Male Circumcision

You make money off of it, and help push the procedure. If most doctors and the ADA said that it doesn't need to be done, then it wouldn't be 'the norm' here. But that doesn't help with the house and boat payments.

The insurance companies are doing their jobs then by not paying for unnecessary and damaging cosmetic procedures.

Really? Come on. Look at some of the above posts. I doubt the Jewish people will stop regardless of the law or money. Even Muslims agree with the Jews on this one which is scary. It is almost pointless to argue with them. But we don't live in 100 AD conditions in the desert anymore.

And that is the whole problem right there. No rational guy would want to do this for cosmetic reasons later in life. But the US women see the normal intact penis as different.

And the process continues on generation after generation...

 

I am uncertain how you came to the conclusion that I in any way push the circumcision procedures being performed. I do not discuss the decision with the patients at all with the exception that I do have them sign a paper acknowledging that it is an out of pocket expense which they will be responsible for. All parents go through a proper informed consent procedure which is approximately 30 minutes consult with the physician prior to the procedure where the physician discusses risks vs benefits including some of the unknown risks which are being studied. If the parents are ESL, they receive this information with the assistance of an interpreter to ensure that we have done our best to make it clear and understandable. After the parents have received their informed consent they sign a form acknowledging that they have received this information which is also signed by the physician and a witness. I have never once given my opinion of the procedure to a patient, that would be inappropriate, I have never witnessed a physician giving his opinion or push to circumcision a newborn either. The only exception to this is if a patient presents with a problem that may be resolved with a circumcision. The closest thing to a push that occurs in regards to circumcision would be making parents aware during their obstetric education that their circumcision may not be covered so they can financially prepare if that is their wish, after that the patients set up their own circumcision appointment if they desire. This is all about informed consent.

I think you mean the AMA or the AAP not the ADA? The AAP is actually fairly neutral on circumcision recognizing again that though there are risks that there can be benefits as well.

There is no point in viewing or examining the mentioned images and applying them to modern-day circumcision in the United States. I can certainly not be faulted for the lack of proper medical facilities, instruments and trained professionals in the third world nor are those the conditions which I am describing. I am certain my vision on modern-day circumcisions would be quite altered if those were the conditions that I was working under but your examples are quite reaching. Again, my educated opinion on the subject is actually pro-choice as I am fully aware of the risks but also well aware of benefits.

To judge the impact of strong cultural and religious beliefs that you don't adhere to, have never been subjected to is something I don't think the average person can understand. To put it quite bluntly, you appear completely ignorant of them. You clearly would make the decision to not circumcise your son(s) and that is okay. To blindly suggest that parents who do opt to circumcise are wholly ignorant outside of cosmetic appearance and religion, is ignorant in itself. The only honest but hidden suggestion I see in your photos is that yes, it is obviously much more traumatic to put an older child through the procedure. I believe it much more comfortable and easier recovery when done in infancy. Many cultural groups who previously would perform circumcision at older ages have also begun to recognize this and opt to have the procedure performed on their children as neonates instead. Other demographics do opt to wait on the decision until after the child is capable of deciding on their religion.

Yes, some women dislike the appearance of an intact penis, I am sure some men probably do as well. Then again some men prefer women with big breasts, shapely bottoms, long hair, body piercings, blue eyes, full lips, the list goes on. Those things have zero medical benefit, yet people do attempt to change that as well. Perhaps we should ban all cosmetic procedures then?

 

Just for the record, I have attended and officiated at any number of brit milah (Jewish circumcision) ceremonies, and none of them resembled anything in these pictures. Not in the slightest. They were clean, well-lit, the mohel/et (ritual circumciser) used sterile equipment, and the baby was properly gently restrained on a medical board.

I have never been to a Muslim circumcision celebration, but I am friendly with a couple of imams here in America, and they say that in their congregations, young children (and they encourage parents to circumcise as young as possible) are circumcised in hospitals or clinics, by practicing physicians or licensed nurse-midwives (who are commonly trained and licensed to perform such minor procedures). Upon recovery, I am told that (at least in these communities) there is a small celebration the family apparently has for friends and relations in the community. But their actual circumcision is done in hospital, by trained medical personnel. One of the imams I spoke with about this mentioned that the doctor they recommend using in their community for circumcision is actually Jewish, and a trained mohel.

 

We could. It was probably easy to pick out the Jewish males in 1938 Germany if they were naked. (I don't know if that happened or not, but you wanted to bring the Nazis into this)

At least the anti-abortionists are getting things done in states like Mississippi, Alabama, and North Dakota.

And no, it's not an exaggerated point. Lots of people use that excuse or don't have any preference one way or the other and just do what the majority of people do for better or worse.

 

Oy, this has been addressed before and I looks like I have to say it again:

The debate here has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what people want to do to themselves, but what they want to do other people.

You want to drill a hole in your own head? More fucking power to you. but don't sit around and tell me that you should then have the right to cut off your child's third toe on his left foot because 'that's our culture'. It's not your child's culture. Your child doesn't have a culture and you're denying them the right to decide whether or not they want to participate. A decision they can make themselves, without consequence, at a later time.

----

Also, while I'm at it, "That's the way we've always done it" (aka 'tradition' aka 'culture') is almost the shittiest reason ever for doing something. A culture can be absolutely barbaric and so dehumanizing that nobody here would hesitate condemn it, despite never having been a part of it. I don't notice anyone here actually arguing in favor of female genital mutilation. Is that not an integral part of the cultures that practice it? Do we really need to be a part of that culture before we can condemn it? This kind of radical cultural-relativist thinking is as dangerous to the cause of human rights and any cultural imperialism you'd like to name.

Not to mention the fact that lots of other people have done something is not a valid reason for you doing the same thing. If you don't want to listen to me, go ask your mother about jumping off a bridge with all your friends.

 

[I decided to edit in a disclaimer on this post]
This post contains an expression of my own personal beliefs that could be taken offensively by others. Any perception of attack upon another's beliefs is not my intention. I simply aim to fully explain my stance on the subject matter at hand.

This is not about how risky or painful the procedure is for me. This is about a person's right to make a completely irreversible decision.

My foreskin was removed without my consent because a book that was written a long time ago and has become very important to many people said that was necessary and somewhere along the line it just became the norm. Do I want it back? I don't know, because I was never given the right to decide if I wanted it or not. Here's the thing, though. I now oppose said book. I believe that book (and others similar to it) causes more evil and hatred in this world than it could ever cure. I would love nothing more than for that book to be removed from our world and completely forgotten about. I look around every day and witness these beliefs destroy all possibility of the way I believe the world should be. There's already a lot of animosity there, but whenever I go to piss, fuck, shower, or just take a general peek and am reminded of how that fucking book ultimately caused me to be mutilated against my will hours into my life without my say being taken into account, I have to stifle the rage...

We all hold our personal beliefs close and want to share those with our children, I get that, but what gave my mother and father the right to determine that I should be branded for life? They didn't know how I would feel about it later. (Clearly, because I know they would not have done it if they knew I would feel this way about it.) They didn't even think about how I would feel, I'm sure, because it's just the norm. That's what sickens me the most about it. People just do it with no thought of what it actually represents.

I can understand making a medically necessary decision like this as a parent, but to do something like this without necessity is unacceptable...

Let me throw out an anology. In my opinion, it is one of the better anologies I have devised in my days:
How would everybody feel if a parent decided they were going to gauge their child's ears as a baby?

It would be perceived with abhorrence.

Sure, we don't mind standard ear piercing, but that's because standard piercings are, for all aesthetic purposes, almost always reversible. Gauged ears are not reversible without surgery, and even then the ears are scarred. The child would have to live with that decision their parents made for them for the rest of their life. Doesn't seem right, does it?

 

I take it from your post that you come from a Jewish or Muslim family, and were circumcised for religious reasons; that you now disassociate yourself from the religion of your parents, and accordingly feel infringed upon for having been circumcised.

I hope you can believe that I am not being dismissive or facetious when I say that I am really sorry to hear that you feel that way. I don't wish for anyone to be upset about the choices their parents made, or feel dissatisfied with their own body.

And while I am legitimately sorry for your dissatisfaction in this regard, I also continue to feel that your story-- one of the few such that I have personally encountered-- simply does not justify making circumcision illegal for everyone, without regard to religious belief or culture. The majority of Jewish men just don't share your feelings. And I don't know about Muslims, but my imam friends say they have only rarely personally encountered men who express what you have expressed: on which account I choose to trust them.

Of the one or two Jewish men I have encountered who did share your feelings, they both came from fairly secular upbringings, without much Jewish education. If you are Jewish, and that is similar to your background, perhaps you might feel differently today had you not only been given entrance to Jewish culture but been given the experiences and tools you needed to use that entrance in a way that would be meaningful and productive for you, in your daily life. If, on the other hand, you were raised traditionally and with Jewish observance and cultural participation, but have come to this perspective of your own accord, through your own lines of reasoning, then nothing could have been done differently by your parents to change how you feel about your circumcision today, which is unfortunate.

But it also makes you a great rarity. And, again, without wishing to discount or devalue the truth of your feelings and your experience, we do not construct societies on the premise that parents ought to be able to guess at birth which of their children will be nonconformists or iconoclasts or other sorts of free spirits. We do presume that parents have the right and duty to raise their children as they see fit, and to make choices for them that they believe will be of benefit to their health or welfare, both physically, spiritually, and socially. And we do so with the knowledge that on occasion, those choices will turn out not to be the ones their grown children would, in retrospect, have chosen. But we trust parents to do the best they can.

I will not presume to try to further justify the significance of brit milah (ritual circumcision) in Jewish culture, since clearly, no significance, reason, or explanation could satisfy your feelings of anger and betrayal at your parents' choice-- if, indeed, your background is Jewish. All I can say is that for the most part, Judaism is fairly free of such parental choices that have physical repercussions for their children-- this is the big exception. Some cultures are similar to Judaism in this respect. An in some other cultures, that is not the case. And I can only hope that in countries like the United States, Canada, or the European nations, which profess to embrace religious pluralism and tolerance for other cultures, we would understand that different cultures have different attitudes regarding body and physical identity markers and rites of belonging, and those are not to be judged by standards of external powers, even when one might be able to find isolated individuals who have left a different culture and express regret for the choices their parents made.

 

There are plenty of Protestant Christian denominations that practice and emphasise the importance of circumcision. It's just not espoused (at least in American Christendom) as vociferously as the evangelical aspect of Christianity.

 

I apologize. I meant to make it clear that neither of my parents are actively Jewish (Though, my stepfather is Jewish and I do have a fair understanding of Jewish culture.) and actually had thought I made that clear with some of my statements. After taking a step back from the emotion involved in that post, though, I can see how I did not make it very clear.

I was not brought up Jewish and my parents are not Jewish, but as I said that is one of the biggest reasons I am so angry about my own circumcision. The fact that I was branded with the mark of a culture I directly oppose in belief, I cannot relate to, and I have never been a part of is aggravating enough. To know that my parents made that decision for me for no real reason other than it is the normal thing people do and they didn't even know why is just infuriating to me.

Y'know, Levite, though I often am polar opposite to your views on things, I've always respected you as a man of religion who tolerates the beliefs of others. I understand why you feel the way you do, but I understand why I feel the way I do to a much fuller extent and that's why I oppose you here.

 

I get that. I do. I still disagree, but I completely get how and why you feel as you do, and in my own way-- as hard as it might be to believe-- I empathize. I wish things were otherwise for you, even if that meant that you weren't circumcised.

For what it's worth, I deeply believe that it is not the goal of anything in Judaism to make people unhappy. Nor do I think the tradition is unduly ruthless about "collateral" unhappiness. But unfortunately, the tradition never predicted a time when Jews would assimilate away from their own culture and lose the knowledge of how to make Jewish lives built on the traditional obligations we have. I say that, by the way, not in the sense of aiming criticism at you, personally. You cannot be responsible for what you were never exposed to: the fault, if you will forgive me for putting it this way, lies with the parents-- perhaps even the grandparents-- and not the child. I can only hope that you find it within yourself and your life to make your peace with your experience.

But I continue to think that had you been raised living an actively Jewish life, in an actively Jewish home, you might feel differently about your circumcision. What was done to you was simply never intended to be done in a vacuum, but as the first step on a lifelong path. To my mind, the offense is not ritual circumcision itself, per se, but ritual circumcision in the absence of any justification in context and lifestyle. Health reasons aside, to my mind circumcision is only justified as part of a greater cultural whole: without it being an element of a holisitic life experience, it is meaningless, and therefore extremely, extremely hard to defend...which I am not inclined to try and do. I wish that you could see that what happened to you is not what is supposed to be. But I completely get why you aren't inclined to see it that way.
--- merged: Jul 3, 2012 3:51 AM ---

I've never heard that before. How strange! Well, I can't claim to understand why Christians would want to circumcise, but I guess...freedom of religion is freedom of religion. And tolerance is tolerance. I can hardly condemn them for what seems strange and unnecessary to me, given that I am not a Christian, and don't know their community.

 

Circumcision is genital mutilation no matter how you flip it.

But its tradition! But it's for my religion! But it's for health reasons! ...and? I'm still waiting for anyone to explain how it isn't mutilation.

Will being uncircumcised pose any measurable health risks? No.
Will being uncircumcised cause God to not accept me? No.

I am circumcised. I wish I wasn't. If I have a son he won't be circumcised.

 

"Mutilation" (as in FGM) generally implies that what was once healthy and functioning properly is now not. Circumcision does not detract from penile health-- it may even marginally improve it. It does not impede proper urinary or sexual function. Does that mean everyone ought to be circumcised? No. But it means that there is no reason to prevent people from circumcising their children who wish to do so-- for reasons of health, or for reasons of culture, or for reasons of religion. If you don't agree, don't circumcise your child.

But again, having a society that professes tolerance, cultural acceptance, and religious pluralism means that just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be prohibited to everyone.

Jews and Muslims are not asking others to believe the same things they do: only to give them the freedom to live their own lives, according to their own beliefs. Some people believe circumcision is like mutilation; some believe it is anathema to their religious beliefs. I quite disagree, and yet believe those people should be free to believe as they like and not to circumcise their sons. All we Jews and Muslims ask in return is the reverse courtesy. It's a matter of recognizing that even strongly held opinions can be relative and subject to cultural influence.

 

Can't understand? I mean, I can hardly believe you've never picked up a Holy Bible before, although even if that were the case, surely you're aware that Christians include the Pentateuch in their holy scriptures as well? It's the reason Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are collectively referred to as "Abrahamic". Of course, there is scriptural opposition to circumcision as well, so plenty of denominations actively preach against it. I don't know why a person would choose to believe a book is inerrant when it says two mutually exclusive things, but that is probably a subject for another thread.

The foreskin continues to function normally and healthily after the circumcision? Either I've seriously misunderstood what circumcision is or you're pointing out that the kid missing his third toe can still kick a football and run track. Also, if you'd like to compare penile health, occasionally complications arising from circumcision necessitate the amputation of the entire penis - I don't know how you can claim that as not impeding function.

But again, having a society that professes human rights for all means that just because your religion tells you to, you don't get to permanently alter your children's bodies, in violation of their right to religious freedom.

 

For the record, I'm circumcised and very happy with it. Didn't bother me durig my non/theist days either. And really, I think the circumcised penis looks much better than the one that isn't.

Huh. There seem to be many scary things out there, given that Muslims view the Torah as one of their books and thus not only accept Jewish scriptures, but also agree with them. Better duck and cover, eh?

I love how you keep pairing up Jews and Muslims, and completely skip the Christian bit.

 

Up until this thread, I had never heard of Christians circumcising for religious reasons. I don't understand such reasons: as I understand Christian theology, their covenant with Jesus is supposed to fulfill and supersede all previous covenants. I had always presumed, and have had a couple of ministers and priests tell me, that this theology is why Christians do not feel obligated to keep any of the ritual commandments in the Torah. I have never seen Christians who keep kosher, or keep Shabbat, or follow the laws of ritual purity and impurity, or keep the festivals, or any of the other ritual commandments Jews routinely keep. I had no reason to suspect that circumcision would be different. And, indeed, in my youth, when in school locker rooms and showers, I never saw an uncircumcised boy who wasn't a Christian. I have read any number of scholarly books and articles that discuss the difference of Judaism being tribally-structured and practice-based-- a socioreligious ethnicity-- as opposed to Christianity being an individual profession of faith-- a religion without culture, a spiritual identity independent of ethnic culture. I don't know why it would have occurred to me that Christians would embrace the ritual of entering a religious culture not their own, or why they would profess to reclaim that ritual when they themselves do not construct their religion to be a socioreligious ethnicity.

Since I have done a fair amount of interfaith dialogue with Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, and UCC clergy, and never heard that any circumcised, I can only conclude that Christian sects that embrace circumcision as a religious mandate are minority sects within Christianity. Which is fine: again, I support pluralism. But it is a major difference, in that ritual circumcision as a religious mandate in Islam and Judaism is not the profession of a few minority sects, but the overwhelming majority of the global community of those religious cultures.

I am by no means saying that Christians ought to be excluded from religious exemptions to anti-circumcision laws, I am simply unable to construct arguments supporting their claim, since I cannot understand it.

Comparing the foreskin to a toe is disingenuous. Being deprived of a toe can affect the healthy functioning of the foot/leg, and potentially disrupt the balance of the entire body. The foreskin is an extra fold of skin. Its removal does not impede sexual or urinary function. I have never yet known a Jewish man who complained that his circumcision prevented him from having or enjoying sex, or from being able to urinate properly. Foreskin removal is far more analogous to removing a large mole or skin tag. Lending any real importance of function to the foreskin is purely psychological, there is simply no basis for it in fact.

And the suggestion of penectomy as a risk of circumcision is ridiculous. Botched circumcisions are a rarity in general, outside the Third World, but I have never heard of one requiring amputation of the penis. I have been working with mohalim and mohalot, many of whom are trained medical professionals, for many years, and not one has ever told me of even hearing of such a case. I have never personally encountered a botched circumcision, either as an officiating rabbi, or as a pastoral counselor, or even casually as a Jewish layperson prior to ordination. I have heard from a couple of mohalim who are also physicians of some cases they were called in on-- to correct botched circumcisions, done by doctors not trained by mohalim (many doctors who perform circumcisions routinely will seek out mohalim to consult in their training, since mohalim do more circumcisions than any doctor will, and the record of mohalim in North America and Europe is consistent in showing successful, healthy circumcisions)-- and those botched circumcisions involved incomplete foreskin removal and uneven siting of the cut, resulting in tightness and swelling, completely corrected by a single, brief follow-up procedure. But these are rarities: the overwhelming and vast majority of circumcisions done in North America and Europe are successful and without complication. It is one of the most consistently safe and successful minor medical procedures.

There are no reasonable health reasons to unilaterally prohibit circumcision without religious or cultural exemptions. Raising the possibility as a human rights issue is a straw man, since no statistically significant number of Jewish or Muslim men are complaining about their circumcisions, much less considering them a violation of their human rights; and no one who wishes to refrain from circumcising their children is compelled to do so. When there is no evidence to suggest that a culture's populace is being unduly oppressed by a ritual, externally imposing different values to change on that culture to change that ritual for the comfort of people not of that culture is not "human rights," it's just bigotry. Imposing a universal ban on circumcision would be just as wrong as universally compelling all parents to circumcise their children, regardless of religious, philosophical, or cultural beliefs.

 

And to add:

Every man who says "It doesnt bother me" is missing the point. You didn't have a choice.

 

Tell it to the men who lost theirs. Whether you've personally encountered the complications isn't relevant at all to whether or not they happen and whether or not they're important to the people that they happen to.

 

How about comparing foreskin to an earlobe? If, thousands of years ago, we cut off an earlobe in the name of religion would it not be considered mutilation today? Your ear can function without the lobe so we dont technically need it right? You see where Im going?

Circumcision is accepted because it has been around for so long. That in no way changes the fact that it is completely unnecessary. To claim that it helps you identify with your religion is just your religion putting a burden on you in the name of faith. But then again faith is ultimately blind so it makes sense.

 

And for those who feel that way, there should be freedom not to practice a religion.

But just because you see it that way doesn't mean it should be bound as law upon those who don't see it that way.

This keeps coming back to the fact that there is simply not an equivalence between voluntary circumcision of some children and compulsory non-circumcision of all children. Dressing it up in the philosophical arguments of secularism or atheism or what have you doesn't change the fact that it is intolerant. No one is demanding that everyone appreciate and value circumcision. No one is demanding that everyone embrace it as a practice. We just want the freedom to preserve our own traditions and cultures, to our own satisfaction, within our own communities. It's easy to avoid circumcision: don't circumcise your child. There is no good reason why that should not be sufficient.

Parents make choices for their children, based on their social and cultural backgrounds. If you disagree with the choices some parents make for their kids, make different ones for your kids. It's that simple.