Posted on 04/05/2006 5:19:29 PM PDT by Giant Conservative
The debate about neonatal circumcision is over. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), neonatal circumcision is the result of ignorance, bad medical practice and American social and cultural pressure. Regarding the three most commonly cited justifications for neonatal circumcision (penile cancer, venereal disease and penile hygiene), the AAP now states that the benefits are negligible, which means that the majority of American men are walking around without foreskins for no good reason. Yet, the barbaric practice shows no sign of abating, and for this reason I plan to shed some light on the cultural dark spot of circumcision.
The U.S. stands alone as the only country in the world (including developed, developing and undeveloped countries) where neonatal nonreligious circumcision is routine for physicians and their unwitting patients.
In contrast, 80 percent of the planet does not practice circumcision, and since 1870 no other country has adopted it. China, Japan, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Scandinavia, Holland and Russia have never condoned the practice (except for religious purposes), and of the other countries that do practice neonatal nonreligious circumcision (Canada, Australia and Great Britain), there has been a regimented decline in circumcisions by about 10 percent per decade in accordance with the advice of each country’s own respective medical institutions.
If we take a look at the latter group of English-speaking countries, the statistics show just how wildly disproportionate the U.S. endemic is when compared with its English speaking cousins. In the second-highest-instance countries, Australia and Canada, the amount of neonatal nonreligious circumcisions is estimated to be about 30 percent, compared to Great Britain where only 1 percent of males can expect to have their foreskins cut off before they have even acquired one-word language acquisition to be able to say “No!”. In the U.S., however, the number of circumcised males is estimated to be approximately 80 percent. Only in America has medical science taken a back seat in the fight for the foreskin.
As Edward Wallerstein aptly points out in Circumcision: The Uniquely American Medical Enigma, “[i]n 1971 and 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision declared: ‘…there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.’” Subsequently, this decision has been endorsed by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 1978 and by the AAP in 1999.
And yet, Wallerstein highlights that “[t]he ‘firm’ declarations should have caused a marked drop in the United States circumcision rate. They did not.” The truth is that neonatal circumcision is deeply rooted in American culture: so much so, in fact, that many American parents actually believe they are doing their sons a service, when, in only one foul slice, the dangers of penile cancer, venereal disease and bad hygiene are purportedly quashed (along with premature ejaculation, masturbation, and general ugliness). But American parents have been grossly misguided.
The AAP affirms that the majority of reported benefits by which parents justify circumcision are groundless hearsay. Notably, penile cancer might be preventable through circumcision of the foreskin, just as the potential for most diseases is eliminable by the complete removal of the vulnerable body part — I bet I could guarantee you would never contract Hotchkiss brain disease if you let me cut your head off too — but the fact is that the foreskin is an important, healthy and irreplaceable part of a child’s body, and in the absence of overwhelming medical evidence proving the link between retention of the foreskin and penile cancer, the AAP has had no choice but to disregard this cultural claim.
Furthermore, as far as the argument that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting venereal diseases goes, Wallerstein crucially highlights that “health” circumcision originated in 19th century England, where the theory emerged that masturbation was responsible for such things as asthma, hernia, gout, kidney disease, rheumatism and even alcoholism.
The Victorian aversion to all acts sexual was fertile ground for genital mutilation to take root and, since the English cultural practice stormed the U.S., beliefs about the purported benefits of the practice have barely changed, while Great Britain has become a born-again circumcision virgin. Consequently, the link proposed between any disease and the foreskin is outdated fallacy — including venereal diseases.
As if that was not enough, the AAP also states that “there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene.” Consequently, parental supervision of the foreskin is a far more appropriate measure for reducing the chances of infection in a boy’s penis than a radical surgical procedure, especially when the short-term effects of circumcision can include anything from changed sleeping patterns to psychological disruptions in feeding and bonding between mother and infant, profuse bleeding, subsequent infection from surgery, and even death.
Moreover, the AAP recognizes that circumcision causes extreme pain and trauma for infants, since circumcised infants exhibit deterioration in pain threshold as much as six months later when receiving mandatory vaccinations, while the long-term physical and psychological damage is undocumented.
In short, the idea that neonatal circumcision is the answer to all of men’s ills is erroneous. Like the Jewish religious practice of circumcision, American nonreligious circumcision is dependent on the acceptance of cultural beliefs, and the sad truth is that Americans hold to the norm as tenaciously as they hold to the scalpel, although they do not entirely know why because they are not being told.
Religious circumcision is one thing, but circumcision for no good reason ... well, what is the sense of that? There is none! Removal of the foreskin is a cultural mistake, and I hope that on reading these facts you will break the ghastly cycle if the choice ever becomes your own. It’s about time the foreskin became sacred too.
Ho boy...we've got a live one here Flo
And Allah worshipping Muslims...Islamofascists...routinely circumcise: so you stand with them on this issue!
You do realize that this is an endorsement of slavery... do you then believe slavery should be endorsed?
I found no mention of circumcision in the Korean or a requirement for it.
About 25% of Muslims are not circumcised and the decision for them is based upon traditions and the the teachings of their various Mullahs, Imams and writings beyond the Koran.
The circumcision or un-circumcision of Muslims has no import or significance to the faith and practices of Christians.
I acknowledge the matter of circumcision is a non critical aspect of the Christian Faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
I suspect the current attacks on circumcision find their roots in the Attacks by Islamofacists and the Left on the Judeo Christian Alliance and America’s covenant with God.
I also believe that it is those things which differentiate the United States from other nations that place blessings on the United States. Those blessings find their origins in our demonstrated, national faith in God. Of which, as the article states we are the only country (with the exception of Israel) who as a majority practice circumcision, further that the incorporation of that faith into everything from our currency to our laws demonstrates that covenant and the keeping of that faith with God. This relegates circumcision by a majority of American men as yet another small way we demonstrate our faith in God and the old ways and our adherence to the practices of our forefathers in these dark days.
So the only people I stand with are the Majority of my fellow Americans in keeping the Covenants between God and America of which circumcision is but a small matter.
It being such a small matter of choice and faith the majorities actions being of their own freewill.
The question becomes why is it such a significant matter to you? Is it benevolent concern for the “ignorant” American majority?
Wm
The current move away from elective, non-therapeutic circumcision of boys finds its roots in common sense. It is not a liberal issue or a conservative issue. It is a common sense issue.
It is common sense not to cut off a normal, healthy part of a child's body unless there is a compelling reason to do so. There is no compelling reason for non-Jewish or non-Muslim parents to circumcise their sons. Every professional medical organization in the world that has a policy on circumcision says there is no medical indication for infant circumcision. In other words, infant circumcision is not medically necessary. Furthermore the Book of Acts chapter 15 in the New Testament is very clear that circumcision is not a religious requirement for Christian males.
...This relegates circumcision by a majority of American men as yet another small way we demonstrate our faith in God and the old ways and our adherence to the practices of our forefathers in these dark days.
Almost all of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, fought the Revolutionary War, and drafted the Constitution were intact (not circumcised). Until the late 1800's the only American men who were circumcised were Jewish or Muslim. In the late 1800's medical doctors introduced non-religious circumcision because they thought it would keep boys from masturbating.
So the only people I stand with are the Majority of my fellow Americans in keeping the Covenants between God and America of which circumcision is but a small matter.
For the past twenty years the majority of parents in the western states did not circumcise their sons. In 2003 only a third of the boys born in the western states were circumcised at birth. American parents from all political points of view are choosing not to circumcise their sons because there is no compelling reason to do it.
Oh look, a an anti-deluvion Catholic wants to ban a Jewish practice.
And with antediluvian meaning prior to the deluge/flood, your reference is completely nonsensical in view of the fact that the Flood/Noah story is just a myth.
Just like the fictional character "Abraham".
Hardy har.
Jewish men are optimistic... they cut off an inch before they even know what they have...
You have no idea how tired I get of the "The rest of the world" does it this way crap. Who cares how the other nations of the world are doing it, this is America.
Totally biased article.
Not even mentioning the Biblical origin of the practice as the Covenant between God and Abraham and the Jewish People.
When it first came out that circumsized males had a lower chance of being affected by HIv in Africa, the do-gooder NGAs actually lobbied against it because it would hurt the culture. The Africans weren't stupid though, they just took their children to the tribes who circumsized and had them do it for them.
My uncircumsized brother got an infection that they didn't catch and almost died. He lost a kidney and spent months in Walter Reed when he was 12. This was in the early 1950s.
Once again, The USA is on the cutting edge.
Because it makes us human.
I'm an advocate of reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.