Circumcision is not exclusively a religious medical procedure; some people are in favor of it for hygiene preferences.
Foreskins from circumcisions, as a medical procedure byproduct, are used as one of the primary sources for growing skin used in skin graft procedures, particularly for burn victims. Each foreskin can produce up to 4 ACRES of grafting tissue.
Opponents of the procedure believe it amounts to the sexual mutilation of male infants.
Yes? No? Should it be up to the parents, or should it be a procedure that is delayed until the child can express an opinion for himself (or.....herself)? Does public health policy have a role to play in THIS decision?
Or.........is this an exclusively religious decision? Is a ban on circumcision anti-Semitic? Is a similar ban on female circumcision - religiously intolerant? Or does it not equate?
From Reuters and Yahoo.com:
California prevents ban on male circumcisionBy Mary Slosson | Reuters – 3 hrs ago
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California Governor Jerry Brown announced on Sunday that he signed a bill preventing local authorities from banning the practice of male circumcision.The bill, which takes effect immediately, comes in the wake of an
effort by a San Francisco group opposed to male circumcision to enforce a
city-wide ban of the practice in a November ballot measure.
That effort was struck down in late
July by a California judge who said it would infringe on religious
freedom. The measure was removed from the November ballot.The measure, which garnered 12,000
signatures of support, would have made it a misdemeanor crime to
circumcise a boy before he is 18 years old in San Francisco, regardless of the parents' religious beliefs.A dozen petitioners sued to block
the initiative at the time. A similar effort in Santa Monica, west of
Los Angeles, was withdrawn.Circumcision is a ritual obligation
for infant Jewish boys and also a common rite among Muslims, who
account for the largest share of circumcised men worldwide.The move to outlaw circumcision in San Francisco raised alarm bells for Jewish groups.In June, the Anti-Defamation LeagueA mohel is a Jewish individual specifically trained to perform the ritual circumcision of infant boys.
condemned a comic book created by supporters of the anti-circumcision
movement that it said contained grotesque anti-Semitic imagery. The
comic featured a character named "Monster Mohel" as an evil villain.
(Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst)
I guess there is truly nothing that liberals won't try to control.
ReplyDeleteAre you so sure it is liberals who are trying to control medical practices, FWM?
ReplyDeleteIt was liberal Governor Brown of California who just signed the legislation PREVENTING BANS on circumcision. Maybe you just didn't read for comprehension the first time...
As to the prevention of female circumcision, ie, female genital mutilation, I am delighted that is no longer permitted in western countries, for reasons of health and safety rather than religious intolerance.
You had better read it again. It was liberals in San Fransisco that wanted to pass the law in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFWM, I think you are making two mistakes; one is the failure to look past your perception of political partisanship to the pros and cons of this procedure ON THE MERITS.
ReplyDeleteI think we should be looking at it on the basis of separating the myths - beliefs if you will - and the facts, instead of dividing up along partisan sides.
Secondly, I think we need to look at what we subsidize from a more pragmatic political perspective than a partisan one.
I had a few moments pause about posting this, as the only female contributor, both here and on my home blog. I am hoping for comments from the male perspective to ........illuminate this topic from both the objective and subjective perspective.
The little bit of research I did on the pros and cons turned up some interesting sites, like this one:
http://www.nocircmn.org/, paying particular attention to the positions espoused by medical organizations.
Where I believe the topic properly intersects with politics is here, excerpted from the home page of nocircMN:
Recent News:
Due to pressure from concerned MN citizens, the MN State Legislature passed a law in 2005 that prohibits Medical Assistance (Medicaid) payments for medically unnecessary circumcisions!! This will protect about 10,000 baby boys per year. It will also save approximately $1 million of taxpayer dollars per year — money that can now be used for necessary, legitimate healthcare for low-income Minnesotans.
Minnesota is one of 16 states that have eliminated Medicaid funding of unnecessary circumcisions. More states are expected to follow soon.
and this:Myth: "Circumcision is a harmless, simple procedure; it's just a little snip."
Fact: Newborn circumcision is a painful, traumatic procedure that amputates a large amount of erogenous and healthy tissue. It is often performed without giving the baby any pain relief. First, the boy is placed on his back on a plastic mold called a "circumstraint." The boy is then spread eagle and his arms and legs are strapped down so he can't struggle. The doctor then inserts a metal probe underneath the baby's foreskin, ripping it away from the glans (imagine a fingernail being pulled off a finger). At that point, the doctor uses one of several clamps and/or cutting devices to crush and amputate the foreskin.
and then there was this:
ReplyDeleteMyth: "Babies don't feel pain during circumcision."
Fact: Babies feel extreme pain during circumcision, according to studies referenced by the American Medical Association and others like this one referenced on CNN: Circumcision study halted due to trauma. In fact, some doctors have used circumcision as the definition of the most severe pain a baby can feel. Studies show that circumcision is intensely painful, and other studies show that babies are very sensitive to pain. Lastly, in 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) strenuously recommended that pain relief be administered during circumcision. Sadly, many circumcisions are still performed without pain relief according to this study cited by the AAP.
and this
Myth: "All circumcised men are perfectly happy that way."
Fact: Men who were circumcised at birth do not know what they are missing. They never had a foreskin, and so have never experienced the wonderful sensations a foreskin provides. This page, Why Most Circumcised Men Seem Satisfied, describes why many circumcised men seem ok with being circumcised. However, more and more men are realizing what they have lost due to circumcision, and are very unhappy about it. More and more parents are being confronted by their adult sons who disagree with their decision to have him circumcised when he was a baby.
Myth: "Circumcision is a part of Christianity."
Fact: The New Testament clearly states that circumcision has no spiritual value and should no longer be practiced by Christians. Acts15.org and Catholics Against Circumcision both provide excellent discussions of Christians and circumcision.
Myth: "Almost all men are circumcised."
Fact: The vast majority of men are intact (not circumcised). About 85% of men in the world are not circumcised, because America is the only country in the world that routinely circumcised for non-religious reasons. In places like Canada and Europe, circumcision is very rare (approximately 5% or less). In the US, circumcision rates were very high (90%) during the 1970s, but since then, circumcision rates have been decreasing. Current statistics can be found here.
Myth: "If I don't have him circumcised as a baby, he will need to have it done later."
Fact: Medically necessary circumcisions later in life are very rare. Because circumcision is an amputation, the only absolute indications for circumcision are frostbite, severe infection, or cancer. All other "foreskin problems" can almost always be successfully treated using more conservative treatments.
and this:
ReplyDeleteMyth: "Circumcision doesn't affect a man's ability to give or receive pleasure."
Fact: Circumcision decreases the pleasure experienced by both the man and woman during sex. The foreskin, which is amputated by circumcision, plays an important role in human sexuality.
For the man's benefit, the foreskin is the most sexually sensitive and pleasurable part of the penis. A specialized ring of tissue near the tip of the foreskin called the ridged band contains almost 20,000 highly sensitive erogenous nerve endings (over half of the sexually sensitive nerve endings in the penis). This special ridged band provides intact (uncircumcised) men with the majority of their sexual sensation. Circumcision amputates the entire ridged band and its erogenous nerve endings, resulting in a dramatic reduction in sexual sensation. It is a common misconception that the glans is the most sensitive part of the penis, because most adult men in America do not have a foreskin to compare to.
The foreskin also improves a woman's sensation and comfort during sex. During intercourse, the foreskin acts as a natural lubricant through its unique gliding or "rolling" motion. An intact penis slides back and forth inside the foreskin during the thrusting motions, greatly reducing friction (see Anatomy of the Penis, Mechanics of Intercourse for a full description). Because of this, most women report improved sensation with an intact penis (see Kristen O'Hara's book and Dr. Dean Edell's article on the study contained within the book). Many women that have had sex with circumcised men complain of vaginal dryness, lack of orgasms during intercourse, and even vaginal pain. The vagina was not designed to produce enough lubrication to accommodate a circumcised penis. Instead, the vagina was designed to leverage the natural penis's mechanical lubricating action provided by the foreskin. The sexual ramifications of circumcision are far reaching indeed.
So......there is a compelling argument that this is genital mutilation, and that even if it is mandated by religion, it should be an individual choice for themselves, not something we do to them quite so quickly, without taking..........if I might be excused the phrase.......a long hard look at what we have taken for granted as a medical and religious procedure.