Male Circumcision: Religious Stupidity or Genuine Benefit?

[mwn]

I am talking about circumcisions performed without pain relief. The studies are comparing children who have had the procedure performed without pain relief with those who have had the procedure with pain relief and with those who have not been circumcised at all.

Here is my very first post on this topic, and on this forum, if you're interested in what I think about circumcision: viewtopic.php?p=283532#p283532

The point is that circumcisions do not have to be performed without pain relief. When it is done a certain way, as with my nephews, shreiking and crying and pain are all complete non-issues. So that is not a very good reason in itself to object circumcision.

[Charlou]

The point is that circumcisions do not have to be performed without pain relief. When it is done a certain way, as with my nephews, shreiking and crying and pain are all complete non-issues. So that is not a very good reason in itself to object circumcision.

Do you acknowledge that there are good reasons to object to circumcision?

[flyingscot]

Even if the child was put under a general anaesthetic and suffered no pain at all during the procedure it would still make this genital altering procedure wrong. It is done without the consent of the patient, in fact it is making a baby into a patient that is not ill in the first place.

[Gromit]

It's a bit like removing the appendix from every newborn male as a matter of course.

Appendicitis can be extremely painful and is sometimes fatal, so there are very real health benefits.

The appendix is just a useless bit of tissue, so it's not as though the baby is losing anything important.

Everyone knows chicks dig scars, so those who undergo routine neonatal appendectomy will be much more attractive to the opposite sex.

It's a win-win situation, surely?

(No matter how freakin' weird an idea is, you can always come up with a few sensible-sounding justifications for it.)

[mwn]

The point is that circumcisions do not have to be performed without pain relief. When it is done a certain way, as with my nephews, shreiking and crying and pain are all complete non-issues. So that is not a very good reason in itself to object circumcision.

Do you acknowledge that there are good reasons to object to circumcision?

Depends. Personally, I'm not going to circumcise if I have any sons. If I lived in certain areas of Africa where AIDS infection rates are crisis I would seriously reconsider. There the possible benefits vs. the minimal complication risks might justify the procedure and things are not so clear. You can tell your kids to be careful about who they sleep with and to always wear condoms, but they may not always do it, just like kids in America told to practice abstinence rarely do it. I will let the epidemiologists, all the AIDS specialists, the health ministers, and the economists run their complicated computer simulations and their cost-benefit calculations to come to good consensus on circumcision policy. I will not let aesthetics, silly emotional appeals, words like barbarism, and false arguments about pain and trauma, to get in the way. In the end, I will do what I think is best for them.

I do think you and (mostly) others here have good intentions though.

[mwn]

It's a bit like removing the appendix from every newborn male as a matter of course.

I disagree, depending on the population. I would compare it more to a woman who has a strong chance of developing breast cancer because of her family history (all her female relatives developed breast cancer) and deciding to have it removed as a preventative measure. Nobody would dare wave that appendix argument in her face. (They better not if they know what is good for them). Of course this analogy (of a woman to a population as a whole) does not apply to all populations around the earth. There are some places where AIDS is a bigger problem than others such as certain areas of Africa. In those areas, the epidemiologists and AIDS specialists and everyone involved in fighting the disease have to run their simulations and see if circumcision for their population is a good idea and makes sense. Then they can decide if removing foreskins on a population wide basis is like removing the woman's breast tissue in an individual, until the disease rates are better under control. In a population with low occurrence of AIDS, your analogy makes perfect sense, and I would agree.

[mcsekar]

I disagree. I would compare it more to a woman who has a strong chance of developing breast cancer because of her family history (all her female relatives developed breast cancer) and deciding to have it removed as a preventative measure. Nobody would dare wave that appendix argument in her face. (They better not if they know what is good for them). Of course this analogy (of a woman to a population as a whole) does not apply to all populations around the earth. There are some places where AIDS is a bigger problem than others such as certain areas of Africa. In those areas, the epidemiologists and AIDS specialists and everyone involved in fighting the disease has to run their simulations and see if circumcision for their population is a good idea and makes sense. Then they can decide if removing foreskins on a population wide basis is like removing the woman's breast tissue in an individual.

I am really afraid when people,(be they scientists or politicians or religious guys) start talking about imposing surgeries or any other measures for a whole population. Because, these measures always apply to certain sections of the society, but they are imposed on all sections. And though there isn't always any overt coercion for complying with these measures, there is a covert one. Basically, an individual's right to his body is trampled upon in such cases.

mwn, please do not think that I am saying you will impose such rules upon everyone even if there was scientific evidence. I was just thinking about what will happen in such a situation, because apparently the UN and certain religious populations in certain countries are waiting for an opportunity to circumcise everyone. I do not know what the UN's motive is, when the evidence is dubious, but I can certainly understand the interest and delight of some of the religious fundamentalist's in a superiority feeling and a harvest of faith through circumcision.

[mwn]

I am really afraid when people,(be they scientists or politicians or religious guys) start talking about imposing surgeries or any other measures for a whole population. Because, these measures always apply to certain sections of the society, but they are imposed on all sections. And though there isn't always any overt coercion for complying with these measures, there is a covert one. Basically, an individual's right to his body is trampled upon in such cases.

mwn, please do not think that I am saying you will impose such rules upon everyone even if there was scientific evidence. I was just thinking about what will happen in such a situation, because apparently the UN and certain religious populations in certain countries are waiting for an opportunity to circumcise everyone. I do not know what the UN's motive is, when the evidence is dubious, but I can certainly understand the interest and delight of some of the religious fundamentalist's in a superiority feeling and a harvest of faith through circumcision.

The ethics are certainly hairy. It reminds me of people who want the freedom to opt out of vaccinations for their kids (on the basis that it causes all sorts of allergies or autism), though I'm sure the two are not exactly the same. I for one, do not subscribe to the view that their is some sort of conspiracy going on in the UN to make everyone want a Jewish penis or some similar nonsense. I will wait and see what the scientific consensus becomes regarding circumcision policy or recommendations.

[Charlou]

Circumcision may very well reduce the risk of infection with HIV, but it does not eliminate the risk, and there is still the necessity to use a condom to prevent infection. My biggest concern is that people will think that being circumcised will protect them from infection with HIV, and therefore won't bother to use condoms. It may lead to an increased risk of infection through unprotected sex. There are people who are subjected to a lot of misinformation, and superstitious brainwashing, for whom this measure (circumcision) will be practically useless.

[mcsekar]

I am really afraid when people,(be they scientists or politicians or religious guys) start talking about imposing surgeries or any other measures for a whole population. Because, these measures always apply to certain sections of the society, but they are imposed on all sections. And though there isn't always any overt coercion for complying with these measures, there is a covert one. Basically, an individual's right to his body is trampled upon in such cases.

mwn, please do not think that I am saying you will impose such rules upon everyone even if there was scientific evidence. I was just thinking about what will happen in such a situation, because apparently the UN and certain religious populations in certain countries are waiting for an opportunity to circumcise everyone. I do not know what the UN's motive is, when the evidence is dubious, but I can certainly understand the interest and delight of some of the religious fundamentalist's in a superiority feeling and a harvest of faith through circumcision.

The ethics are certainly hairy. It reminds me of people who want the freedom to opt out of vaccinations for their kids (on the basis that it causes all sorts of allergies or autism), though I'm sure the two are not exactly the same. I for one, do not subscribe to the view that their is some sort of conspiracy going on in the UN to make everyone want a Jewish penis or some similar nonsense. I will wait and see what the scientific consensus becomes regarding circumcision policy or recommendations.

mwn, I agree with your first half of the post, where you understood part of my views about freedom. But it was a mistake on my part to be ambiguous in the later part of my post.

When I was talking about the UN, I only wanted to point out its attitude to endorse mass male circumcision, not some silly UN-Jewish conspiracy theory to make Jewish penises. Not everything is a conspiracy and linked to Jews. I was not clubbing the UN and the Jews together. The UN and the religious views are separate. The religious fundamentalists support it because they hope to feel superior and correct and get some converts. And I was not talking about Judaism actually. I did not want to name names, that's all, but I will be more specific now to remove any doubts.

It is funny how circumcision is always viewed as a Jewish thing in the West, but where I live,(in India) it is seen differently. UNAIDS was till recently proclaiming that India was the next Africa, that India had some 6 million cases, and that if the Hindus in India did not circumcise, they would die in more numbers than the Muslims blah blah. And the Muslim leaders were quite happy and some even proclaimed that their religion is superior etc. India is not a country where a majority of the people over time have multiple partners or have liberal and free sex lives. AIDS here affects mainly certain specific sections. Even though the evidence is dubious, the civil servants and some of the government leaders here are convinced that circumcision is the way to go. Even some of the major newspapers carried editorials and reports about the power of circumcision in combating AIDS. Talk about the convincing power and attitude and faith of the UN in endorsing circumcision. They have not implemented it and will not implement it here, because it will lead to major civil disturbances. In the later part of my earlier post, I was trying to covertly tell how this mass circumcision viewpoint is flawed and is fuel to the fundamentalists and others who want to create religious conflict. Well, I hope the confusion is cleared.

[mwn]

Circumcision may very well reduce the risk of infection with HIV, but it does not eliminate the risk, and there is still the necessity to use a condom to prevent infection. My biggest concern is that people will think that being circumcised will protect them from infection with HIV, and therefore won't bother to use condoms. It may lead to an increased risk of infection through unprotected sex. There are people who are subjected to a lot of misinformation, and superstitious brainwashing, for whom this measure (circumcision) will be practically useless.

Very true. But the same can be said of offering condoms to kids and the new HPV vaccine to girls, whose critics say this will cause children and teens to have a reckless false sense of security and engage in rampant sex. This may be true of some individuals, not true of others. The protection conferred by circumcision is nowhere near that of vaccinations or condoms, but the interesting thing about small percentages is the sometimes dramatic effects this can show in large populations, through the power of compounding after multiple generations. Again, the maths would have to be run by the epidemiologists to see if that would bear out and be useful. There are some individuals who practice safe sex part of the time, and slip up at other times. Circumcision, even if the effect were modest, would be useful in that particular circumstance.

[mwn]

When I was talking about the UN, I only wanted to point out its attitude to endorse mass male circumcision, not some silly UN-Jewish conspiracy theory to make Jewish penises. Not everything is a conspiracy and linked to Jews. I was not clubbing the UN and the Jews together. The UN and the religious views are separate. The religious fundamentalists support it because they hope to feel superior and correct and get some converts. And I was not talking about Judaism actually. I did not want to name names, that's all, but I will be more specific now to remove any doubts.

It is funny how circumcision is always viewed as a Jewish thing in the West, but where I live,(in India) it is seen differently. UNAIDS was till recently proclaiming that India was the next Africa, that India had some 6 million cases, and that if the Hindus in India did not circumcise, they would die in more numbers than the Muslims blah blah. And the Muslim leaders were quite happy and some even proclaimed that their religion is superior etc. India is not a country where a majority of the people over time have multiple partners or have liberal and free sex lives. AIDS here affects mainly certain specific sections. Even though the evidence is dubious, the civil servants and some of the government leaders here are convinced that circumcision is the way to go. Even some of the major newspapers carried editorials and reports about the power of circumcision in combating AIDS. Talk about the convincing power and attitude and faith of the UN in endorsing circumcision. They have not implemented it and will not implement it here, because it will lead to major civil disturbances. In the later part of my earlier post, I was trying to covertly tell how this mass circumcision viewpoint is flawed and is fuel to the fundamentalists and others who want to create religious conflict. Well, I hope the confusion is cleared.

Yes, I was not pointing the finger at you as holding this position, but thanks for clarifying your views all the same. I realize that Muslims also do it for religious reasons, and the tensions between Muslims and Hindus in your country complicate things.

[Charlou]

mwn,

I wasn't suggesting that those who become circumcised will engage in sex any more promiscuously or more often than they do now, or become 'more rampant', as you put it. I was suggesting that their practice of sex might be less inclined to include condoms for protection, because they believe being circumcised is all the protection they need.

[mwn]

mwn,

I wasn't suggesting that those who become circumcised will engage in sex any more promiscuously or more often than they do now, or become 'more rampant', as you put it. I was suggesting that their practice of sex might be less inclined to include condoms for protection, because they believe being circumcised is all the protection they need.

Yes, I agreed with that point.

[Shuggy]

Whether a baby shrieks or not is irrelevant. Gomb rightly pointed out that babies shriek during vaccinations, too. That is a valid point. It means whether a baby cries or not, and whether or not there is bleeding or cutting, by itself has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong, good or bad. If people have a point related to the video they should make it. If someone posts a video depicting a baby undergoing a medical procedure and crying simply for a kind of shock value (let's face it, take any medical procedure and let people watch it and some of them will be shocked by the mere presence of blood) without adding any sort of commentary or making a point, its safe to assume the video poster is resorting to some sort of cheap emotional ploy. If Shuggy denies this he is being completely disingenuous (image of a slimy salesman or televangelist comes to mind). If people have reasons why they agree or disagree with the procedure they should flatly state them. I cannot take people seriously when they resort to this lazy wishy-washy emotional nonsense rather than appeals to reason.

Notice that gomb will condemn me if the video does have a commentary, and mwn will condemn me if it doesn't, so I get it coming or going.

Actually, you're rather missing the point. People keep talking about "a snip" or "cutting off a tiny flap of skin on the end of the penis" or even more belittling expressions such as "his circy" [insert vomit-smiley here]. My main reason for directing people to this video is to let them know that a whole lot more is involved. Before the foreskin can be cut off it has to be torn away from the underlying glans, usually using a blunt probe. This has been compared to pulling out fingernails. But also, the shrieking IS relevant. People who've actually heard it say it's a whole level of agony more than a baby's usual fretting or yelling. And when a baby doesn't cry, but "goes off to sleep", he's actually gone into shock. Yes, the baby can be injected with painkillers - as someone said "sex, violence AND drugs". Sex? In one of those videos (if not this one, then maybe this one), you can see the doctor actually flicking the baby's penis to procure an erection. Followed immediately by cutting the tissue off? What the hell does THAT do to his erotic reflexes?

And of course these videos are only 3"x4" flickery pictures. It's another thing to be there, another still to be on the receiving end. One of the best-known Intactivists, Marilyn Milos, had her road to Damascus experience when she was assisting at one of these "procedures" when the doctor doing it said "You know, there's no medical need for this." So it's debatable whether it should be considered as a "medical procedure" at all.

[Shuggy]

Your statement assumes that circumcision is in fact unnecessary. I'm asking people to state why they think circumcision is or isn't necessary! State your reasons for or against. I enjoy reading peoples reasons!

That it is unnecessary is the default assumption, just like the assumption that it is unnecessary to cut off babies' earlobes. The fact that it has become customary is entirely beside the point (especially in this forum, when the greater part of that custom is religious.) Nobody has to demonstrate that circumcision is unnecessary. It's a surgical procedure with all the risks of a surgical procedure, up to and including death, and we don't perform surgical procecures unless they are demonstrably necessary (or elected by informed, consenting adults, for themselves).

[Jack Saw]

REMOVING PART OF A CHILDS BODY FOR LIFE IS WRONG! IT'S MUTILATION!

Why can't people see that?

It has NOTHING in similar with vaccinating children. That's like saying pinching your child is the same as circumcision. One permanently alters your childs physical body, one does not. It's mutilation, SIMPLE!

Also, circumcision may or may not reduce the chances of certain things, where as vaccines offer total protection, without mutilating your child. The two are hardly parallel!

Do you think it's ok to mutilate someone without their permission? You dont think it's ok?

Then you should also think circumcision is wrong. You dont think it's wrong? I would suppose you were probably circumcised as a child for non-medical, traditional, cultural or ill-informed supposedly significant medically beneficial reasons.

There's a cake here, and I'm cutting it. I'm cutting it as many different ways as possible.

Alas, however I seem to cut this cake, it's still wrong (unless the cake is causing medical problems in the first place!)

Jack

[Hugo]

Quite right Jack Saw!

if you are pro circumcision you would also have to support it as a forced procedure for adults. Certain vaccines are forced on adults, would the pro people here do the same with circumcision?

[Jack Saw]

Quite right Jack Saw!

if you are pro circumcision you would also have to support it as a forced procedure for adults. Certain vaccines are forced on adults, would the pro people here do the same with circumcision?

It isn't likely they would.

Looks like pro circumcisionists have compartmentalised their minds not allowing certain internal contradictions to lead them to the obvious moral conclusion, probably through some sort of confirmation bias.

Which reminds me. Anyone who hasn't read about confirmation bias, do so. It has a lot to do with your everyday life, and all those round you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs.

[blindwatcher]

Every time I see a man who appears Jewish or has a Jewish name, I ask myself:"I wonder if he hates his itchy, scratchy dick?"

Then I think how I would feel if some pervert (that's an intellectual pervert) was to lop-off a tiny piece of me in the name of god.

Maybe with all this fashion for cosmetic surgery... some Jewish guys will get a hard-on for the idea of replacing their lost bit?

I mean, isn't it illegal to slice off a dog's tail? Yet here we go, slicing off a poor defenceless baby's fore skin... again.

[NineBerry]

It isn't just jewish. The muslims do it, too. Also, it is widely spread among christians in the united states.
I would say, that interfering with a child's body should be forbidden (unless there is a medical reason)

There is already a thread to discuss this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1531&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

[imperatoromnium]

I didn't vote because I didn't see an option that I fully support.

[blindwatcher]

Yeh thanks, I've since taken a look... oooh some horrible stories...

BUT, I got to thinking...

Isn't this a kick in the teeth ... for god...

I mean, god designed the human body to perfection (presumably) and yet these Faithers think they have the right to mutilate it?

Seems strange...

[Trilby]

I didn't vote because I didn't see an option that I fully support.

I agree with this sentiment. Blindwatcher, your question could be better-worded.

For what it's worth, I hold that the circumcision of children for non-medical reasons is always wrong. I use the term child genital mutilation to emphasise the vile nature of this practice.

There is nothing wrong with adults having this surgery electively, except that it's a bit of a waste of medical resources.

[Skutter]

I'm currently reading "God is not Great" where this particular practice is mentioned:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah#Metzitzah

Less commonly practised, and more controversial, is metzitzah b'peh, (alt. mezizah), or oral suction,[2][3] where the mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound. The traditional reason for this procedure is to promote healing,[4][5] although the practice has been implicated in the spreading of herpes to the infant.

I was utterly horrified. Essentially performing oral sex on a baby. Oh. It's OK. It's a religious practice.