Circumcision

[Wiccan_Child]

I have some very good news for you Wiccan_Child. Data collected from hospitals and printed by the Center for Disease Control shows this:

• 2006: 56% of children born is hospitals were circumcised
• 2009: 32.5% of children born in hospitals were circumcised.

Here is the link:
Steep Drop Seen in Circumcisions in U.S. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html


That is a huge drop in the period of only 3 years So the rate of circumcision in the U.S. appears to be plumbing like a proverbial rock. In a few years I can see it being similar to the rates found by its European cousins.

That is indeed good news! We can but hope

Here are some interesting quotes from the same New York Times article.

"Greater awareness about female circumcision may have influenced parents as well, she said, asking, “How can you think it’s O.K. to cut little boys, when you are horrified by the idea of cutting little girls?”

Also from that same article is a fact I did not know.

“Several state Medicaid programs stopped covering circumcision after the academy issued its current policy in 1999, and Dr. Brady said that may be one reason fewer parents opt for the procedure. ... As well the anti-circumcision movement ...”

This next part of the article I found really interesting because although it was referring to the United States; it would seem the same statement may to able to much of the world:

“Yet even advocates of circumcision acknowledge that an aggressive circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact on H.I.V. rates here, since the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk, men who have sex with men.

And while studies in Africa found that circumcision reduced the risk of a man’s becoming infected by an H.I.V.-positive female partner, it is not clear that a circumcised man with H.I.V. would be less likely to infect a woman.“

Okay if any one reading this is an executive in the insurance industry, I have a way for you to save a lot of money. That is to deny coverage of routine circumcisions if a defect does not exist.

See, if wide-spread circumcision really did help curb HIV infections, I'd be all for its state-sponsorship in places like Botswana.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'd say it's going to be impossible among religious Jews. Remember that to a religious Jew this is a direct commandment from God so that Jewish sons remember the covenant. Also, whenever it is attempted to be forced on a Jewish population, it actually increases the amount of religious Jews and, therefore, increases the commitment to circumcision. It's also going to be much, much harder to stop since Jews do not perform this at a hospital usually.

Isn't that somewhat dangerous to the child? I'm loathe to quote tabloids, but I remember reading about this rash of infant deaths when Rabbis with oral herpes, when performing a circumcision, infected the kids (if memory serves, traditional circumcision involves the Rabbi placing his mouth on the child's penis and removing the severed foreskin orally). Even if we can't get Jewish communities to stop circumcising their kids, there's surely nothing in the Torah or Talmud to prevent hospital circumcisions... so, why do Jews not usually get hospital circumcisions?

 

[OGM]

That is indeed good news! We can but hope


See, if wide-spread circumcision really did help curb HIV infections, I'd be all for its state-sponsorship in places like Botswana.

I would try to help them out even more by giving them condoms by the shipping container! I have the feeling a condom (physical barrier) is much more effective at preventing the spread of H.I.V. than one's foreskin status. Just my unscientific guess

 

[b&wpac7]

Isn't that somewhat dangerous to the child? I'm loathe to quote tabloids, but I remember reading about this rash of infant deaths when Rabbis with oral herpes, when performing a circumcision, infected the kids (if memory serves, traditional circumcision involves the Rabbi placing his mouth on the child's penis and removing the severed foreskin orally). Even if we can't get Jewish communities to stop circumcising their kids, there's surely nothing in the Torah or Talmud to prevent hospital circumcisions... so, why do Jews not usually get hospital circumcisions?

The practice you described is only carried out by certain mohels. It isn't Jewish law that it must be done anyway like that. I do not agree with any method that uses the mouth. Well except to say prayers. Most families have a party during the bris. I don't know of many hospitals that would allow a celebration and a mohel to perform the ritual.

 

[mpok1519]

I think its fine to circumcise males after theyre born. Its a perfectly harmless and benefitial procedure.

Should it be unethical to feed newborns vitamins just because they didn't give you consent?

 

[Jade Margery]

I think its fine to circumcise males after theyre born. Its a perfectly harmless and benefitial procedure.

Should it be unethical to feed newborns vitamins just because they didn't give you consent?

You haven't read like, any of this thread, have you?

 

[katautumn]

How can we know that the procedure is more painful for adults than for infants? Infants can't talk yet.

That's true, but it would seem it is an easier procedure for an infant than for an adult. I only know of one man who was circumcised later, due to his foreskin not fully retracting once he went through puberty. It caused him a great deal of discomfort, so he and his mother opted for a circumcision when he was in his late-teens. He said the recovery was horrific and to this day cannot urinate a single stream, rather it sprays everywhere.

 

[OGM]

That's true, but it would seem it is an easier procedure for an infant than for an adult. I only know of one man who was circumcised later, due to his foreskin not fully retracting once he went through puberty. It caused him a great deal of discomfort, so he and his mother opted for a circumcision when he was in his late-teens. He said the recovery was horrific and to this day cannot urinate a single stream, rather it sprays everywhere.

In countries where routine circumcision is not practiced, only a small percentage of men have to go through the procedure due to congenital defects. Most foreskins are not defective.

It would seem that it is an easier procedure for an infant girl to be circumcised than for an adult woman. I would not recommend this for either gender to have done routinely if no congenital defect is found.

 

[Umaro]

I'd say it's going to be impossible among religious Jews. Remember that to a religious Jew this is a direct commandment from God so that Jewish sons remember the covenant. Also, whenever it is attempted to be forced on a Jewish population, it actually increases the amount of religious Jews and, therefore, increases the commitment to circumcision. It's also going to be much, much harder to stop since Jews do not perform this at a hospital usually.

Why would it matter if the Jewish faith does it when it's a matter of ethics? I don't see anyone saying "it's impossible to prevent female circumcision because X religion thinks its a command from their god." It's the same argument.

 

[Rebekka]

That's true, but it would seem it is an easier procedure for an infant than for an adult. I only know of one man who was circumcised later, due to his foreskin not fully retracting once he went through puberty. It caused him a great deal of discomfort, so he and his mother opted for a circumcision when he was in his late-teens. He said the recovery was horrific and to this day cannot urinate a single stream, rather it sprays everywhere.

You're comparing the circumcision of healthy babies to medically necessary circumcision of older children or adults. With medically necessary circumcision there's something wrong with their foreskin or penis so it doesn't surprise me that it is a painful experience. We don't know that it's less painful for babies so that's not relevant. But the majority of men do not need a circumcision. I still see no argument to circumcise every infant (unnecessary procedure causing discomfort and pain for every male baby, who can not consent) just because a small percentage will need a circumcision later anyway (necessary procedure causing discomfort and pain for a small percentage of males, who can consent).

 

[b&wpac7]

Why would it matter if the Jewish faith does it when it's a matter of ethics? I don't see anyone saying "it's impossible to prevent female circumcision because X religion thinks its a command from their god." It's the same argument.

I see what you are saying. As I said, though, it is going to be nearly impossible to stop. Even if you took our babies for over the 8 days, Jews would probably just do it after then.

Basically, to Judaism, it is perfectly ethical. That an outside power deems it not so has never really deterred Jews before. It usually just makes the commitment stronger.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think its fine to circumcise males after theyre born. Its a perfectly harmless and benefitial procedure.

The benefit of circumcision is both dubious (the mild medical boon is tentatively proposed at best) and irrelevant (the issue is consent, not boon), and if you think it's perfectly harmless, feel free to ask any man who's had one done, when old enough to remember.

Should it be unethical to feed newborns vitamins just because they didn't give you consent?

No, because vitamins are a medical necessity - we don't have the luxury of waiting for the infant to grow old enough to give consent. Thus, we defer to the next best thing: the parents. Circumcision is not a medical necessity, therefore we do have the luxury of waiting for the infant to grow up.

And in those cases where circumcision is a medical necessity? Well, you won't find anyone who opposes it. When we can wait for a person to consent before cut parts of their body off, we should. When we can't (e.g., if they're in a coma and need an amputation, or are infants who need special dietary needs), we defer to the next best thing.

Simples.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's true, but it would seem it is an easier procedure for an infant than for an adult. I only know of one man who was circumcised later, due to his foreskin not fully retracting once he went through puberty. It caused him a great deal of discomfort, so he and his mother opted for a circumcision when he was in his late-teens. He said the recovery was horrific and to this day cannot urinate a single stream, rather it sprays everywhere.

If it's medically warranted (e.g., phimosis), then sure, snip away. At least then there's an objective reason to do so. But if the infant has a perfectly healthy and normal penis, why should we even consider cutting bits of it off?

 

[selfinflikted]

If it's medically warranted (e.g., phimosis), then sure, snip away. At least then there's an objective reason to do so. But if the infant has a perfectly healthy and normal penis, why should we even consider cutting bits of it off?

I'd like to know also, why --assuming god exists-- he would want us to be circumsized?

 

[OGM]

I'd like to know also, why --assuming god exists-- he would want us to be circumsized?

I wonder if people consider the foreskin to be a design flaw?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'd like to know also, why --assuming god exists-- he would want us to be circumsized?

A Jewish man on here told me it was a symbolic act to show the covenant was still upheld, hence why some Reform Jews use a needle to get a drop of blood. More anthropologically, it was also to keep the Jewish people a unique tribe.

But that all leads to more questions

 

[selfinflikted]

But that all leads to more questions

Yes, exactly

 

[selfinflikted]

I wonder if people consider the foreskin to be a design flaw?

I'm not sure, though, personally I do not. WANT. MINE. BACK. NAO.

 

[b&wpac7]

I'd like to know also, why --assuming god exists-- he would want us to be circumsized?

You aren't Jewish, so it doesn't apply to you.

 

[selfinflikted]

You aren't Jewish, so it doesn't apply to you.

Ha! Tell that to my poor, circumsized penis!