Saving Ryan’s Privates: Thoughts on Circumcisionby Don Lacey on May. 15, 2012, under Arizona Families, Christianity, Critical Thinking, Economics, Education, Ethics, Freethougth Quotations, God & Bible, History, Islam, Logic, Reason, Religion, Science
This opinion comes from Jim Wilson:
“Do you understand that this elementary point only needs to be made because of wickedness enjoined by religion. The rabbi here’s a fairly humane guy. He wouldn’t—if he didn’t think God was involved—ever consider mutilating the genitals of a child, but because it’s a covenant with God, anything can be done. Now don’t you see—you laugh, but you should be crying. I said crying! Okay, suit yourself.”
“If you want to saw off the end of your penis, you’re welcome. You’re not to do it to a child who hasn’t asked for it. Same with the genitals of a little girl. If she thinks later on she’d be better off without them, let her take, or have taken to her, a sharp instrument.”-Christopher Hitchens
Years ago, a rather bold, if not tactful, college professor made it known to the class that his wife would soon be giving birth to a baby boy. He just had one concern that he wanted to share with us, and that was what to do about, what he termed “the snake-muzzle”. The class was confused until, he explained that this means circumcision and whether or not he should have a doctor remove part of his new born son’s penis. He decided that, this was an appropriate issue to put up for vote among our class (and presumable his other classes). The response from the class, was generally in favor of going through with the procedure, with one male student shouting out “Cut it!” It was only myself and a few others who contributed to the no votes, and yes, this was often a rather unorthodox classes. Needless to say, I was never informed about how other classes voted, or the fate of my professor’s son’s genitals.
I would still have voted against it to this day. There seems to be something terribly unethical about removing body parts from people without their consent especially when the individual, in question, has no way of expressing approval or disapproval. In the United States, the Circumcision of newborn males was has been above sixty or even seventy percent for much of the twentieth century, the number has dropped down over last decade and to roughly 54.7 percent in 2010.
The prevalence of circumcision of newborns, in this country, seems largely to be an exercise of thoughtless conformity, as well just another thing that medical professionals can charge for. My Google search of the “cost of circumcision” revealed that the procedure tends to cost somewhere in the ball park of $150.00 to $300.00 for newborns. In other words the practice is very profitable for medical professionals, despite it being completely unnecessary, for any tangible health benefits in this country.
There are, of course, some medical conditions, for which a circumcision is helpful, and this is termed therapeutic circumcision. These are not particularly common and the medical associations of the developed world do not recommend infant circumcision as a preventative measure. The American Medical Association points out that: “policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.”
The American Academy of pediatrics states: “In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.”
The American medical organizations tend to neither recommend the practice nor argue against it. The Dutch go further. The Royal Dutch Medical Association states infant circumcision, “conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.” On the other hand, the Royal Australian College of Physicians states: “After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”
In other words, there is no good medical reason for doctors in the developed world to be routinely cutting the genitals of male newborns. This is especially true knowing what is lost. Namely, the child’s right to make life long decisions about his body, and some of the more sensitive tissue of his sexual organs. There is also a good deal of evidence that sexual intercourse is more enjoyable for both sexes if the male is uncircumcised. Though a lot of this tends to be anecdotal, I would not want to rob this of child without, a great deal of thought and good reason. Unfortunately thoughtfulness and good reason are things lacking in the decisions of many Americans who cut parts of the male genitals off.
Many do it, because it is simply part of our culture. Is it not the challenging of cultural norms that cause societies to evolve? Furthermore, Jews, Christians, and Muslims tend to have a religious component to their decisions to take part in this practice. One does not have to read too far into the Old Testament, to see that its God had a bizarre foreskin obsession. The very idea, that a benevolent creator would create all male children with a part that needs to be painfully cut off, is too absurd to comment on. Apparently, this God passed on his foreskin obsession to his followers. In 1st Samuel we find: “Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.”
I did not discuss female circumcision which is a truly a morally repulsive practice. However female circumcisions are performed only in cultures where men are circumcised. While it has been shown that circumcision does reduces the risk of getting HIV in AIDS ridden Africa, here in the developed world, the medical benefits do not outweigh the cost of altering a child’s body without their consent. A cynical individual would say that continuation of the century old practice is just a way for medical professionals to make more money on a worthless service and an example of mindless conformity among thoughtless parents.