On infant circumcision.
Feb. 11th, 2005 12:32 amHere's the thing. Parents do not own their children. Parents do not own their children's bodies.
Parents can't refuse lifesaving medical intervention for their children, even if their own religions forbid it, and they can't, ethically (screw the law, the law sucks) cause unnecessary damage to their children.
Circumcisions are unnecessary for the vast majority of boys. A small minority have diseases that do require the removal of an unhealthy foreskin.
An boy who will not be circumcised is not at risk of having part or all of the penis lopped off. This has happened, and not so long ago. A boy who will not be circumcised is at less of a risk of having infections during infancy, because the foreskin protects the penis from all the nasties in the diaper. A boy who is uncircumcised can grow up and change this. One who is circumcised can't. This is irreversible.
There is some evidence that removing the foreskin, even when it's done correctly, permanently impairs the ability to enjoy sex. Oh, not that guys still don't, but that it'd be easier if they were, y'know, intact. Like God made them. There is significant evidence that this sort of pain in infancy (and most circumcisions are still done without anesthesia) permanently rewires the pain receptors.
There are, of course, a number of good, perfectly valid reasons to circumcise.
1. Religion.
I'm not tackling this.
2. "He won't feel weird taking showers with other boys"
Does anybody still take showers like that anymore? No offense, but that seems like a way to encourage homosexuality, and I'm amazed the fundies still allow this.
At any rate, some 35% of infant males aren't circumcised. That's nearing half. These kids won't feel that weird.
3. "He should look like his daddy"
Is he a clone? No? Then he's not going to look like his daddy anyway. He'll live. And while I'm thrilled if you're actually comfortable with your own nudity, a lot of families who use this argument aren't. I don't know why they think their son will care.
4. "There are health benefits"
Actually, there really aren't, except that it helps you avoid cancer of the foreskin. And lopping off my breasts would help me avoid breast cancer, and performing routine appendectomies at birth would help people avoid appendecitis.
5. "It looks better"
Only if you're used to it. And dude? You're not fucking your son. If you are, you need to get serious help.
Well. Guess I didn't think these arguments were so valid after all.
Let's say I did. Let's say I really thought that circumcised guys look better, inherantly, and should all fit some obscure standard of conformity.
I still would be against routine infant circumcision.
In China, for many years they thought that small feet looked better, and bound girls feet, without their consent. This permanently damaged them. This is unacceptable.
If we thought that brands looked pretty, we still wouldn't find it acceptable to brand infants just because "it looks good" and "they won't remember it". We reject the concept of FGM, even though all these arguments have been used to justify it. Why is our custom different?
To be fair, I completely support the right of consenting adults to do whatever the fuck they want with their bodies. If you really want to cut off your labia, that's your own business. And if you really wish you'd been circumcised, and hate that foreskin, go ahead, get it chopped off. I support you.
But don't fuck with babies' private parts. You don't own them.
Parents can't refuse lifesaving medical intervention for their children, even if their own religions forbid it, and they can't, ethically (screw the law, the law sucks) cause unnecessary damage to their children.
Circumcisions are unnecessary for the vast majority of boys. A small minority have diseases that do require the removal of an unhealthy foreskin.
An boy who will not be circumcised is not at risk of having part or all of the penis lopped off. This has happened, and not so long ago. A boy who will not be circumcised is at less of a risk of having infections during infancy, because the foreskin protects the penis from all the nasties in the diaper. A boy who is uncircumcised can grow up and change this. One who is circumcised can't. This is irreversible.
There is some evidence that removing the foreskin, even when it's done correctly, permanently impairs the ability to enjoy sex. Oh, not that guys still don't, but that it'd be easier if they were, y'know, intact. Like God made them. There is significant evidence that this sort of pain in infancy (and most circumcisions are still done without anesthesia) permanently rewires the pain receptors.
There are, of course, a number of good, perfectly valid reasons to circumcise.
1. Religion.
I'm not tackling this.
2. "He won't feel weird taking showers with other boys"
Does anybody still take showers like that anymore? No offense, but that seems like a way to encourage homosexuality, and I'm amazed the fundies still allow this.
At any rate, some 35% of infant males aren't circumcised. That's nearing half. These kids won't feel that weird.
3. "He should look like his daddy"
Is he a clone? No? Then he's not going to look like his daddy anyway. He'll live. And while I'm thrilled if you're actually comfortable with your own nudity, a lot of families who use this argument aren't. I don't know why they think their son will care.
4. "There are health benefits"
Actually, there really aren't, except that it helps you avoid cancer of the foreskin. And lopping off my breasts would help me avoid breast cancer, and performing routine appendectomies at birth would help people avoid appendecitis.
5. "It looks better"
Only if you're used to it. And dude? You're not fucking your son. If you are, you need to get serious help.
Well. Guess I didn't think these arguments were so valid after all.
Let's say I did. Let's say I really thought that circumcised guys look better, inherantly, and should all fit some obscure standard of conformity.
I still would be against routine infant circumcision.
In China, for many years they thought that small feet looked better, and bound girls feet, without their consent. This permanently damaged them. This is unacceptable.
If we thought that brands looked pretty, we still wouldn't find it acceptable to brand infants just because "it looks good" and "they won't remember it". We reject the concept of FGM, even though all these arguments have been used to justify it. Why is our custom different?
To be fair, I completely support the right of consenting adults to do whatever the fuck they want with their bodies. If you really want to cut off your labia, that's your own business. And if you really wish you'd been circumcised, and hate that foreskin, go ahead, get it chopped off. I support you.
But don't fuck with babies' private parts. You don't own them.
sigh
Date: 2005-02-10 10:10 pm (UTC)and forumla is terrible. alot of my friends breast feed because their babies get sick less, are better behaved and probably will have a better likelihood of growing old without cancer than we did growing up as our parents were told by the hospitals that formula is much healthier than breast milk, etc etc etc. grrr. refined sugars and chemicals are pretty evil for the most part.
Re: sigh
Date: 2005-02-10 10:16 pm (UTC)Re: sigh
Date: 2005-02-10 10:31 pm (UTC)Re: sigh
Date: 2005-02-10 10:56 pm (UTC)Breast is best but formula isn't like feeding your kid liquid twinkies.
Re: sigh
Date: 2005-02-10 11:22 pm (UTC)Re: sigh
Date: 2005-02-10 11:42 pm (UTC)NAK = Nursing at Keyboard.
I think it is more of a bonding experience to hold a baby and give it a bottle and pay attention to the baby than to go through the motions of breastfeeding whilst typing around the poor kid's head. (Will be honest, have tried it! Also have answered the door nursing, etc.)
And then do we know what causes ADD/ADHD? Is it TV? Formula? Flouride? MMR shots?
There's so much to this parenting stuff, you have to go with your gut a lot of the time, someone is always going to tell you that you are doing it completely, utterly wrong.
Although it is true, breastfeeding mothers are often well informed and conscientious and that could play a role in how the kid grows up. And some take attachment parenting too far and have kids that walk all over them. I just hope they're decent kids, happy, and healthy. If I can wind up with that, I'll be ok. :/
Re: sigh
Date: 2005-02-10 11:59 pm (UTC)at least in my experience television was a big factor in ADD, but i am sure refined sugars and vaccinations with mysterious ingredients dont help!
yeah, i couldnt imagine nursing at a keyboard, i mean, its too claustrophobic as it is, i couldnt deal with a kid on my breast. then again, i am glad i am a boy, i don't have to worry! lol