On infant circumcision.

[conuly]

Here'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.

Comments

Re: sigh

[scottrossi.livejournal.com]

i think alot of parents are how duped into thinking they have no choice in the matter, and the ones that try to make a choice are at first discouraged and possibly bullied politely into making the choice to do it. a few of my friends were not given a choice (or so they claim) for their kids, they were just asked when they wanted to schedule the appointment to "cut" the child. i think in all the other stuff we have to "worry" about, this is one thing that is oftimes overlooked.