Choices
Among my mommy friends, an occasional topic of discussion is circumcision. Most of my friends have had boys in the past five years. Some have chosen the circumcision route; others haven't. I'm not even sure, honestly, if I remember whose kid has had it done and whose kid hasn't. None of us has been particularly militant about it, one way or another. I should add that I do not have any close friends with demanding religious views on the practice, either for or against.
I have heard the following views addressed:
1. It's crazy. I'd never subject any son of mine to that.
2. Our boy should look like his dad in that department. It's easier to answer questions that way.
3. Our boy should look like his friends in that department. It's easier in future locker rooms that way.
4. It's crazy, but studies show it prevents some STDs. That nudges me in favor of it.
5. It's brutal, and you can hear the piercing screams of pain in the hospital rooms when doctors do it to the baby.
6. There are ways to distract the baby so he doesn't really know what's happening.
7. We're American so we're doing it.
8. We're European so we're not doing it.
I'm bringing this up because I saw this story on Drudge. Apparently, some fellow in San Francisco is hoping to bring a law against circumcision.
If anyone is interested, here is a pretty decent breakdown of circumcision trends in the US over the past 40 years or so. According to a recent study, less than 33% of boys were circumcised in 2009, showing a precipitous drop from figures from earlier in the decade.
I wonder what people here think of the proposed ban? Do people have any thoughts on the arguments outlined above? Are there arguments for or against that I missed?
I suspect it will be hard for folks to hold back puns and jokes, but I'm quite seriously curious about what people think. Is there, dare I ask, a conservative position on this?
- Comment (54)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Choices
I'm a bit torn--it seems like an unnecesary law on the surface, and I'm generally opposed to those, but I personally find the practice barbaric and think any reason beyond a religious one is simply preposterous. Comparing genitalia with one's parents doesn't strike me as a significant part of most people's childhoods, there will be plenty of more difficult questions to answer down the road anyway, and there's always been some boys in each camp in every locker room I've ever been in and it hasn't impacted anyone on either side aversely as far as I can tell. We routinely condemn female genital mutilation (which is yes, far worse in most cases) so I'm glad to see this at least getting a little consideration...
If I were facing this as a parent today, I'd be more concerned about having it performed by a doctor who isn't called upon to do it nearly as often as in the past and might not be as good at it. It's an easy thing to mess up, with horrific consequences.
Jun '10
Re: Choices
The foreskin provides a nice moist place for germs to hide and propagate. I'd go with circumcision for that reason alone. If there's any propagating to be done....
Dec '10
Re: Choices
I was honored to hold my nephew during his ritual circumcision. He was upset, all right -- upset to be wound onto a binding board to keep him still. The cutting he didn't much notice, and as soon as we put a piece of gauze soaked in sweet wine in his mouth, he forgot all about it.
It's highly ironic that at a time when Israel is sending doctors to sub-Saharan Africa to train physicians in circumcision as a means to reduce HIV transmission, the city of San Francisco -- one of the worst affected by the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s -- is considering outlawing circumcision.
But then, San Francisco has never taken public health all that seriously, especially when it comes to matters that interfere with the free operation of the male member. What activists in San Francisco do take very seriously is the opportunity to assault religious tradition. However, they may not have considered that circumcision is not only a tradition among observant Jews, but also among observant Muslims. I wonder whether an activist effort strongly backed by the San Francisco gay community and aimed at a tenet of Muslim practice will spark any heated debate.
Nov '10
Re: Choices
I understand that wives of circumcised men are less prone to cervical cancer.
Are there any OBGYN's on ricochet to confirm?
Edited on Feb 22, 2011 at 3:59pmRe: Choices
This is, ahem, a painful subject.
Dec '10
Re: Choices
What, no Jewish or Muslim friends? I find that kind of surprising -- but then, it's easier for Jews and Muslims to meet Christians in the USA than the other way around.
Nov '10
Re: Choices
People obsessed with trying to prevent others from having their sons circumcised are screaming nuts and have way too much time on their hands.
Yeah, there is a conservative position on this. It’s called minding one’s own business.
Aug '10
Re: Choices
Sir Richard Burton chose to be circumcised in his thirties to enhance his disguise as a Muslim in order to go on the haj and enter Mecca . I'd venture that that alone is worth the price of admission !
Dec '10
Re: Choices
As men are not in a position to make the comparison, wouldn’t the ladies with the experience of both have more of a feel for the differences?
Re: Choices
Agree with TeeJaw. It's none of anyone's brisness.
Dec '10
Re: Choices
The Biblical story of Dinah gives one a good impression of how deeply committed Sir Richard was.
I also saw a "circumcision tent" in the Israel National Museum in Jerusalem: it suspended the top sheet so that it would not touch the sensitive part of the boy -- Muslim boys in that area back in the 15th and 16th centuries being traditionally circumcised at age 9.
Certainly, if you're going to be circumcised, the time to do it is at around 8 days of age, when you've recovered from the trip out of Mama (itself way more traumatic and painful than being circumcised) and are still too young to remember pain clearly.
Oct '10
Re: Choices
Is circumcision really that much worse than abortion?
Dec '10
Re: Choices
And yet some people get so snippy about it.
Aug '10
Re: Choices
This is exactly the kind of law that should be avoided. It prohibits a religious observation or private choice that causes no lasting harm, and provides some health benefits, to the recipient. This isn't the same as the genital mutilation that some erroneously call "female circumcision."
Children will cry more while being Ferberized than they do due to circumcision.
May '10
Re: Choices
I have three boys and all were circumcised a few days after birth. The World Health Organization cites three separate studies that shows that this simple procedure cuts AIDS/HIV transmissions by 60%.
Ironically the same crowd that would outlaw this (and vaccines, the vapid Jenny McCarthyites) would probably think nothing of getting their babies tattoos and piercings. Get the Deb Saunders and her like out of the Bay Area and the Big One can't come soon enough!
May '10
Re: Choices
Can we kick Berkeley, CA out of the Union/country? What a disgusting ensemble of human beings.
Aug '10
Re: Choices
Did you hear about the blind circumciser? He got the sack.
Dec '10
Re: Choices
Blind circumciser? That really takes balls.
Aug '10
Re: Choices
Matthew Osborn , short of quoting you, as the iPad is junk on Rico , what kind of proposal is that about abortion and snip snip ?
Edited on Feb 22, 2011 at 4:49pmI was going to weigh in on the Teejaw comment on the obvious, as I remember that abortion, euthanasia and other ,now, high profile public issues were once concealed in the realm of private matters. That it was somehow more acceptable then is a real puzzle . But the gobsmacking statement of yours stopped me in my tracks.
Aug '10
Re: Choices
This is solely a matter of parental choice (assuming proper surgical procedures). My parents chose one way;my wife and I made a different choice for our sons. It's no big deal.