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scar "Scars are areas of fibrous tissue (fibrosis) that replace normal skin after injury."
Scars are the result of injury, injury is harm. How difficult is that for you to understand. There are of course much worse potential complications and you can never be sure which ones you'll end up with:
http://circumstitions.com/Complic.html
Joe at April 13, 2011 9:22 PM
Also I could slap you and cause less physical and psychological damage then a circumcision. But that would be a crime
lujlp at April 13, 2011 9:25 PM
lovelysoul said: "Yeah, I was rather surprised that he knew as much about this topic as he does at his age. The internet, of course, provides a lot of info for our kids. "
I guess I was wondering if you were surprised that he said it was "stupid" and shouldn't have been done.
I agree with your assessment. Most younger children today will not grow up sheltered the way things were in the past. They know that the US is unique in this practice and they won't continue to believe as the BS that's kept it going. It's really interesting to see the difference in the conversation between different age groups.
Joe at April 13, 2011 9:27 PM
Cutting off finger and toes is crippling and/or disfiguring.
Not neccesarily, it could prevent cancer
I know you think circumcision is also disfiguring,
It can be
but that view is widely disputed, as witness the many who do it for aesthetic reasons.
Given those 'many' are parnets and not the recipents of the procedure their opnions dont count
I don't think anyone will dispute it in the case of fingers and toes
I will, if nothing else for the sake of argumet
Look, did you even look at the pictures? You look at the head of a penis on a guy who is circumcised and you'll see a big difference to the guy who isnt. The skin is thicker, drier, has more lines int he skin even when fully erect. These are easily verifiable physiological differences. And you cant say they have no effect what so ever.
The real reason circumcision was started was to make sure little jewish girl were sure to know that the little boys they married were indeed jewish. It was a way of insuring women stayed in the comunity and didnt associate with the wrong 'types' of people
lujlp at April 13, 2011 9:37 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2042714">comment from lujlpInfant responses to circumcision here:
http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2011 9:45 PM
"Even that isn't quite right though because in the case of an appendectomy, unlike circumcision in most cases, there was actually an objective medical reason to assume the risk. It wasn't done simply for the subjective whim of some third party."
Let's get back to the basics, guys. This is it: Circumcision is surgery, and all surgery carries some risk, and those of you who are against circ believe there is no justification whatsoever for ever assuming that risk, no matter how small.
However, those of certain faiths and cultures simply don't view this as a "subjective whim". They may eventually come to adopt that view, if my son is any indication of the changing perspectives. Yet, my son isn't Jewish or Somali or Islamic.
And, without that change of mindset, we are faced with a dilemma about whether to have the state ban parents from choosing this procedure, at least in our country.
I don't know if that's the right way to go. I think it opens the door for the state to make a lot of choices that have previously been within the realm of parents, and, quite honestly, the state usually mucks these things totally up.
Parents can generally be counted on to love and care for their children much more than the state does. Not always, of course, but it's a safer bet.
I'd rather see a change in mindset than outright bans. But I suspect circumcision will remain among the controversial choices some parents will still make - such as to vaccinate or not to vaccinate - which also carries risk, either way.
I mean, what right should a parent have not to vaccinate their child - arguably putting their own child at risk as well as others?
Or to have them drink raw milk or be raised a vegan...or pierce their ears? Or not have a rear camera installed on their van so they won't run over them?
When we start trying to remove all risk by way of government mandates, things usually become a mess (and often less safe). What we should concentrate on is making circumcision safer for those who will still choose it, while encouraging them to do otherwise.
lovelysoul at April 13, 2011 9:47 PM
Luj:
There is no way to predict how large an infants penis will become by the time they exit puberty in their late teens early twenties - so how can anyone reasonably deremine how much skin to 'safley' cut off?
- - - - - - - - -
1) Skin grows as kid grows - this natural process doesn't stop because of circumcision.
2) That is one reason traditional Jewish technique is better than the hospital technique - it leaves a cuff of skin.
3) There is natural variation in foreskin coverage and retraction, as well.
Lovelysoul:
I'm not justifying the practice, merely trying to keep some balance in this conversation. It's extreme to suggest that all circumcised men have been barbarically maimed.
- - - - - - - -
You're right - but good luck.
And I hope you're writing down all the parenting advice from people who don't have any of their own...
Ben David at April 13, 2011 9:57 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2042811">comment from Ben DavidAnd I hope you're writing down all the parenting advice from people who don't have any of their own...
Sperm meets egg equals parenting wisdom?
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2011 10:12 PM
Skin grows as kid grows - this natural process doesn't stop because of circumcision
Quick question Ben David, how does skin that isnt there grow?
The skin that is still there grows, yes, but that doesnt mean it will grow a strech enough to replace the missing portions.
And yes the jewish version is supposed to be far less invasive and damaging then the secular version - that doesnt mean mistakes arent made.
And agian with the religious waver argument you are then placed in the position of explaining why religiously motivated executions for acts this society deems non crimminal are no longer practiced by this is - afterall god only told one guy the rules for circumcision - he apparenlty made quite the 40yr show out of laying down all the rules as the when it is acceptable to execute and rape people in front of the entire jewish nation
lujlp at April 13, 2011 11:14 PM
"Sperm meets egg equals parenting wisdom?"
Not necessarily, but people who have children tend to become a lot more pragmatic and less freaked out about things that non-parents will. Non-parents are more black and white because they don't have to face the gray areas involved in parenting.
I was a absolute perfectionist about raising children before I actually had one. I "knew" all the right and wrong ways to do it.
Then, you have a child and realize you can't possibly give them the perfect, harm-free childhood you fantasized about. NOBOBY is that good a parent.
They will get hurt, be traumatized, suffer pain, anguish, and all manner of challenges, despite your best efforts, so parents quickly drop that fantasy. Your kid will suffer trauma - get over it!
It may sound strange to say, but the very essence of freedom is the potential to screw up your own life and that of your kid - whether it's through teaching them some whacky religion, feeding them some weird diet (either vegan or twinkies), vaccinate them, medicate them, or let them walk to school or take the subway alone (just listen to the outrage you'll get for that one!)
Typically, government stayed out of all but the most aggregious parental decisions. Then, the idea of child welfare and protecting the child from its own parents caught on, and, while noble in many ways, this has obviously taken some extreme turns.
People without children tend to be the most demanding and hold the highest standards for how other people should raise theirs, and when that is blended with a do-gooder mentality you get laws about not packing salty snacks in lunchboxes...because we've got to "protect" kids from all the ways their foolish parents will certainly harm them.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2011 4:55 AM
Kiske Says:
“Executions harm others; circumcision doesn't.”
Yet interestingly you refuse to answer my questions 2 and 3.
You’ve also asserted that loss of tissue and permanent scars are not the hallmark of harm against another human being.
If circumcisions do not cause harm to others then it should be perfectly legal to have groups of people going around circumcising all of the uncircumcised adults. Furthermore, it should also be perfectly legal according to your arguments to remove tissue from other people without their permission so long as it doesn’t kill them, even if they have not given consent.
The simple fact that if you or anyone else were to do that would land them in prison seems to suggest that sort form of harm has occurred. I also suspect that you would not condone anyone slicing a piece of you off without your permission just because they want to.
Until you can recognize this simple fact your position has no foundation.
Reality at April 14, 2011 7:14 AM
"You’ve also asserted that loss of tissue and permanent scars are not the hallmark of harm against another human being."
It may not be. There are tribes that purposely scar their children - put rings in their lips or noses, brand them with fire. All sorts of mutilations. Yet, in those cultures, NOT having the scar would be what causes the emotional harm.
This is where the debate gets so tricky. Weighing the emotional harm of social isolation against the physical harm of the act itself. It's not an issue for most people in Western cultures, except for Jews, but it is an issue to contend with.
It's just not enough to say, "Well, you people shouldn't think that way!" and attempt to undo generations of tradition and rituals.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2011 7:36 AM
Lovelysoul says:
“And, without that change of mindset, we are faced with a dilemma about whether to have the state ban parents from choosing this procedure, at least in our country.”
It honestly isn’t a dilemma. Every freedom we have in this country has reasonable limitations set upon it. This goes for freedom of speech, freedom to bare arms, freedom to assemble, and yes… even freedom of religion.
These limitations are set in place to ensure that while one person is exercising their rights they are in no way infringing upon the rights of someone else.
That is how rights work. You are essentially free to do as you like so long as someone else’s rights aren’t being restricted by your actions.
This is why we do not permit human sacrifice for religious rituals. This is why we do not allow people to be stoned to death for adultery (if a group of religious fanatics started to toss rocks at Tiger Woods for example they would be arrested… their claims of constitutional protections to stone the guy would fall upon deaf ears). This is why we do not allow homosexuals to be murdered. I could literally go on and on with all of the insane rules that exist within various religious texts that we as a society have decided are antiquated and not conducive to a functioning society.
Banning surgical procedures that are not medically indicated falls within the same framework. The religious “punishment” for holding off with a circumcision until the child is old enough to decide for himself is exactly the same as the religious “punishment” for having sex with a woman while she is on her period.
If being circumcised is so critically important then I suppose we need to also need to start posting the menstrual cycles of all sexually active women in a public forum so that men don’t end up having sex with them at the wrong time of the month.
How would you enjoy having to have such information made public in an effort to ensure someone elses religious rules were satisfied?
Is having that information make publicly available more or less "harmful" than a circumcision?
The proper course of action is to let the boy decide for himself.
Reality at April 14, 2011 7:45 AM
Lovelysoul,
If loss and tissue are not the hallmark of harm, what would you do if someone restrained you and cut a piece of you off without your permission?
Would you call the police?
Would you press charges?
Or would you shrug it off and say "no harm no foul"?
Reality at April 14, 2011 7:50 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2044202">comment from RealityBanning surgical procedures that are not medically indicated falls within the same framework
Exactly.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2011 7:52 AM
"That is how rights work. You are essentially free to do as you like so long as someone else’s rights aren’t being restricted by your actions."
True, but it's a harder argument to make that it's a "right" to have a foreskin, or that not having one substantially disenfranchises or restricts someone, especially when it is the acceptable practice within that person's culture or religion.
It can be argued, of course, that the person should have the option to change cultures or religions. That would probably be the argument against the worst forms of FGM. It irrevocably resticts a woman from ever becoming a sexualized westerner....which, as sexualized westerners, we naturally believe everyone has a right to be.
But a circumicised male can still opt not to be Jewish, so it's not quite the same.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2011 7:55 AM
"If loss and tissue are not the hallmark of harm, what would you do if someone restrained you and cut a piece of you off without your permission?"
Of course I would. But those are strangers. If my family pierced my nose, ears, or tatooed my flesh out of love and custom - making me a part of their tradition, bringing me into the family fold - I would likely not see it as harm.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2011 7:59 AM
Lovelysoul,
Please listen to what you are saying.
It's a hard argument to make that it's a "right" to have a foreskin?
Are you kidding me?
What is a right is to have a choice about the unnecessary medical procedures your own body is subjected to.
What ever happened to the whole "my body my choice" mantra? Or does that only apply to women?
People have the fundamental human right not to have people slicing pieces off of them without medical necessity or their consent.
This seems like a fairly reasonable principle.
Reality at April 14, 2011 8:01 AM
lovelysoul says:
“If my family pierced my nose, ears, or tatooed my flesh out of love and custom - making me a part of their tradition, bringing me into the family fold - I would likely not see it as harm.”
And what if your family decided by virtue of religious tradition to physically force you to proceed with a pregnancy that you didn’t want?
Would you see that as harm?
If so why? If not, why not?
Reality at April 14, 2011 8:07 AM
Then we have to ban piercings of minors too. That's taking a chunk of flesh, which is seen as largely arbitrary, and parents do it all the time to their infants.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2011 8:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2044229">comment from lovelysoulThere are minors and there are minors. If you are 10 and want your ears pierced, have at it.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2011 8:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2044232">comment from lovelysoulIf my family pierced my nose, ears, or tatooed my flesh out of love and custom - making me a part of their tradition, bringing me into the family fold - I would likely not see it as harm.
That is your opinion as a person who is able to express it and able to consent in hindsight.
Many men who were circumcised as babies are upset about it.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2011 8:10 AM
"parents do it all the time to their infants."
This is an argumen ad populum. This is classic invalid reasoning.
Just because lots of people do something is not a justification for the practice.
Many people do things in saudi arabia too... that doesn't make it right.
Reality at April 14, 2011 8:13 AM
"And what if your family decided by virtue of religious tradition to physically force you to proceed with a pregnancy that you didn’t want?"
There are much more substantial and long-term effects to that, but minors have been traditionally forced by their families to have abortions or not have abortions - or marry someone they didn't love - for a long time. Not the same thing.
Of course, I wouldn't "like" it, but that's not really the point. The question is: Do parents have the right to make that call for their minor children? Let's not get into the abortion debate though.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2011 8:15 AM
"Many men who were circumcised as babies are upset about it."
Rightfully so for the ones who have botched procedures. But most cut guys are not unhappy about it, and I daresay many are happy about it. And one of the things some here have expressed is that they are glad it was done when they couldn't remember the pain.
It seems to me that the worst part of circumcision are the bad outcomes, and the issue is whether those can be avoided, and, if so, whether the procedure has any merit at all, socially, religious, and otherwise.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2011 8:25 AM
Lovelysoul,
"There are much more substantial and long-term effects to that, but minors have been traditionally forced by their families to have abortions or not have abortions - or marry someone they didn't love - for a long time. Not the same thing."
It is the same thing.
Either we respect the rights of people to make decisions about what is done to their body or we do not.
If it is okay for force people to go through with circumcisions for religious reasons then it is similarly okay to force girls to go through with pregnancies for religious reasons.
There doesn’t have to be “long-term” affects of a forced pregnancy after all. Once the baby is born the family can similarly force the girl to put it up for adoption in order to maintain her standing within the community.
This sort of stuff used to go on all the time. We’ve since realized that this sort of thinking is wrong.
It is time for you to realize that circumcision falls into exactly the same category.
Forcing someone to have a piece cut off of them is not somehow preferable to a forced marriage.
"Do parents have the right to make that call for their minor children?"
No they do not. Those children have the right to make the call for themselves.
Reality at April 14, 2011 8:26 AM
"Either we respect the rights of people to make decisions about what is done to their body or we do not."
Well, I personally don't believe my minor daughter should be allowed to make that choice on her own, without my consent. I likely would honor her wishes with regard to the situation, but the decision she makes about what is "done with her body" also includes having the good sense not to create another life inside it - one for which I will also be responsible for as long as she's under my roof.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2011 8:38 AM
I mean, I just had to sign a consent form for my daughter to get a nose piercing because she's still a minor. It's insane that she should be able to get a risky, major medical procedure like abortion performed without my consent.
Minors are minors for a reason.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2011 8:48 AM
Lovelysoul,
There is a difference between a parent needing to be consulted and a parent making the decision.
I would not condone minors going in for ANY surgical procedure without their parents knowledge.
However, children are people too, they have agency. They have a fundamental right to play a role in the decision making process when it comes to their body.
Perhaps I was just lucky in that when I was in elementary school and needed to go in for surgery my parents involved me in the process. They let me talk to the doctors on my own to ask my own questions after they spoke with them.
Ultimately there was part of the surgery that was medically necessary, and a separate portion that could have been done involving me being tongue tied, but I was adamantly against having my tongue snipped while I was under.
The doctor tried to convince my parents that they should just do it anyway. My mother advocated for me and said no because I was against it.
I can tell you now that as an adult I have a huge amount of respect for my parents in adhering to my wishes. If they had gone behind my back and pushed forward with the unnecessary medical procedure when I made it clear I didn’t want it done I would never have forgiven them.
Parents have the obligation and the responsibility to put their children through medically necessary procedures. They have no right whatsoever to force their children to undergo unnecessary medical procedures.
My parents understood this, and I can tell you that it made a big difference to me knowing that my parents respected me enough to listen to what I wanted for myself.
I still can’t touch my tongue to my nose, but if I ever decide to get my tongue snipped it will be my decision.
Your son's story should be enough to convince you that parents should let their children be involved in deciding what to do about unnecessary medical procedures.
Reality at April 14, 2011 8:49 AM
Involved is one thing. Making the call is another. I'm like your parents, and, as I said, I would involve my daughter and likely heed her wishes. But, at 17, it's vastly different than 4.
I had them loaded down with vaccinations as infants and toddlers too. Something I no longer believe was necessary and may have indeed been damaging to some extent (my son has Aspergers). But parents ultimately have the right to make those medical decisions for their minor children.
I was adamently against the nose stud, and said no at first, but it's kind of cute. :)
lovelysoul at April 14, 2011 8:56 AM
Lovelysoul,
I guess it would be helpful for me to describe how I think things should work.
For Adults - They can decide to go through any medical procedure they like so long as the medical professional agrees.
For Minors - If a procedure is medically indicated, parents have the obligation to put their child through the procedure even if the child does not want it (medically indicated meaning that a doctor believes it is required to ensure the health of the child). Similarly, if a procedure is medically indicated and the parents object, the child has the right to go through the procedure anyway if that is their wish. Parents do not have the right to sentence their children to death because they have a problem with medical intervention. If a procedure is NOT medically indicated, then both the parents and the child need to agree to go through with it. The decision in this case must be agreed upon by all parties. If the parents do not want it done then the child will need to wait until they are an adult. If the child does not want it done then the parents need to abide by their wishes.
All of this seems totally reasonable to me and I don't see how anyone would find any of this objectionable unless they are trying to assert their control over another human being.
People don't have the right to control others to that extent, not even parents.
Reality at April 14, 2011 9:06 AM
This has been interesting the last few hours. I wish I had more time to constructively contribute to it then just some evenings. I'll say that I see some of your points lovelysoul but I'd like to dig into them deeper when time permits. :)
Joe at April 14, 2011 9:26 AM
In general, I agree with your view, Reality. It's just that things are not always so clear. It's fine once your child is mature enough to reason through the pros and cons themselves, but the age that actually happens varies from child to child.
Vaccines are a perfect example. Some parents believe they're subjecting their child to greater harm by having them and others feel the reverse. What would the child want? They're too young to voice an opinion.
Yet, certainly, if a parent opts to not vaccinate, and the child ultimately gets a terrible disease, he/she will feel that their parent shouldn't have made that decision for them. Just as those who suffer physical or mental impairments after vaccines will feel the opposite.
Just as those who suffer botched outcomes from circumcision feel. And I totally get that, but I also see Kishke's point about it not really being the circumcision but the negligence of the practioner. For Jews, particularly, it's hard to say whether a child will ultimately feel bad they had it done in infancy or bad that they didn't, but it seems that it could go either way, and it's not an outlandish parental decision for a Jewish parent to make.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2011 10:11 AM
Like wise LS it wasnt an outlandish decision for muslim parents to circumcise their daughters, but we object to that, and indeed there is no religious exception for the practice to be done in america
kishke doesnt bother to rely on anything but two pillars, religious athority and no lasting harm.
That that she refuses to admit there is indeed harm does not change that fact that harm is caused.
AS for religious athority, there is only one passage regarding circumcision, from one conversation with god; there are scores passages detailing how, why, and when to kill belivers and non belivers alike, and when it is acceptable to rape women and take slaves. These passages span hunndereds of years, and dozens of interactions between god and his messengers.
So which passages would you assume to hold more athority? The one off message to a single man more than a century old, or the hunndereds of messages repeated time and time and time again to dozens of different people spanning hundereds of years?
lujlp at April 14, 2011 10:45 AM
But a circumicised male can still opt not to be Jewish, so it's not quite the same.
Yeah, but they dont have the option to opt out of being circumcised
but minors have been traditionally forced by their families to have abortions or not have abortions - or marry someone they didn't love - for a long time. Not the same thing
You are right, its not the same thing, those actions are condemed by society at large.
But most cut guys are not unhappy about it,
technically its not that hard to not be unhappy about somthing yo were never given the chance to experience
and I daresay many are happy about it.
You'd be wrong, look at all the money spent trying to "cure" erectile dysfunction, I doubt those guys who cant have sex are all the happy
And one of the things some here have expressed is that they are glad it was done when they couldn't remember the pain.
by that logic babies blinded on purpose at borth should have no cause for complaint either
It seems to me that the worst part of circumcision are the bad outcomes, and the issue is whether those can be avoided, and, if so, whether the procedure has any merit at all, socially, religious, and otherwise.
It has no social or medical benifits, and the only real merits it has is the billion of dollars in medical and cosmetic revenue those torn strips of skin generate for corperations.
Look more women will get breast cancer then men will get urinary tract infections or STIs.
Why then does noone advocate the removal of a female infants breast buds? After all it every women in america never got breast cancer and got ugly from chemo had a facroty perfect set of tits would that make them more socially desiarble?
That essentally the argument people fall back on for circumcision.
lujlp at April 14, 2011 10:51 AM
At this point I have to their assume Kishke is either a religious fundamentalist or a troll. Either way, his comments offer no insight and only speculation and ad hominem attacks.
As for 'negligence', it seems some of you don't seem to grasp a couple of facts. An obvious one is that an infant has much less blood than an adult. A cup of blood is enough to threaten an infant's life. The less obvious one is that an infant's clotting ability is impaired compared to an adult. In other words, it may appear that the bleeding has stopped but it can easily restart again (even hours latter). Please refer back to the whole 'cup of blood' thing. The infant is usually watched for a couple of hours after but is sent back to the nursery (or, much less frequently, back home). This is viewed (ignorantly) as a simple procedure, without risk, pain or complications. This is just another example of how that is wrong.
Again, several of you (especially kishke) are talking about this as if you have actual regular experience with this procedure--or any actual medial knowledge. This is a known complication to a completely elective procedure that offers no real benefit (other than a slightly reduced incidence of penile cancer). It is in the same camp as a Christian Scientist who decides that their child doesn't need medical care (and we see how the courts rule on that one). Its only advantage is that it is socially accepted. Otherwise, it is a barbaric, iron age tradition without reason or justification.
You may argue it as an expression of religious freedom but again with the Christian Scientist thing.
Doc Jensen at April 14, 2011 10:59 AM
And I really shouldn't feed the trolls...
Doc Jensen at April 14, 2011 11:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/11/the_terrible_co.html#comment-2044746">comment from Doc JensenDoc Jensen! Great to see you!
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2011 11:10 AM
Lovelysoul just some quick points to your recent reply. I understand what you're saying about grey areas, believe me. But I do disagree with the example you provide. In the case of vaccinations, we're talking about an intervention that provides a substantial benefit to the child. A child is vulnerable to measles immediatly from birth and can be exposed by no special or explicit action. Just being in the same room as a carrier gives one about a 90% chance of infection if I recall. You'd never know about the exposure. That's why it is legitimate formamparent to consider a vaccine. I say consider because vaccination isn't mandatory, and it probably shouldn't be. Ear piercing is still the closest analogy but that's not a medical procedure and is less risky.
Joe at April 14, 2011 2:29 PM
One over point. While I concede that most men seem at least indifferent about circumcision keep in mind many never knew any other way. Those who are irritated or dislike it for whatever reason are not limited to the case of have suffered more damage than expected. There are plenty who relieved a standard circumcision and only received the expected result too. Google foreskin restoration and you'll find info in a growing industry.
Joe at April 14, 2011 2:42 PM
"A child is vulnerable to measles immediatly from birth and can be exposed by no special or explicit action. Just being in the same room as a carrier gives one about a 90% chance of infection if I recall. You'd never know about the exposure."
Yes, and I had measles, as did my siblings, and we survived, so technically, there's no necessity to receive the vaccine, even though some kids probably die from measles, but there are also kids who die from vaccines.
My girlfriend lost her 9 month old daughter after receiving a round of vaccines, after which she ran a fever, cried incessantly, then suddenly died. The cause of death was officially listed as SIDs, so we can't really know how many infants die from receiving vaccines, although we know the recommended number of vaccines has more than tripled since the 1960s, even though most of the diseases that were of concern are substantially reduced or almost eradicated. So, it's understandable why some parents opt out.
If anything, the vaccine debate is more valid than the circ debate. There are pros and cons to the parental decisions made on both sides.
As for circumcision, my husband is cut. Yet, I know men who are uncut, and as someone who frequents nude places like Hedonism, where sexual activity is out in the open, I honestly can't see a deciferable difference between the two. The cut guys seem just as able to have erections and pleasurable orgasms as the uncut guys.
Now, maybe you could say that the cut guys with ill effects wouldn't go to Hedo, but from what I've seen, the opposite is true. I've seen micropenises and all manner of penile deformities (not caused, as far as I know, by circumcision), yet guys (and girls) come there specifically because it's a place to be accepted just as you are...small penis, large penis, cut and uncut.
If the cut guys were all complaining and unable to enjoy themselves in the same way as the uncut guys, I'd say there was a real problem, but I haven't heard or witnessed that at all. Everybody is having great sex! So, where's the real problem?
Obviously, there are some men who probably aren't there, who are hiding their major circ deformities, due to botched procedures, and are miserable. This is the real issue. But it isn't correct to say that there is a measurable difference between those who are cut well and those who are uncut because it's simply untrue. When done right, circumcision makes no discernable difference in the quality of sexual experience. Those who believe that are likely attributing other sexual dysfunctions to their circumcisions when that's not the real cause.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2011 5:44 PM
When done right, circumcision makes no discernable difference in the quality of sexual experience.
Assuming for the sake of argument this is true
no discernable difference does not equal no difference at all
Now given the billion dollar industry that is sex lube I'd say the lack of foreskin and the natrual lube producing cells they contain there is at least one discernable difference which does effect the act
lujlp at April 14, 2011 7:49 PM
lovelysoul said: "Yes, and I had measles, as did my siblings, and we survived, so technically, there's no necessity to receive the vaccine, even though some kids probably die from measles, but there are also kids who die from vaccines."
Just to reiterate what I said previously, I agree that vaccination isn't at the level of necessary medical intervention. Rather, it is at a place where it is a valid consideration for a parent to make on behalf of their child. Take the measles example again. There were about 500,000 cases a year in the US before the vaccine was introduced. Now there are less then 100. Even in developed countries, mortality can be as high as 1/1000; 10 - 30% in undeveloped countries, depending on the complications that might occur; about 500 children a year still die of measles. Over 90% of vaccinated individuals who share a living space with an infected person will become infected. As opposed to circumcision which also isn't necessary but doesn't even approach a level where it is a valid consideration for the parent.
lovelysoul said: "If anything, the vaccine debate is more valid than the circ debate. There are pros and cons to the parental decisions made on both sides."
I disagree for all the reasons above which are similar for other vaccines too. That's not to say that I think they should be mandatory but there is a substantial difference as compared to circumcision which doesn't come close to posting any compelling numbers such as these.
lovelysoul said: "So, where's the real problem?"
It's the lack of protection and respect for my body that is the problem. Unless there is compelling evidence of need, my parents don't have, never had, the right to impose their subjective preference on me or my penis. That's the problem.
lovelysoul said: "When done right, circumcision makes no discernable difference in the quality of sexual experience. Those who believe that are likely attributing other sexual dysfunctions to their circumcisions when that's not the real cause."
I disagree. They feel at the very least violated, and they are entitled to that. Again, it doesn't take any specific complication for men to feel that way. Foreskin restoration is a small but growing trend. It doesn't totally solve the problem but it gives them some semblance of normalcy and control back. Go and read about it. :)
Joe at April 14, 2011 8:20 PM
Lovelysoul says:
“It's just that things are not always so clear. It's fine once your child is mature enough to reason through the pros and cons themselves, but the age that actually happens varies from child to child.”
Sure… and until they are capable of reasoning the pros and cons and making their own conscious and informed decision all medical procedures that are not indicated by a medical professional as being important for the child’s health should be avoided.
That makes things pretty clear and very straight forward. What exactly is wrong with holding off on unnecessary medical procedures until such time as the child can offer their opinion and consent?
If it isn’t medically necessary for the child’s health there is time to wait.
The only reason not to wait is if the parent fears the child will not want to do things their way and so they just want to push it through when the child is too young to object.
“Vaccines are a perfect example. Some parents believe they're subjecting their child to greater harm by having them and others feel the reverse. What would the child want? They're too young to voice an opinion.”
Vaccines are a terrible example. Vaccines are medically indicated by health professionals as being important to the health and well being of children. Circumcisions are not.
To even place these two things on the same playing field is to misunderstand the magnitude of the effects vaccines have had on the general health of our population.
The effect seriously cannot be minimized. Vaccination has saved more lives than most other medical advances combined. Circumcision has caused more deaths than it has saved lives.
Parents should vaccinate their children because it is medically indicated. Parents should not circumcise their children because it is not medically indicated. It really is a very simple and straightforward analysis.
If there were health benefits for circumcision that were even remotely close to those associated with vaccination I would be all for it, but the facts are actually in opposition to that. Circumcision causes more medical harm than medical benefit.
Reality at April 14, 2011 11:36 PM
I wasn't arguing that vaccines and circumcision are the same. I was using it as an example of the kinds of parental decisions parents must grapple with that are NOT as black and white, and for which the minor child gets no choice.
"If it isn’t medically necessary for the child’s health there is time to wait."
I was roundly criticized here for taking this approach with the HPV vaccine. Other parents were absolutely appalled that I didn't immediately rush my 13 yr old daughter down to the doctor to have her injected with a new, unproven, (and heavily promoted by the drug company) vaccine, to ward off a sexually transmitted condition even though she wasn't sexually active at that age...or even yet at this age (17).
My daughter has told me she isn't having sex and wants to wait to have the vaccine, and I've honored her wishes because she is informed and it is HER body.
Yet, other parents insisted I shouldn't trust her, that she was most certainly lying about sex, so I should make her have the vaccine. I'm the parent; she's a minor, end of story...and I began to worry if my approach of letting her choose was wise. I could force her to have the vaccine, but my instinct tells me it's fine to wait. There are often side effects to these things that tend to be discovered later.
So, there are a lot of gray areas. It's not as easy as just letting your minor child voice their opinion about all medical matters, though I agree that there would be no harm in doing so with circumcision.
lovelysoul at April 15, 2011 2:05 AM
Lovelysoul says:
"I was roundly criticized here for taking this approach with the HPV vaccine."
I didn't criticize you for it. That is actually the one vaccination I can think of that waiting can be appropriate.
Protecting a child against HPV is significantly different than protecting a child versus measles, mumps or polio.
The reason it is different is that one can reasonably avoid HPV based upon their behavior. One cannot do the same with diseases that are transmitted through the air.
I think the “gray areas” that you are talking about aren’t quite as gray as you are suggesting. Given the framework I suggested they all fall into easy to decide situations.
Your daughter is a minor, she is aware of the factors involved in the vaccination. The vaccine in question is not medically indicated to be important to your child’s health such that waiting will cause a problem. When she is ready to have sex she should seriously consider approaching you about the vaccination so that you can both schedule an appointment.
It honestly doesn’t seem that gray to me.
Reality at April 15, 2011 9:08 AM
It's gray if you believe all these parents who say teens always lie about whether they're sexually active or not. So many wrote that they lied to their parents, etc, essentially suggesting I was extremely naive to trust my daughter.
Maybe that's not the best example, but there are a lot of gray areas in parenting. I was also faced with the choice at one time of whether to medicate my son for depression, which I did for a short period, but I was very concerned about side effects there too.
He was only 10 at the time, so although we could've discussed the pros and cons, his opinion would've been much less informed than mine. I ultimately took him off the meds and homeschooled him, believing that his depression was more likely caused by bullying at school than a chemical imbalance.
But I might've been wrong. A girlfriend of mine just lost her 17 yr old son to suicide on New Year's Day. He was in therapy, but I don't know if he was on meds, and, frankly, if he was or wasn't, there will always be doubt that it was the right choice. Some studies have even suggested kids on antidepressants are more likely to commit suicide.
My point is that even if you escape the perils of circumcision, there are a bunch more ways you can screw up, scar, or traumatize your minor child over the next 18 years or so. I don't think any parent gets through it without some guilt over one choice or another.
lovelysoul at April 15, 2011 9:32 AM
Lovelysoul,
Teens lie, children lie, adults lie, politicians lie… everyone on this planet has the capacity to lie. Whether or not a teen will lie about sex has a great deal to do with whether or not they see a benefit to lying about sex. In fact, most people only lie when there is a net benefit to them. Let me give you an example.
If you were home and decided to pig out on cookies and your daughter were to come home later and ask where all the cookies were, would you lie or just admit that you got a craving and ate them all?
Now let’s think about a small child. If that small child ate an entire box of cookies and its parents asked them what happened, the child might lie if they felt that they would be punished for admitting the truth. People lie when they are in a position of relative weakness where they want to avoid consequences.
If there would be serious consequences for your daughter if she admitted to being sexually active then there is a large incentive for her to lie about it. If she understands that you aren’t interested in punishing her, giving her a 3 hour lecture, or otherwise making her feel uncomfortable about the fact that she wanted to have sex, then there is not a large incentive for her to lie to you.
Keep in mind that while lots of 13-17 year olds have sex, there are also lots of 13-17 year olds who do not have sex. Only you know what type of person your daughter is, so you have to make that assessment for yourself.
I for example never lied to my parents about sex, I either chose not to discuss it with them at all or was honest with them. I never saw a benefit to lying to my parents about that stuff because I was never put in a position where I felt there would be bad consequences from them. I did lie to them about other things though, such as what happened to a large piece of glass that I broke by accident. The fundamental difference is that I felt I would get in trouble for one but not the other. I’ve since come clean to them, but as an adult there are no consequences now either and they thought the story was kind of funny in retrospect.
“I was also faced with the choice at one time of whether to medicate my son for depression, which I did for a short period, but I was very concerned about side effects there too.”
Again, how is this a gray area? Was the medication medically indicated by a professional as being important to the health and well being of your son? If so then you were correct in medicating, if not then you were not correct in medicating.
You seem to be under the impression that parents are supposed to make important potentially life altering decisions for their children in a state of complete lack of information. This is hardly the case.
We have information available to make rational decisions. Sometimes those decisions will end up being wrong, but so long as the decision was made on the basis of reason and accurate information then we have done the best we can do.
My opinions on all of these issues, from circumcision to vaccination to depression medication is entirely based upon the body of knowledge we have collected and our current understanding of the world. As it currently stands, vaccination appears to be a medically good idea, circumscion appears to be a medically bad idea.
These things are only “gray” if we choose to operate in complete ignorance of the data.
Parents should not feel guilty for doing what they think is best for their children, but at the same time they should not resist learning more so they can make better decisions as time goes on.
I do not blame parents who have circumcised their children, I do not see them as monsters. I see them as people who made a decision that they probably didn’t think too much about that probably wasn’t a great idea. I simply advocate for future parents not to make the same mistakes, not for parents who have already done so to feel guilty when I am sure they love their children.
Reality at April 15, 2011 10:33 AM
Reality, I wish you'd been in that debate because those were exactly my points! My daughter doesn't have any incentive to lie, as I'm not prudish about sex and have told her it's ok, so long as she uses birth control and chooses her boyfriends wisely. SHE is the one who decided on abstinance, entirely on her own, which I find rather funny since we aren't religious.
Still, it didn't make any difference with others in that discussion, who claimed that even when they had understanding parents, they still lied about sex because they simply felt it was their own business, not mom's or dad's.
"Again, how is this a gray area? Was the medication medically indicated by a professional as being important to the health and well being of your son? If so then you were correct in medicating, if not then you were not correct in medicating."
It's a gray area because even if a doctor or psychiatrist believes you should medicate your child, it may not be the best thing. In the case of depression, there is a checklist of symptoms. If a child scores high enough on that checklist, they are diagnosed as being depressed. A doctor, or, in our case, a psychiatrist, will typical suggest medication (along with therapy), especially if they fear a child may be suicidal.
But there are also many well-informed people who believe 10 yrs old is WAY too young to be taking psychiatric medications. I thought so too, so I went against the grain on that one. I chose to go AGAINST the doctor's advice.
So, it's a gray area because I could've been wrong. Maybe my son would've committed suicide instead of getting better. Luckily, I wasn't. But, it could've gone either way.
Especially when a parent ignores conventional advice - from doctors, teachers, school administrators - they are forging a path into the great unknown. As the mother of a highly gifted, special needs child, I've been on that path many times.
For instance, I was flat-out told by that psychiatrist that the worst thing for him would be to homeschool. Back then, homeschooling wasn't as generally accepted as it is now.
And nobody knew much about Aspergers then. I had to educate myself and find ways to help my son, often in direct opposition to what was "medically indicated".
This is getting off-topic though. I appreciate where you're coming from on circumcision. I agree your points are valid.
lovelysoul at April 15, 2011 11:14 AM
Lovelysoul Says:
“Still, it didn't make any difference with others in that discussion, who claimed that even when they had understanding parents, they still lied about sex because they simply felt it was their own business, not mom's or dad's.”
I learned a long time ago that when people look at a particular situation they think that everyone else is exactly like them. They seem to have great difficulty understanding that sometimes people are different than they are and will therefore behave differently.
A good example of this was back when I was in high school I ended up having a discussion with some college age people and the subject of drinking came up. I was very adamant that when I was in college I wouldn’t be drinking. They all scoffed and told me that they said the same thing when they were my age and that when I was older I’d be drinking just like they were. What they refused to understand was that my group of friends in high school included lots of people who drank regularly and also did much more serious things such as LSD, mushrooms, cocaine etc…
These college kids were absolutely certain that I would give into peer pressure just like they did and start drinking in college without comprehending that even then I could have gotten just about any drug I wanted to. What they failed to realize was that regardless of peer pressure I had zero interest in drugs or alcohol and that being an inherently stubborn person meant I wasn’t going to cave to other people.
Long story short is I’m in my 30’s and I’ve never been drunk or even finished an alcoholic drink. I’m not against alcohol for other people, it isn’t about religious conviction. I don’t drink alcohol for the same reason I don’t drink coffee… because I do not enjoy the taste.
They didn’t get it then, and they wouldn’t get it now. To people like that everyone thinks exactly like they do.
The people you are talking about lied because they were a bunch of weak willed people who didn’t want to open themselves up to potential criticism. There are many things in life that technically aren’t anyone elses business. Having a baby for example isn’t technically ones parents business either… but what person doesn’t call up their mom and dad when they are planning on having a child?
“It's a gray area because even if a doctor or psychiatrist believes you should medicate your child, it may not be the best thing.”
That doesn’t make it a gray area.
Most of life’s decisions have uncertain consequences. No one knows with perfect knowledge what is going to happen. We therefore make the best decisions we can with the information we have available.
For example, generally speaking wearing a safety belt in an automobile will enhance your survival when in a car accident. The fact that there is some small percentage of cases where the belt actually caused severe injury doesn’t suddenly make wearing a safety belt a “gray area”.
You cannot use the fluke circumstances that happen from time to time be an argument against the general trend.
That is like saying that dumping hundreds of dollars into the lotto every week versus working hard and saving your money is a “gray area” for retirement planning.
Reality at April 15, 2011 11:31 AM
Well, I still think you see things too black and white, and I'm guessing you don't have any kids yet. :) Saving for retirement over playing the lotto is such an obvious choice. If only all parenting choices were that easy! They're not.
I'm fortunate to have really good kids, who are independent thinkers, and, for the most part, make good decisions. I never wanted them to go one direction or another just because I told them to or would punish them. That doesn't require any critical thinking skills. And, ultimately, when you're not around, they're going to have to decide about sex, alcohol, and drugs for themselves, as you did, and my daughter is doing, and it's much more meaningful when they make the positive choices THEN.
You're so right about people assuming everyone else will behave like them. I notice that is especially true when we're talking about ethics, or, more particulary, a lack thereof.
lovelysoul at April 15, 2011 12:29 PM
Lovelysoul,
Saving for retirement versus playing the lotto.
Wearing a seat belt versus not wearing one.
Vaccinating children versus not vaccinating them.
Circumcising versus not circumcising infants.
All of these are choices we make with uncertain outcomes where in principle there is a chance, however slim it might be, that we can be wrong. Even in the first case there is technically a possibility of winning the lotto and accumulating a massive amount of money that would exceed anything that you could possibly save in your lifetime.
Please remember that there are actually people who waste hundreds of dollars each month in the hopes that they will hit it big. To those people, purchasing lotto tickets versus saving their money is a “gray area”. You can see the obvious flaw in their thinking, and it doesn’t mean that your world view is too black and white. It has to do with your ability to see down the road what is most likely going to happen and maximizing your odds of ending up in a good situation.
Are there guarantees? Nope… sometimes people actually do win big in the lotto. However it is still a terrible long term retirement strategy because the odds are grossly out of your favor.
What makes a decision wise or unwise has nothing to do with the ultimate outcome of that decision. The wisdom in the decision is whether or not the thinking process that leads you to the conclusions you draw is based upon a series of valid arguments and supported by the best knowledge we have to date.
As that knowledge changes so too must our conclusions.
It is only because of thinking things through like this that the 4 scenarios I presented above are not “gray”. The information we have available suggests very real differences between the odds of those different decisions having favorable or unfavorable consequences for the parties involved.
I do acknowledge the existence of gray areas in general. However those areas tend to be in regions where there is no clear evidence which supports one option over the other. For example, if someone asked me if they should pursue a career in engineering or finance, it isn’t immediately obvious which is the better choice. Both are fine careers and generally allow you to support yourself and a family.
By contrast, if someone asked me if they should pursue a career in engineering or finance or underwater basket weaving… I’d easily be able to eliminate the third option as there is enough evidence to suggest that underwater basket weaving as a career choice will probably not allow that person to pay their bills.
People often like to make their poor life decisions a matter of uncertain knowledge where nothing they could have done differently would have made the circumstances turn out better. Wise people know that our decisions have a direct correlation to how things end up for us even if we sometimes end up being wrong.
I mean, this is kind of the business Amy is in. Whenever she offers advice there is a chance her advice will ultimately not lead to the best possible outcome. Her job is to try and offer the best advice she can with the information she has available so as to improve the odds of her advice being helpful.
Reality at April 15, 2011 1:00 PM
You're taking the more obvious examples and leaving out less clear ones.
To medicate your child for depression or not?
To medicate your child for ADD or not?
At first glance, those may seem easy, but after more research, a parent will quickly realize there is no clear consensus and a lot of risks and side effects to consider.
Another example: My son wanted to fly. He began flying using online simulators when he was about 12. By the time he was 15, he was begging for flt lessons, which we decided to give him. Within only 9 hrs of flt instruction, they said he was ready to solo.
All I could think about was that little girl years ago who tried to fly across country with her dad and instructor and crashed. Friends also told me we were crazy to let our son fly that young all alone.
But it was his passion, so we relented. Could've crashed. Almost did (a plane he almost took when he was 16 had to make a crash landing in the everglades due to mechanical failure. He would've been flying it if he'd arrived 10 mins earlier).
He got his license at only 17, and is now a very accomplished pilot at 21. I'm not sorry for the decision, but that's easy to say since it turned out well. If it had turned out poorly - if he'd died at 15, for instance - I'd probably say it was a really bad parental decision.
Hindsight is 20/20, and we usually revise our view of our choices based on the outcome, when really, many of them are just a leap of faith...a shot in the dark...not based on any particular insight or clarity.
lovelysoul at April 15, 2011 1:30 PM
Lovelysoul,
The two examples you give are challenging because you need more specifics to make a wise choice.
There is no clear answer when it comes to depression or ADD because symptoms can widely vary. Some are severe, some are mild, some are triggered by specific events, some are pervasive.
This is why we consult medical professionals.
I guess the decisions I am focusing on are where the choices themselves often provide enough information to make the call.
Many of life’s decisions require much more information and the specifics count.
Ignoring the specifics and just going with a set of rote dictates circumvents rational thought... I don't feel comfortable with any decision where the details don't matter at all.
I think that a very important component of any decision as a parent is knowing your kids. Children respond differently to different forms of parenting, some children work hard on a goal and follow through, others deviate from one fad to the next. Some children display an enormous amount of responsibility and self control early on, others take longer to mature… some never mature.
The reason I have focused on the decisions where there appears to be a clear consensus is because those are the “easiest” decisions to make. The ones where there isn’t a clear consensus we are kind of left in the “do I become an engineer or go into finance” situation again.
Should most children be allowed to fly a plane alone?… Probably not. However I don’t know your son, he could have been an exception and as a parent you need to be able to reasonably assess the capabilities of your children when making those decisions.
“Hindsight is 20/20, and we usually revise our view of our choices based on the outcome, when really, many of them are just a leap of faith...a shot in the dark...not based on any particular insight or clarity.”
I am not one for playing the game of the outcome determining the wisdom of the choice. If I could see the future I would make the “correct” decision every time.
I’d even buy the lotto ticket when I knew that I was going to win.
Good decision making isn’t about being able to tell the future with precision, it is about accurately assessing the situation and making the best possible choice given the information you currently have. Important life choices should never be “leaps of faith” or “shots in the dark”. That is how people get themselves into trouble, because they go in thinking that they are going to buck the trend without establishing important differences that would suggest that they actually will buck the trend.
The wisdom in letting your son fly alone has to do with whether or not he displayed a level of responsibility and maturity that would be conducive to being a good pilot. If he had been known for sneaking out, not respecting the rules of the house, being constantly defiant and rebellious… that might have indicated that he wasn’t yet ready to be put in a situation where he was expected to follow certain safety regulations. My guess is that he displayed the appropriate level of maturity and responsibility up to that point which is why you allowed him to proceed.
Something tells me you didn’t just flip a coin to decide if he should be able to fly alone or not… there was some thought process involved, right?
Reality at April 15, 2011 2:08 PM
Lonelysoul - I admire your fortitude in slogging through this.
Let's see now... when Lonelysoul points out the obvious fact that:
Amy pipes up with:
But then Amy herself makes the same argument with the (false!) assertion that:
Round and round it goes...
Ben David at April 17, 2011 2:44 AM
Ben,
It would be nice if you could get your quotes straight.
I am the one who pointed out that arguments that rely upon the popularity of a position are not valid.
I am also not the one who then made an argument that relied upon the popularity of a position.
If you can't distinguish between the people making certain statements and then attribute them all to Amy, how can you participate in the discussion?
You are trying to point out a hypocrisy that does not exist because you are quoting entirely separate people.
It doesn’t go “round and round”… ALL arguments which rely upon the popularity of a position are fallacious no matter which side makes them.
Reality at April 17, 2011 12:07 PM
The overwhelming concern of nearly all intactivists is the routine infant circumcision that was extremely common in USA maternity wards during much of the last century, and that 40-50% of American baby boys still undergo.
Jewish brisim are but a small part of circumcisions worldwide. We intactivists are not proposing to abolish bris. We are not advocating that Jewish men be forced to live their adult lives with an unkosher penis. Rather, we pose the following either/or.
Should circumcision be performed in a maternity ward, when a boy is 1-2 days old, or in public in a synagogue, when a boy is a week old? Should it be acceptable to do it without anesthesia? Should the decision be made by the boy's parents?
Or should it be done between the 18/21st birthday and wedding day, under anesthesia and in private, and as a free adult choice of the man whose nervous system is connected to the parts to be amputated?
Circumcision is done in infancy because an infant cannot resist, cannot remember the pain, and his protests can be ignored. This is an abuse of parental power and of trust. The only acts that can have religious value are those that are freely chosen out of faith and loyalty to tradition; my thinking here has very much been shaped by the existentialist philosophy of last century. We do not choose our parents and ancestry; therefore that ancestry should not decide what kind of penis a man has. Hence a man with Jewish ancestry should still have the right to decide whether he will lead his life circumcised or not. The reasoning I lay out in this paragraph led me to not baptize my own children. They are free to choose that for themselves, as consenting adults.
That Ms Alkon agrees with me simply follows logically from her atheism: no God --> no Chosen People --> no Covenant --> no bris.
I thank several religious Jewish women, including Miriam Pollack, Laurie Evans, Lisa Braver Moss, Sarah Rockwell, Diane Targovnik, and especially, Rebecca Wald, for having inspired me to think more clearly about this very delicate question. Their moral courage leaves me in tears.
roger desmoulins at June 22, 2011 1:29 PM
A commenter above wrote: "But it isn't correct to say that there is a measurable difference between those who are cut well and those who are uncut because it's simply untrue. When done right, circumcision makes no discernable difference in the quality of sexual experience."
We do not know the operational meaning of "cut well". We do not know how to assure that circumcision is "done right". In all human endeavours, the occasional accident is inevitable. We do not know how to measure the "quality of sexual experience". Hence we cannot know whether routine circumcision is harmless or not. We do have ample anecdotal evidence that some men are sexually damaged by circ. A major problem is that circ damage often does not become apparent until sometime in middle age, when the problem is almost always blamed on other causes, including simple aging. I know of no careful study of a random sample of American adult penises, complete with clinical examination, and interrogation of spouses.
Given how little we know about the long run consequences of routine circumcision for adult sexual pleasure and functionality, the practice should cease immediately.
roger desmoulins at June 23, 2011 2:38 AM
@Alkon:
"There's the African AIDS study argument -- that circumcision prevents AIDS. Sure it does -- in that population."
It is very true that the African clinical trials were conducted in a world where basic hygiene is problematic, casual prostitution is rampant, condom access is problematic, and sexual practices are bizarre and poorly understood. (Africans can be very prudish when talking to white people in lab coats.) This is a world very different from the one readers of this blog live in.
Over the past 30 years, hundreds of thousands of American and Canadian gay men have died of AIDS, despite the fact that the vast majority of these men were circumcised at birth. In the USA, heterosexual AIDS is mainly a problem in the bottom of society, where needle injected recreational drugs are a major problem.
The African clinical trials also did NOT conclude that "circumcision prevents AIDS". Rather, it was concluded that circumcised men are less likely to catch AIDS from an infected woman partner (read, a sex worker). Circumcision has nothing to do with an infected man's chances of passing HIV on, with the riskiness of homosexual activity, and with nonsexual transmission.
But bear with me; the truth gets worse. The randomised clinical trials conducted in Africa are a scientific scandal in the making. Here's why. A few thousand young men, chosen at random, were asked if they were willing to be circumcised for free. They could refuse. If they agreed, they were giving safe sex pep talks and free condoms. Several thousand control subjects were selected at random. They were not given pep talks or free condoms. Treatments and controls had to test negative for HIV at the outset.
After 6 months, something like 3% of the controls were HIV positive, and 1.4% of the treatments were. The studies were then halted. From this, it was inferred that circumcision is a "surgical vaccine" that is "60% effective in preventing AIDS". Bollocks, I say. The controls should have gotten the pep talks and the free condoms. The studies should have run at least 5 years, better yet, 10. A 6 month trial cannot rule out that cirumcision merely delays the inevitable, so that after 5-10 years, the fraction of subjects who are HIV positive does not vary much across treatments and controls.
In 10 of 18 African countries where the WHO follows HIV closely, the fraction of circed men who are HIV positive somewhat exceeds the fraction of intact men who are.
A major problem in Africa is a growing urban myth that "circumcised men can't catch AIDS and so don't need to bother with condoms." I trust you can all see that this myth is a catastrophic one.
roger desmoulins at June 23, 2011 11:19 AM
Leave a comment