That word evokes a lot of emotions and opinions, right? It's a pretty controversial topic these days. Some will say it's a personal choice. Some will say it's a parental choice. For some, it's a religious choice. Others will say it's so he will "look like daddy," or "look like everyone else his age." For others, it's considered a medical decision. Some will say it was "just what was done" when their sons were born, and they never questioned it. Still others will say it's his body and therefore his choice.
Where do I stand? It's quite simple, really:
- The "personal choice" reasoning applies, but only when it comes to a true personal choice. A personal choice cannot be made for another person, therefore circumcising a male infant for your personal beliefs is wrong and irrelevant. Debunked. His body, his choice.
- For it to be a medical decision, there needs to be a medical indication, and simply being born as a male with a foreskin (which every human male is, outside of exceedingly rare circumstances) is not a birth defect; it is the natural state of mammals, and therefore it isn't a medical decision to remove it at birth any more than the removal of any other body part that might potentially cause problems would be. So cutting off a male infant's foreskin as a prophylactic measure isn't medically sound.That would be like saying, "all boys are born defective and in need of immediate surgical correction," which is ridiculous. Debunked. His body, his choice.
- For it to qualify as a religious decision, it would have to be made by the person in question, not by another. One's religious rights end where another person's body begins. It's not okay to force your religion on another person in a physical, scarring manner. Debunked. His body, his choice.
- For those who think it's important that he looks like daddy: if you're male, did you often compare penises with your father? No? If you did as a child, the biggest difference you'd notice is size and hair presence/absence, not intact vs. circumcised status.. If you didn't...then why does it matter? Potty training doesn't require adult nudity, I promise, so kids are very unlikely to ask questions anyway. If you're female, well...did you compare vulvas/vaginas with your mother? No? Well, obviously genital appearance doesn't matter either way, so this "reason" is moot. Debunked. His body, his choice.
- As far as parental choice goes...what other parenting choices/decisions involve the removal of healthy tissue from infants? If it were a girl, would you cut her genitals for the exact same reasons you'd cut a boy's? No? You mean it's illegal to do the same (and far less) to a baby girl here in America? Then it's not right to cut a boy, either. Debunked. His body, his choice.
- If it's a choice you made without knowing all the facts, that's okay. There's no shame in having been duped by cultural conditioning, corrupt doctors, etc. No guilt, just education, as far as I'm concerned.
There's a lot of hypocrisy surrounding male infant circumcision in America. If cutting the genitals of a baby girl, even just a ritual nick or tiny slice, is wrong, then so is the removal of the entire foreskin of a baby boy. Male and female genitalia form from the exact same tissue in the womb. The male foreskin has over 20,000 nerve endings, whereas the female clitoris has only about 8,000. If it's wrong to do it to one, then it is wrong to do it to the other, else you are hypocritical. Women are more prone to genital infections than men. Have you seen the feminine hygiene aisle? If it's not okay to cut a girl to prevent all that, it's not okay to cut a boy either. If you are pro-gender equality, you should be anti-forced circumcision for both genders. Here's a good reference on this matter: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/02/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-time-to-confront-the-double-standard/
The hygiene argument is one I hear all the time. "It's cleaner/more hygienic to do it to a boy!" Yeah, that's bull. Over 70% (according to the World Health Organization /etc.http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf ) of the world's men are intact, and suffer no issues with infection. People will say that it reduces the chance of UTI's and yeast infections, but I'll counter that with this: women get those all the time, and we take antibiotics rather than get cut. Why are boys any different? Women are far more likely (6 to 10 times) to get infections than intact or circumcised men, yet our genitals are protected by law. So the hygiene argument really doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Then there's the "looking like everyone else so they won't get teased in the locker room" reasoning. Hello, how many boys actually get naked in locker rooms anymore, let alone examine one another's penises? At least 50% of American boys aren't cut anymore, and that number is growing every year. The highest estimate of intact men I've heard recently is 85% worldwide, but I don't have a source for it. It wouldn't surprise me, though. I mean, seriously, EVERY male mammal is born with foreskin, and it's considered to be a birth defect if they're not (it's called Aposthia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aposthia). America |(with the exception of about 10% each of Canada and Australia) is the only country that really does this for supposed "health" reasons. Doesn't that say something?
I often hear that it's better to have it done to them as infants, because it'll eventually need to be done when they're older. This is completely untrue. For example, men in Finland are not circumcised at birth, and it is insanely unlikely that they will ever need it. "Since the neonatal circumcision rate in Finland, where virtually every male wishes to preserve his foreskin, is zero, and since the risk of needing a late circumcision in Finland is one in 16,667, it follows that almost all of the circumcisions still being done in North America have no medical necessity, and in fact, are contraindicated." (Source: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/denniston/)
How did this even start, anyway? It wasn't for true medical reasons, I can assure you. Check this out: http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/
Consider this: all mammals, male and female, are born with foreskin. If you believe we were created in God's image, then to demand that that image be immediately altered at birth, but only for one gender and without medical indication, is fallacious. If you believe in evolution, it is just as false, for why would foreskin have evolved (and survived this long) if it was so prone to infection and dangerous? Men are more likely to develop breast cancer than to have issues with their foreskins.
And here's the kicker: NO medical organization, worldwide, recommends routine infant circumcision. Not one. The only one that comes close is the AAP, and all they say is that it's "up to the parents." Even they, a trade organization without a single intact member and none who understand the functions of the foreskin, cannot come right out and recommend routinely cutting baby boys' genitals.
Do we want to talk about how the procedure is performed? Most babies don't receive anesthesia, and when they do, it's either EMLA cream |(which is not approved for use on genitals OR on infants http://www.thewholenetwork.org/twn-news/infant-circumcision-with-anesthesia-does-it-really-help-the-pain), a lidocaine shot (which takes 30-45 minutes to take effect, and most circumcisions are completed more quickly than that), or a sugar-water pacifier (really, sugar?). There are different types of circumcisions (Gomco, Mogen, plastibell), and all carry risks and complications (http://www.thewholenetwork.org/consequences-of-circumcision). Basically, the foreskin is ripped from the glans (it's fused to the head of the penis, so this is painful and damaging), it's cut in the method of the doctor's choice (which I listed above), and then the surgical wound must be kept in a diaper and constantly exposed to urine and feces. How is this "cleaner" than the natural male anatomy? It makes no sense.
If you're still in doubt, here's a good 6-part series on the subject: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe
I have no desire to shame, guilt, or insult parents who chose circumcision for their sons, thinking it was the best/healthiest option. You did what you thought was best at the time, and no one can fault you for that. What I have a problem with is the refusal to learn anything new, and to stand by the decision in the face of new evidence that proves you wrong. It's okay to have made the wrong choice, for whatever reason you made it, so long as you learn from it."Know better, do better." Upon learning that male infant circumcision is medically unnecessary, a change of opinion is needed, and there is no shame in that.
So again, where do I stand? If it's outside the realm of medical necessity, it's not a parental choice. It shocks me that people have to work so hard to convince parents that they don't have to put their baby boys through unnecessary genital surgery immediately at birth. It boggles my mind that parents would fight for their "right" to cut babies' penises for no medical reason, but that those same parents would flip out if someone suggested doing the same thing to their daughters.
You want some TMI from me? My husband is intact. He was born in England, to a wonderful Dutch mother, and they don't routinely circumcise in Europe. And you know what? He's never had an infection or problem of any kind. I, on the other hand, have had multiple UTI's and a yeast infection or two, and circumcision never crossed my (or my doctor's) mind. My personal experience with intact male genitalia is that it's just as clean, if not cleaner, than intact female genitalia, and actually has fewer issues. Not circumcising is NOT a guarantee for future issues. Obviously, it's not necessary for health (or procreation, as we have 2 children).
To sum up, circumcision should be the choice of the person whose genitals are in question, and no one else's. Science is on the side of intactivism. A man should have the right to choose what to do with his genitals, the same as women should. End of story.
