Circumcision: Is It More than a Convenant with God?

Circumcision may help prevent some other genital cancers and infections.  However, there is no guarantee.  I chose to circumcise both of my boys.  There's a great debate about this issue at www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-boys-be-circumcised ( http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-boys... ).  It's really worth checking out.  Both sides of the issue are represented and given an opportunity to provide rebuttals to the other side's arguments. 

Some very interesting posts here. Normally I would not comment, however some posts in my opinion are exceptionally thoughtful and well researched. I feel compelled to comment.

I am a 51 years old male who is considering having a circumcision. Not for any medical reason. My penis functions just fine. I could go into more details if called upon to do so, but this is not my reason for posting.

As a male considering the procedure I can tell you the decision is not taken lightly. And I tell you this as a very rational man. This will sound like a contradiction, but I am thankful I was not circumcised. The choice has been left up to me.
When researching the whole topic. I am surprised how many men secretly feel violated have been circumcised neonatal. It is an intensely personal issue. The very basis of our medical system and to some extent our society is based on our autonomy. We have a right to make decisions regarding our bodies. This is part of the very fabric our society is based on. We defend this ideology with out lives.

Parents strive to make the very best decisions for their children based on their knowledge base and beliefs. Certainly social pressures influence us all. This in my opinion is an important social function. Although cruel at time, it must have something to do with our survival. Some conformity was necessary to maintain a cohesive tribe. However this does not excurse thoughtlessness. When it comes to social issues we tend to only see what we want to see. And we tend to seek the opinions of others who share our beliefs that help reinforce our beliefs. This can be a dangerous thing.

I did not have my son circumcised. This is a decision I am still very comfortable with.

So young parents listen to this advise. Don’t do it. Leave you son intact. Let him decide. There is no possible way you can know what he wants.

We have all seen the images in the media. When faced with certain death, some people make the decision to jump off buildings to there death. This ultimate final decision demonstrates how powerful this autonomy is.

Think.

I hope this will be read and without preconceived bias.
I am a fully intact male, as are all the men in my family and there is absolutely ZERO history of medical issues as a result of having a fully intact penis. I would like to state that the "easier to clean" argument is a weak one, because an uncircumcised man can roll back his foreskin for cleaning with one finger and that takes less than a second.
There is no issue whatsoever in extra care for a young child's uncut penis because the foreskin is attached to the head until a child is about four years of age. This protects them from diaper rash due to exposure to fecal matter and urine on the head of the penis. It is there or a reason and circumcised babies experience more irriatation of the glans.
I can argree that female "circumcision" is not exactly the same when it means the full removal of the clitorus. However, if only the clitoral hood was removed it would be EXACTLY the same thing. Before sex is apparent in a fetus, the clitoral hood comes from the exact same genetic tissue as the foreskin. Most women in a civilized society would agree that it would be wrong to remove the hood of the clitorus in a baby girl.
People make the arguement that the foreskin provides opportunity for disease because the increased surface area of moist skin is a good environment for bacteria and viruses to grow if the person does not bathe. However, the point is completely relevant that a woman's vagina has a much larger surface area of moist internal tissue that is even more vulerable to bacterial infection and STD's are more prevalent and likely to exist in the female sex organs. This does not keep civilized people from being completely disgusted by the idea of female genital mutilation, and rightfully so.
Male genital mutilation is just as wrong and should not be justified in the name of psuedo-scientific studies that are funded by people wanting certain results, expecting to proliferate a tradition of cruelty. To remove a viable part of a baby's body for preventative reason's is flat-out wrong, no matter how you justify it. We do not remove a newborn's appendix to prevent appendisitus or their eardrums to prevent ear infections. When disease strikes, we do what we can to cure it, but amputation of a part of the body in case it is infected is complete insanity. To prevent all infection and cancer in all people we would all have to have our complete bodies destroyed.
~food for thought~
~Peter, a happy intact and healthy man~

By any measure, there are thousands of men in the U.S. alone whose botched "circumcisions" are plainly genital mutilation, and are just as debilitating as FGM. Statements - especially from women - dismissing circumcision as essentially harmless are especially appalling for men who have partly missing glans; scar tissue in lieu of skin; horrendous skin bridges; insufficient skin for erection; urethral lacerations, and worse.

I did not choose this operation: I was strapped down, without my consent, and perfectly normal sexual tissue was amputated from my body. At puberty, I would cry from the pain, not knowing what was happening. My father took me to a "doctor", who just smiled and shook his head. Mission Accomplished.

The medical excuses are simply the latest shifting explanations to justify this form of genital mutilation. But the same excuses given for male circumcision can be applied just as easily to female genitals. Vulvar cancer is just as common as penile cancer, and it could be treated the same way in the neonate, when the surgery is safe and quick. Maybe one day parents with get to make the decision to snip that little flap of skin.

Anybody who has diapered baby girls knows that their external genitals are especially hard to keep clean compared to little boys: one runny poop can really make a mess up in those folds and crevices. As Nordette says, "Nevertheless, it seems any fold of skin would make keeping the area where its located more troublesome to clean." Clearly vulvectomy would solve those hygiene problems. And according to millions of people in a faraway continent - men and women - it looks better, it's cleaner, and sex is better.

Neonatal mastectomy would eliminate breast cancer, mastitis, and many other maladies, and it would be a quick and safe operation with modern medical technology when performed on the neonate - with informed consent of the parents, of course. You don't need breasts to live, and a whole generation of Americans were brought up on formula, when breast feeding - and breasts - were considered disgusting, unclean, and primitive.

Women in the U.S. recoil in horror at these suggestions - although some of these are familiar and accepted arguments in other parts of the world.

Well Suzanne, I recoil in horror with statements like "I'd have my boy circumcised if I had one." Maybe you would like to see my medically withered penis and reconsider.

In the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, minors by law have special protections, and are not fully responsible for their actions. Suzanne, Terri, and millions of other nice people have turned this idea on its head, and have decided it really means that they can do things to minors that would be illegal to do to an adult. Like strapping them down to tables and cutting off sexual tissue.

You seem to have misunderstood my point. At least in sexual terms, the glans is the most functional part of the penis—my problem with circumcision is not only the needless removal of the foreskin, but also the very real risk of damage to the glans. Perhaps you would understand it better if I explained that the glans is homologous to the female clitoris—in other words, male orgasm becomes nigh-impossible without the glans. (Likewise, the foreskin itself is homologous to the clitoral hood, if this helps you appreciate the situation better.)

And yes, I still think that if you don't have a penis, you don't have much authority to talk about circumcision (unless you lost yours in a botched circumcision or something). You can share your views, but it's pretty arrogant to tell us men what should be done to our genitals. Surgically, at least.

If I kept my "mouth shut," as you propose in your bargain with me, there would not have been this forum in which you posted your otherwise very thoughtful and well articulated opinion on the matter of circumcision, would there have been? In fact, not speaking about controversial or difficult issues is probably the worst thing that someone can ask. We can't learn from one another if we just tell other people to shut up, can we? And while I may or may not agree with your feelings about shaving pubic hair, I won't know until you share them. Hence I will not enter this agreement with you. Feel free to pontificate on the subject of female pubic hair all you like, and I'll continue to write about circumcision if I chose to.

And since I will not shut up, I want to say that I disagree, that the foreskin is the most functional part of the penis. I know many men who are circumsized (right or wrong) and they seem to have very highly functioning penises (or is that peni?) despite their lack of foreskins. I'd nominate the uretha or seminal vessels. I guess as a non-man I am not allowed to think about this scientifically, though, if at all. (Maybe you know many women who love not having pubic hair. I do, too, and I don't ask them to shut up about it, either. Good for them for having an opinion of their own.)

The funniest thing about this whole topic is that I merely reported two news stories (one of which was subsequently discredited, which I also would not have known had I kept my mouth shut) and initially stated no personal opinion of any kind. It just shows how deeply people feel about it, and I think that is good.

Suzanne ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne ), BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminsim & Gender ( http://www.blogher.com/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

Circumcision is male Genital Mutilation. Period.
Baby boys who have this operation have more problems than baby boys who are not circumcised. Therefor Medical Ethics says that Circumcision is NOT MEDICALLY INDICATED.
That means outside of any cultural, religious, parental claptrap; There is no medical reason to do this to your baby boys!
So, you are cutting on your baby boys' genitals for your own pleasure, that is GENITAL MUTILATION..
Period.

You know, I find it a little sad to see a group exclusively composed of women talking about whether or not making surgical alterations to male anatomy is okay or not. As a man I would undoubtedly (and rightfully) be denounced for being so presumptuous as to talk about whether or not to, for instance, surgically alter my daughter's labia. Let's make a deal, Suzanne. I'll keep my mouth shut about whether or not a woman should shave off her pubic hair (at least unless I make a specific deal with her individually to shave or trim mine in reciprocation), and you keep yours shut about whether or not a baby boy's foreskin should be chopped off.

Many cultures can adopt practices that those outside the culture see as "depraved"—the culture that does adopt the practice does not see it this way because it is their culture. Their culture is a lens or a filter on their perception, and when you look through red glasses, red looks white to you—your own cultural norms appear as universal norms to you. A few people—very few people—can at times take off the lenses and see things as they are. These people are the impetus for reforming culture. Abolitionists, feminists, agitators for civil and human rights—these people see outside the lens of their culture and question it. (All too often, of course, these people fall into the trap of rigidly adopting their own counterculture, and suffer from the same blindness—the paradox inherent when an anti-establishment cultural movement becomes an establishment in and of itself. But this is neither here nor there.)

I think that, in time, anti-circumcision advocates will be seen in the same light. Looking objectively at the problem, circumcision is the surgical removal of a functional and useful part of the human body for, at best, dubious and minor health benefits. It runs a real risk of removing an even more functional and useful part of the human body (the glans). If don't let your kids throw pencils at each other because they might lose an eye, then why do you make them go through an unnecessary surgery that puts them at risk of losing their cock (or at the very least, the most functional part of it)? At least your kid has a backup eye.

I don't think parents who circumcise their boys are necessarily to blame, as long as they're acting in good faith. I just think that elective circumcision an abhorrent practice that's distasteful and unnecessary. It's a breach of medical ethics (as it lacks informed consent) and a practice that, quite frankly, should be outlawed.

...Wow. You really are something.

I'm going to bow out of this 'discussion' now, with only one last comment. The main thing you missed in my story, and other posts, is that I'd never slam you for making your choices, while you feel content to slam me for mine, and my friend for hers. (re: The ointments. See - there's the slamming! You assume we didn't try everything. Ya'll know what they say about assuming...) It was a choice. It was made in a way I feel comfortable with, and have no need to defend so intensely.

We'll agree to disagree. And even if you don't agree with my right to disagree, I'll agree to yours anyway.

And now, I'm off to watch my son sing in his high school choir. Have a lovely day!

Kaleidoscopic Eclat ( http://gonfalon.org/eclat )

Terri- It's an interesting example of the polarizing effect circumcision has on our culture that we can't discuss this without you feeling as if we are arguing. Isn't it possible to discuss this without falling into such a predictably dead end trap? If you would like to do away with some of the cultural taboos of circumcision, please stick with the conversation. One of the strongest grips that circumcision has on us is our fear of discussing anything sexual and our fear of offending others who may think differently. With two powerful inhibitors like that- it's a wonder Americans know anything about each other's beliefs about circumcision.

You countered my post with three points.

One, is that you believe that I lack objectivity. Objectivity is not the ability to accept anything as all well and good, (whatever floats your boat) objectivity is the ability to evaluate the situation at hand without a predisposition to find yourself arriving at a certain conclusion. Having grown up in Europe, known many men who survived childhood genitally intact and having had sexual experience with many partners, I was comfortable with the idea that there is inherent sexual value in the anatomy. This knowledge base does not cancel out objectivity- it's the opposite, I can balance that anatomical value, and a man's inalienable right to his entire body, against any cultural pressure that might have been leveled against me to circumcise my sons. On the other hand my circumcised husband did not have the luxury of objectivity that I had. Having been circumcised as an infant, he had a natural desire to believe that circumcision had been for his own good and that he had benefited from it- even if he was unable to articulate exactly how. When he tried to research circumcision, his heart was drawn to comforting ideas such as, "women prefer it" and "It's cleaner" and "everyone is circumcised" and he was repulsed by information that might have been difficult to assimilate such as, "the foreskin is a sensitive functioning part of the male sexual organ" and "circumcision is a very violent first sexual experience". Human nature, not a personal character flaw, gives the conclusion to circumcise an unfair advantage in many circumcised fathers ( http://www.doceo.co.uk/original/learnloss_1.htm )

Two, you say that you were not influenced by peers of family to make this decision. Had you come of age on a deserted island, without any influences- never in one million years, would it occur to you to cut a piece of your newborn baby's penis off. The decision to circumcise is never original or spontaneous, it is always imitates. Besides, in an earlier post you stated that you felt a strong cultural pull to circumcise.

Three, I am a Christian and I have never been compelled or instructed to circumcise a baby for Jesus. My invitation to salvation is not contingent on being descended from Abraham, nor do feel a promised land is here on Earth for a select few of us. I do not think a person can simultaneously look forward to and honor the promises of the new covenant while dabbling in the infant blood of the old covenant. Go back to Genesis ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&... ) and read the details of the covenant of Abraham- and ask yourself these questions- Who is this covenant for? What purpose does it serve? How is it achieved? What do we get in return? Then page forward to the New Testament ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2... ) and ask yourself these same questions of Jesus' death on the cross. Do you think that there is a single drop of blood that can be sucked from the penis of a newborn baby ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/02/health/m... ) which can add to the salvation Jesus offered to all humanity on the cross? Why do you think that this urge to circumcise for Jewish reasons is unique to American Christians? Do you think I could find a (for example) Irish Protestant family who feels the same way as you do? Do you think that the Pilgrims who carried their Bibles to the New England coast felt as you do? When did the American Christian Circumcision tradition begin and why does no Christian Circumcision tradition exist, defiantly ostracized, in a place where secular circumcision is not popular? Where are the Christian Mohels? Why no Christian Bris? There is an interesting news story today, about Muslim FGM, that is uncomfortably similar to the Christian male genital mutilation scene in the USA ( http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=291... ) There is even note of the fact that in Egypt, the Christians are habituated to circumcise their daughters.

I recently found out about this concept of a "meme" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ) It gives me the vocabulary to put my finger on phenomena I see in a post like Lessa's. The entire post actually takes the form of a Meme popular in America in it's message- "You had better circumcise your baby now or your will regret it when you have to do it later." There are also many mini memes imbedded within the larger post that contribute to the drive to circumcise. Because it's the culture specific generation of a meme, I will identify these by contrasting them to memes which may or may not exist in other cultures.

"I did it because I felt it was the right choice for my son - and as his parent, it was my choice to make" the idea that the circumcision decision is a choice that a parent needs to make, already is a circumcising cultural phenomenon. All over the world, parents give birth to children without making any decision at all, and they are not aware that they have a right to shape or change the form and function of their child's genitals. The idea that we as parents have this right, is one which is taught to us by repetition of this meme. The parental right to change the normal body of a healthy child.

"The year after his birth, a friend of mine also had a son, and she made the opposite choice." That people who respect bodily integrity, or who do not practice circumcision culture are "making a choice" is yet another meme. It is a way of alienating normal anatomy, as if keeping all your parts is something that is imposed on you by your parents and not simply scripted by your DNA. Terri shares another form of this meme in an earlier post, "There's nothing wrong with not circumcising boys if that is what you choose to do." That's mighty big of you Terri, being as it's normal human anatomy and all. The circumcision decision must be made, there is no passive state- parents must bear responsibility for anything that happens due to their active refusal of circumcision.

"However, when that child was 3 years old, he developed a series of infections and painful conditions that were remedied by circumcision. (And before you blame the mother ..." That infections and painful conditions are remedied with circumcision is also a meme. Many treatments are available, most as simple as topical ointment, for any problem which might arise. Circumcision is hardly ever necessary as is evidenced by the very low rate of medical circumcision in nations which do not practice circumcision. And why on earth would we "blame the mother"? Presenting the idea that we even can blame a mother because her baby has a health problem is another meme. The mother could only be to blame if her child's normal anatomy were somehow her "fault" and it could only be her fault if... (see above). If there is a problem, circumcision is inevitable.

"(And before you blame the mother - yes, she took great pains to take proper care of the uncircumcised penis. So don't even go there.)" That the uncircumcised penis... oh camoly- that the human male penis is "uncircumcised" that's also a meme...but, what I was going to say, that it requires "great pains" to care for, yet another culturally learned fear of normal anatomy. Do we take great pains to care for the genitals of a girl? Why is normal parenting presented to us as if it is only something exemplary parents might be able to manage? What exactly are the "great pains" she took? Is she now unburdened from this chore now that her child is circumcised, and are any of us equipped to oversee the care of a vagina? Do Scandinavian parents post on parenting boards, "Oh how I wish little Sven was an Inge, I just don't think I can manage all the labor his little genitals require." I read the care info from the AAP ( http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/aap1999/ ) and they actually go out of their way to say, "Caring for your son's uncircumcised penis requires no special action." As a mother of two intact sons, I know that there is no special care required for genital health. This meme transcends parenting duties and evolves into quite a sexist monster when we begin to entrust young boys with the care of their own bodies... because "you know how boys are"... that having a foreskin requires "extra washing" on the part of a young man that is somehow beyond his scope. As if it's a chore. Penis washing... a sad burden foisted on boys by their uncaring parents who didn't do them the favor of circumcision.

"Something so simple could have stopped 3 weeks worth of pain." Now we are really getting to the heart of this meme- and it's hard to not feel turned over as it gets sorted out. First- asserting that circumcision is simple, or as Terri stated in a different version, "Male circumcision is the removal of a flap of skin that surrounds the tip of the penis." is a meme which bloats itself up and lays down on the table, hiding the place cards before any information about normal anatomy can be seated. If a person (or culture) satisfies their curiosity with meme like that, they will not seek out or have an opportunity to discover, the form, function or value of the intricate anatomy in question. ( http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/p... )

Second- is the belief that circumcision helps avoid problems and never makes problems. This is one of the most harmful memes because it exists unrefuted by medical authority- to correct this misconception would be to publicly confirm that medical doctors are engaged in a practice which does more harm than good. The obvious fact is, circumcision does not avoid circumcision. On top of that, many circumcised boys are circumcised again even though they were circumcised as infants. ( http://www.rogerknapp.com/medical/circ_incomplete.... ) It's quite common for circumcised children to have adhesions and infections and many develop meatal stenosis ( http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2356.htm )which also requires surgical correction. When it's all over- if you were take two sample groups- one all preventatively circumcised, and the other left alone. The circumcised group actually has an increased risk of more surgery. ( http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcisio... )This all has to be balanced against the fact that they are all losing the function of a great part of their sex organ for the rest of their life to attempt to sidestep the very low risk that they might need to be circumcised if they are left intact. The way this meme operates is to first- declare that there is no value in the anatomy, then, assume that everyone should have the worst case cure applied before there is a chance that nothing goes wrong.

A third element of the meme is the , culture specific belief that the painful experience of newborn infants is inconsequential ( http://birthpsychology.com/ ) whereas the painful experiences of older children or men are somehow worse. This meme does not exist in cultures where circumcision is a rite of passage ( http://goturkey.turizm.gov.tr/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A... )- in those cultures it's is presumed that circumcision demonstrates a certain level of masculine strength and maturity and is something that no infant would be expected to endure. In our culture babies are expected to endure the circumcision because it is too much for a grown man to experience. It's interesting that memes so different could be culturally isolated but both justify circumcision.

The lack of this meme in nations which do not traditionally circumcise is what makes it most curious- we can assume that in places where there is no circumcision, there are obviously more foreskins available to have all these "problems" and that more people would have personally suffered from these problems or known someone who did... and who had to be circumcised because of it and who would tell the story, as Lessa does, of an important lesson learned. But oddly, no such meme is passed on to expecting parents in Europe or Japan to encourage them to avoid this trauma by circumcising as soon as possible. This scary warning Lessa offers is an American cultural phenomena.

What you say is correct regarding female circumcision. It cannot be compared to male circumcision. And we know good and well if male circumcision prevented men from having sexual pleasure, all these men running around here would've banned male circumcision long ago, would've changed scripture, if necessary, to do so. :-)

Karen also makes a good point. It would be dangerous if people started thinking being circumcised is the thing that prevents the spread of AIDS.

We circumcised our son when I was married, (Boy, won't he be happy to find out I'm sharing intimate details of his anatomy.) but we did it because the doctors seemed to recommend it and that was what people did. None of the doctors involved were Jewish, but they all seemed to encourage circumcision.

I've heard of other studies saying there's no advantage to it; however, in this world we don't know what motivates certain studies or who pays for them no matter which side of the fence the results land on.

Nevertheless, it seems any fold of skin would make keeping the area where its located more troublesome to clean. And those of us who have sons know how difficult it can be to get a male child to clean anything thoroughly. Religious mandates aside, when you think of it practically, you can certainly see how ancient peoples may have concluded it would better to not have the foreskin over the male penis. You can also see how some people would be against if they believed it caused a baby too much pain.

Interesting that so many Christians believe God demands it since its an Old Testament practice.

"Love is liquid. Be drunkards!" ~~Nordette ( http://www.goddessblogs.com )

I think he was speaking from the POV of an adult man with modern hygiene sensibilities. Your point, I'm guessing, is that normal male anatomy is too fragile to risk not washing every day- and baby skin is too fragile to risk bathing every day... kind of a nasty catch 22 that you can only escape if you circumcise. I assure you, neither children nor adults need to bathe daily or risk their genitals imploding. How could the human race have made it out of the dark ages otherwise?

Interestingly the Jews made it for 40 years in the desert with their foreskins intact. ( http://www.skokiekollel.org/yehoshua/y31.html ) Which certainly puts the whole American "sand under your foreskin" or "Jews may have been on to something beyond purely ritual significance" memes behind middle eastern circumcision to rest.

G: The idea that men throughout the world are actually fearful of their own genitals, that circumcision could free them from a burdensome lifetime of worry with such a minimal physical cost... is purely a projection from the circumcised. Hint: Men don't worry about their normal anatomy like that (and all the time they don't spend worrying about it- they actually enjoy it)...this whole "It's so scary, so inherently flawed, and beyond our masculine ability to manage." is sexist and sad. There is nothing wrong about the male body as it is born.

Sorry, Phil. I have to agree with my husband G. Elliot.
But with daily showers and relatively clean running water, it's no longer a net gain.
Our kids' pediatrician told us not to bath them more than twice a week if that. Little skin can just be way too sensitive to be bathed daily.

" I personally believe the risk of harm from a circumcision is extremely low and thus even a slight possibility of avoiding various health complications and illnesses makes it worth it."

Circumcision itself is a harm. If you want to discuss the catastrophic harm of losing the entire penis (or at least the glans), couldn't one also meaningfully argue that the slight possibility of avoiding the loss of one's penis or glans in a botched circumcision makes it worth taking the slight risk of infection later on?

"The fact that some people believe the benefits to be marginal is unlikely to assuage the misery of those who do needlessly get an infection or illness."

Again, what do you say to men who lost significant amounts of their penises in botched circumcisions? "We thought the risk was 'extremely low' and wanted to protect you from infection in case you neglected to wash yourself"?

"No one is arguing that circumcision should be mandatory. Those who believe circumcision is legitimate are not advocating for anything beyond a choice to circumcise, and I have yet to see a post in which an advocate of circumcision has attacked someone who does not like circumcision."

This is a specious argument. Take any unethical medical procedure—electroshock therapy, for instance, and use the same form of argument for it. "No one is arguing that EST should be mandatory. Those who believe EST is legitimate are not advocating for anything beyond a choice to apply EST in appropriate circumstances."

"There may be just as much difficulty for someone who opposes circumcision to be objective, because parents who made that choice also had to do their own assessment of risks and benefits."

Not circumcising your children isn't necessarily a "choice", it's the default state of affairs. Analagously, I'm not consciously choosing *not* to drive to the grocery store right now, I'm just not doing it because doing so doesn't strike me as something worth consideration.

"However, I find it interesting that so many of the original laws and rules of Judaism subsequently proved to be justified on the basis of health and hygiene. Until modern cooking and preservation practices came into play, there were serious health risks associated with pork and shellfish."

It may be the case that until modern sanitation practices came into play, circumcision was a net gain for one's health. But with daily showers and relatively clean running water, it's no longer a net gain. Like not eating pork or shellfish, it's an ancient custom that became unnecessary with the advent of modern technology. Unlike not eating pork or shellfish, however, it has a non-trivial level of harm and risk involved.

"It may be true that I would not have thought of circumcision had I grown up on a desert island, but I also wouldn't have thought of pulling teeth and applying braces (which I do support) which are far more cosmetic than circumcision, much less clearly necessary medical procedures."

The difference is that these procedures aren't applied on infant children too young to provide informed consent.

"Oh, and while I can't speak for all circumcised men, Phil, I personally do wash, and I do have orgasms."

Other than not having to pull back a foreskin, you're applying the exact same level of hygiene that any intact male has to. While I can't speak for all intact men, retracting the foreskin isn't exactly difficult.

My wife has been sharing this debate with me, and I have found the entire argument ridiculous on so many levels. The appearance of Phil has inspired me to joing Blogher so I can present an alternate male view which in turn is causing me to respond to the arguments made by several other posters as well.

I believe that circumcision is a choice. There are valid arguments for and against it. I resent the hyperbole disguised as evidence that is used to make sweeping generalizations and oversimplify the issue. The potential health benefits are marginal? That is a very debatable conclusion. I personally believe the risk of harm from a circumcision is extremely low and thus even a slight possibility of avoiding various health complications and illnesses makes it worth it. The fact that some people believe the benefits to be marginal is unlikely to assuage the misery of those who do needlessly get an infection or illness. Hence the reason for leaving it up to each family to make their own risk/reward calculus.

No one is arguing that circumcision should be mandatory. Those who believe circumcision is legitimate are not advocating for anything beyond a choice to circumcise, and I have yet to see a post in which an advocate of circumcision has attacked someone who does not like circumcision. It is only opponents of circumcision who are apparently comfortable deriding those who disagree with them as unethical mutilators. Some with that perspective then turn around and claim that anyone who has ever been involved with circumcision is incapable of being objective, hence denying us any legitimacy to to advocate for our beliefs. That is absurd. There is a lot of guilt that goes along with parenting, and all (except the most judgmental and close-minded) constantly question ourselves. There may be just as much difficulty for someone who opposes circumcision to be objective, because parents who made that choice also had to do their own assessment of risks and benefits. To argue that a parent's choice denies them any right to articulate their viewpoint is merely a way of dismissing and marginalizing those who disagree with you.

The argument about the AAP's bias is also unfair. Most doctors discourage smoking even though it gives oncologists more work. If the AAP made its decisions solely based on collection of fees, they would never have toned down their position on circumcision in the first place. In addition, in this litigous climate, I don't believe AAP would advocate for a procedure that carried risk without an overriding benefit. The fact that they are considering once again strengthening their recommendation on the subject is a very credible point.

As someone who is Jewish, I do have a cultural and religious basis for supporting circumcision. I am no moral relativist, and there are many elements of traditional (or even modern Orthodox) Judaism as well as other religions that I do not consider acceptable. However, I find it interesting that so many of the original laws and rules of Judaism subsequently proved to be justified on the basis of health and hygiene. Until modern cooking and preservation practices came into play, there were serious health risks associated with pork and shellfish. (There are some people who now avoid pork for health and not religious reasons. They could use the same argument made by some of the stronger opponents of circumcision to claim that it is immoral to risk a child's life by feeding him or her pork before the child is old enough to appreciate the health risks). While I find many elements of the story of Abraham and Isaac disturbing, the fact that circumcision has proven medically justified makes me glad that my parents chose it for me and proud that I chose it for my sons.

While I do not remember my own circumcision, the level of discomfort displayed by both of my sons immediately after circumcision did not seem very high, and anyone who has been around a healthy newborn knows that they have no trouble expressing themselves. I am pretty comfortable believing the evidence that shows it to be a painless procedure.

It may be true that I would not have thought of circumcision had I grown up on a desert island, but I also wouldn't have thought of pulling teeth and applying braces (which I do support) which are far more cosmetic than circumcision, much less clearly necessary medical procedures.

Oh, and while I can't speak for all circumcised men, Phil, I personally do wash, and I do have orgasms. I obviously can't compare my experiences to those of the uncircumcised, but by the same token, I have no complaints.

You are trying to distract this debate from being about your lack of knowledge of the subject as a whole to being about how I am picking on you.

You made assertions about how circumcision has minimal risk compared to the benefits. You have not produced one valid benefit and you know nothing of the risk. You don't even know the function of anatomy. You owe every body reading this thread the truth that you do not know these facts. You absolutley cannot debate the risk without knowing them.

I have never used the word female mutilation, nor have I used the word male mutilation. I have only stated that the same benefits that you claim will benefit males from circumcision will benefit women.

Quit using debate techniques and debate the facts.

I do not know the details of what happened to you, but the conditions that you describe, in terms of an almost total lack of sensitivity in your genitals are beyond extremely rare in circumcisions performed in hospitals in industrialized nations. I find your characterization of mutilation, chopping, and dicing to be extreme. I have never seen any study indicate that circumcision reduces condom usage, and since that link would require a higher level of education than is being assumed in cases where people don't understand how HIV is spread, I do not see the logic in believing those with more education are less likely to exercise appropriate precautions. Every medical procedure carries risks, and every parent has to choice what is right for their child.

John,
You have been hostile and insulting to me in virtually every post that you have made. I believe that I have provided factual information, while you have consistently made assertions contradicted by overwhelming evidence, the most absurd of which is your assertion that there is no biological difference between male circumcision and female genital mutliation. In that light, I find your claim that I am debating risks without knowing them to be absurd. I owe you nothing. If you provide a fact, I will consider it and provide my response. Until then, I have no need to go and respond to your scattershot of unfounded questions.
Regards,
GE

I enjoy reading the "Darwin Awards", but I struggle with the notion that people with bad judgement just deserve to die. Even in the industrialized world, there are so many people whose lives have been ruined by one mistake. I think assuming that any woman with HIV is a slut is neither fair nor constructive. I know the stereotype is that men think with their genitals; there are other things that matter too.

There are studies that suggest that vaccinations cause autism, which I would argue to be a far more serious consequence than reduced sexual pleasure. I do not find those studies compelling, particularly when compared to the benefits of vaccination, but that does not make a vaccination the "no brainer" you imply it to be when rejecting the comparison.

Everything is a matter of degree. They don't call them difficult decisions for nothing.

The difference is, vaccination doesn't remove part of your sexual organs. I mean, we could stop the spread of HIV altogether by just chopping off people's cocks and telling them "if you want kids, artificial insemination's the way to go"...but there's quality of life issues here. From the evidence I've read, sex generally works better if you have a foreskin to provide for gliding action. I'm sure you don't understand or appreciate that if you don't have a foreskin (or in your case, even a cock), which is why women and circumcised men never really appreciate what's lost in circumcision. Would I give up gliding action to not get HIV? Well, I'd probably be quicker to give up fucking HIV-infected sluts, but as you point out, that's not a viable option for some people. The good news is, once you're old enough to be fucking HIV-infected sluts, you're old enough to decide for yourself what parts of your cock you want or don't want.

And as I've also argued before—relying on circumcision to protect you when you fuck HIV-infected sluts without a condom is like worrying about the safest seat during an airplane crash. Let's face it, even if you shift the odds a little in your favor, fucking people with HIV is not really a safe thing to be doing.

You mention that HIV has "burned like wildefire" (I assume you mean "spread like wildfire") "through certain parts of the world". Yes—certain impoverished, uneducated parts of the world, where they believe silly things like "fucking a virgin will cure you of HIV'. You also notice that it HASN'T spread like wildfire in educated, prosperous parts of the world. As far as epidemics go, HIV is a relatively easy one to prevent. It certainly doesn't necessitate (at least in our civilization) extreme measures like chopping off parts of people's cocks.

I have stayed out of this conversation, up to this point, because I have already stated where I am on this issue, and it's not necessary to say the same thing over and over in a slightly different way.

Today in my paper I read:
Craig Timeberg
The Washington Post

"Two major stuides released Wednesday confirmed that circumcision can dramatically slow the spread of HIV among African men, suggesting that widely offering the procedure could prevent millions of deaths in countries most seriously affected by AIDS".....
The studies, in Kenya and Uganda, found that circumcised men are about 50% less likely to contract HIV than those who are not, a result that echoed similar research last year from South Africa."

and

"In each study, thousands of men were recruited, and half were circumcised. Both groups were counseled, urged to use condoms and routinely tested for HIV. No significant difference was found between the two groups, yet they contracted HIV at sharply different rates."

"In all three studies, the results were so persuasive that researchers stopped their experiments several months early and offered circumcisions to all of the subjects, deeming it unethical to withhold a procedure that might prevent an often-fatal disease."

Every year we give infants multiple vaccinations in an effort to prevent them from developing diseases, some with which they may never come into contact. The vast majority of them do not react to them; others develop serious disabilities, and a few die. Vaccinating children carries a risk....and; yet, it would be foolish not to vaccinate them.

All the rhetoric spewed out does nothing but antagonize and overdramatize the issue. When Suzanne blogged about the new HPV vaccination that can prevent cervical cancer due to HPV, I didn't see one single person against it. Why not? After all, HPV can be prevented by education and condom use, can't it? Yes, it can, but people don't always consistently use the education they have. They make foolish choices and bring things back to their partners.

It is the same in this case. Yes, you don't need to be circumcised to prevent catching HIV; but, in a world where people lie about their sexual history, cheat on their partners, or just aren't consistent in their use of condoms, a little extra precaution could prevent the spread of a deadly disease that has burned like wildefire through certain parts of the world.

And now, I will creep back into my silence on this subject.

Terri

Wheat Among Tares ( http://wheatamongtares.blogspot.com )

And men should not be able to make their own decisions regarding their own body? Also the incidence of UTI, penile cancer is very rare. Girls have a 5 to 50 times higher chance of getting UTI than boys, and penile cancer occurs in less than 0.1%, usually elderly, men. And circumcised men can get penile cancer. These are not valid reasons to amputate the most sensitive healthy part of mens bodies, no more than would it be to amputate healthy girls breasts to acheive a 100% reduction in breast cancer, breast cancer affects 20% of women. It is always wrong to cut off healthy parts of childrens bodies that have nothing wrong with them. The foreskin is a healthy and normal part of the body, it is not a birth defect and does not need to be routinely amputated from helpless childrens bodies. If an adult wants to have amputations of normal body parts of their own body, that is their choice. But it is wrong to force this on helpless and easily coerced children. Everyone has a right to a whole body, and children deserve protections from having normal parts of their body, like the foreskin, mutilated. Yes, boys are as much entitled to this protection as girls. MGM is a severe violation of human rights and needs to be made illegal as FGM has.

The AIDS argument is even more ridiculous. You want to mutilate and destroy parts of childrens bodies, cut up their healthy genitals, something which usually qualifies as a sexual assault and mutilation, for a disease which can be easily prevented through education, condoms, and simple lifestyle choices? You want to do WHAT? And the fact is, THOUSANDS of people will still get AIDS and die even if helpless children had the most sensitive parts of their bodies destroyed as they suffer in pain. AIDS can be passed by the passage of bodily fluids between partners, and no MGM can stop this from happening, a condom could, however. Condoms are our best defence, and ironically, MGM may actually discourage condom use as I will discuss below. The best way to stop AIDS is to educate people and provide condoms. When people know better they do better, and if people know how AIDS is passed, they can choose not to have sex with many partners they dont know well. Another solution is to provide free AIDS testing to every person. Then the people who have AIDS are prohibited from having any sex, and they will know they can pass it on to others. This would go much further in stopping AIDS than mutilating and cutting up little boys penises ever could. Perhaps African countries should pass laws against polygamy and encourage fidel relationships and AIDS testing for parners. This is not nearly as great of an imposition as violating the bodies of little boys by destroying their most sensitive part of their penis. MGM may also give men a false sense of security, since they think they now have been MGMed, they can continue with their same behaviours which transmit the AIDS virus as before, and the virus keeps getting passed around people keep on dying. It is clear that education and behaviour changes are the key here, Mutilating and dicing up the penises of children is just a sick distraction from what really need to be done, education, condoms. You can mutilated and have no foreskin, have sex with an infected women, and you can still get AIDS. Condoms are more effective against AIDS than slicing up boys penises. In fact, MGM may discourage men from using condoms. Men lose most of their sexual sensitivity from MGM. Mutilated men may be less likely to use condoms since they reduce the sensitivity yet further, these men have already lost most sensitivity from MGM, and using the condom will reduce it to perhaps unbearably dull levels. Intact men have stretch receptors on their foreskins (the most sensitive part of the penis) which are activated regardless of the condom, and they can still enjoy significant pleasure with a condom. Since MGM also gives men a false sense of security, it may cause them to think they do not need to use a condom. When they realise that they need to use a condom anyway, or not have sex at all, to truly be protected, we ask ourselves, why not just do things instead of MGM and keep our whole bodies as which is our right? MGM also devastates the fulfillment from masturbation, which ironically could be one of the best tools against AIDS, since it provides us with a safe alternative to sex. MGM reduces penile sensitivity by 90% or more, and most negatively effects masturbation, since it does not involve any stimulation of any other body parts. The lack of fulfillment from the desensitisation of MGM may actually increase urges for actual sex, and reduces the usefulness of this tool as a sex alternative.

It is also worth noting that the rate of AIDS in Europe, where there is very little MGM, less than 1%, where most men are intact, is HALF that of the US, where around 70% of men are mutilated.

If the person whose body it is decides they want amputation as an adult, that is their choice, but children who are easily coerced and manipulated deserve protection from removals of their body parts for disease which dont even exist. Basically, it is wrong to cut off parts of childrens bodies which they are born with and that truly have no present medical condition, or where the condition can be treated less invasively. The only case where circumcision may be necessary is penile cancer or gangrene, and this almost never occurs on childrens bodies. Gangrene can actually be a dangerous complication of infections caused BY MGM. Every year several children die from infections from MGM, which leaves an open raw wound on the poor childs penis that is exposed to feces and urine. The foreskin is there to protect the glans from urine and feces.

If an adult man wants it done, thats their choice. It is actually far less painful to do it to an adult. Infants DO feel pain much more severely than adults do. Adults can be more safely given a general anesthetic making the procedure more painless and safer for adults than children. An adult can also ask for more pain releif if they need it, an infant is less able to. No, the infant being a boy does not mean we can torture and mutilate its body. boys deserve equal protections from genital mutilation. Male Genital Mutilation is a severe breach of human rights that deprives men of the most sensitive and pleasurable part of their bodies for life, like FGM, it destroys significant functionality and violates the sovereignty and rights of child to a whole body. All types of FGM is illegal, including the smallest snip from girls genitals. MGM removes over 50% of the boys penile skin, including nearly all its sensitivity. There are types of MGM and FGM which are equivalent, types of MGM equivalent to types of FGM are legal, but the equivalent type of FGM is illegal. It is time for boys to have equal protection as girls to a right to a whole intact body.

I am talking from the view of a man who has been mutilated. When I found out, at age 11, that part of my body had been stolen from me, that someone, when I was helpless infant, had destroyed a part of my most private and intimate body parts, I felt mutilated, violated and raped. I cannot describe the sadness and hurt that I felt, to realise that there was a part of my body that I will never know, that has forever been stolen from me. I have always wished that I had been spared this terrible pain and sadness, that I still had my whole body and could experience these pleasures and beauties that have been forever denied to me. MGM is like removing a persons taste buds, it permenantly deprives them of a vast range of sensations they will never know and never appreciate. MGM destroys a part of our lives, it denies a normal and healthy part of our lives from us. What connects us to this world and our lives in it is our body. It is what allows us to feel, touch, smell taste and hear this world. If we cut off part of the body, we are basically cutting off part of ourselves from this world and our lives within it. The body is sort of like a software program like your web browser, your web browser allows your computer to see web pages on the internet. If you delete a part of the web browser that displays images, you will not be able to see images and a whole wonderful part of the internet will be denied to you. You will not be able to see a part of the internet everyone else can. This is how I feel, there is a part of my life, a range of experiences, that have been permenantly stolen from me, that I have been deprived of and denied. I know several men who are intact, and I envy them. There descriptions of their pleasure is far greater than anything I have experienced. They are all very healthy and have never had a problem with their penis, and are VERY glad to all be intact and whole. They feel very sorry for me because they know what I am missing, they know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis and that I have nearly no pleasure or functionality left. I know this too and I always have known it, long before I knew what MGM was, I knew something was VERY wrong and because very frustrated and confused, I knew something was missing that should be there. There is something missing from my life because of this, and Ive known that before I knew about MGM. I have almost no sensitivity at all. Even removing a part of a mans pleasure agaisnt his will is wrong and a terrible crime. Genital mutilation is wrong for boys or girls and everyone deserves to be protected from this barbaric, cruel, and depraved acts.

"That doesn't mean that there is a causal relationship between female "circumcision" and any of those health harms."

Same theory applies to men. Circumcision does not prevent STDs, cancer, infections in men.

"You ask me a laundry list of questions. Are there any particular facts that you believe support your position? If so, please share them. I am not going to Answer a long series of questions without a foundation."

You mean you don't know the awnsers. You are debating risks without knowing them. You are the one claiming to be educated on the subject, it is your burden to provide the proof that circumcision of males is as safe as you claim.

"But women can get genital cancers, infections, spread S.T.D.s etc...just like men, but that does not justify circumcising them."

That doesn't mean that there is a causal relationship between female "circumcision" and any of those health harms.

You ask me a laundry list of questions. Are there any particular facts that you believe support your position? If so, please share them. I am not going to Answer a long series of questions without a foundation.

"I believe that the AAP is in a situation right now that prevents them from being truthful about the harm of circumcision because they have already circumcised millions of men. If they were to come out with (and I don't mean discover- I mean- "name it") information which for example- simply explained the structure of the foreskin and how it functions mechanically in the act of intercourse (so that this could be factored into the "informed consent process" even by people who have never personally known this function) Putting it in writing would spotlight the permanent sexual change to individual males their card carrying circumcisers are doing without medical need or consent."

My belief in the openness of the AAP is based on the fact that they have changed their recommendation on circumcision at least once and appear to be on the brink of doing so again based on further study. There current position is hardly staunchly pro-circumcision, but rather provides information on a lot of the conflicting evidence that makes it difficult to have an absolute position either way.

Questions 1-2

I don't understand why the policy statement would be expected to provide guidance on how to perform surgery or how to care for the penis generally. The purpose of the document is to provide guidance on the implications of the decision as to whether or not to circumcise. I don't see anything in the policy statement that suggests that cleaning a circumcised penis is difficult.

Question 3

I am not familiar with much incdence of serious consequences from circumcisions performed my medical professionals in the USA. I don't agree that consequences are being minimized by the AAP.

The study on meatal stenosis was published 7 years after the AAP policy statement. I don't see a discrepancy.

Question 3-4

I also don't generally believe it is easy for any layperson to assess the risks and benefits of any surgery or medical procedure. I don't know any way to address that with any treatment.

Question 5

"What protection is guarenteed the infant male if his parent does not acquire accurate and unbiased information or if the doctor does not heed the AAP admonision "Parents should not be coerced by medical professionals to make this choice."? (I met a woman who circumcised her baby because she heard that men were not able to have children unless they were circumcised, apparently the circumciser she hired was OK with that reason.)"

That is not unique to circumcision, but rather is a concern around any medical procedure. The fact that there are unethical and dishonest medical professionals doesn't dejustify an individual procedure. Doctors who behave that way should be punished for it. It is not an inherent flaw of circumcision.

One of the challenges around circumcision is that there is evidence of certain complications and evidence of certain helath benefits. There is no easy magical formula to make unambiguous decisions around whether to have circumcision, which forces anyone delivering a recommendation to acknowledge the role of other factors that impact the decision.

"The benefits outweigh the harm" suggests a utilitarian standard for determining the ethics of this procedure. A utilitarian standpoint would be, "if the benefits do indeed outweigh the harm, then circumcision is ethical—else, circumcision is not ethical". That, of course, reduces the ethical argument to an argument over the contingencies involved—what are the harms, what are the benefits, and which is greater.

"You judge the benefits to genuinely outweigh the harm, although you respect the fact that I may judge differently, yet in your view, both judgments (and the resulting action or inaction resulting from those judgments) are ethical. This suggests that the ethics of circumcision rests in something else—perhaps your good faith in honestly believing that the benefits outweigh the harm? If there is some other standard you are applying here I'd like to hear what it is."

Utilitarianism is easy to apply in a world where everyone has full information. Without unambiguous information, there is a subjectivity to the decision, even while attempting to use a utilitarian decision calculus.

"You might say it's only a matter of degree, but so is the difference in risk between playing Russian roulette (1 in 6) and driving to work in the morning (1 in 60,000). Distinguishing when a large difference of degree becomes a difference of kind is, of course, a separate problem that fuzzy logic and other such endeavors seek to resolve."

If I agreed with your math, I would be more likely to agree with your overall position. I don't think the difference is as great as you are suggesting. However, I do agree that the fundamental issue is where to draw the line, which makes it ethically ambiguous.

"Persons capable of informed consent can ethically have as many destructive and unnecessary surgeries as they want and destructive surgeries can be ethically performed on infants so long as it's necessary. (I'm not going to enumerate all eight possible permutations of this set of conditions, but you get the basic idea.)"

Our disagreement comes down to one issue - the matter of degree. All surgery is somewhat destructive; the fact that circumcision is more intrusive is a matter of degree. The extent to which any preemtive surgery is medically necessary is always a matter of degree. Fundamentally, no child can make his or her own medical decisions.

There is no valid medical reason to circumcise a child for conditions that are not even present on the childs body at the current time. Everyone has a right to a whole body, and if we allow ourselves, to consider amputating a childs body parts to prevent some disease which may occur some time later, we could remove nearly any body part. The fact is, men rarely have problems when they are intact. Intact men for instance have an Urinary tract infection rate 5 to 50 times less than females. Males get far fewer yeast infections. You rarely hear people suggest that we should cut off parts of the genitals of little girls so they wont get UTIs. UTIs can be treated in boys without amputation just as they can with girls. AIDS is a very poor excuse to mutilate children. AIDS can be non-invasively be prevented, through simple things like abstinance, condoms, and knowing your partner well. If both partners simply got tested for AIDS beforehand, we could stop AIDS in its tracks. Everyone would then be able to keep their whole bodies which is their basic human rights. It is not ethical to remove parts of a childs body unless there is a very severe, life threatening or essential health threatening medical condition presently occuring on that part, and there are no other lesser invasive alternatives, and the condition is actually presently occuring on the part to be amputated. We must consider the body to be sacred and the rightful posession of its owner, and removing body parts for medical conditions which are not even present is a great crime. Removing a body part is like destroying and denying a part of a persons life to them. The body is what connects us to this world and our life in it, it is what allows us to see, feel, hear, touch, and smell it. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the body, and removing it permenantly deprives a man of sensations he will never know and never experience. The foreskin is like the taste buds, they are highly specialised nerve endings found nowhere else, and thus removing them drastically narrows the range of pleasures and sensations a man will be able to experience for the rest of their lives. it disconnects us partly from this world and being able to sense wonderful and beautiful pleasures which are our birthright. The body is sort of like a computer program that allows you to look at web pages, your web browser. If you delete the part of the program, that displays images, you will not be able to see any images when browsing the internet like other people can. A wonderful part of the internet will be permenantly denied to you. the same thing here. men including myself, have been denied and deprived of a very important part of ourselves and our lives, and I feel like my rights and been violated and ignored, that my basic human have been violated.

The only conditions where circumcision is required is gangrene and penile cancer, and frostbite, all of which are very rare on an intact penis. There are lesser invasive ways to treat all other penile related conditions, which are usually minor or rare anyway. Penile cancer has a rate of around 0.1% compared to 20% for breast cancer, and mostly occurs in elderly men. Cutting off little girls breasts to prevent breast cancer is absurd, and so it removing 50% of a boys penile skin including nearly all its specialised erogenic tissue. Amputating a childs body parts to prevent a disease that can be prevented by simply not having sex with partners one does not know well, and using condoms, is even more absurd. It is true that circumcision reduces a mans sensitivity by around 90%. I am gentially mutilated myself, which I have been very upset about, and i have almost no sensitivity at all. This may actually discourage men from using condoms at all, since they have lost so much sensivity from circumcision, sex may be unbearably dull with a condom. Circumcision may also reduce mens pleasure from masturbation, which can be a useful tool in fighting AIDS. I do know men are far less likely to desire sex with a fully intact genitalia, masturbation becomes rather dull and unfulling without the foreskin present. MGM may also give men a false sense of security, instead of changing behaviours which is what really needs to happen to prevent AIDS, they will think that since they are mutilated they can continue with the same practices as before. Mutilating children is simply an appalling notion especially, it is a violation of very basic rights to a whole body. I think it would be much better to teach teens about the masturbation alternative, abstinance and safe sex, instead of mutilating their bodies.

Circumcision is a violation of the childs right to a whole body and make choices for themselves. It simply does not make sense to cut off body parts from unconsenting persons when there is nothing wrong.

As for the severity of MGM, it is a severe procedure that at least deprives a man of most of their sensitivity and genital pleasure for the remainder of their lives. The foreskin is a sensory organ and the heart and soul of male sexuality. It contains 20,000 nerve endings in type and concentration found nowhere else on the body. It is like, FGM, a destruction of highly sensitive and erogenous tissue. There are types of FGM that are the same as MGM in the scope of the damage done. One is clitoral hood removal. The clitoral hood and the male foreskin are actually the same structure up to a certain point in the unborn child, and at a certain point develop in different positions. However, the male foreskin is THE main centre of sexual pleasure and there is not much more sensitivity on other parts of the penis than regular skin. A women has several different locations which are highly sensitive. So removing a mans foreskin is removing most pleasure and there are no other significant sources of the great pleasure similar to what the foreskin provides. Erogenously speaking, male genital mutilation as typically done is equivalent to a very large removal of a good part of a womens genitals. In any case, it does not matter which is more severe, both are major sexual sensory castrations designed to starve and deprive both sexes of normal and healthy sensations and both should be equally condemned. If we have one practice in society that mutilated children by cutting off their arms, and another that cuts off their fingers, we dont accept the cutting off of fingers because it is less severe. Both are very severe practices.

I was genitally mutilated, and very angry that the most pleasure sensitive part of my body was stolen from my without my permission. Jews nor Muslims must circumcise their children. It should not be a requirement of any religion to have to destroy parts of your body to join, especially of children who are helpless or easily coerced and cant make this choice for themselves. Male or Female Genital Mutilation robs men and women of their right to a whole body and to make their own decisions regarding such unessential practices as an adult. MGM causes significant loss of functionality for the man including loss of most sexual pleasure. MGM permenantly rob a man of a part of their lives, depriving them of basic human pleasures for the rest of their lives, like cutting off a persons taste buds. Nearly all a mans genital sensitivity is on the foreskin, and the foreskin contains innervation and pleasure which can be found nowhere else on the body. Cutting into the flesh of a child in this manner is an assault since it is the removal of healthy and normal tissue from the childs body for no ethically valid reasons. Mutilating other peoples bodies without their consent, such as mutilating childrens bodies, without them being able to make their own choices for themselves about permenant body alterations after they have reached an age where they can give fully informed consent, is not a religious freedom. It is an act which violates the childs right to a whole body. A child can always change their beleifs later in life, but they can never get back the most sensitive part of the body, the foreskin, that was stolen from them. Such permenant amputations of body parts should wait until the person is of age where they can with fully informed consent make the decision for themselves. After all, its their body, they are the ones that are going to live in it, and it should be their rights and their choice regarding amputations of normal body parts. There is no medical reason for circumcision of healthy childrens normal body parts. The foreskin is not a birth defect and is a normal and healthy part of the human body that every person has an inalienable right to. In decent and civilised society the right of the individual to make decisions regarding their own body is paramount. Religious freedom does not include the right for a person to force amputations on a person without their consent, including children. FGM/MGM permenantly deprives a person of their right to make such choices for themselves, as a consenting adult. It is already illegal to mutilate a girls genitals in the US, including religious reasons, and it is time that boys deserve the same protection.

G- I hope that you have a few spare minutes to look at this for me and to share your take on it.

You have faith that the AAP is open, honest and has nothing to hide.

I do not. I believe that the AAP is in a situation right now that prevents them from being truthful about the harm of circumcision because they have already circumcised millions of men. If they were to come out with (and I don't mean discover- I mean- "name it") information which for example- simply explained the structure of the foreskin and how it functions mechanically in the act of intercourse (so that this could be factored into the "informed consent process" even by people who have never personally known this function) Putting it in writing would spotlight the permanent sexual change to individual males their card carrying circumcisers are doing without medical need or consent.

So I'm going to ask some questions about the AAP policy- here is the full text ( http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/f... )
and you tell me what you think of it as a document which could be used for "informed consent".

Question 1. The natural sexual function of having a the erectile body of the penis covered with a freely moving sheath of skin as opposed to surgically immobilizing the penis inside tight skin by sectioning out about 1/3 - 1/2 of the surface area, permanently externalizing the internal structure of the glans even in the non-erect state. This sexual difference would be apparent to an untrained eye in a porn movie etc... but can you find any information which describes this function in the unaltered male- or describes this purpose of circumcision as a surgical goal in the AAP policy? (aside- the AAP counts unsatisfactory cosmesis because of excess skin as a complication.... but they never state a clear surgical goal that is to be achieved- how can a parent or doctor know if a circumcision has been properly done if the purpose and goal of the surgery is never clearly stated by the AAP?)

Question 2. Hygiene... The AAP has a section called "The Role of Hygiene" in this section can we find any information about how to care for an intact child or balance that against how to care for a circumcised child? If a parent was concerned about the effort or invasiveness of all the care an intact child would require- would this section on hygiene help their decision making process? Compare this section on hygiene to
another AAP publication on how to care for an intact child. ( http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/aap1999/ )

How do these two publications differ? Does the policy about circumcision effectively communicate the ease of caring for an intact child or communicate that circumcision does not guarantee maintenance free or infection free penis?

Question 3. The complications.
Part one: What is the overall rate of circumcision complications that the AAP cites? (save time looking- the answer here- "unknown" or "0.2% and 0.6%."
they then state "Most of the complications that do occur are minor." What is the purpose of this comment when we also know that some of the complications which occur are devastating up to an including death? If the procedure is not recommended and is entirely elective- why would the AAP chose to diminish the nature of some of the complications when they could just as easily mention the severity of a complication, surgical, bleeding or infection- on the genitals of a freshly born infant? More on this...

Part 2: State the number of possible complications which the AAP identifies by name. I count 20.

The most frequent complication, bleeding, is seen in ~0.1% of circumcisions.35 It is quite rare to need transfusion after a circumcision because most bleeding episodes can be handled quite well with local measures (pressure, hemostatic agents, cautery, sutures). Infection is the second most common of the complications, but most of these infections are minor and are manifest only by some local redness and purulence.33 There also are isolated case reports of other complications such as recurrent phimosis, wound separation, concealed penis, unsatisfactory cosmesis because of excess skin, skin bridges, urinary retention, meatitis, meatal stenosis, chordee, inclusion cysts, and retained Plastibell devices.35 Case reports have been noted associating circumcision with such rare events as scalded skin syndrome, necrotizing fasciitis, sepsis, and meningitis, as well as with major surgical problems such as urethral fistula, amputation of a portion of the glans penis, and penile necrosis

Part 3: Let's take one of these complications, meatal stenosis. What is the incidence of meatal stenosis?
This article says Meatal stenosis is a relatively common acquired condition occurring in 9-10% of males who are circumcised. ( http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2356.htm )

How does this 9-10% number compare to the number the AAP gives us for total complications? How could we explain this discrepancy? The only thing I can think is that because this problem is not an immediate complication- but one which develops over time- the AAP is not including it in the surgical complication tally- but why then would the name of this disorder be included in the list? Meatal stenosis is never a surgical complication. What is going on? Upon reading this risk analysis, do you think a layperson would have an accurate idea of the risk of meatal stenosis to a circumcised child?

Question 4. Anesthesia. The AAP suggests that we should use anesthesia when circumcising. As they outline the various anesthesia methods- they also mention various risks associated with these anesthetics. These risks of anesthesia are not mentioned in the list of circumcision complications. Were the risks of circumcision computed by circumcising children without anesthesia? Can a layperson calculate the risk of circumcision with anesthesia from the information provided?

Question 5. Conclusion
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision.
Do you feel, after this short excercise investigation of their policy, that a parent could acquire accurate and unbiased information from this document? What protection is guarenteed the infant male if his parent does not acquire accurate and unbiased information or if the doctor does not heed the AAP admonision "Parents should not be coerced by medical professionals to make this choice."? (I met a woman who circumcised her baby because she heard that men were not able to have children unless they were circumcised, apparently the circumciser she hired was OK with that reason.)

To conclude- by what authority does the AAP grant legitimacy to surgery done for non-medical reasons? Are they not a medical association? Don't doctors already have medical protocol to guide them when surgery is applicable?

But women can get genital cancers, infections, spread S.T.D.s etc...just like men, but that does not justify circumcising them. AND according to countries who circumcise their infant daughters, they claim that the benefits out weigh the risk and loss. (and the circumcised women claim to be able to orgasm, which seems to be a standard of proof that no damage is done.)

YOU do not believe female circ is beneficial. Are you a doctor? Are you a researcher?

Would it be ethical to circumcise american infant females for the next 150 years and determine then if there are any benefits?

Do you know how many infant male penises are degloved EVERY DAY during circumcision?

Do you know how many disfiguring botched circs are performed EVERY DAY?

Do you know how many infant males are permantly disfigured, as in having their penises cut off during circumcision a year?

Do you know how many infant males die every year from circumcision? In America?

Do you know what anatomy is cut off during circumcision and it's function?

Do you know how it is cut off? The actual process.

Have you seen the dotted line? Do you think that a doctor can view an infant penis and determine how the baby will grow into manhood and determine how much foreskin to surgerically remove?

Where are the MRI studies which prove that the babies are not being affected by the pain of circumcision?

Infant male circumcision has not been proven to have minimal risk.

"In my view, the benefits outweigh the harm. Further, any surgery may be viewed as "unnecessary" or "destructive." It is all subjective"

"The benefits outweigh the harm" suggests a utilitarian standard for determining the ethics of this procedure. A utilitarian standpoint would be, "if the benefits do indeed outweigh the harm, then circumcision is ethical—else, circumcision is not ethical". That, of course, reduces the ethical argument to an argument over the contingencies involved—what are the harms, what are the benefits, and which is greater.

You judge the benefits to genuinely outweigh the harm, although you respect the fact that I may judge differently, yet in your view, both judgments (and the resulting action or inaction resulting from those judgments) are ethical. This suggests that the ethics of circumcision rests in something else—perhaps your good faith in honestly believing that the benefits outweigh the harm? If there is some other standard you are applying here I'd like to hear what it is.

As for "unnecessary" and "destructive", I don't accept that these are "subjective", that I am somehow choosing to view it that way.

The fact that it is destructive is rather straightforward. The foreskin contains nerve endings and serves as erogenous tissue, allows for gliding action during sexual intercourse and masturbation, shields the glans against physical irritation, and performs other useful functions. And on a more fundamental level, to remove the foreskin is to remove tissue from the human body. We would probably not feel very comfortable about removing earlobes, trimming labia, or cutting off other flaps of skin from newborn infants even if these flaps of skin served less purpose than the foreskin.

"Unnecessary" stems from the fact that for any individual infant, being circumcised does not differ from being circumcised the same way that, for instance, having a sense of hearing differs from being deaf. You mention ear tubing above—ear tubing is highly likely to save a child's sense of hearing, and is thus necessary in a way fundamentally different from circumcision. You might say it's only a matter of degree, but so is the difference in risk between playing Russian roulette (1 in 6) and driving to work in the morning (1 in 60,000). Distinguishing when a large difference of degree becomes a difference of kind is, of course, a separate problem that fuzzy logic and other such endeavors seek to resolve.

The third condition, which you seem to agree is present, is that the child is too young to decide for himself whether or not to have this surgery performed on his body.

In the case of routine infant circumcision, I'm saying the ethically relevant distinction is that it holds all three of these attributes—that it is unnecessary, that it is destructive, and that it is performed on children too young to consent for themselves. Persons capable of informed consent can ethically have as many destructive and unnecessary surgeries as they want and destructive surgeries can be ethically performed on infants so long as it's necessary. (I'm not going to enumerate all eight possible permutations of this set of conditions, but you get the basic idea.)

"It was you that came in here after this discussion started proudly proclaiming that you'd had your children cut up. It flatters me that you came here and fought so hard for my approval, but you won't gain anything by doing so."

Cute. I believe that it is an important choice for parents, and I came on-line to defend that choice. I don't need your approval, and I am not looking to judge your actions.

"The justification for preemptive ear tubing is some sort of abnormal structure in the ear—the justification for circumcision is the perfectly normal and natural structure of the penis. You have completely ignored the other distinction I drew, which was that preemptive ear tubing does not (as far as I am aware) cause any functional damage to the child. The only thing to weigh against is the risks inherent in surgery."

The justification for preemptive ear tubing is that there is a likelihood of illness and developmental delay that outweighs the risk and harm from the surgery, which is the same as the justification for a preemtive circumcision. By definition any procedure that cuts into the body is delivering some sort of harm. I grant that a circumcision is more invasive, but I do not agree with the distinction that you are making.

"Yes, that explains your attempts to turn this into some type of game instead of an honest exchange of ideas."

I certainly do not consider this a game. I am being honest and open in my viewpoint. I am too busy to spend time on-line arguing for the sake of arguing. I am assuming that we are both attempting to exchange ideas honestly. If it isn't an honest exchange, the problem is not on my side.

"I think you're absolutely right. Mention any surgical procedure, be it ear tubing, EST, circumcision, fenuloplasty, gastric bypass, appendectomy—the fact that G. Elliott does not seek for any of these procedures to be mandatory for all infants has absolutely no bearing on their medical ethics."

Nor does it change the fact that if it is a reasonable medical procedure supported by credible research and competent medical authorities, it is a legitimate ethical choice.

"My brightline is that unnecessary, destructive medical procedures should not be performed on an infant who is too young to consent to them. If I hadn't stated this plainly enough before, I apologize."

In my view, the benefits outweigh the harm. Further, any surgery may be viewed as "unnecessary" or "destructive." It is all subjective.

"Simply because I don't have the patience to repeat myself in debunking your poor arguments does not mean I concede the point. I see little point in repeating myself over and over to someone who is simply trying to make a sport out of this."

Credible studies and medical organizations provide evidence supporting this as a legitimate choice. Mischaracterizing my motivations does not demonstrate otherwise.

Your post is very articulate, but it is a complete misstatement of my views. I do not believe that female circumcision is beneficial. I believe that women should make their own decisions about their bodies. I would not have a daughter circumcised. I do not support crude, experimental surgery. I do not believe a decimal of benefit alone justifies surgery. I believe that decisions on any medical procedure require a weighing of risks and benefits.

I do believe that the risks of many types of infection, penile cancer, etc. justify the minimal health risks of male circumcision.

So as long as there are benefits you support female circumcision? You find no value in the female anatomy, it's function or the belief that women have a right to make decisions concerning their own vagina. You are willing to risk circumcising your daughter even though the surgery is crude, still experimental, has a long history of botched jobs that still happens at an alarming rate to this day, including death, and since there is not dotted lines on humans, are taking a guess as where to cut.

In fact you believe that as long as you can find a decimal point of benefit, you have a legal and moral obligation circumcise your daughter, though you would never demand that it become mandatory for all females to be circumcised. I mean you have to take of the problems with vaginas when they are infants because they cannot consent to having elective surgery yet, let alone when they turn three. Because you believe that the genitalia of human beings is so flawed that you describe normal anatomy as an ailment.

"While I appreciate that you are not describing me as an unethical person, your position is nonetheless that my actions are unethical toward my children."

It was you that came in here after this discussion started proudly proclaiming that you'd had your children cut up. It flatters me that you came here and fought so hard for my approval, but you won't gain anything by doing so.

"You are missing my entire point. The justification for preemptive ear tubing is identical to the justification for preemptive circumcision."

The justification for preemptive ear tubing is some sort of abnormal structure in the ear—the justification for circumcision is the perfectly normal and natural structure of the penis. You have completely ignored the other distinction I drew, which was that preemptive ear tubing does not (as far as I am aware) cause any functional damage to the child. The only thing to weigh against is the risks inherent in surgery.

"I was a debate coach for ten years."

Yes, that explains your attempts to turn this into some type of game instead of an honest exchange of ideas.

"You don't understand that it doesn't work if your analogy would render your position absurd at the same time. Someone could compare elective preemptive ear tubes to "elective" EST. Someone could compare frenuloplasty in cases where a doctor (or even a random person off the street) may not believe that not all non-surgical options were fully exercised to "elective" EST. You only prove your argument if your metaphor that demonstrates "the absurdity" of my argument does not do the same to yours."

I think you're absolutely right. Mention any surgical procedure, be it ear tubing, EST, circumcision, fenuloplasty, gastric bypass, appendectomy—the fact that G. Elliott does not seek for any of these procedures to be mandatory for all infants has absolutely no bearing on their medical ethics.

"Again, your brightline is simply that you consider the procedure ethical if your personal analysis agrees that the justification is sufficient to undertake the risk. "

My brightline is that unnecessary, destructive medical procedures should not be performed on an infant who is too young to consent to them. If I hadn't stated this plainly enough before, I apologize.

"Thank you for ceasing opposition to my defense of AAP as a credible source as well as my analogy to non-medical parental behaviors that many consider "threatening" to children."

Simply because I don't have the patience to repeat myself in debunking your poor arguments does not mean I concede the point. I see little point in repeating myself over and over to someone who is simply trying to make a sport out of this.

"In my view, "ethical" and "unethical" are terms that cannot be meaningfully applied to people. They can only meaningfully be applied to acts. I am discussing which term can be properly applied to the act of circumcision, as performed on healthy infants as a routine procedure."

While I appreciate that you are not describing me as an unethical person, your position is nonetheless that my actions are unethical toward my children. I am arguing that they are ethically acceptable but consequentially debatable based upon each parent's individual analysis of risks and benefits.

"There are a lot of debates about when to have ear tubes put in; some parents and doctors want them in after a far smaller number of ear infections while some wait for a larger number. Some parents and doctors believe the pain and discomfort of repeated ear infections is sufficient to justify the surgery while others only believe the surgery is justified if a child is having hearing problems and still others only believe it is justified if the hearing problems are causing developmental problems. I have heard third-hand about parents having the surgery preemptively for children whose aural structure appears heavily prone to ear infections and fluid blockage while other parents adamently oppose the surgery altogether. There is no absolute Right answer. There is only what the doctor and parents believe to be right for a specific child and their family. The brightline distinction between what is medically ethical and unethical in your argument appears entirely based on whether you personally consider a medical treatment justified. However, reasonable people can make different decisions and still both be ethical."

"In all the cases you mention for the aural tubing procedure, it is some problem (be it hearing loss, repeated painful infection, or even an abnormal ear structure lending itself to future infection) that justifies the procedure by suggesting that there is some necessity to it. This is easily distinct from circumcision, which is performed even on healthy infants without any pre-existing problems in that area."

You are missing my entire point. The justification for preemptive ear tubing is identical to the justification for preemptive circumcision. It is an assessment of the probabilities, risks, and benefits of not doing the surgery against doing the surgery. The research convinces me that my sons would be at greater risk for any number of medical problems if they had not undergone circumcision. The only difference is that you consider one act to be ethical because you agree with the risk assessment. That is not an ethical brightline.

"Please. We are discussing your assertion that you are not pushing for circumcision to be mandatory. My use of EST was to illustrate the irrelevance of that single assertion to your conclusion that routine circumcision is ethical. It would be best for you to concede that you do not understand reductio ad absurdum or its use in argument, and simply to drop the point."

I was a debate coach for ten years. I understand reductio ad absurdum. You don't understand that it doesn't work if your analogy would render your position absurd at the same time. Someone could compare elective preemptive ear tubes to "elective" EST. Someone could compare frenuloplasty in cases where a doctor (or even a random person off the street) may not believe that not all non-surgical options were fully exercised to "elective" EST. You only prove your argument if your metaphor that demonstrates "the absurdity" of my argument does not do the same to yours.

"The freedom of parents to make decisions for their children (which is completely different from the freedom of individuals to make decisions for themselves) is always restrained by a concern for the rights of the child, even against his parents."

Absolutely. Hence my opposition to female genital mutilation and EST. Again, there is medical justification for circumcision. Again, your brightline is simply that you consider the procedure ethical if your personal analysis agrees that the justification is sufficient to undertake the risk. You either don't believe the benefits of circumcision are compelling enough, or you don't think they justify the risk? Absolutely fair conclusion on your part, and sufficient to justify a decision on your part not to have your sons circumcised. To deem those who come to a different conclusion based on credible evidence as making an unethical decision sets an arbitrary ethical standard.

"(This is distinct from paternalism, which seeks to restrict the freedom of individuals to make decisions for themselves with a concern for their own rights.) It is unethical, for instance, for parents to have their children tattooed or branded against their will, and destructive surgeries on female genitals are similarly unethical."

I will concede that distinction to you, and I will agree that FGM and branding of children are unethical acts.

Thank you for ceasing opposition to my defense of AAP as a credible source as well as my analogy to non-medical parental behaviors that many consider "threatening" to children.

"The focus at hand is there is no amount of evidence that would support the surgical removal of perfectly functioning male anatomy that would not also apply to the female anatomy."

Not much point discussing an issue with someone who is committed to disregarding any evidence that disagrees with his beliefs. If you are able to change reality by ignoring it, why don't you just decide that you were never circumcised in the first place? Let me know if that works; I would like to deny all evidence that shows that I have yet to pay off my mortgage.

"I was not cirucmcised against my parents will, they had/have no claim to my body."

Your words from a previous post...

...all babies in a lot of hospitals in the 60's were circumcised without anyones consent, (my parents swear they would not have had they been asked,)

You may believe parents should not have such control, but legally the do control the medical decisions for minors, certainly infants. I don't know what you believe should happen to infants who need heart surgery, have broken bones, or require other medical treatment if you think parents should not have control over their children's medical decisions. Maybe if their ailments hold off until they are 3, you can get them to agree to needed surgery, but I have trouble believing a toddler can provide informed consent.

"History has proven that parents do not need to make the choice of circumcison for perfectly healthy males, therefore they are not allowed this right."

Bald assertion. There is a lot of evidence about the benefits of circumcision. You can say that the benefits do not justify the risk in your world, but to pretend that none of the benefits exist is pointless.

I was not cirucmcised against my parents will, they had/have no claim to my body. I was circumcised against my will. I was no ones slave, no one had any right to make choices about my body without my consent. History has proven that parents do not need to make the choice of circumcison for perfectly healthy males, therefore they are not allowed this right. The sexist laws which protect female infants from their parents' choice do not protect males.

The focus at hand is there is no amount of evidence that would support the surgical removal of perfectly functioning male anatomy that would not also apply to the female anatomy.

"I am not trying to persuade you that you should circumcise any sons that you may have; I am trying to persuade you that parents who choose to circumcise their sone are not unethical for doing so (which is where personal honor comes into play later on in our exchange)."

In my view, "ethical" and "unethical" are terms that cannot be meaningfully applied to people. They can only meaningfully be applied to acts. I am discussing which term can be properly applied to the act of circumcision, as performed on healthy infants as a routine procedure.

"There are a lot of debates about when to have ear tubes put in; some parents and doctors want them in after a far smaller number of ear infections while some wait for a larger number. Some parents and doctors believe the pain and discomfort of repeated ear infections is sufficient to justify the surgery while others only believe the surgery is justified if a child is having hearing problems and still others only believe it is justified if the hearing problems are causing developmental problems. I have heard third-hand about parents having the surgery preemptively for children whose aural structure appears heavily prone to ear infections and fluid blockage while other parents adamently oppose the surgery altogether. There is no absolute Right answer. There is only what the doctor and parents believe to be right for a specific child and their family. The brightline distinction between what is medically ethical and unethical in your argument appears entirely based on whether you personally consider a medical treatment justified. However, reasonable people can make different decisions and still both be ethical."

In all the cases you mention for the aural tubing procedure, it is some problem (be it hearing loss, repeated painful infection, or even an abnormal ear structure lending itself to future infection) that justifies the procedure by suggesting that there is some necessity to it. This is easily distinct from circumcision, which is performed even on healthy infants without any pre-existing problems in that area.

Another distinction is that circumcision removes a functional part of the body—that it is functionally destructive. To perform destructive procedures on an infant's body as a matter of routine practice is unethical—to perform destructive procedures in order to prevent an existing problem from causing more destruction is a necessary aspect of medicine.

"That said, my point is that there are any number of surgeries whose benefits are hotly debated within the medical community. The problem with your use of EST as an example is two-fold."

Please. We are discussing your assertion that you are not pushing for circumcision to be mandatory. My use of EST was to illustrate the irrelevance of that single assertion to your conclusion that routine circumcision is ethical. It would be best for you to concede that you do not understand reductio ad absurdum or its use in argument, and simply to drop the point.

"It challenges the question, how far can a society's paternalism be justified in questioning the freedom of others to make their own decisions."

I have no problem with people having circumcisions performed on themselves once they are able to consent to it. It is at that point their call. The freedom of parents to make decisions for their children (which is completely different from the freedom of individuals to make decisions for themselves) is always restrained by a concern for the rights of the child, even against his parents. (This is distinct from paternalism, which seeks to restrict the freedom of individuals to make decisions for themselves with a concern for their own rights.) It is unethical, for instance, for parents to have their children tattooed or branded against their will, and destructive surgeries on female genitals are similarly unethical.

I agree with Sarah, and weighed on with my opinion on this on Badgermama: Against nonconsensual circumcision ( http://badgermama.blogspot.com/2006/10/against-non... ).

-----------------
Liz Henry
lizzard@bookmaniac.net
Badgermama ( http://badgermama.blogspot.com ) - personal & mommyblog
http://liz-henry.blogspot.com

John,

I am sorry that you were circumcised against your family's will. However, neither my worldview nor I bear any responsibility for that act. I have never advocated compuslory circumcision or circumcising a child without a parent's consent.

In your post you assert the following:

All my facts are wrong
All evidence in support of circumcision comes from perverts writing fetish sites
I am ignorant about my own anatomy
I am uneducated on the subject at hand
You then have the gall to claim that my ego is the problem?

There is not even a single assertion in your post that challenges a specific argument that I am making, much less an assertion supported by some sort of evidence or analysis. If you want to discuss this constructively, please stop the personal attacks and focus on the issues at hand.

"I would prefer something other than a pro-circumcision propaganda site. We can throw propaganda sites at each other all day but I don't think it'll accomplish much. The source does include footnote numbers, but there's no clear indication of what outside sources those numbers correspond to."

The link to the references ( http://www.circinfo.net/references.html ) is at the bottom of the page. When I first skimmed, his research appeared pretty credible to me. However, you asked me if I had any basis for my claims on circumcision, so I picked one of the more comprehensive sites that I found. There are certainly a lot of studies both from credible and somewhat less credible sources on both sides. I am not trying to persuade you that you should circumcise any sons that you may have; I am trying to persuade you that parents who choose to circumcise their sone are not unethical for doing so (which is where personal honor comes into play later on in our exchange). I don't really need to justify my personal decisions to anyone else, but I am participating in this dialog because I think it is a worthwhile exchange.

"The important distinction is that in both cases, there was a medical necessity to take action, and in both cases, the parent has the responsibility to provide informed consent on behalf of the child. That responsibility does not extend, however, to a license to provide "informed consent" on behalf of an infant child to receive a medically unnecessary and functionally damaging modification to his body."

The important distinction is that in both cases you agree that action was justified and in the case of circumcision you do not. There are a lot of debates about when to have ear tubes put in; some parents and doctors want them in after a far smaller number of ear infections while some wait for a larger number. Some parents and doctors believe the pain and discomfort of repeated ear infections is sufficient to justify the surgery while others only believe the surgery is justified if a child is having hearing problems and still others only believe it is justified if the hearing problems are causing developmental problems. I have heard third-hand about parents having the surgery preemptively for children whose aural structure appears heavily prone to ear infections and fluid blockage while other parents adamently oppose the surgery altogether. There is no absolute Right answer. There is only what the doctor and parents believe to be right for a specific child and their family. The brightline distinction between what is medically ethical and unethical in your argument appears entirely based on whether you personally consider a medical treatment justified. However, reasonable people can make different decisions and still both be ethical.

While I obviously know nothing about your specific situation, my understanding is that most cases of frenulum breve can be resolved without surgery. I thus suspect that there is probably a wide grey area between cases where only the most agressive doctors would recommend a frenuloplasty and where there would be something close to a consensus on behalf of the surgery. Doctors and parents (or adults for those who have the condition treated in adulthood) are not unethical if they differ in good faith and with medical justification about what level of severity justifies the surgery or how long alternate treatments should be attempted first.

"You may not appreciate the distinction, but I wasn't comparing circumcision to EST so much as I was applying a reductio ad absurdum to your argument that "no one is seeking to make circumcision mandatory" in order to illustrate that it does nothing to convince anyone that circumcision is ethical."

It does nothing to convince you. It may or may not convince anyone. That said, my point is that there are any number of surgeries whose benefits are hotly debated within the medical community. The problem with your use of EST as an example is two-fold. First, it could be used by anyone who opposes any particular form of medical treatment to imply that the treatment is unethical, no matter how clear the medical evidence may be in support of the procedure. Second, the thrust of my argument is to show that even surgeries that we agree are justified can be subjected by others to the criticisms that you are applying to circumcision. You claim that my comparison is flawed. That subjectivity is exactly why no one has any business arguing against parents' freedom to have a doctor circumcise their son.

"I'm not exactly sure what the moral distinction is, since cutting off part of someone's body is still completely different from allowing them to eat pork or shellfish."

It challenges the question, how far can a society's paternalism be justified in questioning the freedom of others to make their own decisions. There are some who view any type of meat as poisoning the body. There are some who view surgery by definition as damaging the body, even under circumstances that you and I would both consider medically necessary. It is inherently subjective.

I am a husband that has also been watching this thread. A man whose Native American family has thousands of years of not being circumcised until I was the first during the free love human/fight for human rights and equality generation. There was no problem with my penis when I was born, and no history of problems in my family, but all babies in a lot of hospitals in the 60's were circumcised without anyones consent, (my parents swear they would not have had they been asked,) but by this point the public opinion had been conditioned like G Elliots that there was a fatal flaw in the design.

80% of the polulation of men on earth are intact. There is no major push to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

I said that to say this. G. Elliot. You are good at argueing, but your facts are wrong. You are getting your facts from fetish sites, these are JO websites that perverts create to try and fool parents into circumcising their children. You are using these facts in a freakonomics manner of theory, but since you don't have the right facts, your conclusions are ALL wrong.

You know nothing of the normal male anatomy. You do not know it's functions, the proper name of it or how it is removed.

And you know nothing about female circumcision. You only know of infibulation and like a whole bunch of feminist will cover your ears and scream Lalalalala when any other mention of female circ is mentioned.

Until you educate yourself, which I doubt you can bring your ego to do, you are just wasting evryones time.

John

"Here's one source."

I would prefer something other than a pro-circumcision propaganda site. We can throw propaganda sites at each other all day but I don't think it'll accomplish much. The source does include footnote numbers, but there's no clear indication of what outside sources those numbers correspond to.

"You are missing my point, which is that your argument could be applied to any form of surgery. Are you are taking the position that any surgery on a young child is unethical? If not, please provide an example of a surgery to which your analogy would not apply. If so, then this argument becomes a lot easier."

I think you already provided an example with your ear surgery—it was indisputably a necessity for the health of the child involved.

I'll provide another. When I was about six, I discovered I was unable to retract my foreskin due to a short frenulum. This was causing pretty severe pain and other problems I don't quite recall at the time—long story made short, my frenulum was cut, although the foreskin itself thankfully remains.

The important distinction is that in both cases, there was a medical necessity to take action, and in both cases, the parent has the responsibility to provide informed consent on behalf of the child. That responsibility does not extend, however, to a license to provide "informed consent" on behalf of an infant child to receive a medically unnecessary and functionally damaging modification to his body.

"But you view comparing circumcision to electroshock treatment as evidence of your dispassionate objectivity?"

You may not appreciate the distinction, but I wasn't comparing circumcision to EST so much as I was applying a reductio ad absurdum to your argument that "no one is seeking to make circumcision mandatory" in order to illustrate that it does nothing to convince anyone that circumcision is ethical.

"I agree. Comparing eating shellfish to circumcision is a poor analogy. Fortunately for the credibility of my argument, I didn't make that analogy. I was talking about pork."

I'm not exactly sure what the moral distinction is, since cutting off part of someone's body is still completely different from allowing them to eat pork or shellfish.

"I do the same toward your judgement of me."

My judgment of circumcision (or at least routine circumcision applied to infants) is that it's a breach of medical ethics. I've been discussing circumcision this whole time—I'm not sure how you convinced yourself we were discussing the personal honor of G. Elliot.

"When you suggested that maybe ritual circumcision might have more behind it than that... I thought that you might like to measure that theory against the significant story that when the Jews in the desert for forty years- they stopped circumcising."

Many Jews either individually or in groups abandoned various parts of their practices during certain times. That doesn't persuade me that there weren't and aren't health benefits to circumcision.

"...your personal assessment of the "risk" of circumcision is only if the harm were to exceed your own perception of normal male anatomy and sexual function which is: circumcised."

Well there is medical data that provides additional objective basis beyond what I have personally experienced. I also am getting kind of tired of your implication that circumcision has robbed me of all objectivity. I do not think your lack of a penis disqualifies you from having an informed viewpoint on circumcision. I struggle to understand why no longer possessing a foreskin would disqualify me.

That aside, let me offer you a different scenario that also comes from my childhood. From my earliest dentist appointments, my mother and I were told that I would need braces because I have a small mouth, and the moment my adult teeth starting popping, my teeth were so badly out of alignment that I was not able to bring some of my teeth to bear when eating. The braces came on, but several of my adult teeth came in late, and it wasn't until my last baby teeth came out 4 years into orthodontic care that it became clear to my orthodontist that I would need to have 2 adult teeth pulled in order to fit my teeth properly into my mouth. My mother refused to allow my teeth to be pulled, because of the permanence of losing adult teeth, and the braces were removed without having done their jobs. It took me 2 dental surgeries and 4 years of adult orthodontic care to get the smile and, more importantly, the chewing ability, that I had wanted.

My mother's decision was well-intentioned, and to her it was the right decision. I understand why she made that decision, but I still wish she had decided differently. However, as a parent I understand that she was responsible for making the best decision she could. (And even as a "bratty" teenager I never gave her a hard time about it.) Do I think her decision was unethical? Absolutely not. I think the decision was a cost benefit analysis of the functional impact of losing 2 teeth, the risk of dental surgery, the benefits of properly aligned teeth, and the wear and tear of the way I ate on my dental health. Did those teeth have a function? Yes. Was it a painful experience to have them pulled? Yes. However, to me the benefits justified the risks of the surgery and the loss of the teeth. Further, I do not believe that having my teeth pulled means that I saw no value in those teeth, that I showed a lack of consideration toward them, or that I am no longer the same person who I was when I had those teeth.

People who decide whether to have a kidney removed or parts of their liver or colon excised are making the same decision. (And by the way, I have never heard anyone argue that someone with only one kidney lacks the perspective to speak about the value of a second kidney.)

There is no absolute guarantee with any medical procedure, much less a surgery. To me the bottom line was that there is a medical procedure which is recognized and recommended by many credible authorities (and not recommended by many credible authorities too) and as a parent I had to make the best decision I could for my children's welfare, just like my mother had to make the best decision she could for me.

Sarah, I am moving a couple of your paragraphs around that I think make related points. If you perceive a loss in context, please let me know.

"Meaning... up until the knife cuts into the parts of the anatomy which you group in the "male sexual anatomy file" of your brain as opposed to the red "bio-hazard medical waste" bag - you simply can not begin to acknowledge that there might be harm or loss to the male organ in even the most perfectly executed circumcision. Your bias that there is no value in the anatomy is clear if you can not factor a known and predictable loss to every male circumcised to rarely achieve a benefit. (Unless you happen to believe that the perpetual state of being circumcised is a benefit in and of itself... and then I think we'd be talkin' and not dancin')

"Your opinion that the risks should be assumed in order to garner the benefits gained- could only seat if you reject any inherent value in this anatomy and over dramatize the harm of any possible problem that could occur in this zone."

I honestly don't assign intrinsic value to any part of my anatomy; I assign intrinsic worth to life as a whole and to the quality of life. I don't think I lost a part of my soul when I was circumcised, any more than I lost a part of my soul when my adult teeth were pulled (or when my baby ones fell out). I assign extrinsic worth to many parts of my anatomy, but the foreskin (if you will excuse a somewhat grisly pun) did not make the cut for me.

Your conclusion that my view of the risks can only come from over dramatizing is your bias. The fact that we don't assess the risks the same does not mean I am being hystrionic, any more than it would suggest that you are putting your head in the sand. We are (hopefully) both reasonable adults trying to make the best decisions for our children.

"If there was a vaccine which could replace the cosmetic surgery... if you could have all the "benefits" you think you get from circumcision and retain the natural look and function of male genitals as they arrive, fresh from the factory... tell me really... be honest here... would you have to rethink this and skip the surgery?"

I don't keep kosher because I believe that the need for those laws has expired in developed nations with the development of modern food handling and storage practices. If I believed that I would have all of the benefits that one does receive from circumcision without the risks, I would absolutely rethink. Let me pose a question for you? Is there any sort of consequence that could be linked to not circumcising that would cause you to consider it a legitimate choice?

"I'll fess up- I have had a genital infection or two in my life... when this happens it is usually a result of a poor diet or a course of antibiotics which destroyed my natural flora. I've never once blamed my anatomy for "causing" the infection nor considered that someone should have preventatively sliced off the parts which are moist to avoid my "misery" During the rest of the time when my genitals are not infected, which amounts to pretty darn close to a perfect 100% of my life... my genitals are very functional and pleasurable. As an equestrian and bicycle racer- I find they are very well designed to buffer and protect the most sensitive places from unnecessary stimulation. I also know that female toilet and hygiene routines are bound to be more complicated than a man's yet we girls accomplish it all month long without even needing a mirror.

"I have a daughter and never once thought that it was my duty or responsibility to consider removing parts of her body to avoid that... and besides- it would be illegal...now."

I do not equate female genital mutilation with circumcision for any number of reasons. Ignoring most of them and just focusing on the argument you are making, I have never seen any credible medical evidence suggesting that there are any benefits to such a procedure. I have seen substantial evidence of the harm that it cause, to your point about circumcision, no matter how it is performed.

While the reproductive organs of men and women are the same in utero, they develop entirely differently, and the sensations, structure, etc. are not completely analogous. I am sorry, but I don't think any of the argument about how you care for your own body and help your daughter care for hers is applicable.

"So why would I research if there are parts of my son's sex organ which I should preemptively cut off before it could cause problems? Just because of an American precedent that is geographically and temporally isolated (and shunned by global medical practice and ethics?) It would be rather sexist of me to presume that this large part of him (and since he was born a normal male- it's locical that would have to broaden the criticism to the genitals of any male) to have so little value to his lifelong wholeness and pleasure- that the possibility of a momentary treatable infection which he is likely to never get- should deprive him of his normal anatomy forever! I would not approach any other part of his body as if it was disposable garbage and not really a part of him deserving of conservative ethical medical care. My children are whole people, a precedent of circumcision being done to other men or women, near or far, past present or future, does not diminish their human right to whole intact sex organs. If they ever have an ear infection- it will be treated, and if they got them over and over- perhaps tubes might be in order- but I am certainly not going to consider tubes at birth or ear removal when their ears are healthy and clear (and so tender and cute!)"

There is no reason why you should have to research circumcision if you do not consider it appropriate or acceptable for you or your family. You have to weigh the risks and benefits for any decision that you make. Given that you believe that circumcision would devalue him and make him no longer metaphysically whole, I think circumcising your son would be a terrible decision for you. My view is different from yours, which made circumcision a desirable option for my family.

The fact that a medical practice is promulgated in the US and shunned by many other nations does not automatically make it a bad thing. While American medical policies are not very progressive, the quality of research, treatment, and care for those who can afford it tends to be extremely high.

Children are beings of infinite preciousness deserving of unconditional love. They deserve that love not because of their physical purity but because of who they are internally. A cute baby deserves no more love than a less cute baby. A baby who is born free of physical defect deserves no more love than a baby who is born with physical or mental deformity. A baby who has surgery that alters his appearance is still worthy of the same love as one who does not. I don't believe that my foreskin possessed mystical significance, and I don't believe that the foreskins of either of my sons did either. I do believe that both of my sons are incredibly beautiful, amazing, and spiritually whole people.

"I'm simply turning it on its head to illustrate that it does nothing to further your point. You make a bold claim—that hygiene is not the only explanation for potential infection. Do you have evidence for this claim, I wonder?"

Bold? Why thank you. There are several health problems besides having "neglected to wash yourself." Here's one source. ( http://www.circinfo.net/#infection )

It has been suggested [55] that the increased risk of infection in the uncircumcised may be a consequence of the following:

The foreskin presents the penis with a larger surface area.
The moist inner lining of the foreskin represents a thinner epidermal barrier than the more cornified outer surface of the foreskin and the rest of the penis, including the glans of both a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis, which have been found to have the same amount of keratin (i.e., similar skin thickness and protection from invasion of microorganisms) [345]. This means that the inner lining is a potential entry point into the body for viruses and bacteria. (A photograph of a histological section illustrates this later, in the section on the AIDS virus.)
The presence of a prepuce is likely to result in greater microtrauma during sexual intercourse, thereby permitting an entry point into the bloodstream for infectious agents.
The warm, moist mucosal environment under the foreskin favours growth of micro-organisms (discussed in detail later). The preputial sac has even been referred to by Dr Gerald Weiss, an American surgeon, as a 'cesspool for infection' [377], as its unfortunate anatomy wrapped around the end of the penis results in the accumulation of secretions, excretions (urine), dead cells and growths of bacteria as referred to above. Parents are told not to retract the foreskin of male infants, which makes cleaning difficult. Even if optimal cleansing is performed there is no evidence that it confers protection [392, 393].
"Whether circumcision is ethical or not is exactly what we are discussing! If your argument can just as easily be applied to medical procedures we all agree *are* unethical, than it's no argument for that procedures' ethicality."

You are missing my point, which is that your argument could be applied to any form of surgery. Are you are taking the position that any surgery on a young child is unethical? If not, please provide an example of a surgery to which your analogy would not apply. If so, then this argument becomes a lot easier.

"The fact that you even implicitly compare hearing loss due to ear infection to being born with a foreskin only illustrates your inability to fairly address this issue."

But you view comparing circumcision to electroshock treatment as evidence of your dispassionate objectivity? I can't take your criticism of my fairness very seriously. However, I do appreciate your assistance in proving my argument. Reasonable adults (which I like to believe we both are) can look at the same medical problem with entirely different assessments of its seriousness. They may do the same with proposed treatments and solutions. The fact that we might make different decisions on the same surgery performed by licensed and qualified medical professionals with some medical justification in a regulated medical institution hardly makes one of us unethical.

"They could argue that feeding pork to a child is unethical because it subjects them to such health risks before they are old enough to make their own decisions on food. I would argue with them, the same way I argue with you."

"Yet another poor analogy. Eating shellfish is not analogous to having part of your genitalia chopped off. You're comparing a risky behavior to an inherently harmful action."

I agree. Comparing eating shellfish to circumcision is a poor analogy. Fortunately for the credibility of my argument, I didn't make that analogy. I was talking about pork. Some people consider eating pork to be inherently harmful. (You and I obviously don't.) I agree with your refusal to give them the right to label you as misguided or unethical. I do the same toward your judgement of me.

I am glad that we are no longer pretending that the AAP is biased toward tricking people into having circumcisions. They give credibility to my position.

G: Just to clarify, the article I hyperlinked about the 40 year thing... it was not "my article" nor did I present it to push any point- it was merely a reminder of a piece of Biblical lore which some people forget. I chose that article rather than simply linking to the Bible text website- just to be sure that the story was offered in a Jewish context. When you suggested that maybe ritual circumcision might have more behind it than that... I thought that you might like to measure that theory against the significant story that when the Jews in the desert for forty years- they stopped circumcising.

This is the part that I was responding to, in my opinion it's obvious- but perhaps difficult to see from your perspective:

The potential health benefits are marginal? That is a very debatable conclusion. I personally believe the risk of harm from a circumcision is extremely low and thus even a slight possibility of avoiding various health complications and illnesses makes it worth it. The fact that some people believe the benefits to be marginal is unlikely to assuage the misery of those who do needlessly get an infection or illness.

And how my points were relevant to this is that your personal assessment of the "risk" of circumcision is only if the harm were to exceed your own perception of normal male anatomy and sexual function which is: circumcised.

For example- your word "needlessly" meaning what?... carrying all this human anatomy around is a needless burden which only invites pathogens and provides nothing in return? Care to list the rest of the vulnerable needless anatomy we remove at birth?

Meaning... up until the knife cuts into the parts of the anatomy which you group in the "male sexual anatomy file" of your brain as opposed to the red "bio-hazard medical waste" bag - you simply can not begin to acknowledge that there might be harm or loss to the male organ in even the most perfectly executed circumcision. Your bias that there is no value in the anatomy is clear if you can not factor a known and predictable loss to every male circumcised to rarely achieve a benefit. (Unless you happen to believe that the perpetual state of being circumcised is a benefit in and of itself... and then I think we'd be talkin' and not dancin')

If there was a vaccine which could replace the cosmetic surgery... if you could have all the "benefits" you think you get from circumcision and retain the natural look and function of male genitals as they arrive, fresh from the factory... tell me really... be honest here... would you have to rethink this and skip the surgery?

Your opinion that the risks should be assumed in order to garner the benefits gained- could only seat if you reject any inherent value in this anatomy and over dramatize the harm of any possible problem that could occur in this zone. Let's take this conversation to Sweden shall we? Certainly if they have experienced both the anatomy and the potential problems- they would also be able to balance this as well as we wouldn't they?

I'll fess up- I have had a genital infection or two in my life... when this happens it is usually a result of a poor diet or a course of antibiotics which destroyed my natural flora. I've never once blamed my anatomy for "causing" the infection nor considered that someone should have preventatively sliced off the parts which are moist to avoid my "misery" During the rest of the time when my genitals are not infected, which amounts to pretty darn close to a perfect 100% of my life... my genitals are very functional and pleasurable. As an equestrian and bicycle racer- I find they are very well designed to buffer and protect the most sensitive places from unnecessary stimulation. I also know that female toilet and hygiene routines are bound to be more complicated than a man's yet we girls accomplish it all month long without even needing a mirror.

I have a daughter and never once thought that it was my duty or responsibility to consider removing parts of her body to avoid that... and besides- it would be illegal...now.

So why would I research if there are parts of my son's sex organ which I should preemptively cut off before it could cause problems? Just because of an American precedent that is geographically and temporally isolated (and shunned by global medical practice and ethics?) It would be rather sexist of me to presume that this large part of him (and since he was born a normal male- it's locical that would have to broaden the criticism to the genitals of any male) to have so little value to his lifelong wholeness and pleasure- that the possibility of a momentary treatable infection which he is likely to never get- should deprive him of his normal anatomy forever! I would not approach any other part of his body as if it was disposable garbage and not really a part of him deserving of conservative ethical medical care. My children are whole people, a precedent of circumcision being done to other men or women, near or far, past present or future, does not diminish their human right to whole intact sex organs. If they ever have an ear infection- it will be treated, and if they got them over and over- perhaps tubes might be in order- but I am certainly not going to consider tubes at birth or ear removal when their ears are healthy and clear (and so tender and cute!)

I hope I answered your question.

A few links for your reading pleasure.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200701120720.html

"Hygiene is presented as the biggest issue. Many women argue that they prefer a circumcised man because "they are cleaner"so a number of men are undergoing the knife for the sake of thier relationships.

"From my experience, I feel that an uncircumcised man is not as clean and this could increase the chances of catching a sexually transmitted infection," 26-year-old Fatuma Nansubuga says.

31 year old Solomon Ochen who was recently reveals that these days, it is the women who insist on male circumcision. "Many of us are doing it because of pressure from our wives or girlfriends. My girlfriend is neither a Mugisu nor a Moslem but she pressured me to get circumcised. She says a man needs it to be clean.

It is barely days and I am just recovering from the ordeal," he says . John Mugisha, 27, whose girlfriend is a Mugisu as well as a Moslem has a similar experience. "The requirement for circumcision is even higher here. Although, I don't plan to convert to Islam, I recently had to go to Kibuli for the circumcision and get it over and done with, before it became a big issue in the relationship," he says. "The foreskin is a medium for many infections because it harbours a lot of dirt," explains Dr. El Gazar. Unless it is thoroughly cleaned,it can emit a foul smell."

Other than all of us reading this knowing that forskin does not cause AIDS and all us reading this knowing that circumcising men will not prevent the spread of AIDS, I think that if you replaced the word "male" with "female" you would find this statement as offensive as men should.

At least some civilized persons get it.

http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=65692007

If you think that this is a male only issue, the you cannot expect men to understand female issues. And these same excuses used for male circ are the same faux excuses used to promote female circ in places like Eygpt and New York city. (read the adds in the back of New York magazine.)

John

"Please don't trivialize my argument. Hygiene is not the only explanation for potential infection."

I'm not trivializing your argument, I'm simply turning it on its head to illustrate that it does nothing to further your point. You make a bold claim—that hygiene is not the only explanation for potential infection. Do you have evidence for this claim, I wonder?

"I do not consider circumcision unethical. The fact that an argument may be misused when taken to an extreme does not invalidate the argument."

Whether circumcision is ethical or not is exactly what we are discussing! If your argument can just as easily be applied to medical procedures we all agree *are* unethical, than it's no argument for that procedures' ethicality.

"My son could not provide informed consent when we decided that he needed to have ear tube surgery. That surgery requires general anesthesia, which carries the risk of death. I cannot imagine how life shattering that consequence would have been. However, I knew that the risk was extremely low, whereas my son was having trouble hearing, which was causing developmental delays, and his constant ear infections risked permanent hearing damage. Would every reasonable parent agree that ear tubes were warranted or were worth the risk. Probably not. But every reasonable parent would have to make a decision either way."

The fact that you even implicitly compare hearing loss due to ear infection to being born with a foreskin only illustrates your inability to fairly address this issue.

"They could argue that feeding pork to a child is unethical because it subjects them to such health risks before they are old enough to make their own decisions on food. I would argue with them, the same way I argue with you."

Yet another poor analogy. Eating shellfish is not analogous to having part of your genitalia chopped off. You're comparing a risky behavior to an inherently harmful action.

"Interestingly the Jews made it for 40 years in the desert with their foreskins intact. Which certainly puts the whole American "sand under your foreskin" or "Jews may have been on to something beyond purely ritual significance" memes behind middle eastern circumcision to rest."

And if I had argued that not circumcising causes immediate death, your article would deliver a crippling counter-argument. Please understand that I am not making an extreme argument. I believe the decision not to circumcise is a legitimate one. I would appreciate similar respect for my viewpoint.

Using your article to prove that circumcision has no health benefits because a tribe of Jews survived in the desert for 40 years without it is not compelling. I can do the same thing in reverse. Since the article did not mention any examples of botched circumcisions, obviously there are no health risks to circumcision. Do I believe that? No, but I consider the argument as credible as the one you appear to be making.

"G: The idea that men throughout the world are actually fearful of their own genitals, that circumcision could free them from a burdensome lifetime of worry with such a minimal physical cost... is purely a projection from the circumcised. Hint: Men don't worry about their normal anatomy like that (and all the time they don't spend worrying about it- they actually enjoy it)...this whole "It's so scary, so inherently flawed, and beyond our masculine ability to manage." is sexist and sad. There is nothing wrong about the male body as it is born."

Sarah, to what does this paragraph respond? I have been up and down the entire thread, and I don't see anyone making the claims to which you are responding. They certainly aren't in my post. The only one projecting here is you. You are misrepresenting what is said by those who do not share your viewpoint by projecting your judgements on us. I reject your characterization of my viewpoint.

"Circumcision itself is a harm."

Technically, yes. The question is whether it is justified. Same as with any other form of surgery.

"If you want to discuss the catastrophic harm of losing the entire penis (or at least the glans), couldn't one also meaningfully argue that the slight possibility of avoiding the loss of one's penis or glans in a botched circumcision makes it worth taking the slight risk of infection later on?"

Absolutely. I conducted research (traditional, anecdotal, speaking with doctors, etc.) when Alex was pregnant, and I felt the chance of a botched circumcision in a hospital was miniscule whereas there was a significantly greater likelihood of infection or other health issue without circumcision. Others analyze the data and come to a different conclusion. If decisions were easy, people wouldn't have to agonize over them.

"Again, what do you say to men who lost significant amounts of their penises in botched circumcisions? "We thought the risk was 'extremely low' and wanted to protect you from infection in case you neglected to wash yourself"?"

Please don't trivialize my argument. Hygiene is not the only explanation for potential infection. I can imagine little that is more agonizing to a parent than having to live with having made a mistaken health care decision for a child. Again, if there were only benefits on one side, it wouldn't be a difficult decision. Based on my analysis of the risk, I believed and still believe that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risk. With either decision, there would have been a risk that I was wrong. That's the price of having a child who is completely dependent on your judgement until he is old enough to make his own decisions.

"Take any unethical medical procedure—electroshock therapy, for instance, and use the same form of argument for it. "No one is arguing that EST should be mandatory. Those who believe EST is legitimate are not advocating for anything beyond a choice to apply EST in appropriate circumstances."

I do not consider circumcision unethical. The fact that an argument may be misused when taken to an extreme does not invalidate the argument. I am confident that if we tried, we could identify at least one surgical procedure that we both consider ethical. I am equally confident that no surgical procedure is devoid of any risk. Thus anyone who is about to have surgery has to weigh the risks and benefits.

The weighing process is that much heavier for parents, because part of our responsibility is to make decisions for our children. My son could not provide informed consent when we decided that he needed to have ear tube surgery. That surgery requires general anesthesia, which carries the risk of death. I cannot imagine how life shattering that consequence would have been. However, I knew that the risk was extremely low, whereas my son was having trouble hearing, which was causing developmental delays, and his constant ear infections risked permanent hearing damage. Would every reasonable parent agree that ear tubes were warranted or were worth the risk. Probably not. But every reasonable parent would have to make a decision either way.

"Not circumcising your children isn't necessarily a "choice", it's the default state of affairs. Analagously, I'm not consciously choosing *not* to drive to the grocery store right now, I'm just not doing it because doing so doesn't strike me as something worth consideration."

Then it is an easy decision for you. I find circumcision worthy of consideration, and I believe it was the right thing for my family. Hence I made a choice. I am confident that each of us values certain things that the other would find trivial. I am not sure how that advances our discussion.

"Like not eating pork or shellfish, it's an ancient custom that became unnecessary with the advent of modern technology. Unlike not eating pork or shellfish, however, it has a non-trivial level of harm and risk involved."

Ah, but here's the problem. There are serious health risks to eating undercooked pork, and there are generally health concerns around even well-cooked pork and shellfish. You and I personally agree that that it has a "non-trivial level of harm and risk involved," but among the people who abstain from those foods, there are many who believe that the risks are too serious to justify the insignificant benefit of a yummy meal. They could argue that feeding pork to a child is unethical because it subjects them to such health risks before they are old enough to make their own decisions on food. I would argue with them, the same way I argue with you.

"The difference is that these procedures aren't applied on infant children too young to provide informed consent."

That was my argument above regarding the tough choices inherent in parenting.

Other than not having to pull back a foreskin, you're applying the exact same level of hygiene that any intact male has to. While I can't speak for all intact men, retracting the foreskin isn't exactly difficult."

Ok. That's fine.