routine infant circumcision

[logicBomb]

i wld be interested to hear of any meaningful defence of this practice. it seems to cut across the usual ethical guidelines.

[Guest jakew]

See: http://www.circs.org/library/benatar2/

[swansont]

i wld be interested to hear of any meaningful defence of this practice. it seems to cut across the usual ethical guidelines.

 

 

It seems to cut along more than ethical guidelines.

 

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

 

It would be interesting to see what kind of correlation there is between the "keep your laws off my body" crowd and support for circumcision. Or decry female circumcision and don't make a peep about male circumcision. I wonder if it's similar to the fraction of people that are "pro life" and yet support the death penalty.

[Dak]

Is there actually anything in the jewish holy texts which commands circumsision? Is it analogouse to christian baptism? or is it just a convention?

[ecoli]

Circumcision is compulsory 8 days after birth, in Judiasm. It's written down.

[AzurePhoenix]

I think it's a fair tradeoff. We have to suffer through childbirth, and in exchange, you get your willy carved.

[Dak]

Well then, if it is actual jewish scripture then that presents an interesting problem...

 

obviously, it does count as mutilation, as a quick comparison with other unnesesary surgery on infants will reveal: foot binding, female mutulation, any other form of body-damaging practacies on babies without adequate medical reasons (exeption: see 'body piersing' below) are all viewed as unnaceptable body-mutulation of an infant who is far too young to give there consent.

 

On the other hand, do we have the right to tell them that they cannot do it? What with it being written in their scripture, and all. also, i would assume that many jewish boys, born into jewish families, would continue to be jewish into there adult life, whereupon they may understandably be annoyed if their circumsision within 8 days of birth had been prevented by law.

 

On the other hand, though, it quite obviously would be within our (society's) rights to prevent the mutilation, were it too severe. Im sure that if judayism required the removal of the left hand within 8 days of birth, that this practice would be forbidden by law, even if it was in scripture, and even if it did annoy a few adult jews who had been denied the infantile-hand-amputation that they, as an adult, feel they should have had. The question, i suppose, would be: is the removal of the foreskin unnaceptably severe mutilation?

 

Which is greater, the parents rights to follow scripture or the infants rights to retain his foreskin untill he is of an age where he can himself give his informed consent to its removal?

 

Bear in mind that whilst allowing the circumsision undoubtably results in some adults who are pissed off that there foreskin was removed without there permission, disallowing the circumsision would result in adults who are pissed off that they were pervented from being correctly indoctrinated into the jewish faith as a child (if im understanding the inportance of the circumsision correctly).

 

Finally, body piersing: (from personal correspondance with my local piersist) in the uk, there is no minimum age limit for body piersings: a parent can (and many do) have their babys pierse, ranging from ears, to nipples, and even genitalia. Whilst the piersist who i got this information from refuses to pierse those under 16 (21 for genitalia, 14 and 15 for ears with the parents permission), there is absolutely no legislature that requires him to do so, and many piersists will pierse a babys genitalia at the request of the parent. Similaly, tattoes have no minimum age limit, and are not easaly reversable.

 

As long as the uk allows this practice, it would be highly hypocritical of us to disallow the cicumsision of young jewish male (US law may be similar).

[logicBomb]

I think it's a fair tradeoff. We have to suffer through childbirth, and in exchange, you get your willy carved.

 

i was going to say something humourous, but why. if yr trying to be funny, its lame, & if yr serious, its pathetic.

[Mokele]

While this may be too much information, I can definitely say that lack of circumcision does not necessarily lead to any negative health effects. I can see how it might be a problem for those with poor hygine, but if your hygine is *that* bad, you have other problems to worry about.

 

Plus, well, think of it like this: for 250,000+ years, human males have had foreskins, and they did just fine. I'm highly skeptical that the environment has actually changed in a way that would make a formerly positive attribute negative.

 

Mokele

[AzurePhoenix]

As for the ethics of it, it seems over the line to me to go in and (loosely speaking) mutilate someone's body without their consent. Yet I know several non-religious young men who were circumcised and say they were happy to have had it done to them in their immemorable infancy, rather than wait till they were old enough to have to make the decision themselves. They claim to simply prefer the aesthetics. Whether that's compensatory thinking or not, I know not.

 

i was going to say something humourous, but why. if yr trying to be funny, its lame, & if yr serious, its pathetic.

I live somewhere between lame humor and outlandish seriousness. It might not be the most illustrious condition of the mind, but it keeps me content. And by golly, we're all friends here. No need for unnecessary and malicious criticisms. Save that for the religious forums

[ecoli]

I have an interesting story about the history of circumsicion (I got it from my rabbi).

 

It seems that the Jews first started to circumsize their babies because in ancient Grecian times, only the priests were circumsized. And I guess we wanted everyone to be as important as priests were to the Romans.

 

In addition, The ancient Greek games were always played while nude...not naked mind, there is a difference. To be considered nude, all you can be wearing is a string tied to your foreskin. Jews, being circumsized could not obviously play these games. However, a big movement of Jews wanted to secularize, and hellenize; in other words, be Greeks. They underwent an operation to restretch the foreskin so they could tie a string around it. Ouch.

[logicBomb]

No need for unnecessary and malicious criticisms.

 

i'm scratchy at the moment (i just sold my house & gave away my cat).

 

altho i suspect yr comment may have been more upsetting to me than mine to you, you have my sincere apology. i'm friendly, honest. =o>

 

do we have the right to tell them that they cannot do it? What with it being written in their scripture, and all.

 

this is a key question. most experts agree (heheh) that morality is relative, but the growing global problem of social friction between progressive & fundamentalist, moslem & nudist, christian & punk is going to be a major challenge for humanity.

 

my own personal ethics are humeian, w/ a sense of empathy at their core. i believe individuals have inalienable rights, including the right to physical integrity.

 

becos i'm an empathist, i also think that people embedded in a strong cultural tradition have a right to protect & foster their culture.

 

the upshot of this is that i think any change to the traditions of jews & moslems should be motivated from within. there are some practising jews who want to do away w/ circumcision, & they are the people who shld be questioning its role in judaism.

 

otoh, when technocrats assume the right to promote routine infant circumcision as a public health measure i feel sick to my stomach.

 

as far as i am concerned, if circumcision proved to be 100% effective as protection from HIV, there wld still be no case for waiving the required consent before amputating a body part.

[Dak]

otoh' date=' when medical technocrats assume the right to promote routine infant circumcision as a public health measure i feel sick to my stomach.

 

as far as i am concerned, if circumcision proved to be 100% effective as protection from HIV, there wld still be no case for waiving the required consent before amputating a body part.[/quote']do doctors do this currently? is it because they believe it prevents hiv? do you have a sourse please (not saying it sounds fishy, i just wanna have a savvy).

 

the upshot of this is that i think any change to the traditions of jews & moslems should be motivated from within.

scripture is more than tradition. to change a tradition requires giving up a generation-spanning habbit; giving up scripture would involve declairing part of your holy-text uninportant.

 

as atheistic as i am, i can see how that's an unfair thing to ask of a person... same as i can see how it's unfair to chop parts of peoples bodies off without their permission... as i said, a problomatic issue.

[logicBomb]

do doctors do this currently? is it because they believe it prevents hiv? do you have a sourse please (not saying it sounds fishy, i just wanna have a savvy).

a lot of research is being shopped around all the time. just google circumcision +aids. it doesnt make any difference whether the bogeyman is aids, balanitis or masturbation, doctors dont have the prerogative to perform radical disfiguring surgery on children as a prophylactic measure.

 

in other words, if baby girls had one breast removed at birth, the risk of breast cancer wld be halved, so why dont we do that?

 

scripture is more than tradition.

only for those who belong to the tradition that says it is...

[paleolithic]

Yet I know several non-religious young men who were circumcised and say they were happy to have had it done to them in their immemorable infancy, rather than wait till they were old enough to have to make the decision themselves. They claim to simply prefer the aesthetics. Whether that's compensatory thinking or not, I know not.

 

Well for one thing, when they had the procedure done, I'm assuming they were infants. I'm sure that if you asked them they wouldn't remember having the procedure done, or having foreskin at all, so you really couldn't ask them which they like better and get an honest answer.

 

Using me for an example, I'm uncircumsized and I'm happy, but I really don't know what the other way around would be like. I've read several reports of young to middle aged getting it done for cosmetic reasons, then regretting it afterwards, because of less feeling in sexual situations, etc.

[husmusen]

logic bomb:

as far as i am concerned, if circumcision proved to be 100% effective as protection from HIV, there would still be no case for waiving the required consent before amputating a body part.

 

I don't see a medical reason to circumcise an infant with regard to

HIV, I know they say kids are growing up faster every day but

I don't we've gotten to that point yet.

 

Also we should be frank, in the anglo culture, Medical is not the

reason why people circumcise, a lot of the time it's not even religious.

It's more cultural. Medical is thus more often the excuse used.

 

You can see this by the fact that the dsire in anglo cultures to circumcise remains fairly constant, but the reason changes every decade or so.

 

Christianity does not require circumcision, Paul explicitly stated that

outward circumcision avails nothing.

 

I'm not going to take a firm stand one way or the other in this argument.

I think it could depend on local factors, if you live in Africa, don't

understadn how HIV works, don't have access to condoms, well it

might just be better than nothing.

 

 

But If it was proven to me today that ripping out my fingernails would make my hands less infectious as a nurse, I think I'd say "Nah thanks, I'd prefer to wear gloves."

 

To use a surgical cure when less invasive methods are available, Like instruction in proper hygene, and condoms. Is not consistent

with general medical practice.

 

Also if we are to be consistent with medical practice, it is well known that genetalia are a major focus of body image in many people so no alteration should be taken lightly.

 

So if it is acceptable to ampute portions of an infants penis to spare him

an infection(UTI) that's easily treatable with AB's. Then why is it not then medically acceptable to amputate the breasts of all newborn females to prevent breast cancer, after all we have formula, and that could save many hundreds of lives.

 

I'm not advocating this just pointing out an inconsistency in argument.

 

Regarding sexual pleasure, anglo cultures are far too obsessed with it IMHO.

 

Regarding daks question on HIV and the sources.

 

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592

 

More interesting is the study of inner foreskin suceptability in the American Journal of Pathology.

http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/161/3/867

 

Langerhans’ cells seems to be a favoured entry route for HIV.

So I suspect circumcision(unless there was scarring or complications)

would reduce the chances of HIV infection but not eliminate it.

As witnessed by the USA's infection load being much worse than many

European countries.

 

But even if it did reduce HIV risk that does not necessarily equal Circumcision == Good. And there is no medical reason to do it in infacts that I can see.

 

Cheers.

[AzurePhoenix]

Well for one thing' date=' when they had the procedure done, I'm assuming they were infants. I'm sure that if you asked them they wouldn't remember having the procedure done, or having foreskin at all, so you really couldn't ask them which they like better and get an honest answer.

[/quote'] That's exactly what I said.

 

have had it done to them in their immemorable infancy

&

They claim to simply prefer the aesthetics. Whether that's compensatory thinking or not' date=' I know not.[/quote']

[Dak]

scripture is more than tradition.

only for those who belong to the tradition that says it is...

its still what someone believes extremely strongly to be right. non-jews attempting to tell jews that they cannot practise this scripture because they (non-jews) believe it to be wrong is analogouse to jews trying to tell non-jews that they have to follow this scripture because they (jews) believe it to be right.

 

Not saying that it shouldnt be done' date=' only that it should be bore in mind that preventing jews from circumsising there child at birth would be screwing with their (presumably) strongly held beliefs, and so should only be done if absolutely nessesary and justified.

 

Also we should be frank, in the anglo culture, Medical is not the

reason why people circumcise, a lot of the time it's not even religious.

It's more cultural. Medical is thus more often the excuse used.

In anglo culture, having a foreskin is the norm. I believe that americans are quite oftern circumsised, but us british are quite attached* to our foreskins.

 

oh, and cheers for the HIV links

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* pun intended.

[ecoli]

Not saying that it shouldnt be done' date=' only that it should be bore in mind that preventing jews from circumsising there child at birth would be screwing with their (presumably) strongly held beliefs, and so should only be done if absolutely nessesary and justified.

[/quote']

 

This makes perfect sense to me. Unless circumsicion can be proven to be harmful, by legitimate studies, there is no way it will be stopped, it's freedom to practice religion. And besides, new borns are uncapable of making that kind of decision, so a parent must do it for them, after all they are the legal guardian. I much rather have gotten circumsized as a child, where I don't remember the pain and can recover, then do it as an adult, when I'm capable of making such a decision.

[Dak]

^^ its not just a question of phisical damage... i know for a fact that id be mightily irked if my foreskin was removed when i was young.

 

you have to take into consideration that the infant may grow up to wish he had retained his foreskin.

And besides, new borns are uncapable of making that kind of decision, so a parent must do it for them

'newborns are uncapable of making that descision, so it should not be done untill the person is old enough to make that descision' is a very valid alternative to your above statement (not saying your statement was invalid tho).

 

its a pitty that it is in scripture that it has to be done within 8 days of birth... am i right in thinking that jews have a 'coming of age' seromony (umm... bar mitzvah?)? it could have been a decent compromise to forgo the circumsision untill the comming of age seromony wer the '8-day rule' not existant.

[BettyLouWho]

^^ its not just a question of phisical damage... i know for a fact that id be mightily irked if my foreskin was removed when i was young.

 

you have to take into consideration that the infant may grow up to wish he had retained his foreskin.

 

Dak: I have an infant son for whom the decision was made by me, his mom to leave him intact for exactly the reasons that you stated. I would think that I should be furious if I were, say, tatooed, pierced or was otherwise mutilated without my permission. (Forgive me, circumcised men if I imply that you are incomplete...somehow the 50/50 decision of our parents to circumcise or not has left me with little or no opinoin about the finished product!)

My point (and I do have one!) is simply that my gift to my child was to have a body that is the way it was created. It is HIS to pierce, tattoo, or edit as he chooses. I thought that it would be better for him to scold me for not having a circumcision done and still have the option to do so, than it would for him to curse me for taking body parts away that cannot be replaced.

[husmusen]

Dak:

Interesting, I suppose since the Yanks do it, and the Australians up until

about 1970 did it routinely, I guess I just assumed a common heritige.

Well that clears that up anyway. It's an American cultural thing.

 

Cheers mate.

[logicBomb]

I much rather have gotten circumsized as a child, where I don't remember the pain and can recover, then do it as an adult, when I'm capable of making such a decision.

 

when yr a child, yr nervous system is very plastic. yr body remembers yr circumcision, even if you don't. for example, many studies demonstrate cortisol sensitivity in infants subjected to neonatal trauma, including heel pricks. one thing that interests me, as a neurobiologist, is the fate of the sensory cortex mapped to the prepuce following circumcision. my knowledge of biology & psychology, such as it is (graduate level neurobiology & ethology) indicates to me that neonatal circumcision must have significant affect on the adult. also the fact that circumcision is practiced for so many reasons suggests to me that it must. what is worth knowing is: what is this affect, & is it desirable?.

 

it intrigues me that the most intensive conflicts on the planet right now are between nations of circumcisers. & yet many people attempted foreskin reconstruction to escape nazi persecution, so obviously its not simple in that regard.

 

I don't see a medical reason to circumcise an infant with regard to

HIV

 

it's infants who are in the sights' date=' & it's circumcision of infants & children that concerns me. if adults want it, then fine.

 

Langerhans’ cells seems to be a favoured entry route for HIV.

So I suspect circumcision(unless there was scarring or complications)

would reduce the chances of HIV infection but not eliminate it.

As witnessed by the USA's infection load being much worse than many

European countries.

 

i think this is the smoking gun. america has the hiv highest infection rate in the western world, & the highest (by far) circumcision rate. there are many reasons why circumcised men might be more sucseptible to HIV infection. one is that dulled sensation in the penis predisposes a person to explore alternative erotic techniques such as anal intercourse. another is that the tight skin of the circumcised penis is more likely to suffer abrasion in masturbation & intercourse. another factor is that, like the oral mucosa, the foreskin secretes leucozymes, which are natures defence against infection. i wld like to supply refs for these claims, but i dont have time right now. they aren't hard to find anyway. see the BUJ index.

[husmusen]

If adults want it then fine.

 

Provided they don't come in disheveled and feverishly talking to themselves they can cut their ears off and paint portraits(Hi Vincent). It might not be optimal but people have a right to autonomy I suppose.

 

ecoli

I much rather have gotten circumsized as a child, where I don't remember the pain and can recover, then do it as an adult, when I'm capable of making such a decision.

 

Well a little bit of fentanyl during the procedure and a packet of Vitamin P afterwards, should take care o' that.

 

The fate of the sensory cortex mapped to the prepuce following circumcision

 

I'd never considered that before, just guessing it probably attrophies, but good science doesn't come from just assuming and moving on. I wonder if anyone has studied this?

 

i think this is the smoking gun. america has the hiv highest infection rate in the western world, & the highest (by far) circumcision rate. there are many reasons why circumcised men might be more sucseptible to HIV infection. one is that dulled sensation in the penis predisposes a person to explore alternative erotic techniques such as anal intercourse. another is that the tight skin of the circumcised penis is more likely to suffer abrasion in masturbation & intercourse. another factor is that, like the oral mucosa, the foreskin secretes leucozymes, which are natures defence against infection. i wld like to supply refs for these claims, but i dont have time right now. they aren't hard to find anyway. see the BUJ index.

 

BUJ dont know that one but the BMJ has plenty.

 

it should be noted that even if it did reduce the risk it can be subject to what I dub the "perverse helmet" risk.

 

That is you have a responsible driver who starts to wear a crash helmet. Because of this he thinks "woot I'm invincible" and starts driving around at 200KpH. Thus while a F1 racing crash helmet undoubtably makes you a lot better off in a crash because of the behaviour change the driver is now more at risk than he was without it.

 

So if you go around saying "I'm circed no need to worry about HIV, then you are more at risk than if you were uncircumcised."

 

The other thing that has occured to me is that if there is reduced sensation, that could increase anti-condom sentiments as they reduce it further.

A nasty double whammy.

 

Also in European countries they have very good sex-ed.

Australia has marginal sex-ed but they were very quick to incorporate STD's into it, from what others have told me US sex-ed is little stories about children, storks and cabbage patches.

 

All of these factors I feel probably contribute a little to it, but in the end, what you can take from the US stats and the medical research is that circumcision may or may not be helpful, but it certainly no sure fire solution to HIV.

 

Cheers.

[swansont]

...from what others have told me US sex-ed is little stories about children' date=' storks and cabbage patches.

[/quote']

 

 

There are a lot of places in the US where it seems to end at "Wait until you're married."