Male And Female Circumcision Are Equally Wrong
Oxford ethicist Brian David Earp writes at Aeon magazine:
I study childhood genital surgeries. Female, male and intersex genital surgeries, specifically, and I make similar arguments about each one. As a general rule, I think that healthy children - whatever their sex or gender - should be free from having parts of their most intimate sexual organs removed before they can understand what's at stake in such a procedure. There are a number of reasons I've come to hold this view, but in some ways it's pretty simple. 'Private parts' are private. They're personal. Barring some serious disease to treat or physical malfunction to address (for which surgery is the most conservative option), they should probably be left alone.People claim that male and female circumcision are different. Earp explains that there are different forms and degrees of FGM [Female Genital Mutilation], and they are likely to result in different degrees of harm:
With different effects on sexual function and satisfaction, different chances of developing an infection, and so on. And yet all forms of non-therapeutic female genital alteration - no matter how sterilised or minor - are deemed to be mutilations in 'Western' countries. All are prohibited by law. The reason for this, when you get right down to it, is that cutting into a girl's genitals without a medical diagnosis, and without her consent, is equivalent to criminal assault on a minor under the legal codes of most of these societies. And, morally, I think the law is correct here. I don't think that a sharp object should be taken to any child's vulva unless it is to save her life or health, or unless she has given her fully informed permission to undergo such an operation, and wants to take on the relevant risks and consequences.
...Just like FGM, however, circumcision is not a monolith: it isn't just one kind of thing. The original Jewish form of circumcision (until about AD150) was comparatively minor. It involved cutting off the overhanging tip of the foreskin - whatever stretched over the end of the glans - thereby preserving (most of) the foreskin's protective and sexual functions, as well as reducing the amount of erogenous tissue removed. The 'modern' form is much more invasive: it removes between one-third and one-half of the movable skin system of the penis (about 50 square centimeters of richly innervated tissue in the adult organ), eliminates the gliding motion of the foreskin, and exposes the head of the penis to environmental irritation, as it rubs against clothing.
...But even 'hospitalised' or 'minor' circumcisions are not without their risks and complications, and the harm is not confined to Africa. In 2011, for example, nearly a dozen infant boys were treated for life-threatening haemorrhage, shock or sepsis as a result of their non-therapeutic circumcisions at a single children's hospital in Birmingham, England. Since this figure was obtained by a special freedom of information request (and otherwise would not have been public knowledge), it has to be multiplied by orders of magnitude to get a sense of the true scope of the problem.
...One recurrent claim, recently underlined by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), is that male circumcision can confer a number of health benefits, such as a small reduction in the absolute risk of contracting certain sexually transmitted infections. This is not typically seen as being the case for FGM.
However, both parts of this claim are misleading. Certainly the most extreme types of FGM will not contribute to good health on balance, but neither will the spearheads-and-dirty-knives versions of genital cutting on boys. What about other forms of FGM? Its defenders (who typically refer to it as 'female circumcision') regularly cite such 'health benefits' as improved genital hygiene as a reason to continue the practice. Indeed, the vulva has all sorts of warm, moist places where bacteria or viruses could get trapped, such as underneath the clitoral hood, or among the folds of the labia; so who is to say that removing some of that tissue (with a sterile surgical tool) might not reduce the risk of various diseases?
...a small and insistent group of (mostly American) scientists have taken it upon themselves to promote infant male circumcision as a form of partial prophylaxis against disease. Most of these diseases are rare in developed countries, do not affect children before an age of sexual debut, and can be prevented and/or treated through much more conservative means. Nevertheless - since it is not against the law for them to do so - advocates of (male) circumcision are able to conduct study after well-funded study to see just what kinds of 'health benefits' might follow from cutting off parts of the penis.
...But in medical ethics, the appropriate test for a non-therapeutic surgery performed in the absence of disease or deformity is not benefit vs 'risk of surgical complications' but rather benefit vs risk of harm. In this case, one relevant harm would be the involuntary loss of a healthy, functional, and erotogenic genital structure that one might wish to have experienced intact. Imagine a report by the CDC referring to the benefits of removing the labia of infant girls, where the only morally relevant drawback to such a procedure was described as the 'risk of surgical complications'.
...Medically unnecessary genital surgeries - of whatever degree of severity - will affect different people differently. This is because each individual's relationship to their own body is unique, including what they find aesthetically appealing, what degree of risk they feel comfortable taking on when it comes to elective surgeries on their reproductive organs, and even what degree of sexual sensitivity they prefer (for personal or cultural reasons). That's why ethicists are beginning to argue that individuals should be left to decide what to do with their own genitals when it comes to irreversible surgery, whatever their sex or gender.
This article is adapted from a longer piece originally published at the University of Oxford's Practical Ethics website. Links to supporting research can be found in the original essay, available here.
From Dan Savage's 1998 book "The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant":
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/do-the-rite-thing/Content?oid=900073
"In the first few months of D.J.'s life, Terry and I deadlocked on just two issues: circumcision and baptism. I got my way on both. Like most American males, Terry and I were circumcised as infants. And like most American homos, we prefer circumcised men as sex partners. I lived in Europe for a while, and came to appreciate uncut men. But given my druthers, I'd rather put a cut dick in my mouth than an uncut one. Cut cock just tastes better, and in a culture that's embraced oral sex as enthusiastically as ours has, gay and straight, taste counts for something. Discuss circumcision with new parents — hip ones, living in urban areas — and along with the standard pro-circumcision arguments ('We want him to look like his father'; 'We don't want him made fun of in the locker room'; 'It's easier to keep clean') you'll hear implicit and occasionally explicit concerns about how he's going to taste. Straight folks won't usually come right out and say, 'We worry about his dick tasting awful'; instead, they communicate their concern with cryptic comments about what his sex partners will think, the smegma issue, and whether being uncut might limit his options sexually...and they trail off.
"Unfortunately for oral sex, logic is on the side of the anticircumcision activists. Family resemblance? Not something we usually judge on the appearance of genitals. Teasing in the locker room? Half of all boys born in America today are not circumcised; if your son gets teased, he and the other uncut kids can form a gang and beat the shit out of the snip-dicks. Ease of cleaning? We don't cut off other body parts that are hard to keep clean. (not verbatim, this last sentence): With that kind of logic, people point out, we should have our teeth yanked out to save us the trouble of flossing...
"...'If D.J. grows up with a complex about not looking like us, or gets beat up in locker rooms, or can't find anyone who'll give him a blow job,' Terry warned me, 'I'm going to tell him it's all your fault.'
"I assumed these risks, and D.J. remained intact. Barring infectious complications, or a conversion to Judaism, he'll remain uncut for life."
lenona at August 12, 2015 7:05 AM
Just to clarify: The article and the book excerpt are NOT supposed to be identical. I forgot to remove the link - the only point in clicking on it is to read about the baptism, which was likely phrased a bit differently as well.
lenona at August 12, 2015 7:07 AM
People can get cut/pierced/tattooed/split/infibulated as adults if they so choose. Yes, it hurts more, but if it is something they really want they'll do it. If the pain doesn't seem worth it, they won't.
NicoleK at August 12, 2015 7:45 AM
NO. They are not "equally" wrong. I'm fucking sick of male circumcision being brought up anytime there is a discussion about FGM. They are nothing alike, either medically (the risks), in practice, health, aesthetics, or culturally.
Totally different. Fucking sick of dick snip. He's being disnegenoius too.
Ppen at August 12, 2015 8:05 AM
"...But even 'hospitalised' or 'minor' circumcisions are not without their risks and complications, and the harm is not confined to Africa."
Nobody that is pro-circumcision believes bad things only happen in third world countries.
"Since this figure was obtained by a special freedom of information request (and otherwise would not have been public knowledge), it has to be multiplied by orders of magnitude to get a sense of the true scope of the problem."
See? He's full of it. Let me create numbers to prove some point. Ethicist? Garbage argument.
Dick snipping is nothing like FGM. It isn't "equally" bad.
If you want it to stop fine. But don't you dare compare the two.
Ppen at August 12, 2015 8:13 AM
Re: Ppen at 8:05, the argument is not that male and female circumcision are "alike" in practice, health, etc. It is a matter of an individual's right to bodily integrity. "My body, my choice." A parent should not make immutable changes to a child's body except in extraordinary circumstances.
DrPinWV at August 12, 2015 8:16 AM
I know what he's saying and to prove his point he does what every anti-dick snipper does, compare it to FGM. There are health benefits to circumcision and none to FGM. It isn't the devil.
There is a reason Muslims accept it and as a general rule do not accept FGM (and it is mostly an African practice).
Fuck I hate the anti-circumcision movement. Yes don't do it to your kid, but it isn't the devil.
Ppen at August 12, 2015 8:31 AM
Uncut dicks can taste good too if they are cleaned properly.
Btw, new studies show that a woman is more likely to climax from intercourse with an uncut penis.
Jen at August 12, 2015 8:31 AM
Jen:
How does THAT work, since typically, the female orgasm doesn't result from intercourse alone?
lenona at August 12, 2015 10:00 AM
There is a reason Muslims accept it and as a general rule do not accept FGM
_____________________________________
Er, where did you hear THAT?
As I understand it, while FGM is not a requirement of Islam, it's not discouraged either. (It IS mentioned in the Koran.) Also, while some Christians and Jews (mostly in Africa and the Middle East, IIRC) practice it, most of those who practice FGM are Muslim.
One "reason" for FGM - as in complete excision - is that it supposedly discourages infidelity among women (some people say it doesn't, despite the lack of normal pleasure). In some cultures (Togo, for one), the belief is that a man cannot marry an uncut woman; it would be like a man marrying another man. Not to mention the superstition that says that an uncut woman's clitoris will eventually grow to her feet or so; I've heard that more than once, from writings by U.S. doctors who have African patients.
lenona at August 12, 2015 10:10 AM
I know what he's saying and to prove his point he does what every anti-dick snipper does, compare it to FGM. There are health benefits to circumcision and none to FGM. It isn't the devil.
There is a reason Muslims accept it and as a general rule do not accept FGM (and it is mostly an African practice).
Fuck I hate the anti-circumcision movement. Yes don't do it to your kid, but it isn't the devil.
Posted by: Ppen at August 12, 2015 8:31 AM
I am in agreement. Furthermore these people are unwitting tools. The real goal of most of these organizations seems to be to create a double standard where first world parents get second guessed by the government nannies over every single medical and cultural practice endemic to Western Civilization, and third World shirt holes get a complete pass, because to question their practices would be racist or something.
Isab at August 12, 2015 10:14 AM
"NO. They are not "equally" wrong. I'm fucking sick of male circumcision being brought up anytime there is a discussion about FGM. They are nothing alike, either medically (the risks), in practice, health, aesthetics, or culturally. "
In this Ppen, you are amoral idiot. Go back to being the sane commenter we usually see here.
You are tight that there are differences. one difference is that standard forms of MGM are more destructive than most standard FGM. In modern MGM most or all of the foreskin is destroyed. in FGM only a small portion of the clitoris, which is primarily an internal organ, is removed. So there's the difference.
Jim at August 12, 2015 1:04 PM
My wording was off. FGM is culturally African. Masai for example do it.
It isn't a Muslim practice like circumcision. There is a reason it isn't wide-spread outside a geographic location. It isn't accepted by Muslims worldwide because it's barbaric.
The purpose of FGM is to prevent all sexual pleasure for a woman.
Anti-circumcision advocates have not been able to definitely prove that it decreases sexual pleasure.
Ppen at August 12, 2015 1:12 PM
You are comparing the partial removal of the clitoris to the removal of the foreskin? Have you ever fucked? See what a bunch of assholes and fuckwits you anti-circumcision nutjobs are.
The least common form of FGM is the removal of the clitoral hood. That MIGHT be similar to circumcision. But the most common is the complete removal of the clit without an anesthetics and a dirty knife. Don't forget to remove the inner labia. If you're in Ethiopia let me literally sew the pussy hole up.
Can I slice part of your dick head AND your foreskin? What about sew your balls together?
Ppen at August 12, 2015 1:24 PM
Ppen; I'm with you on this. The two are NOT the same.
Yes, there are different "degrees" to each which could make one or the other more damaging than the other; but, to say that they are both "equally" wrong is to diminish what FGM does to most women.
From what I've read FGM is to make sex difficult for women (so they don't whore around on their men); but, the same cannot be said about male circumcision.
There are medical reasons for some men to get circumcised, not all men; but, those that need to get circumcised for medical reasons would be far better off having it done in infancy that when they are adults. Mind you, I'm not saying that we should circumcise all men just because they might need it later in life. But, there are no medical reasons for FGM - if there are, someone please educate me.
So, yea, Ppen, I agree. Whatever one might think about either male circumcision or FGM it is not correct to say they are "equal."
charles at August 12, 2015 1:32 PM
"NO. They are not "equally" wrong. I'm fucking sick of male circumcision being brought up anytime there is a discussion about FGM. They are nothing alike, either medically (the risks), in practice, health, aesthetics, or culturally. "
In this Ppen, you are amoral idiot. Go back to being the sane commenter we usually see here.
You are tight that there are differences. one difference is that standard forms of MGM are more destructive than most standard FGM. In modern MGM most or all of the foreskin is destroyed. in FGM only a small portion of the clitoris, which is primarily an internal organ, is removed. So there's the difference.
Jim at August 12, 2015 1:41 PM
"...Medically unnecessary genital surgeries - of whatever degree of severity - will affect different people differently. This is because each individual's relationship to their own body is unique, including what they find aesthetically appealing, what degree of risk they feel comfortable taking on when it comes to elective surgeries on their reproductive organs, and even what degree of sexual sensitivity they prefer (for personal or cultural reasons). That's why ethicists are beginning to argue that individuals should be left to decide what to do with their own genitals when it comes to irreversible surgery, whatever their sex or gender."
Does anyone want to make a bet that this British Nitwit is totally on board with giving 12 year olds hormone treatments, and sexual reassignment surgery because "it is their body and their decision"?
I wonder if he would also veto correcting sexual organ malformation in intersex infants after genetic testing?
Isab at August 12, 2015 1:56 PM
Gosh, so much ad hominem vitriol in this thread!
Regardless of any differences one might identify in male and female circumcision, they have this much in common: Either practice is a violation of a human being's bodily integrity.
DrPinWV at August 12, 2015 2:10 PM
As a parent you have the right to "violate" the child's bodily integrity if you believe it is in the best health interests of the child.
There is scientific evidence circumcision is good. IFGM is plagued with nothing but scientifically negative health outcomes.
Stop comparing the two. Absolutely nothing alike. I guarantee you as Isab said this guy is for pre-pubescent hormonal sexual reassignment therapy.
Ppen at August 12, 2015 2:43 PM
Regardless of any differences one might identify in male and female circumcision, they have this much in common: Either practice is a violation of a human being's bodily integrity.
Posted by: DrPinWV at August 12, 2015 2:10 PM
So are vaccinations, hernia repair, antibiotics, PK tests, Cochlear implants, cataract removal, and club foot correction surgery.
Are you seriously suggesting that parents should be prevented from deciding if their babies get those things, and any decision on whether your kid can walk, hear, see or not, be deferred until they reach the age of consent? .
Isab at August 12, 2015 3:38 PM
From what I've read FGM is to make sex difficult for women (so they don't whore around on their men); but, the same cannot be said about male circumcision.
Actually it can, circumcision in the west was introduced to curb male sexual gratification and masturbation
There are medical reasons for some men to get circumcised, not all men; but, those that need to get circumcised for medical reasons would be far better off having it done in infancy that when they are adults.
Very true, unfortunately those men who do need surgical intervention can only find out during or after puberty. There is no way to diagnose the foreskin a being unnatural fused to the glans until after the onset of puberty when the separation naturally occurs.
But, there are no medical reasons for FGM - if there are, someone please educate me.
The exact same reasons PPen said it was for men. Reduction of STDs. At the same time the african AIDS/circumcision study was being called off before it could fail to produce the result those funding it wanted a similar study tracked the STD rates in women who were/were not being given wholly unnecessary genital surgeries for quasi moral reasons.
In this instance the form of FGM was sewing the vagina 95% shut. The study found that women how had this done to them had a 80+% reduced rate of STDs
Those who claim there are heath benefits to ripping the skin of a baby's dick so it can sit in piss and shit for a week or so while it heals are either deluded or uniformed.
Given my numerous post debunking the supposed benefits, anyone who has been on this site more than a year or to who still thinks circumcision is harmless/helpful fall into the deluded category
lujlp at August 12, 2015 5:14 PM
So are vaccinations, hernia repair, antibiotics, PK tests, Cochlear implants, cataract removal, and club foot correction surgery.
Are you seriously suggesting that parents should be prevented from deciding if their babies get those things, and any decision on whether your kid can walk, hear, see or not, be deferred until they reach the age of consent?
I'm sorry Isab, which of those seven things is plastic surgery?
Which of those does no good at all and kills over 100 infants each year?
Which of those DAMAGES an fails to improve natural function?
lujlp at August 12, 2015 5:16 PM
sorry Isab, which of those seven things is plastic surgery?
Which of those does no good at all and kills over 100 infants each year?
Which of those DAMAGES an fails to improve natural function?
Posted by: lujlp at August 12, 2015 5:16 PM
Circumcision isn't plastic surgery, so I am not sure, what you are getting at.
The imbecilic statement made was that both female and male circumcision violates the body's integrity.
My response is: So what? Modern medicine violates the body's integrity, and kills (or fails to save) thousands of infants.
So what is your point?
Isab at August 12, 2015 5:24 PM
The good sir, lujlp, made a great point about circumcision. "My body, my choice" should apply to both genders.
T. J. Patriarch at August 12, 2015 5:58 PM
I suspect that a lot of the anti circumcision crowd is misplaced anger at parents for daring to make decisions for their children that in a few instances have turned out badly.
I myself have been the victim of a medical procedure, that my parents were convinced in 1968 was cutting edge beneficial treatment for an over bite that would not only cause me to look funny, but would ruin my health if it was not corrected.
That's right, they took me to an orthodontist.
It was unbelievably painful because I was forced to wear a headgear to force the molars in my upper jaw back about a quarter of an inch so there would be room to move the rest of my teeth and cure my over bite.
I finally got the braces, and the retainer off after four years of torture, and things were ok until as a young adult I started to develop a serious case of TMJ.
My teeth look great but I have had intense tooth pain off and on four years, and a few years ago I lost two of my upper molars to broken roots.
Gee, I wonder if moving them a quarter of an inch through solid bone had anything to do with that?
My parents, by the way both had and have all their natural teeth up until death. My mother is 90 now.
Do I blame my parents? Of course not. They did the best they could for me, and doctors and dentists weren't prescient then, and they aren't prescient now, as to whether a medical procedure, is good, bad, or neutral in any individual case.
On the circumcision issue. My now thirty year old son is not circumcised.
It was my decision, as my husband didn't care one way or the other.
I would make the same decision now, but regardless, I was, as a parent, in the best position to make that decision, not the freaking government, and not some idiot ethics professor who thinks that "violating the body's integrity' is some rare and malevolent thing......
Isab at August 12, 2015 6:03 PM
Lenona: here is one of the studies: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=hss_pubs
I had always thought that FGM was wrong and I was against male circumcision but acquiesced to my husband's judgement because he is male. With the new studies, I regret that.
Most FGM removes the clitoris, not the clitoral hood. The clitoris varies widely. Some women have more of the tissue internally. Most women who have the clitoris removed can never orgasm so it would be more like removing the tip of the penis.
I cannot imagine the radical "circumcision" where even the inner lips are removed and only a little hole is left. I imagined that it would make sex horribly painful and damaging but after being sewn up a little off after my first child, I realized how horrible FGM must be. I still "looked normal" but I couldn't sit, squat, or spread my legs without agony - I'm not even talking about sex. I was so tight down there, even a bowel movement tore me. I had an enlarging incision that immediately stopped the pain and bleeding.
Do Not diminish FGM. I am against all circumcision without consent but don't try to make your argument against male circumcision at the expense of women.
Jen at August 12, 2015 7:09 PM
I also want to state that every parent who makes the decision to cut their son based on health prevention reasoning, has a valid point. I have seen infections and difficulties ranging from phimosis to balanitis from ages of infancy to the elderly. In my opinion, the worst is when they're in grade school. Old enough to wash themselves and not have mom taking care of things, young enough to not wash anything correctly, and old enough for this all to hurt like hell and have to go through an embarassing and painful surgery. People seem to run right over the complications that can occur with being uncircumcised like they are nil, but you talk to a pediatric urologist and see how many cases he sees. It's legit.
gooseegg at August 12, 2015 8:43 PM
FGM is done to remove sexual pleasure for women while male circumcision is done for religious/health benefits for men. STOP...EQUATING...THE...TWO
"In this instance the form of FGM was sewing the vagina 95% shut. The study found that women how had this done to them had a 80+% reduced rate of STDs"
Blatant bullshit. One of the hypothesized reasons HIV spread like wildfire in Africa is because of the sexual practices of heterosexuals. Namely abrasive dry painful sex is seen as good.
"Linke points to the common factor of contact with blood during intercourse for transmission of HIV in homosexuals in the United States and heterosexuals in Africa.21 For many of the women with FGM who have been infibulated (pharaonic), vagina intercourse is difficult at best and is associated with repeated tissue damage and bleeding, subsequently anal intercourse is resorted to with heterosexual partners. Thus the proposition that HIV transmission is enhanced because of the widespread practice of FGM.21,25"
. It has been postulated that FGM may also play a significant role in facilitating the transmission of HIV infection through numerous mechanisms.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10743534/
You do not want to circumcise boys? Fine. But comparing it to FGM. They are nowhere near each other ok?
Ppen at August 12, 2015 9:28 PM
It is true that parents must make decisions for their children, including decisions about diet ("Eat your peas!"), bedtimes, playmates, and yes, vaccinations, antibiotics, and medical procedures. As Ppen says, these decisions are made because parents "believe it is in the best health interests of the child." But not all beliefs are valid, not all stand up to scrutiny, and not all have the same consequences for the child. And so if that is the basis for deciding what is allowable, you are on soft ground.
History tells us that both male and female circumcision are motivated by the belief that it is in the best health interests of the child. Both. In this respect they are the same and therefore would seem to be allowable. Something else is tipping the balance here: Female circumcision is seen as barbaric. What is unclear to me is why male circumcision is not seen as barbaric as well.
Whether male circumcision has essential health benefits - important benefits that can only be achieved through circumcision rather than, say, improved hygiene - is a subject of debate among scholars. I will note only that many barbaric practices can be said to have benefits: "If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out!" By this reasoning, all kinds of mischief can be eliminated by amputating eyes, hands, feet, testicles, ovaries...
DrPinWV at August 13, 2015 3:35 AM
"As Ppen says, these decisions are made because parents "believe it is in the best health interests of the child." But not all beliefs are valid, not all stand up to scrutiny, and not all have the same consequences for the child. And so if that is the basis for deciding what is allowable, you are on soft ground."
Unstated in your argument is the assumption that because parents sometimes make poor decisions, or ones that turn out badly, that someone else, such as a doctor or big daddy government should be given the power instead.
There is no soft ground here, Medical professionals, and government nannies make the same poor decisions as parents, because they are not immune to personal biases and flawed medical studies either.
I pick the parents, and I pick freedom. Mistakes will be made, but government and medical professionsals have no skin in the game, and are shielded from the consequences of their poor decisions.
Isab at August 13, 2015 8:12 AM
Do Not diminish FGM. I am against all circumcision without consent but don't try to make your argument against male circumcision at the expense of women.
Posted by: Jen at August 12, 2015 7:09 PM
___________________________________
You DO realize I didn't say anything to diminish FGM, don't you? Sure you're not thinking of someone else?
lenona at August 13, 2015 8:20 AM
Ppen,
DrPinWV already offered a strong rebuttal to "parents make decisions, circumcision is a decision, parents can circumcise". I'd like to ask follow-up questions.
- How should we determine what constitutes "good" for someone else for policy purposes?
- Why should the subjective conclusion "good" be relevant for a permanent change (i.e. a cost/harm) to the body of someone else, when that someone else is normal and healthy (i.e. needs no violating) and cannot offer consent (i.e. declare his agreement that "good" is, in fact, good)?
- Do you believe that "good" is subjective with circumcision?
- Is it possible to look at the evidence presented for circumcision and conclude that it is bad?
- Is there an ethical distinction between the facts and the application of the facts?
Tony at August 13, 2015 9:24 AM
FGM is done to remove sexual pleasure for women while male circumcision is done for religious/health benefits for men. STOP...EQUATING...THE...TWO
The most "benign" from of FGM involves drawing a single drop of blood from a pinprick from, most often the clit, some genital tissue.
That is illegal.
Male circumcision involves using a tool to literally scrape the skin of the flesh it it FUSED to. Most often without anesthesia.
Try it with your finger.
Male circumcision is not for health reasons, that is just the latest excuse used to justify a process that got it start quite literally to curb male sexual gratification.
There is not doubt that FGM causes more harm, but the REASON for both is the same.
And what are these health benefits?
You keep mention there are some but never the specifics.
The largest health benefit is a reduction in UTIs. But that only lasts 18 to 24 months.
Which means a two year old infant is more competent at washing its own dick than its parents are.
There are roughly 2 million boys born each year, roughly half are circumcised. 2 mil/2 = 1 mil
Statistically 200 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 UTI and Roughly 100 boys die every year from complications
So, 1 million/100 = 10,000 circs per death
10,000/200 = 50.
So in order to prevent 50 UTIs we kill one child. That seem like a rational trade off?
Also foreskins make big money for hospitals, drug manufacturers, and cosmetic companies, BILLIONS of dollars every year. It’s not about your babies’ heath, it’s about making money
lujlp at August 13, 2015 10:13 AM
"- How should we determine what constitutes "good" for someone else for policy purposes?"
I can answer this one. These is no "good" or "bad" when it comes to medical procedures.
There are only studies, controversies, unintended consequences, and areas of grey.
You prescient people seem to fail to understand, that circumcision was not historically the cultural norm in the United States or Europe.
It only became the cultural norm after it was instituted by force, and government policy on American military personnel in World War II.
They did it for sanitary reasons, and also because the government and military doctors noticed that circumcised individuals were less likely to both contract and spread VD.
This evidence of lower transmission of VD, and fewer urinary tract infections, is still good science.
But the medical professionsals and government policy was what drove circumcision to be the standard of care in the U.S.
Now, medical social justice warriors want to unring that bell, and paint everyone that opts for circumcision for their child, as some sort of war criminal who should be prevented from doing by government policy (what was pushed on them by government policy in the first place)
It is pretty damn nuts.
Isab at August 13, 2015 10:19 AM
Isab says, "Unstated in your argument is the assumption that because parents sometimes make poor decisions, or ones that turn out badly, that someone else, such as a doctor or big daddy government should be given the power instead."
Unstated because it is not part of my argument. I am simply suggesting that male circumcision is a barbaric practice. I have made no argument about how to stop it, and what role - if any - the government (or other institutions such as religions) should play. Interesting question, to be sure, but not one that I have tried to answer implicitly or explicitly.
I also make no claim about whether male circumcision is more or less abhorrent than female circumcision. This is a legitimate issue of interest many, but it is of no practical consequence to me because I regard both as crossing the threshold of unacceptable practice.
DrPinWV at August 13, 2015 12:03 PM
VD rates of WW1 & WW2 were lower with condoms than circumcision, but circumcision wasnt seen a morally suspect the way condoms were.
Again, you keep claiming health benefits but not providing any hard numbers.
Why is that?
The removal of forskins heath benefits are a 30% reduction in instances of penile cancer usually only experienced in the 8th decade of life or beyond, and a reported 12% reduction in the instances of UTI's ONLY in the fist two years of life.
This suggest two yr old are better at washing dick durring bath time than their parents.
As far as the STD heath aspects some studies suggest a mild reduction in bacterial STIs like gonorrhea and clamidia, but they show an increase in certain viral infections as the drier, more calloused glans develops friction based mirco fissure and cause similar fissure in a females vaginal walls. Resulting in higher cases of women contracting STDs
Factor in the number of kids who die from blood loss, the occasional amputation, and the myriad of number complications. Is it really worth such small gains given the risks?
Also less that 5% of males are reported getting UTI's in their lifetime, less than 10% get penile cancer in the 2 or 3 yrs before they die of extreme old age. Nearly 15% of women get breast cancer before they are 40.
If such small non life threatening risks are reason enough to preform circumcision, why has no one suggested infant mastectomies for baby girls?
It would save far more lives, especially considering circumcision has never been shown to save a single life.
lujlp at August 13, 2015 12:55 PM
And another thing there are two different issues at play. Why it was started and why it continues.
Why it continues is money; skin grafts, hormones for bio research, drug companies and cosmetic companies, preventing lawsuits against doctors and the AMA.
As for why it started, because of people like this, and others with similar views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Views_on_sexuality
Quick question, is this guys practices are good enough for males, why dont we also employ his practices for females?
lujlp at August 13, 2015 12:59 PM
Isab,
I happen to agree with you that there is no “good” or “bad” surgery as a fixed, objective rule. Circumcision is “neutral”. It is a surgery. We have evidence of what happens, although curiously, some researchers use "heads I win, tails you lose" when interpreting the results. Without the circumstances, I don't claim to know if it's good or bad. Circumcision can be good, such as when there’s a malady no other option will resolve or when someone decides he wants it because he values the possible benefits more than the costs and potential risks. Context matters.
The application of circumcision to a person by another involves the rights of the recipient. The ethics can lead to a definitive "good" or "bad" conclusion. That is the comparison between FGC and male circumcision. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is unethical. The degree of harm caused by either surgery is relevant, but the typical difference in degree informs punishment for the act, not permissibility of the act.
FWIW, I know the history of circumcision. I want to "unring that bell" because it was wrong to "ring" in the first place. It's unethical to cut - or to promote cutting - the genitals of healthy people without their consent. The surgery violates their rights. The legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. It's arbitrary and unjustifiable to allow an exemption to existing laws on the normal prepuce of male children.
Whether or not our government recognizing its obligation here would work is a separate, practical question. I lean to believing education is the only workable solution, despite what should change in policy. Educating doctors of their duty to their patients is the most obvious route, including the "education" of civil lawsuits when the violated come of age and can demand (insufficient) restitution for the objective harm inflicted upon them.
Tony at August 13, 2015 1:49 PM
Let me reverse it for you lujlp. Imagine if Africa and the Middle East was a matriarchal secular society where women got circumcised in nice clean hospitals as standard procedure. Only the hood was removed. Various doctor associations concluded that the benefits of female circumcision outweighed the risks. People in such societies cosmetically liked the look better too. The evidence of it significantly reducing sexual pleasure was inconclusive with good evidence it prevented urinary tract infections and the spread of VD.
Now you live in the US. It is a matriarchal society but female circumcision is practiced as well. Not as cleanly sure but it's not something that negatively impacts women on a significant level. However it being a matriarchal society men are seen as seducing scum so a big chunk of their penis head is cut off (alot of times all of it), their foreskin removed and sometimes their balls sewn together (until marriage). The purpose is to eradicate the male orgasm. Sure there is a "benign" form that is almost never practiced. There have been no "health" benefits from this practice and good evidence it spreads HIV and a significant factor of am AIDS crisis.
And here I come. An anti female circumcision advocate from a first world secular wealthy country.. I equate the two, constantly. I won't shut up about how one is JUST as bad as the other. I ignore the various childrens medical associations saying female circumcision is fine, I ignore women who undergo it as adults because it provides some relief from pain, I ignore that the majority of women report no adverse effects. I ignore that the purpose of MGM is to completely remove the ability to orgasm and any form of sex until men are sold off to older women.
And the me in this world is equally against men and women getting circumcised but I fail to see the massive depth of difference between the two experiences. So this me is an ethicist from Oxford. This me equates the two. Yes they both are about violating the rights of a child but the "why" seems to escape me.
A blog commenter makes a title about how both circumcisions are equally bad. And it piisses you off because you know there is a massive depth of difference between the two.
Ppen at August 13, 2015 1:56 PM
"The least common form of FGM is the removal of the clitoral hood. That MIGHT be similar to circumcision. But the most common is the complete removal of the clit without an anesthetics and a dirty knife."
Wrong on both counts.
For one thing the clitoral hood and the foreskin are NOT analogous structures, they are homologous structures. The foreskin has a much greater density of nerves than does the clitoral hood. this is simple anatomy. So removal of the foreskin is a much greater loss than the clitoral hood. Lean some male anatomy if you want to have an opinion on this subject.
More simple anatomy - FGM does NOT remove the entire clitoris, since most of the clitoris is internal. Learn some female anatomy. The hype about "removing the entire clitoris" is a manipulative and hysterical lie in the service of a political agenda.
Finally, Jen - really? caring for little boys takes something away form women? If it does, that says something very, very negative about women, doesn't it?
Frankly some of the women on this thread have made man-hating asses out of themselves.
Jim at August 13, 2015 3:32 PM
"The ethics can lead to a definitive "good" or "bad" conclusion."
No they can't , because there is no objective criteria available to draw the line between *bad* and *good*
This is a subjective judgement, and the early World War II doctors were not wrong.
Also you seem to have a very hard time understanding hindsight.
The 1930's doctors were making medical decisions on the best available evidence,( just like the 1950's oncologists were hacking off limbs and breasts to stop the spread of cancer.)
They were doing the best they could to save men (and their families) from fatal and debilitating venereal diseases in a pre antibiotic era.
While you are educating yourself about the standard of treatment in World War II, look up what syphilis does to an infant if they contract it during birth.
Their reasoning didn't suddenly become wrong once antibiotics were readily available. We just had better tools.
The paradigm had changed.
I though most people got over the urge to classify everything as either bad or good, a little past the sixth grade.
Isab at August 13, 2015 4:15 PM
Lenona, I am so sorry that I wasn't clear. I posted the study for you.
The rest was a rebuttal aimed mostly towards Jim who thinks male circumcision is so much worse than female circumcision. While the clitoris may be also internal, most women cannot access it even through intercourse and achieve orgasm. Inability to reach orgasm is much less frequent in circumcised men.
Jen at August 13, 2015 4:23 PM
Isab,
Of course there are objective criteria available to draw the line between good and bad. The normal, healthy foreskin is an objective criterion. The availability of antibiotics is an objective criterion. The effectiveness of condoms, which were available during World War 2, is an objective criterion. Evidence from comparable populations that don't practice infant circumcision is an objective criterion. Those should all inform the conclusion on the application of circumcision. Choosing the most radical option first, and for someone else, in the absence of need is strange. It isn't made less so by citing intentions.
Instead of assuming that I have gaps in my knowledge or lack an understanding of hindsight, try asking a question or two. I read from above how it's been easier to make lots of convenient assumptions about Mr. Earp's opinions on issues when asking him directly is an option, so maybe I'm expecting too much? I want to think not.
I haven't criticized intentions. I don't pretend that all medical knowledge today should've been obvious yesterday. But I'm not willing to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about the past. If there was an error in common thinking, such as pathologizing normal human anatomy, I'm not giving that a pass. "Didn't know" is not "couldn't know". For a long time doctors thought babies don't feel pain, so circumcising without any pain relief was common. The best available evidence was what they'd been taught by other experts who also apparently lacked the ability or willingness to hear the baby crying on the table when the scalpel cut. Am I allowed to look at the past and conclude they screwed up, and that mistake was indefensible at the time?
Tony at August 13, 2015 6:21 PM
More and more I fail to see the difference between feminists and MRA's. Anytime you point out something where the opposite gender has it worse they call you a "gender hater".
"While the clitoris may be also internal, most women cannot access it even through intercourse and achieve orgasm."
BINGO! The way to surgically reconstruct FGM is by pulling the internal clit out and removing the tissue that is scared.
"Studies on sexual function have also been small.[65] A 2013 meta-analysis of 15 studies involving 12,671 women from seven countries concluded that women with FGM were twice as likely to report no sexual desire and 52 percent more likely to report dyspareunia (painful sexual intercourse). One third reported reduced sexual feelings.[74]"
Ppen at August 13, 2015 8:50 PM
PPen
If you set a house on fire to collect insurance money is it fraud and arson?
If you set a car on fire to collect insurance money is it fraud and arson?
Is the fact that the fraud is smaller for a car it stops being fraud and arson?
Is a burning match no longer considered fire just because it is smaller than a burning candle?
You want to know what pisses me of about your claims?
No one here claims to support FGM, yet you are implying they do.
Why is it so hard for you to simply say - 'yes all of it is wrong no matter who it happens to'?
How does supporting bodily integrity for men diminish supporting bodily integrity for women?
How does supporting equal standards for everyone automatically mean less concern for the rights for women?
lujlp at August 13, 2015 9:14 PM
Boy this one set off a firestorm, didn't it?
Me? I had both my boys circumcised and my new grandson was as well. I have zero qualms about it. We had religious reasons at the time to have it done to our sons. I watched the second one. There was no scraper like someone mentioned. It looked kind of like a wire. They wrapped it around the foreskin and tugged. Over in about 45 seconds.
Hegwynne at August 13, 2015 10:53 PM
And what if your kid/grand kid was one of the scores who die from it every year?
Or one of the thousands maimed to the point of needing, or beyond, repair?
lujlp at August 14, 2015 2:41 AM
"No one here claims to support FGM, yet you are implying they do."
Exactly where did I do that and why would I imply you mouth foamers would be pro-cutting anything anyways?
As I recall my chagrin has been that anti-circumsion middle class American males act as if the historical medical ethics and adoption of American circumcision are on par and comparable to the ethics and historical basis of FGM. I knew it would take several of my comments to get you guys to finally admit one is worse than the other.
American Psychiatry is exponentially more barbaric to the mentally ill and developmentally impaired than American Pediatrics is to little boys. Yet I would never write
"American and African Psychiatry are Equally Wrong"
Why? Because I acknowledge the massive difference in suffering.
It isn't that I believe respecting the bodily integrity of men diminishes the suffering of women. It is that apparently proving the need of bodily integrity of American men invilves constant comparisons to thirld world slaves with zero sexual rights.
If your ethics are sound there need not be any mention of someone else's suffering to prove how bad you actually have it.
Ppen at August 14, 2015 4:25 AM
If your ethics are sound there need not be any mention of someone else's suffering **whose a fucking billion times worse off than you** to prove how bad you actually have it.
Add the **...** sentence
Ppen at August 14, 2015 4:33 AM
..."you mouth foamers"...
A curious accusation as I really only see one mouth foamer in this thread. And it's certainly not lujlp. Will the real mouth foamer come forward and rabidly deny it?
Joe at August 14, 2015 7:48 AM
Sorry Joe, there are a lot of mouth foamers in this thread. That you can't see that means you might be one of them.
Ben at August 14, 2015 9:16 AM
Ben, I can see it just fine. I just didn't realize there might be more than the one or two I've seen so far. You see, sometime the behavior (mouth foaming) one observes is so shallow and ridiculous that it obscures similar (but obviously less egregious) behavior (mouth foaming) from other posters but then here you come to clarify. And you're right. It was wrong for me to single out one obviously more egregious mouth foamer from other, even though their comments are obviously less rabid and far more constructive.
Joe at August 14, 2015 9:38 AM
Question for all the libertarians out there: even if you feel that it's a bad choice for parents to circumcise their boys, do you feel that parents should have the right to do it even though their boys are unable to consent? Or do you feel that boys have a greater right to not be circumcised (and, if you do, what would you propose to guard that right?)
JD at August 14, 2015 10:42 AM
JD,
I'm a libertarian. As i wrote above, "[i]t's unethical to cut - or to promote cutting - the genitals of healthy people without their consent. The surgery violates their rights." So, no, it isn't that boys have a greater right to genital integrity than their parents have to choosing (i.e. imposing) non-therapeutic circumcision for them. Parents do not have the right to cut their healthy children. They do not own their children. Each person owns his or her body. Even children.
This gets back to the legitimate comparison between female and male genital cutting. If it's a parental right, parents may cut their daughters, too, for whatever reasons they want. We don't allow this, which is the correct stance, because it harms females. Cutting a boy's genitals inflicts objective, guaranteed harm, too.
Government is/should be limited in power. However, as I also wrote above, the legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. This includes the rights of children (to bodily integrity). Given that we already have child protection laws, and genital mutilation certainly qualifies as battery, we must stop imagining exemptions. Enforce the laws we have with the understanding that the prepuce of male children falls under the same protections. But it would also be useful to modify the Anti-FGM Act of 1996 to protect against non-therapeutic genital cutting without the patient's consent, full stop.
Repeating myself again, whether or not our government recognizing its obligation here would work is a separate, practical question. I doubt it would. Law trails culture. A chunk of our culture is still committed to being wrong on this, as this thread demonstrates. Prosecutorial discretion would be egregiously rampant.
Education is the most likely approach to protecting this right, although it's shameful how long that will take. And until culture changes, too many doctors would diagnose "maladies" of the infant foreskin "requiring" circumcision. The law would be unenforceable without commitment to the principle supporting it.
Tony at August 14, 2015 12:13 PM
Tony at 12:13 PM: Thank you.
DrPinWV at August 14, 2015 1:54 PM
Tony, from your language and your tone you are clearly foaming at the mouth. You better clean off your display after that rabid rant. Equal protection regardless of gender? Clearly, you're insane. Ben, I think we've found one.
Joe at August 14, 2015 2:24 PM
Question for all the libertarians out there: even if you feel that it's a bad choice for parents to circumcise their boys, do you feel that parents should have the right to do it even though their boys are unable to consent?
Better question, why do those who support a parents right to choose circumcision for their sons support laws outlawing the several forms of female genital mutilation that cause less physical damage than male circumcision?
lujlp at August 15, 2015 11:26 AM
Lujlp, that is a lucid and intelligent question to which I doubt you'll get an answer. Stop foaming at the mouth! 😀
Joe at August 15, 2015 11:44 AM
Education is the most likely approach to protecting this right, although it's shameful how long that will take. And until culture changes, too many doctors would diagnose "maladies" of the infant foreskin "requiring" circumcision. The law would be unenforceable without commitment to the principle supporting it.
Posted by: Tony at August 14, 2015 12:13 PM
The first step is for the government and the insurance industry to stop subsidizing it. At the same time, I don't want them subsidizing lsecond and third trimester abortion either.
When it is a personal religious decision, as in the case of the Jews, then it will be performed by a Rabbi, and there are constitutional issues at stake, by trying to ban it.
There are many medical procedures quite a bit more invasive than circumcision that are done routinely, many of them which are unnecessary in light of current U.S. standards of care. (unfortunately, that is a moving target and really only applicable to cutting edge treatments and hospitals).
A huge percentage of the treatment options in this country are driven by what insurance will pay for.
One prediction, the *body integeity* argument is not only a loser, but will come back to bite individual liberty in the ass.
We are going to end up with a system so screwed up, that government will be funding sex change treatments, and abortions for 13 year olds, while legally prohibiting their parents from circumcizing them, or piercing their ears.
Isab at August 17, 2015 12:48 PM
When it is a personal religious decision, as in the case of the Jews, then it will be performed by a Rabbi, and there are constitutional issues at stake, by trying to ban it.
No one gives a shit about that argument for FGM, even the several types that do less physical damage than circumcision.
lujlp at August 17, 2015 6:27 PM
"There are many medical procedures quite a bit more invasive than circumcision that are done routinely, many of them which are unnecessary in light of current U.S. standards of care"
Such as? I can't think of any that fit circumcision's profile; I certainly can't think of anything that is done nearly as routinely particularly for which there is (as you suggest) a better option.
And I'll second what lujlp said, if it was anything else: FGM, tattoos, ritual scarification, piercings anywhere but the ears, ect... Religious duty would not get you a pass.
Joe at August 17, 2015 6:59 PM
Isab,
In the context you're describing, it isn't a personal religious decision. It's a personal religious decision made for someone else. Does the child have his own right to religious freedom?
A few years ago Justice Scalia remarked that a prohibition could pass legal muster. It isn't difficult to understand why it could pass. There are competing rights here. The courts have determined that the right to religious liberty is not absolute. It takes very little creativity to imagine how a prohibition on taking a scalpel to a healthy, non-consenting individual could be deemed a legitimate government interest.
I'm not sure how arguing for individual liberty will bite individual liberty in the ass. I'm being genuine here. I don't see it. I'd like to if there's something I'm missing. I've explained how I think government is the appropriate answer here but one that will not work. (I agree that education needs to be directed at Medicaid and insurance companies.) Are sex changes and abortions for 13 year olds what you believe to be the outcome of this push for individual liberty?
I ask because you say you didn't circumcise your son. Regardless of everything else, I respect that. I want to understand how you think because you say it was your choice. I don't think of it that way. If I were to have a son, I would decline circumcision in every manner possible. However, it wouldn't be because it was my choice and I disagree with circumcision. It would be because it wasn't my choice, but rather only my son's choice. I can't know what he would want. I would no more be making a decision there than I would if a doctor asked if I wanted my son's toe cut off - or, yes, if I wanted my daughter's genitals cut. I'd merely be rejecting an absurd, offensive question.
So, my interest is genuine. Where are the dangers? Where is my mistake in this? I'm attempting to advocate for greater individual liberty. Is there a disconnect there? If so, what is it?
Or is it disagreement that parents should have this as their choice? If that's what it is, why should parents have their choice for sons but not daughters?
Tony at August 17, 2015 7:47 PM
"context you're describing, it isn't a personal religious decision. It's a personal religious decision made for someone else. Does the child have his own right to religious freedom?"
No, a child has very few rights, and no, your 13 year old doesn't have the right to run off and join the Jehovah's witnesses in the name of "religious freedom*.
Just for clarity, do you think a parent has the right to straighten a seven year olds teeth, or get them cochlear implants?
Or do you think both these things should be deferred until a child is 18?
Our constitution and our legal system recognizes the rights of parents to make most decisions for their children medical and otherwise.
Some of these turn out badly. But the law recognizes that parents are in the best possible position to make them, not some disinterested bureaucrat or doctor.
If you want to pretend for the sake of argument that every questionable decision a parent might make (medical and otherwise) needs to be deferred until a kid is 18, or maybe 21, I think you are on very shaky grounds.
I find it totally ironic that most ultra libs making the bodily integrity argument, see absolutely no hypocracy in the fact that they think a mother ought to be able to chose to abort a full term infant shortly before birth, taking them apart limb of limb to do it, but are horrified at the thought of a parent, a week later chosing the circumcise that same infant.
"interest is genuine. Where are the dangers? Where is my mistake in this? I'm attempting to advocate for greater individual liberty. Is there a disconnect"
The disconnect is that you seem to think that we live in la la land, and that every question has a correct answer, and every decision is prescient, instead of understanding that there is no such thing as eliminating risk.
If every decision has to have informed consent, then we have to define what that risk is, and recognize that when it comes to medicine, and many other things, no child and also 99 percent of adults do not have sufficient expertise to make a truly informed decision as to what the risks of any given procedure are.
You know what is statically more risky than circumcision? Having a swimming pool in your back yard, or taking the kid anywhere in a car.
You cannot mitigate risk, and another dozen laws, preventing parents from making statistically risky decisions for their kids, isn't going to save anyone. It just transfers the risk somewhere else. Or worse, the unintended consequences come back to bite you in the ass.
Isab at August 18, 2015 5:29 PM
Just for clarity, do you think a parent has the right to straighten a seven year olds teeth, or get them cochlear implants? Or do you think both these things should be deferred until a child is 18?
Isab,
I am curious about your two questions:
1. Setting aside the fact that most treatments would actually start between 9 and 14, does the seven year old you're asking about have straight properly formed teeth?
2. Does the seven year old getting cochlear implants have normal hearing?
I think clarifying those two points might make the questions appear more relevant.
3. For decisions that don't* have to be made do you know who is in an even better position than the parents? The individual.
Joe at August 18, 2015 6:27 PM
Braces,
cochlear implant,
ripping the skin off a dick without anesthesia to sell it to a biotech company
Which of these three are NOT correcting a defect?
lujlp at August 18, 2015 6:58 PM
I disagree. However, I'm willing to concede the point momentarily. A child has very few rights. Among these very few rights is the right to bodily integrity. The right to not have one's healthy genitals cut is the same right to not have one's healthy fingers or stomach or whatever cut. It's a right we already recognize for girls. So, again, non-therapeutic circumcision on a child is wrong. QED
As for orthodontia and cochlear implants, what Joe and lujlp said. We can argue the therapeutic nature of orthodontia, but surely you agree we shouldn't permit parents to authorize cochlear implants for a child with normal human hearing. This is why I write specifically of what I mean (i.e. non-therapeutic and without consent), not broad categories. It isn't, "Parents make decisions, circumcision is a decision, parents may circumcise." That's bad logic.
Again, within limits. So, again, if this is a parental right, there is no legitimate basis to prohibit this "right" for daughters. You don't get to pick and choose arbitrarily. If this rights theory is correct, either government is wrong for prohibiting genital cutting on healthy daughters or for permitting genital cutting on healthy sons. Which is it?
I'm not pretending anything. Non-therapeutic circumcision inflicts objective harm on the patient for subjective benefits preferred by someone else. There is nothing questionable about prohibiting non-therapeutic circumcision on a non-consenting child. (See, again: prohibition on FGC)
But I don't believe we live in la la land. I don't think a valid government prohibition would work because I know we're a population of fallible humans. Not every question has a correct answer. Circumcision doesn't have a correct answer, except in the context of healthy children who can't consent. Adults can choose it for themselves for whatever reason, big or small, informed or not. Child circumcision is not that. And I've encountered enough men who regret choosing circumcision for themselves to know that not every decision is prescient. And since we seem to agree that not every decision is prescient, it should be obvious that not making the unnecessary decision without all information (i.e. the recipient's preference) is superior to making the unnecessary decision without all information.
Of course I can't mitigate every risk. I acknowledge that respecting a child's bodily integrity also involves risk, although less than circumcising (e.g. circumcising harms 100% of males it's imposed on.). My point is that being human involves risk. If parents don't want kids with the risks of being human, don't create the kids. Parents don't get to say, "I want a child, but if he is a boy child, I want him a smidge less human. I need to tweak his penis just a bit because ." That is unacceptable madness.
(I'm going to leave the abortion rant alone. Don't assume what I believe there. If you want to know what I think as it relates to circumcision, ask.)
Tony at August 18, 2015 7:23 PM
And given lujlp's post I realize that I should have added after 2, so we'll call it:
2.5. Did the vast majority of boys circumcised last year have normal, healthy, foreskins?
Joe at August 18, 2015 7:25 PM
The largest recognized heath benefit for circumcision is a slight reduction in UTIs, a difference that disappears before the age of two years old.
Meaning an 18 month old is more capable of cleaning its own dick than its parents are, ever.
Given the number of circumcisions preformed, death rates and UTI rates, in order to prevent 50 UTIs we kill one child.
That seem like a reasonable trade off when all that really need to be done is to tell parents "hey stop avoiding touching the dick when you give your son a bath"?
lujlp at August 18, 2015 11:20 PM
Leave a comment