On infant circumcision.
Feb. 11th, 2005 12:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-10 11:07 pm (UTC)My son was thisclose to "failure to thrive" he was STARVING when he got out of NICU because he couldn't breastfeed. But I still got self proclaimed boob nazis trying to make me feel like shit. And formula is improving more and more, no, it isn't breastmilk, but it's a damn close second, and considering you are a parent for the rest of your life (As far as I am concerned, my mom and dad are still parenting me in a way), the way you feed your child the first year or so is a small part of the equation.
I defy anyone to tell me which of my children had the most breastmilk. You can't by school records, you can't by medical records (except of course where it was written down). I am more than a milk machine, and there is a lot more to this parenting thing than the ability to have a nursing relationship.
I will encourage and help and support any parent that tries to breastfeed, but if it doesn't work out, that doesn't make them a bad mother. I will say I am disappointed if someone doesn't even TRY, but it's not a bottle of gin. It's a bottle of carefully formulated breastmilk substitute.
The ones who should have their feet held to the fire is the medical establishment whose policies make nursing difficult.
http://www.hmbana.org/locations.htm 6, I believe. Backwards. Wouldnt it have been nice to give my son donated milk in NICU? :( Impossible though, with so few banks, the milk goes to the sickest babies.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-10 11:10 pm (UTC)On the other hand, when I try to promote breastfeeding, I very carefully tend to do it in a joking way, emphasizing how much better it smells and how unbelievably hard it is to get up and make a bottle of formula when you're asleep. I try not to sound like the Jack Chick of the universe.
Furthermore, I fully believe that we need more milk banks before I can really say "gah, stop with the formula!!!" I will only say "stop with the nestle" because of their unethical and illegal marketing practices, nothing more.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-11 03:28 pm (UTC)It was ludicrous.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-11 05:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-10 11:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-10 11:11 pm (UTC)Oh, and definitely. And now, I sleep. Talk to me in the morning when I'm awake and am unlikely to say something that comes out wrong.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-11 04:53 am (UTC)Part of the reason I don't want kids. I'd be a serial killer in no time.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-11 05:02 am (UTC)I had my jerkoff landlord call child welfare on me last year. She was mad about an article my newspaper wrote about her (I had nothing to do with it) and even the GOVERNMENT got on my case. My son was PLAYING WITH TOY CARS ON THE FLOOR and I was told that it was a hazard, a child could trip over them.
Seriously.
I'm suprised I am NOT a serial killer, now that I think about it.