-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP – the science-based one) has recently published the results of its task force on circumcision. The AAP evaluated the recent evidence and determined that “the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it.” We have previously discussed the ruling of a German court that parents who circumcise their sons based on religious beliefs are committing child abuse.
The specifics benefits of circumcision include
- prevention of urinary tract infections,
- penile cancer, and
- transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
However, the AAP notes that the health benefits are not great enough to warrant routine circumcision.
The AAP notes that the benefits warrant reimbursement via medical insurance policies. We await the Christian conservatives’ outrage, claiming that circumcision, and it accompanying reduction in sexually transmitted diseases, will increase male promiscuity.
The AAP Technical Report recommends that “circumcision should be performed by trained and competent practitioners, by using sterile techniques and effective pain management.” The Task Force notes the problems with finding competent providers.
Researchers from Johns Hopkins University have found that “twenty years of falling circumcision rates have cost the country $2 billion in preventable medical costs.” Eighteen states have dropped their Medicaid coverage of the procedure.
Those who claim that the uncircumcised penis is natural and hence, better, commit the naturalistic fallacy. The argument that circumcision violates a “right to bodily integrity” would also apply to any number of surgeries to correct birth defects like fused limbs and the removal of vestigial tails.
While circumcision for health benefits has a rational basis, circumcision to demonstrate a commitment to an imaginary being is not rational.
H/T: David Bernstein (VC), Monya Baker (Nature), The Virginian-Pilot.
@justagurlinseattle The notion may be applied to Americans, but it probably has its origins in relations and politics concerning significant minorities in their native countries. The slurs used to undermine a minority can also be used to attack political opponents who don’t belong to that minority. Ever see a photo-shopped picture of the President in a turban?
PS… Europeans talk to me about Americans… because, I’m AMERICAN….. 🙂
Cheers,
JAG…
Justagurl, If many people “feel that American men are a little dishonest,” they are wrong by half. Or maybe they’re praising them with faint damns. Or something. But what that has to do with the foreskin, I have no earthly idea, nor do I think there is a coherent explanation for the idea that there is a connection. In fact, has any research been done about the…nevermind. As someone said earlier on one of these threads, “It’s mind-bugling.” And that doesn’t just apply to musicians!
It is said in more of a joking manner….
NOT that they REALLY use foreskin to determine who is trustworthy or not….
it is said in JEST….
well… I was smart enough to ask, who that dig would be at… and it was a joking dig at AMERICAN men…. in fact, I have yet to hear anyone talk about Jewish people here….
HOWEVR< Americans and their seemingly lack of real world knowledge is often brought up…..
They don't think ALL Americans are dumb…. they do think a good portion of them are quite ignorant…. and arrogant…. and the combination is one that I can understand many around the world, do not trust…..
many that i have met, feel that American men are a little dishonest….
It has to do with corruption that takes place in the USA….
The Supreme Court, Corporations as people…. MONEY as free speech…
The Right on about Evolution… etc…
@justagurlinseattle
Many nationalist organizations, like Deutschbund and Action Française, advanced this idea that cutting the foreskin transformed the individual into an untrustworthy individual. Antisemitism was, through this usage, a founding tool of European national identities. I doubt that most contemporary Europeans understand the roots of this notion. Did you ask them what it is about foreskin that makes one trustworthy?
@ R Scalper: “Merciful Mothers” are, at present, nearly everywhere in the world, subject to the dominance (for the most part) of the patriarchal culture in which they conceive and birth children. Circumcision AND female genital mutilation are both part of patriarchal religions; in fact, I know of no non-patriarchal religion that advocates any kind of genital cutting — admittedly I have not tried to study this question much.
Anyway, “good mothers” are, at present, those mothers defined by their cultures as “good” so I really don’t know how merciful most of them are able to be.
In my way, my sons would not be circumcised and my daughters would not have to shave their hair off their bodies. All of this is theoretical for the most part —
It will be up to merciful mothers to spare their sons this humiliation. With a few exceptions, most circumcised men are so defensive they’ll never own up to their loss.
Dick-Scalper
“If he wants to be circumcised later, it’s easy to fix – safer, less painful, and better cosmetic results. If we’d had him circumcised, and he wanted to be intact, it’s a problem.”
Safer? I’m somewhat skeptical but don’t know and it’s plausible. I’d like to see the evidence for that statement.
Better cosmetic results? Again, I’m skeptical but it seems plausible. I’d like to see the evidence.
Less painful? Not a chance!! Ask anyone who’s been circumcised, whether as an infant or an adult, whether they would prefer to be circumcised as an infant or as an adult, and I bet the overwhelming preference would be infant circumcision. An infant has no apprehension or memory of the event. Not so with an adult and consequently I’m sure that an adult circumcision is both physically, mentally, and psychologically more painful.
“It’s worth remembering that no-one except for Jewish people and Muslims would even be having this discussion if it weren’t for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.”
So what? They also thought corn flakes and graham crackers helped prevent masturbation and those products would not exist if they hadn’t thought so. Is that any reason not to eat corn flakes or graham crackers?
“Consider this Waldo. Is the ethical case for female genital cutting (which if you don’t know is an umbrella term for a wide range of procedures which can be on par or far more detrimental than male circumcision) any weaker because the majority of women who have undergone female genital cutting do not attempt restorative techniques and perpetuate the practice on their daughters and granddaughters?”
Why, yes, it is. Is that sufficient reason by itself to allow it? No, of course not. But, it seems foolish not to consider how those most affected by it view and are impacted by the practice. Certainly, if there’s even a bit of utilitarianism in your ethics then you’d want to know the results of a particular decision (and the results of alternative decisions). And, if you are more of a rights based person in your ethical outlook, you’d definitely consider the opinions of the people whose rights you’re arguing are being violated. Is it your position that we should disregard the opinions of the very people who are most directly affected by any policy decision banning circumcision? That seems outrageous to me.
“My point in stating the fact that most men enjoy their foreskins and would not part with them willingly is that this tells us a great deal with regard to what the preference of the individual might be on whom an elective surgery is being considered, elective being the key word. And we must absolutely consider this since 99% of the time circumcision is not necessary. Consequently, we must weigh the individual’s preference without the surgery and try to attempt to respect his right to autonomy, which is an established right in medical ethics.”
Huh? What “individual” are you talking about when you say “the preference of the individual might be on whom an elective surgery is being considered?” Do you mean the uncircumcised infant? If so, then why are you excluding the opinions and experiences of those who are circumcised as infants? If you’re talking about whether a parent should have their son circumcised, then it is proper to look at the experiences, opinions and choices of both circumcised and uncircumcised men. If you’re talking about banning infant circumcision, then it’s only the choices of those who were circumcised as infants that’s relevant because those are the only ones who would’ve been affected by a ban. Yes, respect their preference. And, if you do that you’ll respect the fact that circumcised men by and large do not wish that you or the government would have interfered with in their lives when they were infants. Your personal preference argument cuts against you when you’re talking about banning the practice, as opposed to simply whether a parent should have their son circumcised.
“From that perspective, you can’t seriously say that there is an “ethical problem to not remove the foreskin at birth.”
I do not say that there is an ethical problem to not remove the foreskin. That’s a decision rightly left up to the infant’s parents. You misunderstood my prior post. I was simply pointing out the logical fallacy of your prior post by showing that the same logic could be used to support a mandatory circumcision requirement if we only looked at it from the perspective of those who had been circumcised as infants, as opposed to only looking at it from the perspective of those who had not been circumcised as you seem to want to do.
“After all, men who are not circumcised can always choose to be circumcised later in life. However, the reverse is not true and those men are screwed. In short, I think you only are attacking a straw man. Yes, most circumcised men are happy with their state, but there is no guarantee their sons will be and in terms of elective surgery, knowing what their preference most likely will be without the operation, I think the ethics are pointing us clearly in the direction of holding off the procedure.”
Men who are not circumcised at birth cannot go back in time and choose to be circumcised at birth. The pros and cons of infant circumcision and adult circumcision are not the same. As we are influenced and altered by our past, no matter what choice a parent makes regarding infant circumcision it will permanently and irreversibly change that child’s future. That’s true of all sorts of decisions that parents make for their children that impact their futures in ways vastly more significant that whether or not they are circumcised as an infant. As children, particularly infants cannot make good decisions for themselves, parents are generally given that power since they usually have their children’s best interest in mind. The alternative is to give society in general the power to make those decisions. There’s rightly some instances where society should step in and take that power away from parents. However, there’s a very heavy burden that needs to be met before the state should do that. Since infant circumcision almost always has no perceived negative consequences by the men who have been circumcised and there’s medical benefits to the procedure that outweigh the medical risks (at least according to the AAP), that heavy burden has not been met. And, that’s not even considering important non-medical benefits to the procedure, such as religious or cosmetic benefits. Throw those into the balance and I think the case for banning circumcision more and more looks motivated either by hostility to Jews and/or Muslims, or simply another example of authoritarian-minded people who think they know better than you or your parents do what’s best for you and want to use the power of the government to impose their morality on others.
BigFatMike,
“….where and how society draws the line between human rights and traditional practices including male circumcision.” BFM
Since it began in the 19th century, it can’t be all that traditional. I’ll bet there have been studies revealing a great resistance against the introduction of the practice. And it was said above that only 55% have had it done. Hardly a big majority, considering the disinformation published and the “me-too” effect.
But no sweat here. Just was looking for an issue to take issue with. All arguments have loose ends, except those who will define away their loose ends. And you know who that is. Smile.
@idealist707
Thank you for your response. You always have an interesting view.
You have brought my attention to something I have been skimming over – perhaps others have too.
Sometimes we are discussing the advisability of what I will call common practice or perhaps common medical practice. I don’t know the history but I am going to guess that the practice of regularly circumcising boys in the US had a big up-swing beginning sometime around the time of the depression or WWII. I am guessing that because it seems likely that prior to that time there were far fewer hospital births. Perhaps some other reader can give us some information regarding when circumcision came to common practice and the reasons why it became common practice.
The other similar, related issue we are discussing is traditional religious practice that goes back thousands of years and the reasonableness of restricting that practice by society.
And sometimes we are discussing both issues in a way that is all mixed up.
MikeS,
A fallacy?
How can a non-jew speak for or against measures which might effect the Jews? The jews must speak for themselves, IMHO. And they usually do most effectively.
idealist707 1, September 2, 2012 at 7:05 am
…
Smegma has a natural function, badly smelling as it may become if left too long. The smelly bacteria are not just a signal, but function to prevent pathological (harmful) bacteria from taking root.
We have slso had mentioned the biological functions associated with a foreskin vv the glans.
===========================================
In my post up-thread about the vestigial appendix, I mention a similar phenomenon within the linked-to post.
Doctors who continue to ignore the research are now doing shit transplants:
(Weekend Rebel Science Excursion). What next, Smegma (“a thick, cheeselike, sebaceous secretion that collects beneath the foreskin or around the clitoris”) transplants?
Intacivists are both male and female, and have a wide range of political and religious views, but most male intactivists were cut as babies.
It’s a highly controversial area, but there is some evidence that circumcision may interfere with sexual pleasure:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.short
“Conclusions Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.”
It’s worth remembering that no-one except for Jewish people and Muslims would even be having this discussion if it weren’t for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but that’s how they thought back then, and that’s how non-religious circumcision got started. If you don’t believe me, then google this: “A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians’ Own Words”. Heck, they even passed laws against “self-pollution” as it was called.
And very occasionally, things go badly wrong, resulting in death or serious injury. I just don’t see a reason not to wait and let the person most affected choose for themselves. There are only two countries in the world where more than 50% of newborn boys are circumcised – Israel and the USA (around 55%). Other countries circumcise, but later in life, usually anywhere from around seven years old to puberty or adolescence.
If our son wants to be circumcised when he’s 18 (16 if he knows what he’s doing), I’ll pay for it and help him find a good surgeon. Until then, he stays intact. His body – his decision. If he wants to be circumcised later, it’s easy to fix – safer, less painful, and better cosmetic results. If we’d had him circumcised, and he wanted to be intact, it’s a problem.
@Hugh7 “We still have the part in question and we know its value. “The men who have actually been through it at a young age seem to be telling us that it is not such a big deal.” …because they don’t know what they’re missing. ”
Well, exactly. But, that does not seem to greatly interfere with sexual pleasure, creation of babies or any other life function.
Again it seems that it is the uncut men who feel strongly about this. Who exactly is really upset about this. So far as I can see from the arguments this amounts mostly to uncut men claiming that ‘mine feels much, much better than yours’.
Ok I will stipulate your pepe is much better than our pepe could ever be.
So where exactly is the compelling argument for anything except that you are a really lucky guy with a really, really nice pepe?
Mike Spindell,
I can fully understand your feelings and concerns regarding the ruling of the LG Cologne. And you’re right the thrust of this ruling is alarming for both Jewish and Muslim communities in Germany.
But I would like to add some counterpoints.
First it isn’t really a ban. Germany has a civil law tradition in which precedents are not binding. The ruling itself admitted that another court could’ve come legitimately to another conclusion. That was the reason the doctor was acquitted (mistake as to the wrongful nature of the act).
The ruling didn’t change the legal standing of male circumcision: there isn’t a statue specifically allowing it, and courts and legal scholars can’t agree if and what defense would exempt it from the normal prohibitions of harming another person. The ruling has just aimed a spotlight on this mess.
Secondly this spotlight (and the media row around it) actually produced some good: when the German parliament interrupted their recess to rubber stamp the EU bail out money, they also formally instructed the Federal Ministry of Justice to prepare a bill legalizing and regulating religious circumcision, and present it before fall.
@Hugh7 “It seems to me that the ones who feel most strongly about this are the ones who do not practice it and have not been through it.” And that counts against us because…?”
If I gave the impression that we should not consider your opinions then let me apologize for the confusion and clarify that I think your arguments should be given serious consideration.
Nevertheless I think we should always be aware of who is presenting arguments, particularly when the discussion is political. Today, on a regular basis we encounter political group that either will not reveal their membership or that intentionally mis-lead us regarding their support.
So, yes, I definitely want to know something about who is advocating a particular position. The politics, the motivations, the way the facts are presented or suppressed may all count either for or against the position that is advocated.
In this particular case we have a political movement acting against an ancient traditional practice. I think many of us believe that before we condemn a traditional practice we need to clearly identify compelling reasons for the action. To do less is little more that cultural imperialism – “my way is superior to your way”.
So, Hugh7, the questions comes down to: have you fairly presented your arguments, have you given us compelling reasons to support your view, or do your arguments amount to little more that rationalizations of your own prejudices and stereotypical thinking.
Those questions, in my opinion require some serious thought.
@Hugh7 “”The benefits may be small or non existent.” So why do it?”
Thank you for your response. I think the quote ‘why do it’ is the strongest part of your remarks and I tend to agree.
But the response to ‘why do it’ is that those in the community seem to feel that there are intangibles associated with the practice that make it compelling. The question for those of us outside the community would seem to be how should we as a society respond
To me the proper response of society is not so clear. I think one of the most interesting processes we will see over the next several decades is where and how society draws the line between human rights and traditional practices including male circumcision.
“Secondly this spotlight (and the media row around it) actually produced some good: when the German parliament interrupted their recess to rubber stamp the EU bail out money, they also formally instructed the Federal Ministry of Justice to prepare a bill legalizing and regulating religious circumcision, and present it before fall.”
Berliner,
Thank you for clarifying this issue and putting it into context. The media i this country consistently does a poor job of contextualizing American issues, much less those from other parts of the world. It is a relief to see that the discussion in Germany is a much more nuanced one that takes into account both Jewish ad Muslim sensibilities.
As to the theme of this thread which is the AAP’s report o the benefits of circumcision, my original comment did not address that at all and that omission was purposeful. From a Jewish and a Muslim perspective male circumcision is performed as a ritual of identification with ones faith. It is my belief that it is not harmful to the male, nor is there proof of its harm.
However, I am neutral as to whether non-Jews and non-Muslims should or shouldn’t have it performed. I don’t advocate circumcision. I advocate those whose religious belief calls for it to not be interfered with in the practice of their faith.
What I did in my original comment was make a clear distinction between male and female circumcision, by providing a link to show that either Islam, or Judaism calls for female circumcision in any manner. That it is practiced in some countries that are Islamic is not a matter of the Islamic religion per se, but is in fact a cultural artifact that pre-dates both Judaism and Islam. FGM is a practice I decry, especially because it purposely interferes with the free expression of female sexuality. That makes it a sub-set of the continued attempt by males to ensure subjugation of females.
“We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body. Without religious or racial prejudice, we affirm this basic human right.”
As to the “First International Symposium on Circumcision” and its descendants, it is one thing to state “without prejudice” and quite another to actually maintain that “pristine state” when it comes to male circumcision. As a Jew, their position on male circumcision being banned as violating an “inherent right” denotes great prejudice on their part by inference. Since my original comment put out an argument that was definitely a religious one, it is interesting to me that except for Berliner’s timely clarification of the German issue, no other anti-male circumcision commenter address the religious issue. When it comes to Jews and Muslims I don’t see how one could adopt an anti-male circumcision position without directly addressing the religious issues entailed.
“Judaism requires circumcision for boys, but does not allow it for girls.[23] Islamic scholars have said that, while male circumcision is a sunna, or religious obligation, female genital modification is not required, and several have issued a fatwa against Type III FGM” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
Again I differentiate between male circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)” and link to a Wiki article on the cultural background and areas of incidence of FGM. I think those who have commented here in opposition to male circumcision should comment on how that position would affect a Jew like me who believes it is both an obligation to my faith and a duty towards Jewish/Islamic male progeny.
You’re correct: it is your belief–but what is it based on? You have never experienced the other. A religious belief is irrefutable in your view. But your view is apparently threatened hence we get endless words trying to justify your view to others. If you truly believed in your view, you would not be trying to convince others of that about which you cannot possibly know. You do not have a foreskin, stop being defensive and try to accept that reality.
“A religious belief is irrefutable in your view. But your view is apparently threatened hence we get endless words trying to justify your view to others.”
chaletfor2,
I’m not defensive about this at all. I’m am simply strongly stating that this is a deeply religious matter for both Jews and Muslims. In the former it represents a 3,500 year old tradition that those of us who are proud of our Jewish heritage wish to continue. It doesn’t matter to me whether or not Non-Jewish and Non-Muslim males are circumcised or not, just but out of trying to dictate religious freedom of long standing based on currently developed belief systems. Also there is no law that males other than those of the aforementioned religions must be circumcised, to my knowledge. If there were such laws I would be opposed to them and if I was for instance a Christian and didn’t want my male offspring to be circumcised he wouldn’t be.
“You’re correct: it is your belief–but what is it based on? You have never experienced the other.”
My belief is based upon being the proud member of a religion and a culture, that has struggled through thousands of years to maintain its identity against a world that has tried to destroy it violently. I cannot impart to you what it feels like to be a Jew, in a way that you could tangibly experience, but I ca by my words at least convey to you that it is an issue that resonates strongly with me.
As for never having experienced the other you are correct, but since I’m quite satisfied with my lifelong sexuality, that is a moot and irrelevant point. I would also say that those who have been circumcised and feel they are missing something sexually, perhaps are blaming their own failures upon their parents and/or pediatrician. As for those who have not been circumcised and feel that is a blessing, more power to you that your happy with your penis, just as I am happy with mine.
“If our son wants to be circumcised when he’s 18 (16 if he knows what he’s doing), I’ll pay for it and help him find a good surgeon.”
ml66uk,
I would think that before finding your son a good surgeon, he would in that instance be better served by finding a good therapist since it would seem to me (excepting some medical condition) that he would be dealing with what is known as “Body dysmorphic disorder”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_dysmorphic_disorder.
Your reply has proven my point. There’s a blind spot in reasoning that ‘struggling thousands of years’ can never fill. Why not live with it? Uncertainty, unavoidably, is part of life. It’s not so bad! Embrace it. The alternative, certainty, can’t be effected in this particular instance, no matter how many thousands of words one might use. Suggesting that the natural should be changed would require an unobtainable burden of proof. Change for religious purposes is an affectation and it should be left at that.
Hugh7 1, September 1, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Bodily integrity is no new fad … You don’t have to commit the naturalistic fallacy to think that a person has a human right to all the normal, healthy, non-renewing body-parts he was born with, and that if it had been the slightest bit harmful, it would have evolved away aeons ago. (The appendix can’t do that, for obscure genetic reasons.)
==============================================
The myth of the vestigial appendix is still in some of the textbooks, but not in the minds of interested researchers:
(The Appendix of Vestigial Textbooks). It gives new meaning to the vestigial foreskin.
Waldo 1, September 1, 2012 at 2:30 pm
@ Dredd “The thing is, this is about parental ego.
My kid will have a better penis if …
It is all about “the better penis.”
The trophy penis.”
I disagree that this is what actually motivates parents. Is there really anyone who equates a circumcised penis with a “trophy” penis?
But, so what if they did? I know I would like to have a trophy penis! I’d be pretty damned disappointed in mom and dad if they had the opportunity to give me a trophy penis and neglected to do so.
=====================================
You can’t go to certain places where certain celebrities dwell without that trophy penis:
(NeoCon Planet: The Presidents of Kolob). You may think I am kidding about Kolob, the trophy planet.
Who wouldn’t.