Circumcision Envy
It’s a boy! The ultrasound results are in, and they were quite conclusive. We’re happy, still this one means difficulties we didn’t encounter with our girl. For instance, we don’t agree as readily on boy names. The big question, however, has to do with the anatomical differences that were so apparent. What do we do with that little part of the difference that so many discard?
The encyclopedia of Mormonism insists that if LDS children are circumcised, it is for health reasons. After reading the entry on it at WebMD, I am inclined to think there might be health reasons. Still, I don’t think that’s the real reason most of us do this. I think the ties between Judaism and Christianity have made us all feel a bit heathenish if we don’t do this. And in the church, where we believe that we are all part of the Abrahamic covenant, this is exacerbated. This congealed for me while reading Orson Scott Card’s Enchanted, a fantasy/fairy tale type story that makes an issue of this issue. The main character is a convert to Judaism for convenience’s sake, and there is alot made of the ritual. He finally feels good about it after reading the part where the sons of Jacob convince that whole town to get circumcised and then kill them all while they are in pain.
I think we occasionally pine for our ties to the sort of painful sacrifice that circumcision presents (if not for the particular pain involved). Also, I think that western culture, and church culture, still cling to this as a sign of difference between us and them–a real irony, since most of the “them”s we’re really concerned about also undergo circumcision, since there’s no good reason to cherish such a difference, and since the scriptures really are clear that this isn’t part of what makes us Christians any more.
Comments are welcome on why you think we do this, on whether you have done or will do it (though your children might not thank you for giving out such infomation one day), or anything else that will enlighten for us why this practice is so pervasive and psychologically important for us, and why I would feel a bit strange about not having it done–and not because I would be worried about my child’s health.
While there may be some latent longing or nostalgia as you suggest, I think it’s primarily aesthetic. Warning: TMI to come.
I moved to Europe when I was ten. Due to (what we’ll assume was) my parents’ latent nostalgia, and that of the rest of the parents of my friends, I had no idea what circumcision entailed.
Until I went to gym class for the first time with kids whose parents lacked any nostalgia. Whoa. WHOA!! (Remember, I was ten. And the only kid missing something.)
I wonder if the aesthetic shock of that experience isn’t what predisposes me now to go ahead and snip any future son I might have.
Comment by TMI guy — 6/20/2005 @ 7:23 am
Truely there is a small health benifit. The main reason I had my 3 sons done was for aesthetics as mentioned by TMI guy. As for the pain issue, having personally performed circumcision, I think those concerns are overblown. (using the bell and string method) The child invariably cries while strapped to the papoose, but stops immediately when the restraints are removed. Plus, I doubt that the pain receptors, or the preception of pain, is similar in a newborn than an adult.
Comment by Scott — 6/20/2005 @ 8:30 am
Not much to say about the slicing & dicing, but congrats on the boy!!
Comment by Rusty — 6/20/2005 @ 8:42 am
My first husband was not circumcised. The, uh, parts, uh, crap, whatever, it didn’t look any different than my other husbands. Maybe I didn’t look closely enough. Oh, shutting up about that.
He was very clean and never had an infection in his life.
If I were ever to have another child (if I didn’t slit my wrists over the prospect of being pregnant at my age) and it was a boy, I would not have him circumcised. I think it hurts those tiny guys and is unnecessary.
Comment by annegb — 6/20/2005 @ 9:14 am
Congratz. We wont’ have our ultrasound for another few months.
While I’m glad for a practioners take on this, the ‘theory’ that babies don’t feel pain like adults or children sounds like hookum to me; along with a big dose of rationalization. Doctors are usually thrilled to do circumcision. Why? Yet another surgical procedure that they can bill.
It’s just me, but, since there is no compelling medical reason for the procedure (there is a minimal, very minimal risk of infection), and God doesn’t require it…why do it?
1. God made the baby boy just fine. If it wasn’t supposed to have that extra skin…it wouldn’t be there.
2. Do you really want the baby to cry/experience unnecessary pain at such a young age?
3. If you are outside of Utah/highly jewish or muslim areas, most folks _DO NOT_ do this to their baby boys. I really don’t understand TMI guy. If I had been in his place, I would be _extra_ against this practice, so my children wouldn’t feel ‘weird’. Of course, if you are in Utah, it goes the other way…do it so they don’t feel weird/different.
4. The skin chopped off has a purpose…i.e. pleasure. Would you chop off a baby girl’s parts just because it _might_ result in a treatable infection? Probably not…since this is a big social justice issue in africa…they call it “mutiliation” there.
sum: Don’t mutilitate poor baby boys and make doctors richer.
Comment by lyle stamps — 6/20/2005 @ 9:57 am
My parents did it to me because they were Catholic, and (at least back then) it was the Catholic thing to do.
Our son isn’t circumcised and any future sons will not be. We never found a reasonable explanation as to why people do it, so we saw no benefit to doing it.
Honestly, I think members do it because that is what they know. My sister, for example, had her son circumcised so that he and his dad would be the same. Not much logic there, but I would not be surprised if it was similar among other latter-day saints.
Comment by Kim Siever — 6/20/2005 @ 10:21 am
I should clarify, lyle, that the shock I felt wasn’t that I was somehow messed up or weird. I found the alternative (non-circumcised) aesthetically distressing.
And Kim, I don’t see your sister’s decision as necessarily illogical. I’d think that looking different from your father would cause greater distress than looking different from your peers, especially at a young age. Of course, I’m no child psychologist, and am perfectly willing to accept that I’m wrong on that.
Perhaps I was secure enough in my own appearance because I knew I was (and wanted to be) like my father.
Comment by TMI guy — 6/20/2005 @ 11:13 am
Oh, and congrats to S. Hancock and his wife! (incidentally, my wife and I have a girl, who we found easy to name, but find the same difficulty you report in agreeing on potential boy names…)
Comment by TMI guy — 6/20/2005 @ 11:14 am
lyle – to my understanding it does not highten pleasure. I have heard that retaining the foreskin extends how long one “lasts”, if you will, but it does not change the intensity of any pleasure.
My boys got circumcised, for cultural reasons. That’s what we do here. I don’t find it any more odd that women put holes in their ears (one in each, of course). If you feel part of a culture that does not then don’t.
As for any medical research, last I checked (about a year ago) there was no health advantage to getting clipped.
Comment by J. Stapley — 6/20/2005 @ 11:16 am
As for names….how about Jonathan. π
Comment by J. Stapley — 6/20/2005 @ 11:17 am
the βtheory’ that babies don’t feel pain like adults or children sounds like hookum to me
I would have thought the same, but my oldest slept through his circumcision and his was under the knife- none of this new fangled bell and string stuff,
Comment by Gilgamesh — 6/20/2005 @ 11:29 am
There are several reasons that my wife and I decided to have our son circumsized.
The first is the idea of the Abrahamic covenant. Though it is not truely in affect, I still think of it as a covenant between ma dn the Lord saying that I will raise my son to know the gospel and bring him to Christ.
Second, how would I even know what to teach my son about cleaning himself, I never had to.
Thirdly, it is mostly the culture that we live in.
I was in the room when it was done. Did he cry? Yes! but we stopped as soon as I picked him up. I don’t really even remember there being any blood. I was mostly upset because of the straps to hold him down, being cold, and the cold instruments. The sugary syrup calmed him down through the procedure.
We plan to do the same with our next son who is due to arrive in September.
Comment by Jared — 6/20/2005 @ 11:40 am
I’m the mother of three uncirc’ed boys. With the first, I told my husband it was entirely his decision (this might have been the first and last time in our entire marriage that this happens) because he was, um, more familiar with the, um, situation.
Now, tho, having read more, I’m glad our boys are intact.
As for the ‘they won’t look like their father’ argument, remember that they will look like their brother(s).
As for the ‘weirdness in the locker room’ argument, you’ll have to pull up stats, but I think major US urban areas are something like 60/40 now, so I don’t know that that will be an issue.
As for the ‘Abrahamic covenant’ issue, I would be far more worried about offending God by removing something he included than I would about offending God by not following the OT laws. See Paul on this one.
As for hygeine, it really isn’t that complicated, folks. Plus, if we removed body parts from children because of their inability to keep them clean, there wouldn’t be much left.
Comment by Julie in Austin — 6/20/2005 @ 12:12 pm
rofl…julie for one liner of the year! π
Comment by lyle stamps — 6/20/2005 @ 1:08 pm
I think it’s more important that the boy look like his daddy, so that when daddy is showing his son how to pee like a man (in the toilet that is not on a bush) that the boy not be distracted by one more thing.
Comment by Floyd the Wonderdog — 6/20/2005 @ 1:15 pm
TMI,
Certainly the aesthetics are important, but (and keep in mind that my area of study is partly aesthetics) I’m always suspicious of aesthetics being attached to other cultural values. I think the heathen/chosen people distinction I feel is all the more powerful because it presents itself as a purely aesthetic distinction, that is we say, “I just like it that way.”
annegb,
I also was searching for good terms to use in this post (parts, crap, whatever) that would not keep people’s filters from eliminating it for the P word.
Jared,
I think the Abrahamic covenant thing, as my post implies, is something we resonate with. I’m not sure how I feel about that, though, since Paul is so opposed to clinging to it. I know that we don’t see it as mandatory, but I don’t know if I think this is a good reason to do it. As I said, I think it represents a sort of affirmation of our connection to Israel that is unnecessary, but which I still feel. I think it could be dangerous for it to become popularly symbolic in this way.
All,
The logic of culture here seems to be very compelling. I want my kid to be part of the gang. However, I have no idea what the cultural norm is in my part of the world. While my comments are about circumcision in the church, I’m not so sure that they would hold for La’ie, which is such a cultural patchwork. I ahve no idea whether it is attached to any of the other cultural distinctions that get made here.
As far as my child feeling different from his father, I had never really considered myself as an example in the standing to pee training thing, though certainly modeling is an important principle of education. I don’t pee in front of my wife, and I always find it wierd that my wife doesn’t feel wierd that my daughter walks in while she’s peeing. I think she’ll feel differently about our little boy–justifiably, perhaps.
J,
We actually would have Jonathan at the top of our list (Jonathan Stephen, since I’m not one of those pass on the name people), but our name is Hancock, which presents a problem in this respect.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/20/2005 @ 1:36 pm
I remember being very unsettled on my mission when another elder pointed out that when we were resurrected we would be whole, so to speak.
I guess I don’t know what I’m missing (literally).
Comment by NFlanders — 6/20/2005 @ 1:36 pm
TMI guy, if you follow my sister’s “logic”, then if her husband’s bald, should the boy’s head be bicced? If he has red hair and her son has blond (her hair colour), should his hair be dyed? If he has freckles and her son doesn’t, should they put the son under plastic surgery to get some freckles? And so on…
Comment by Kim Siever — 6/20/2005 @ 2:26 pm
FWIW, I was secure in my appearance as well, yet to this day I have no idea if my biological father is circumcised.
Comment by Kim Siever — 6/20/2005 @ 2:27 pm
Yes, Kim. That’s exactly what I meant to infer. I’m glad we so clearly understand one another.
Comment by TMI guy — 6/20/2005 @ 2:32 pm
S., this sounds interesting but I’m not sure I get it. Would you elaborate, please?
Comment by TMI guy — 6/20/2005 @ 2:38 pm
I am assuming your last comment to me was sarcasm.
You previously made the comment that you did not think my sister’s decision was illogical. I was illustrating it was so. I was not saying that you were inferring anything.
Comment by Kim Siever — 6/20/2005 @ 3:48 pm
TMI guy,
What I mean is that we don’t always realize the reasons we “like” a particular aesthetic–the reasons we may be shocked by what is different. I think that what we find beautiful (or otherwise pleasing) or not is often the product of cultural values we don’t even realize we hold because they seem so absolutely natural to us. That is, you probably didn’t know why you were so shocked to see that you were different than others or why this difference counted so much, at the time, though in hindsight we can examine our opinions on aesthetics and figure out why we feel the way we do about certain appearances.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/20/2005 @ 4:30 pm
We did it because we knew someone who had to get circumcised at 14 due to cleaning issues. As you can imagine that must have been traumatic. So why risk it? It makes for easier cleaning and with the tools they use it isn’t that bad.
Comment by Clark Goble — 6/20/2005 @ 5:18 pm
I should hope so, Kim. I was laying it on pretty thick.
I don’t think your hypos hold. At least they don’t in my case. While baldness may be tied in many people’s minds to masculinity (or lack thereof), hair color and freckles certainly aren’t, and so on…
However, the body part affected by the topic at hand (not prude, just trying to keep off the google-radar) is most definitely a marker of masculinity, and thus different, as I see it, from the other hypos you suggest.
To be sure, there are others markers of masculinity. You felt secure enough in some of those others, perhaps, and therefore whether your father was or wasn’t, wasn’t an issue. Or maybe you just never saw him naked, so it couldn’t be an issue the way it was for me.
For me as a ten-year-old it was. I’m glad my parents circumcised me. Had they not, though, I’m sure I would have turned out just fine.
I just don’t see enough of a case either way to really feel strongly about it. If you do, great! Since my wife and I don’t, we’ll go with what we know.
Comment by TMI guy — 6/20/2005 @ 5:22 pm
Thanks, S., for spelling it out for me. I agree.
What sorts of factors would you say are relevant to this particular aesthetic?
Comment by TMI guy — 6/20/2005 @ 5:28 pm
” I have heard that retaining the foreskin extends how long one “lasts”, if you will, but it does not change the intensity of any pleasure.”
*wryly noting for this phallocentric crowd that while “lasting longer” may not heighten his pleasure, it could have a nontrivial effect on hers*
Comment by dijon — 6/20/2005 @ 8:18 pm
dijon – indeed, though from what I understand it doesn’t extend it that long. Though, I guess you are right, anything is an improvement. π
Comment by J. Stapley — 6/20/2005 @ 8:31 pm
J and Dijon,
My wife said she heard exactly the opposite. I don’t suspect there are a lot of reputable studies on this.
TMI guy,
I think that the biggest is the sense of righteousness or chosenness associated with it. Also, I think there may be a certain sense that it is associated with sexual power or bravado, which might lead some to assume that the ideas lyle stamps presents are true. If there is such an association, whether true or not, there might be a reluctance to associate ones children with a strong sense of sexuality. Certainly it connects sexuality and that which is foreign to us if we were circumcised ourselves, and anything odd where sexuality is concerned is difficult for people who still have leftover guilt about sex from strong puritan roots.
As you point out, this may be more of an American thing than a European thing, and so mcuh of this might be as connected to American evangelical Christianity as to the Church and just be a remenant. At this point, it may be worth looking at cultural theorists on the matter, and I’m sure there are many.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/20/2005 @ 9:58 pm
S., I think you may well be right re: the American vs. European divide on this, especially given the history of often antagonistic attitudes toward Jews in Europe vs. the American evangelist traditions of desiring the sort of covenant relationship with God enjoyed by Jews.
Who knew there was still so much significance in a little bit of skin…
Comment by TMI guy — 6/20/2005 @ 10:22 pm
People who are uncomfortable with circumcision shouldn’t do it.
People who want to circumcise their sons don’t need to feel guilty about it or like they need to justify it with some religious argument.
The argument that circumcision reduces a man’s ability to feel sexual pleasure is rather laughable to me. If it were really true, you’d be doing boys a favor by circumcising them, as that is one part of the body that does not need to be any more sensitive. Male circumcision is nothing–nothing–like female circumcision, so don’t even go there.
I don’t mind saying that we had our sons circumcised for purely aesthetic reasons. Some people get their little girls’ ears pierced; I have my sons’ foreskins removed. Actually, the baby girls I’ve seen–and heard–getting their ears pierced cried a lot more than either of my sons did during their circumcisions.
Comment by reb — 6/20/2005 @ 10:39 pm
People who want to circumcise their sons don’t need to feel guilty about it or like they need to justify it with some religious argument.
I’m not saying we have to justify it. I’m saying we should recognise the reasons we do things, whatever they are. Then we can make a decision that is more than automatic.
Some people get their little girls’ ears pierced; I have my sons’ foreskins removed.
Yes, and there are a lot of reasons why girls might have their ears pierced. It has become part of our culture, yes, but it became so for a reason. Perhaps it was originally about displaying wealth. Certainly it is about our culture being much more given to ornament women than to ornament men, and perhaps it even represents making this tendency a part of women’s bodies. Of course, more men have their ears pierced than they have in the past, but there is a different cultural reasoning behind that, I suspect. There is a bit of counter-culture urge in it, a conscious display of non-conformity. I find that aesthetics is usually a way of bypassing the reasons we value a certain look.
That doesn’t mean that I see aesthetics as bad. In fact, it means that they are usually more meaningful than we give them credit for, and certainly the comparative pain makes a point. Ear piercing must have at least as much cultural significance for some people as circumcision of infants, which the brewhaha in the bloggernacle about multiple earrings seems to make apparent.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/21/2005 @ 1:21 am
TMI guy,
I fail to see any connection between the foreskin of the p—- and masculinity. Just because it is part of the male sex organ does not mean the removal or retention of it determines or secures a boy’s masculinity.
Comment by Kim Siever — 6/21/2005 @ 9:53 am
Okay, Kim. Let me try to clarify.
I’m not talking about the foreskin itself. I’m talking about the whole package. If you think there’s no connection between the p—- and masculinity, we probably aren’t going to get very far.
Since you had no idea whether your dad was circumcised, and didn’t have the visual (aesthetic) experience of seeing his p—-, perhaps its appearance did not have, for you, any connection with your own masculinity.
I saw my father naked, noticed (among other things) the appearance of his p—-. Now, since my father was for me at that age the most significant example of manhood, the appearance of his p—- (among other things, physical and otherwise) was tied up in my perception of masculinity. (I think this is what S. is talking about when he links aesthetics to cultural or personal values).
In the gym, in a culture foreign to me, it was somehow comforting to me to know that my manhood (physical and otherwise) was like my father’s. Remember, I was ten. In my case, the fact that I had been circumcised–or rather, the fact that I looked like my dad in a way that I felt was indicative of masculinity–helped me, and made me secure in my sexuality in a moment when that was threatened.
Of course, had the situation been reversed (ie, my dad wasn’t circumcised and I wasn’t and all the other boys were), the net effect would have been the same.
I’m not arguing for any aesthetic or other value in the foreskin itself. I’m saying that within certain cultural contexts, aesthetic values are created/assigned.
Comment by TMI guy — 6/21/2005 @ 12:00 pm
I have to chime in here…
It amazes me that the question of “to circ or not to circ” has become so passionate. I am a neonatologist (sick baby doc) and have myself performed several “whackings.” On the issue of whether or not to do it, I try to stay middle of the road, and I really don’t lean either direction on the matter. There are no good data supporting the theory that the practice affords any health benefits. Sure, in theory, it’s easier to clean, but the alternative isn’t too hard to figure out. In the end, for most non-semitic peoples, it comes down to: “by golly, I was cut, so my son will be too.” You can argue around and around about culture and aesthetics, but in my experience no one want’s to admit that something is wrong with what they (or their dad) had done. If you are doing it to show solidarity to those keeping the covenant, break out the alter and start roasting lamb.
I do have to say, however, that if the French aren’t doing it, that’s an outstanding reason to do it.
Finally, in regards to the pain issue and newborn pain receptors and babies not feeling pain like adults…I’m trying very hard to maintain the rules of decorum here…please pull your head out. There is a wealth of data describing infant pain responses. That doesn’t mean infants have to suffer through the procedure–there are anagesics and lidocaine that go a long way to make it more comfortable. But for the love of Pete (whoever that it), do not tell me or anyone else that the pain is no big deal.
Sorry, I try very hard not to be serious. Sometimes I slip.
Comment by Chris S — 6/21/2005 @ 4:28 pm
TMI guy and Kim,
Sorry to edit your post. I’m just never sure what will trigger people’s filters, and I figure that might. I didn’t have a personal problem with the language–just a word, but one I suspect might get blocked.
More later. Grades due.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/22/2005 @ 3:10 am
No problem, S.
Comment by TMI guy — 6/22/2005 @ 7:38 am
Chris, you are one of the few doctors I’ve ever known, although we don’t really know each other, who acknowledges the existence of pain. I’m with Cojo, when a doctor uses the word discomfort, they mean pain. The only thing different about the pain a grown man feels during circumcision and the pain a baby feels during circumcision is the man never forgets it.
My uncle was circumcised, along with his unit, during WWII, before they went to the Pacific Islands. He describes in vivid detail the pain and nausea those poor men suffered on the trip across the ocean.
Comment by annegb — 6/22/2005 @ 9:42 am
NPR today, 3,000 adult men in Africa getting the treatment to track its effect on the transmission of AIDS.
They will have a longer story tomorrow.
So, someone is doing large scale tests.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — 6/22/2005 @ 1:33 pm
Way long rant here:
I was pro-circ before our son was born for supposed social reasons. My husband (who was circ’d) was adamantly against. Since he’s the dad, I demured. Wow am I glad now that I’ve read more research on it! This is no longer an issue I can be “objective” about, nor is most of the world. Americans are the only developed nation that still circs male infants routinely for non-religious reasons.
the “just skin” issue: It’s not “just skin.” Do some research. It’s about 1/3 of the whole deal, and a functional part, too. Not just ornamental or extra.
the spiritual issue: read what the scriptures (Moroni 8:8 and D&C 74:6) have to say about circ. I believe the phrase used for those who want to continue circ’ing infants post-atonement is “they are in the gall of bitterness and bonds of iniquity.”
the aesthetic argument people: Do you realize you are performing cosmetic surgery on infants? Every surgery bears risks including infection and worse. I know of several first-hand from friends and family. I believe it is scandalous to do cosmetic surgery on infants.
re the pain: It has now been demonstrated that many infants actually go into shock–which is why they do not cry during the surgery. While anesthesia and analgesia are available, they are usually not used for infant circ due to risks of anesth. w neonates, or perception of no pain or simply dismissal of pain w/ “they won’t remember.”
The pain an adult experiences re: a later circ is, in my mind, an argument against, not for infant circ. At least an adult (or even older child) can have an understanding of why it’s being done. That understanding is not even remotely possible for an infant. It may not be consciously remembered, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there, or not impactful. Circ’d babies have more difficulty bonding (with huge potential psych effects), more difficulty nursing (w/ huge and lifelong potential health effects), and circ’d boys later have more difficulty enduring pain (studies done with routine vaccinations). For those of you who want to raise manly boys, circ’s not helping there.
re possible later need for surgery: Do we cut off infants eyelids because they could get styes or pink eye? Most infections are treatable with abx anyway, and many circs later are done for similar reasons as infant circs, and are actually not necessary either. (Consider that medical textbooks show pics of circ as THE NORM. What effect does that have on docs? And that is a minor example.)
On the virility issues: I do not understand how removing part of a boy’s anatomy can in any way make him feel more manly.
About psychological impact: Our son is only 5 now but he already knows that his dad was circ’d when docs thought it was cleaner but now we know better. Easy. No big huge psychological issue. I think it would be a bigger psychological issue to realize that your parents allowed a doc to unnecessarily remove 1/3 of your healthy genit. tissue for aesthetic purposes or whatever, and that this could later adversely impact your marital relations.
Here are some web pages:
http://www.circumcision.org/position.htm (statements by medical associations worldwide against routine infant circ. “No national medical organization in the world recommends routine circ of infant males.”
http://www.cirp.org (Circ info & resource pages)
http://www.nocirc.org (The National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers)
http://www.sprj.org.br/grupos/DOCTORS.doc (Home page of doctors opposing routine infant circ)
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org
http://www.fathermag.com/health/boy-care/boy-care.shtml (info about purpose and design of foresk. & intact infant care–i.e. no special care required)
http://www.circumstitions.com/ “Intactivism Pages”
Comment by Lisa B. — 6/25/2005 @ 10:38 pm
Lisa,
Noble attempt at making your case, and I appreciate your dedication. Unfortunately, the sources you cited above are in no way unbiased–quite the contrary–and therefore their information in essentially worthless. You cannot qoute a source with an agenda and expect it to hold water. That is no criticism to you or your cause, just the harsh reality of medical scrutiny. For an individual making an informed decision, I wouldn’t even waste my time reading those websites. That is why peer review was created, and even then it isn’t foolproof. Good luck.
Chris
Comment by Chris S. — 6/26/2005 @ 10:53 am
I think I made my very biased stance clear. I also think I was clear about the content of links I listed above (that they are anti-circ activists). There is, however, some good basic information on these sites about the physiology and purpose of the foreskin, of which doctors and a good chunk of parents in the U.S. are woefully ignorant.
Comment by Lisa B. — 6/26/2005 @ 8:26 pm
Chris,
I think most anything is going to be biased. I don’t think the issue is bias. I think unbiased is a bit of a myth, perhaps. This is a highly charged issue. On the other hand, I got a very different view of some of the stands of the various associations these cites quote after reading their statements entire.
Some links to various medical associations around the web on the subject are:
British Medical Association on Law and Ethics of Circumcision
Canadian Medical Association on Sensitivity
Royal Australian College of Surgeons on Circ
American Medical Association on Circ
A rather odd article on male circ and women from New Zealand (not for the faint of heart)
Most seem to simply say they see no reason to do it routinely–it’s a matter of culture. No real medical benefit when you weigh it out.
The Australians are most against it, it seems.
The New Zealand thing seems to take scientific airs to say that women prefer it. It reads about like an article that might say, hey, guys are turned on by large breasts, so we medically reccomend implants. I think this study would be quite different if done where circumcision was the norm. The article is, of course skewed, since it only takes those who have had multiple partners as evidence. I’m surprized such a specious piece could get published.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/28/2005 @ 1:32 am
I would agree that complete lack of bias is impossible to attain. It is the Holy Grail of current medical research we all strive to statistically achieve, but in the end it is bias that drives the research. Unfortunately, a great deal of time and money (and lives) have been wasted over the decades as purportedly legitimate researchers have pushed agendas through to publication without proper review. It can happen to the best sources (i.e. the New England Journal of Medicine), who after further scrutiny, are forced to back-pedal. By then, however, the damage may already be done. A notable example is a paper published in 1998 in the Lancet (England’s version of the NEJM), in which the author alleged a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism in children. The body of the paper had nothing to do with MMR and autism, but he slid in the inferrence in the discussion of the data. Several papers erupted in response refuting the connection, and eventually the Lancet (with much egg on face), published a retraction, however late it was. The cracked anti-immunization community now had more fuel for their fires of misinformation, and they used it profusely. There is a growing population of unimmunized children in the US (and the church, unfortunately) who are now at risk. This can’t be attributed to the paper alone (stupid people will be stupid, after all), but its influence is significant.
My point? This is an open forum for thoughtful (and usually intelligent) discussion on gospel-related topics. To allow activist websites or other sources of information with agendas to stand without scrutiny or challenge cheapens it.
Comment by Chris S. — 6/28/2005 @ 3:41 pm
Okay, Chris, go ahead and dismiss the websites, but how about some response to my individual arguments?
Comment by Lisa B. — 6/28/2005 @ 4:18 pm
Lisa, you misunderstood my intent. I am neither for nor against the practice, and already said as much. There are few, if any, compelling reasons to circumcise infant boys. And your arguments against it are fine, if not completely supported by peer-review literature. I don’t want, and I’m sure no one else wants, me to debate you point-by-point. You have already made up your mind, and I don’t want to change it. My pupose is to clarify that, for an undecided person who wants to make an informed decision, your sources are flawed. If you wanted to learn the truth about George Bush, you wouldn’t go to Michael Moore, and if you wanted to learn the truth about Hilary Clinton, you wouldn’t go to Rush Limbaugh.
Comment by Chris S. — 6/28/2005 @ 6:42 pm
Practically speaking…
My sons were clipped. It was the cultural/whatever done thing at the time. At one point when raising the kids, I was called upon to care for a friend’s baby who was uncirced. He developed a whaling case of diarhea, probably one of the worst I have seen. Changing the many diapers was a long an laborous task and not preasent for me or the baby. I was grateful the next time the runs hit my house the boys were clipped.
As for me, circ! away
Comment by jns — 6/28/2005 @ 6:54 pm
If you wanted to learn the truth about George Bush, you wouldn’t go to Michael Moore, and if you wanted to learn the truth about Hilary Clinton, you wouldn’t go to Rush Limbaugh.
I’m not sure you wouldn’t. You wouldn’t go to them exclusively, but you wouldn’t exclusively trust George or Hillary or their aides on the matter, either. There is something to be said for reviewing a variety of opinions, even those that are vehemently opposed to a practice. I think the jey is to source check and find out the validity of the sources you use. Learn to evaluate evidence and realize that empirical proof rarely, if ever, prooves what it claims to. My problem with the wources was not that they were quite opposed to the practice, but, rather, that they state the opinions of others in ways that skew the intent. My links were meant to provide the original statements.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/28/2005 @ 8:07 pm
jns,
Yours is the most convincing argument I’ve heard so far.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/28/2005 @ 8:08 pm
Chris–Okay. Point well taken.
S. Hancock–So would the occasional problem of infant diarhea convince you of the legitimacy of female circumcision, too? Give me a break.
Comment by Lisa B. — 6/29/2005 @ 10:42 am
OK, so I’m taking out the club and I’m going to beat this poor dead horse one last time. SH, I have to disagree with you. I suppose that choosing political figures for the analogy was not the bast idea, as with them the truth is always elusive (it all depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is). However, looking to a source dedicated to opposition of a subject will yield filtered information at best and half-truths and outright lies the rest of the time. It sounds terrifically open-minded to say it’s good to “review a variety of opinions,” and when those opinions are at least reasonably objective, that’s fine. But your judgement has to start even before you read an article. It is as necessary to validate your source as it is to validate the material. You wouldn’t think of recommending an anti-Mormon website to a friend who wanted to learn more about the Church. Why? Because those behind it are intent on destroying their target. You could spend all day trying to validate their references, and in the end you wasted your time wading through tripe. To an undecided individual it is destructive. Even to someone with a testimony it is poison. I hate to use the Church as an example, but it is one we all have in common and can appreciate.
As far as your references, they are fine. I think it’s time to make glue.
Comment by Chris S. — 6/29/2005 @ 11:12 am
Okay, pass me the club, Chris.
I think anti-Mormon material and anti-circ material are VASTLY different. There is no national medical society worldwide that recommends routine neonatal circumcision because there is no evidence that there is any medical benefit INCLUDING “cleanliness”. In fact, the foreskin serves to PROTECT from infection! And yet risks of even small surgical procedures are well-known. But many parents BELIEVE that they are doing this for their child’s benefit (health or cleanliness). That just ain’t the facts! Anti-mormon sources aren’t even dealing in fact.
Comment by Lisa B. — 6/29/2005 @ 11:20 am
Lisa,
I have a daughter, and she’s had diarhea. Changing her isn’t that difficult. In fat, it’s not that much different than a regular diaper, since you have to make sure you clean her well anyway. With a boy, I can imagine it being much more of a chore. Are Q-tips always involved? I know the foreskin can’t be fully retracted when an intfant is born. It just sounds like a real difficulty for both parties, parent and child, as jns points out.
Also, as Chris points out earlier, the comparison implied in the term “female circumcision” seems unwarrented. It’s like saying that because someone might be willing to have an earlobe removed they would be willing to cut off the ear as well.
As for the source validity thing, I think I’ll post on that separately.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/29/2005 @ 11:41 am
I declare the horse official dead. For that matter it is no longer recognizable. π
Comment by J. Stapley — 6/29/2005 @ 3:44 pm
The scripture is in the Book of Mormon:
Moro. 8: 8
“Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.”
Also, the leaders of the LDS church have made it clear that it is not considered respectful to mark the body with piercings or tattoos, etc. It seems that if an adult even piercing their own body is considered disrespectful, then how much more so would that principle apply to actually cutting a part of someone elses body all the way off for non medically indicated reasons .
You might also want to refer to this article here:
Read D&C 74.
Some LDS are hesitant to think circumcision is a bad idea because they think while maybe it’s not required, their leaders would warn them not to do it if it was a bad idea. That article clears that up:
“In like manner today, there may be questions on which the doctrinal foundation is clear but on which tradition or custom are so strong that the Brethren are impressed not to take a firmer stand, trusting, as did Church leaders in New Testament times, that if the basic revealed principles are known, the Holy Ghost will eventually lead the adherents to forsake their tradition, or academic popularity, or peer pressure in favor of the word of God.”
Why would anyone want to spoil a human child that God created perfect?
Oh and cutting a child’s (non-retractable) foreskin off because you don’t want to clean up the outside of his p– when he has a stomach bug is just beyond incompetent.
Comment by Rosa — 6/30/2005 @ 4:23 am
Well, Rosa, thanks for letting me know that I’m spoiled.
Comment by TMI guy — 6/30/2005 @ 8:11 am
I came across an interesting detail regarding circumcision in pioneer Utah recently, and I thought I’d share it:
T. Edgar Lyon, Jr., John Lyon, Life of a Pioneer Poet (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), p. 229.
Comment by Justin — 6/30/2005 @ 3:33 pm
Wow, even in light of the Book of Mormon’s strongly anti-circ stance! Keep in mind this is at the same time that many thought that animal sacrifice would also be re-instituted.
Comment by Lisa B. — 6/30/2005 @ 3:48 pm
Very interesting how these two threads are growing together. Every time I start to lean one way, I lean the other. I had just gotten to thinking maybe this wasn’t such an attempt not to be heathens.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/30/2005 @ 4:14 pm
Apropos of this discussion (if it can be called that), I saw this new study recently, suggesting that circumcision drastically reduces the risk of men contracting HIV in unprotected heterosexual sex. Of course, we all hope that our sons are never in situations where they could contract HIV in the first place, but still…
Comment by Rosalynde — 7/11/2005 @ 9:21 pm