Tuesday
Aug252009
Should tradition trump reason? Circumcision and more...
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
In the past, people did a lot of things that we now know are dangerous or harmful. People drove around in cars without seat belts or car seats for their kids. People drank alcohol while pregnant. People started feeding babies solids at 6 weeks. Schools used harsh physical discipline to keep students in line. Parents dressed their children in fire retardant chemical laced pyjamas. Just last year we were all sipping happily from our BPA-laced plastic bottles and now they are on the verge of being banned in some jurisdictions.
We learn from our mistakes. There isn't a lot of point in dwelling on them. In feeling guilty for past mistakes, especially when we didn't know better. But should we really be continuing to perpetrate those mistakes, over and over and over again in the name of tradition?
Circumcision has always been a hot issue. For a while, infant boys were circumcised routinely. But since 1975 the Canadian Pediatric Society's neonatal circumcision policy has been that there is no medical indication for male neonatal circumcision. In 1971, 67.5 % of boys were circumcised. In 2005, only 9.2% were circumcised (see Canada Circumcision Statistics) -- edited to add: I have since found other statistics that suggest the rate might be around 32% (see page 267 of the Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey) as of 2006/2007. It appears as though the first number may reflect circumcisions done in hospitals only, whereas the second number reflects total circumcisions. In Canada, generally neither public health care nor private health care will pay for elective infant circumcision. It is not considered a necessary or advisable medical procedure and parents have to pay for it themselves.
But male circumcision is a tradition, people say. A religious tradition. Something that has been done for thousands of years. That doesn't make it right. That doesn't even make it okay. Traditions are fine and well when they are about singing songs, celebrating holidays, making traditional meals, wearing specific clothing. But when traditions involve physically altering or harming another human being, I think it needs to be questioned. Perhaps the conclusion is that it is okay. But we cannot simply say that something is okay because it is a tradition.
Are any of these acceptable? No. But they are traditions. Rather than blindly continuing a practice because it is a tradition, I think the world's religions have a responsibility to progress, to remove discrimination, to remove harmful practices and to ensure the dignity of all.
Personally, while I recognize that circumcision is a choice that parents have the right to make, I don't think it is a choice that should be made by the parents. I put it in the same category as a piercing or a tattoo. It is a cultural tradition perhaps, but one that should be chosen by the boy when he is old enough to weigh the risks and benefits and make the decision for himself.
You may feel differently. All I ask though is that you think about it. Do your research. Don't just blindly circumcise because it is a tradition.
Want more information? Read:
Side note: On the reason that circumcision came up again today, it appears that the CDC is considering a blanket recommendation that boys be circumcized in the United States due to possible lower HIV transmission rates among circumcised men (which many researchers say are exaggerated claims). Sounds like cutting off the nose to spite the face. Why not start with universally mandatory sex education in schools in the United States?
We learn from our mistakes. There isn't a lot of point in dwelling on them. In feeling guilty for past mistakes, especially when we didn't know better. But should we really be continuing to perpetrate those mistakes, over and over and over again in the name of tradition?
Circumcision has always been a hot issue. For a while, infant boys were circumcised routinely. But since 1975 the Canadian Pediatric Society's neonatal circumcision policy has been that there is no medical indication for male neonatal circumcision. In 1971, 67.5 % of boys were circumcised. In 2005, only 9.2% were circumcised (see Canada Circumcision Statistics) -- edited to add: I have since found other statistics that suggest the rate might be around 32% (see page 267 of the Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey) as of 2006/2007. It appears as though the first number may reflect circumcisions done in hospitals only, whereas the second number reflects total circumcisions. In Canada, generally neither public health care nor private health care will pay for elective infant circumcision. It is not considered a necessary or advisable medical procedure and parents have to pay for it themselves.
But male circumcision is a tradition, people say. A religious tradition. Something that has been done for thousands of years. That doesn't make it right. That doesn't even make it okay. Traditions are fine and well when they are about singing songs, celebrating holidays, making traditional meals, wearing specific clothing. But when traditions involve physically altering or harming another human being, I think it needs to be questioned. Perhaps the conclusion is that it is okay. But we cannot simply say that something is okay because it is a tradition.
- Female circumcision is tradition
- Stoning people to death is a tradition
- Honour killing is a tradition
- War is a tradition
- Forced marriage is a tradition
- Corporal punishment in schools is a tradition
- Foot binding to stunt girls growth is a tradition
Are any of these acceptable? No. But they are traditions. Rather than blindly continuing a practice because it is a tradition, I think the world's religions have a responsibility to progress, to remove discrimination, to remove harmful practices and to ensure the dignity of all.
Personally, while I recognize that circumcision is a choice that parents have the right to make, I don't think it is a choice that should be made by the parents. I put it in the same category as a piercing or a tattoo. It is a cultural tradition perhaps, but one that should be chosen by the boy when he is old enough to weigh the risks and benefits and make the decision for himself.
You may feel differently. All I ask though is that you think about it. Do your research. Don't just blindly circumcise because it is a tradition.
Want more information? Read:
- The Case Against Circumcision by Dr. Paul M. Fleiss (yes, he is Jewish) as published in Mothering Magazine
- The circumcision post by my friend and fellow blogger Amy from Crunchy Domestic Goddess (also has more resources at the end)
- Doctors Opposing Circumcision: Genital Integrity Policy - fully referenced with scientific studies attacking the false claims about the benefits of circumcision and talking about the risks of circumcision (thank you to @IntactbyDefault for the link)
- Intact America - an organization working to protect babies from unnecessary, risky and painful circumcision surgery.
Side note: On the reason that circumcision came up again today, it appears that the CDC is considering a blanket recommendation that boys be circumcized in the United States due to possible lower HIV transmission rates among circumcised men (which many researchers say are exaggerated claims). Sounds like cutting off the nose to spite the face. Why not start with universally mandatory sex education in schools in the United States?
Reader Comments (144)
Anyway, when it comes to religion, the thing is, if you were raised in a traditionalist religion and bear the various marks that come from that upbringing, you do indeed have a different kind of life than you might have had if you'd been raised by people who thought you should "make up your own mind."
BUT you are usually very glad that they made those choices.
That's the thing about kids. You can't just deliver them unscathed to the threshold of adulthood and turn them loose. You shape them whether you mean to or not! And so you may as well shape them in a way that honors the sacrifices of your ancestral past, and that you know has meaning to the community in which you are raising the kids.
Because they will probably grow up to be happy that you did, and sometimes the more they had to suffer to earn those distinguishing marks, the more they actually value them in adulthood.
Weird, hey?
This is actually not accurate in the case of Jews (I'm assuming that's at least part of who you are talking about when it comes to religious basis for circumcision). Jewish ritual circumcision is not a tradition, it is actually Jewish law. A Jewish father is obligated to circumcise his sons period. If he doesn't he's actually breaking with Halacha (Jewish law), not Jewish tradition. I understand that it may be difficult for a non-Jew to understand the Jewish concept of observance of religious law. Religious laws are something that Western societies (and even some streams of Judaism) have pretty much tossed aside as optional - particularly when it comes to practices which have no science behind them proving that it is "worthy" of following. But that's just not how it works for many Jews.
In fact what you said in your response to emma:
"I especially do not understand why a group of people that has been persecuted and killed would accept the continuation of a ritual that involves harming their members"
sums up the argument of many traditional Jews. There is scarcely a more fiercely and continuously persecuted people in the last 5000 years than the Jews. And yet here we still are even though so many of our persecutors are now nothing more than chapters in history books. A lot of us believe that it is our Torah, our laws and our traditions which are responsible for our survival as a nation.
I also want to point out that circumcision studies don't necessarily apply in the same way to Jewish ritual circumcision - it is NOT the same technique that is done in hospitals and it is known to have different outcome rates than hospital circumcisions.
I think that last sentence of Lauren's really is the key. Are we talking about routine infant circumcision as performed in hospitals, or are we talking about traditional Jewish circumcision? They are two entirely separate discussions. The technique is different, the timing is different, the outcome is different - you can't argue against Jewish circumcision using routine circumcision arguments. They simply don't apply.
Does Jewish circumcision permanently change a boy's body without their consent?
exactly! my mother tired to float the "it's easier to clean a circ'ed penis" argument with me regarding my son, and i told her i'd always managed to keep my own "foldy" parts clean thankyouverymuch, and that was a ridiculous reason to justify lopping of the tip of my child's penis!
like you said, if he wants to make the choice to do it for himself, he can--it's his body. getting born is traumatic enough without elective and painful surgery on the most sensitive of parts!
(a child i know had to be re-circumcised after a first botched attempt. who needs THAT? poor kid.)
one doesn't get to pick and choose when it comes to orthodox faith or "change" the things that don't suit our sensibilities. as a christian, i believe that Jesus' coming abolished the law of circumcision, but for jews, circumcision is still their religious law, as written in their scriptures and handed down from God.
even though i didn't circumcise my child and agree with much of what has been said in this thread, i would never say that circumcision is barbaric, because for jews, it is a sign of God's covenant with them and a symbol of what it means to be a people set apart. i think there is room to respectfully disagree without maligning jewish identity and faith tradition--which is what happens when we call circumcision "barbaric." (i realize you didn't use that word exactly, but other posters have and you never challenged the language.)
Respecting religious laws - or even the regular law system- only works if the outcome is not barbaric. I think most people would agree that female circumcision is barbaric. Stoning your to death wife for infidelity - also pretty barbaric IMO.
Male circumcision is so commonplace that people don't see it as barbaric. But that could also be related do perception and social norms. 50 years ago most parents though nothing of taking a belt to beat their child. Nowadays we wouldn't dream of it. In some countries you can't even smack your child without risk of prosecution. The perception has totally changed while the action itself remains exactly the same.
You can't possibly compare male and female circumcision - they are two completely different procedures done for different reasons and with very different outcomes. And stoning is a method of murdering someone, so that's hardly in the same league.
Again - I would urge anyone who just slaps the "barbaric" label on Jewish ritual circumcision to actually understand what is done and how.
My three-week old son spent 5 days in the NICU getting IV antibiotics. He was circumcised by a mohel who is also a surgeon who did the procedure with full local anasthesia. The baby slept through the procedure and did not cry after either. There were no bandages involved and he was healed in a few days. Again - no crying (other than hungry crying of course). When I compare that to what he went through the three times he had to have an IV inserted when we were in the hospital, well let's just say the circumcision was pocket change.
Again - you can't compare hospital circumcision to kosher circumcision - the procedures are different.
I agree that it would be barbaric to do it without anasthetic - it's also barbaric to put an IV line into a baby's hand without local anasthetic - but there's no debate about that.
It is *because* I am Jewish that I understand the choices I have under Jewish law with regard to circumcision. Halacha makes many demands but it is not a system that deprives us or our children of their status as Jews if we disobey. Relatively few Jews circumcise their Jews because it is required by Jewish law - a "law" whose violation carries no penalty. The vast majority of Jews who circumcise their sons do so because of cultural tradition. Only fundamentalist Jews, those who do not turn on lights on the Sabbath, would consider themselves with no options regarding circumcision.
Barbarity is measured by more that a child's cries. If you were to full anesthetize a child and amputate his arm, he would feel no pain. He would not cry. However, removing a healthy limb would still be barbaric.
Jews have a choice with regard to circumcision just like everyone else. Jews have continued to reinterpret Torah and refine Halacha. Circumcision is not something we have to do.
@Jake: *standing ovation*
Excellent comment Jake. Thank you.
That you would call someone who observes the sabbath a "fundamentalist" makes me wonder what version of Judaism you associate yourself with. That is plainly offensive.
I also think that it is a gross misrepresentation to speak on behalf of the "vast majority" of Jews - sure there are those who circumcise because it's a tradition, but ask around - many do it because it's Halacha.
You also misrepresent the Jewish idea of Halacha - we don't only observe laws which have specific penalties outlined for them. The vast majority of Halacha carries no penalty - that doesn't give you a free pass to ignore the laws!
I know that the reform movement provides a lot more leeway for ignoring Halacha than other movements, but that doesn't make what you're saying accurate. Currently Jews who want to observe Halacha with respect to circumcision do not have options. That may change in the future (although I don't see how - it's a pretty clearly spelled out commandment), but as of today, what you are saying is not accurate.
Too bad - he has posted something that is inaccurate and also offensive to observant Jews (not using electricity on the sabbath does not make you a fundamentalist). What's excellent about this comment - that he agrees with your viewpoint about circumcision?
We seem to be using laws to skirt round the original argument of why circumcision might not be appropriate. The Bible says thou shalt not kill as a pretty central tenet to the Christian religion but that didn't stop the death penalty being brought into law in many US States that consider themselves as strongly Christian.
Just because someone tells you do something and you choose to do it nicely it doesn't make it okay!
FYI, I am a "she."
"Fundamentalist" is the following of a literal and immutable interpretation of religious text. While I will admit there is a difference between the Christian Fundamentalist "God created the world in six days" and the Jewish Fundamentalist prohibition of using electric light on the Sabbath because the Torah commands that Jews not work, the distinction is only that there has been one level of interpretation (because the Torah predates the electric light), these are both Fundamentalist practices.
The majority of Jews in the world today are either secular or observe Jewish culture and tradition to a greater or lessor extent. While the degree of autonomy given to the individual in following the many many Jewish laws varies from sect to sect, no major one either excludes non-circumcised Jewish children or their Jewish parents. One's status as a Jew is unaffected by whether or not one chooses - and it is indeed a choice - to circumcise ones children. Orthodox Jews (and that is what I mean by Fundamentalist) *do* exile community members for some violations of Halacha. Depending on the community, such violations may include touching a man if you are menstruating or have not been ritually cleansed of the menstrual impurity. To my knowledge, failure to circumcise is not an offense that leads to being exiled from even the most Orthodox Jewish community but I could be wrong. If so, it is highly unlikely that any members of those communities are reading this blog.
Observing *any* Halacha is a choice. In the U.S., outside of a few communities in New York, I doubt you could fill an auditorium with Jews who know what Torah or Talmud has to say about circumcision. other than the Bar or Bat Mitzvah Haftorah, how many Jews in the U.S. have read any Talmud at all? It is not Halacha that leads to all the catered Bris - it is tradition.
I came across this recently and thought of this post. I'm sure most people have seen this; it's an open letter to "Dr. Laura" who is Jewish and has spoken openly about her feeling about homosexuality (according to her beliefs). She refers to gays and lesbians as a "mistake of nature" and a "biological error".
It makes me think of this post because the points made in this letter can also apply to the circumcision debate. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp
Why is Dr. Laura's religion relevant.
Taking direct quotes out of the bible (and who knows which translated version) isn't really relevant to Jewish law because it ignores thousands of years of the rabbinic tradition (which in a nutshell is process of interpretation and refinement that resulted in the sources of actual Jewish law - which is why so much of Jewish law is NOT reflected by quotes of the bible).
Jeez... people want to criticize Judaism or Jewish law? Get at least a basic, cursory understanding of how it works first....
Why is Dr. Laura's religion relevant? I thought that was obvious. Dr. Laura's religion is relevant because she speak out against homosexuality in the name of her religion and because the examples in the open letter to Dr. Laura are biblical references taken from Judaism, are they not?
Those same biblical references can also be used in this circumcision debate. You could take out the words "homosexual lifestyle" in the first paragraph, and replaced them with "circumcision".
I am NOT criticizing Judaism or Jewish law. The point I am trying to make (and the point that has already been made in the comments here several times) is that if a person circumcises in the name of religion, does that person also follow the religious writings and laws perfectly -- the open letter gives examples of Jewish biblical references that I'd guess most people do not follow.
To quote from the link I posted above "The 'letter' to Dr. Laura may or may not have actually been sent to her, but in any case, it is best read as an essay offering a counter to the 'homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so' argument [the same could be said for the 'circumcision should be done because the Bible says so' argument]. Though it purports to be addressed to just one person (Dr. Laura), it is clearly meant for a general audience."
And if it matters, the following link talks about which versions of the bible the verses are taken from and lists the biblical verses themselves: http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/laura.htm
But I actually think that misses the point. I'd be surprised if any person of any religion follows it's rules and laws exactly. The Catholic Church is opposed to birth control and any sex unless the purpose is to procreate. In fact, it is considered a mortal sin. But plenty of good Catholics use birth control and have sex all the time. (See, I'm not just picking on one religion, it's just that in this post and this discussion Judaism happens to be the religion that is being discussed.) Of course, the difference between using birth control and circumcision is that infant circumcision permanently alters a person's body without their permission.
Are you serious? So because she's Jewish, she represents Judaism's views? Do David Duke or Pat Buchanan represent what Christians think?
The examples in the open letter appear to be taken from some English translation of the bible - who knows which one - so I have no idea what you mean by "taken from Judaism". If the writer had quoted the Torah directly, I suppose you could use the phrase "taken from Judaism", but he didn't and the last time I checked Christians use the bible too.
The point is that quotes in the bible aren't the reason why Jews do what they do. Jews have laws that are based on the rabbinic tradition. Circumcision is one of them, but slavery is not allowed in Judaism despite that quote from the bible (which people who are ignorant about Jewish law apparently take as proof that Jewish law is irrelevant).
It's not missing the point. I get that the point is that not everything that is written in the bible is relevant to our lives today.
What you don't understand is that Jewish law, while derived from the bible isn't just whatever is written there. It's a lot more complicated than that - it is something that evolves and changes constantly (and still is) over thousands of years. And it's systematic, not just something that gets revised because Western culture finds something distasteful or out of fashion.
And just because people who follow a religion do or do not follow its doctrine, doesn't actually alter the doctrine. It just means people choose not to follow it.
Judaism has (and has had for over 2000 years) rabbinic courts and processes by which laws are reviewed and revised because modern life demands it. That open letter is not relevant to Jewish law and in fact it's an insult to anyone who actually takes religion seriously.
Ummm, are YOU serious? I NEVER said that Dr. Laura represents Judaism's views.
Anyway, open letter aside, the bottom line for me is that I will never think it is okay to permanently change a person's body without their consent in the name of religion.
I'm not sure an argument about the similarities between the bible and Judaic law really matter much to this discussion about whether it's okay to circumcise. Interesting though the point that 'Judaism has (and has had for over 2000 years) rabbinic courts and processes by which laws are reviewed and revised because modern life demands it.'
So as we progress as a society Judaism has progressed with it. That means just because something is written in Judaic law it is not set in stone. It sounded previously as if once something was written in Jewish law, that's it and you must follow it - but you also admit there is room for change and re-interpretation.
So, there is the possibility of admitting that circumcision might not be the best token of membership for young boys. Is choosing to remain genitally intact a passing fad? Is it because Western culture finds circumcision distasteful? Maybe so - but it could also be symbolic of a change in our underlying moral and cultural code. Do babies have the right not to undergo an unnecessary surgical procedure (whether it is done 'nicely' or not)? Or do we have the right to make this choice for them whatever our reasons?
I guess this is a whole other discussion. As parents we constantly make decisions on behalf of our children. But the least we can do is question why we are making those decisions. And in this case, I saw no reason to submit my son to this process. My partner is Jewish so we discussed it long and hard. In the end he got so upset every time we talked that I gave the decision to him, ensuring he knew my feelings. Luckily for me he chose to respect my views and we didn't do it.
[...] Sources: The Case Against Circumcision, Should Tradition Trump Reason [...]
but there are children who die from infections or bleeding to death following the circumcisions for which they certainly didn't give consent. in some cases it does leave men with lowered function, inability to achieve orgasm, and does in a very real way impact their daily life. just because those who have survived it have declared themselves okay doesn't mean they aren't missing something. they have no means of making a comparison.
Anna, I'm reading this almost a year later, so I don't know if you'll ever see this reply, but I did want to respond to this.
It's *very* likely that your grandparents were given the crazy medical advice common to the age...to retract the foreskin and clean underneath it at every diaper change. The newborn foreskin is fused to the glans, like a fingernail to the nail bed. So, your father probably had his foreskin torn away from his glans over and over and over, resulting in scarring, which is *very* likely to be the source of his inability to retract later in life. It's heartbreaking to me that even those who didn't/don't cut off the foreskins of their sons were/are told to cause so much unnecessary pain and increase the risk of complications so badly.
If you wanted your boys to have a choice, then why did you take away their choice? That doesn't make sense.
Any man can choose to be circumcised as an adult, for whatever reason he may have, including religion. He canNOT choose to have his foreskin back when someone else has taken it away from him. (Foreskin restoration does restore some of the function, and some of the protection of the glans...but it's not true foreskin, so the man is still lacking the nerve-rich foreskin tissue itself.)
I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but forcing surgery on someone to preserve their choices is completely illogical.
Quite honestly, I'll criticize *any* law that requires a parent to chop pieces off their infant's body. I'm sorry this happens to be a religious issue, but requiring a parent to observe a covenant of any kind in his/her *child's* flesh is something I'm critical of. It doesn't matter if I understand the ins and outs or not.
Respectfully, since when could you opt out of something mandatory? Anyway, I believe the evidence for health benefits is far from conclusive. There was definitely a reduction in sensitivity though (speaking as someone who had a circumcision for medical reasons late enough to notice). One can see circumcision - much more drastically for women - as part of the general agenda in religions with male priesthoods to control and manage people's sexuality in this context. That would make it part of a set of power relations that need to be questioned very closely in my view.
[...] tonne of medical, ethical, emotional reasons for not circumcising and other bloggers have got that covered. For us, it came down to respecting the humanity of our children, their right to choice and our [...]
"It amazes me how many ppl will still try to argue *for* circumcision."
These are people who clearly demonstrate the truth of George Bernard Shaw's quote: "Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity."
It's worth noting that circumcision is not a long-standing tradition in the U.S.. It became traditional as a way to discourage masterbation in the late 1800s:
http://www.cirp.org/library/history/
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/
Circumcision is a violation of human rights.
Observing *any* Halacha is a choice. In the U.S., outside of a few communities in New York, I doubt you could fill an auditorium with Jews who know what Torah or Talmud has to say about circumcision. other than the Bar or Bat Mitzvah Haftorah, how many Jews in the U.S. have read any Talmud at all? It is not Halacha that leads to all the catered Bris – it is tradition
I need to jump in and point out that there are an enormous number of Jews who are not Orthodox and very well educated about Judaism. We can talk about halacha or minhagim.
I'll also add as one of the few men here that I have no memory whatsoever of my bris and have fathered children. I have had this discussion with many men and have never found one that is upset about his circumcision, not one.
There is a lot of harum scarum going on here and the fact is that a bris is not equivalent to what happens in FGM.
That "a bris is not equivalent to what happens in FGM" is an opinion, not a fact.
I agree it would be quite difficult for adult men to have conscious memory of a trauma that occurs in infancy. But the lack of conscious memory is little solace. I know many men who are upset about having been circumcised. My husband is one of them. He was also the first person I ever heard refer to male circumcision as "genital mutilation." There may be few men in this one blog thread but there are many men who oppose circumcision and regret having been circumcised. I think though that is rather beside the point. If an adult man wishes to be circumcised, he is free to make that decision for himself. Infants are not given the option.
Aw, how sweet. Hearing stuff like this always makes me so happy. I love free-thinking, yet humble women.
I also plan on breastfeeding and leaving all of my children intact. =)
Emma, I'm sorry but your post makes almost no sense. It seems like you're just trying to explain away your "reasons" for circumcising your unconsenting children. You're kind of talking in circles.
I can't wait to have a big bustling family someday and be able to say that *all* of my children are intact.
There's no controversy at all if you consider whose penis it is. If it is your own, do whatever you like to it! It is 100% yours! It's not God's, and it does not and never did belong to your parents. It is not your doctor's or your mulla's, and no guru or priest has any legitimate claim on it. Your penis does not belong to science or your teachers. The pope does not own your penis, nor does any rabbi. Your cock does not belong to your wife or your husband or even your government. Bill Gates has no interest in your penis. The president of the United States has his own, he doesn't need yours. Your own penis does not belong to your society or your ancestors in any way. Your cock is yours and yours alone, always was yours, always will be, until death do you part. So go to town, do to it as you please with your own cock.
If it is NOT YOURS, leave it alone because, er, IT IS NOT YOURS. How simple is that? If there's some freak medical emergency... whatever, we're not even talking about anything like that. Your son's penis does not belong to you, it belongs to him, so look after him well and for God's sake don't be chopping parts off of him, not even really little itty bitty ones. It doesn't matter what anyone else says, it isn't theirs to mutilate either.
If you choose to believe in a God that wants your son's penis partially amputated (I respect that everyone is welcome to believe whatever nonsense they want), then that's clearly His problem, not yours or your son's. If He had a preference for "cut' then He'd have dealt with that eons ago. Perhaps the foreskin would simply fall out, as do baby teeth, or slide off like a snake's skin, and He could send His Foreskin Fairy to repossess it back to heaven. If He truly had second thoughts about creating all those square miles of foreskin, then I'm sure He would conceive boys to not have one in the first place. To God such minor genetic tweaks are child's play, with neither a miracle nor even a mysterious way required. To make a tweak like that appear to be the result of a few hundred thousand years of unremarkable evolution rather than His heavenly taste in cock would be nothing to Him. When all is said and done it matters not what you believe because it is your son's body, NOT YOURS. Apart from some freak medical emergency it is nobody else's to be chopping parts from, ever,
not even just a little part,
not even a teensy-weensy itty-bitty bit,
it is not your decision to make,
period.
Your son will have his entire adult life during which he can voluntarily remove bits of his own flesh for any reason, conviction or convention. If you want him to have his penis partly amputated, then you are just going to have to try to make it sound appealing. Good luck. To make your proposed self-mutilation sound reasonable will be yet more of a challenge, but might work if he's particularly slow or illiterate. You might promise him a new car, you could even lie about the car so you never have to pay up, or threaten him with fire and brimstone, but it will still be his cock and therefore his decision. There is absolutely no rush. If you never decide and never do anything then the "problem" will vanish because foreskin was never the problem.
Throughout history many social structures, from street gangs to entire cultures, have demanded body part sacrifices from our children. It is your responsibility to protect your children from such such unethical and gruesome attempts to consolidate social identity without consent. Intended or not, you betray your own flesh and blood when you violate your son's person and deny him his prerogative in the matter that is himself. There is nothing for you to decide anyway unless you're thinking about cutting something from your own body.
If Vincent Van Gogh had been your dad maybe he'd have cut something off of you before you could speak, for some really really good reason he had - maybe voices told him to do it. As with any amputation the rest of you survives and for you it might not be a big deal to be missing your ear. While you can't grow a new ear any more than you can a new foreskin, you can decide that you prefer your one-ear-look anyway. While it's good to be happy and accept what you can't change, neither can anyone change the fact that your ear was never your Dad's to cut off.
For those with children, respect them and respect their bodies as their own. You might need them to return that favor someday.
melissa You are wrong, if gov bans male circumcision, this would simply be giving rights to the baby boy to be equal to the baby girl, whoes colitoral hood is now illegal to be circumcised. SO IF PARENTS CAN BE BANNED FROM CUTING A GIRLS CLIT HOOD, THEN SAME SHOULD BE FOR A BOYS PINIUS HOOD AKA FOESKIN! bOYS AND GIRLS ARE EQUALS RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS RIGHT TO CIRCUMCISE GIRLS AND PARENTS RIGHTS TO CIRCUMCISE GIRLS! cUT LOVE TO CUT AND WELL THANK GOD CUT PEOPLE CUT WOMEN BY C-SECTIONS NOW MOST WOMEN ARE C-SECTIONED LOL!
Cut a boy and he will grow up and order a C-section when you deliver see the statistics! So any lady that thinks circumcison is ok for boy, then you do not belive man and women are equals, and yes hope your doctor does C-sections as that is now as AMerican as Apple pie.
Actually circumcision prevents the Masturbation from being as satisfying as real sex, also Circumcision increases AIDS! In Africa as more men are Circumcised they get Aids and so do the women. Just wait and see Aids no explode as USA is giving free circumcisions to Africans. Its a racist move to "Sexually Lobotomize " Africans! And the dudes are lining up to cut their dicks so that they can have condom free sex, so they all will learn lol:)
BTW Foreskin produces a symphony orchestra of erotic sensations very different then what the penile head produces. ANyhow if clit hood cutting is wrong then so is dick hood cutting. How ignorant not to know that clit hood converts tto dick hood when the boys y cromosome kicks in, and the clit converts to the dick ok! Boys and girls are the same, so if you can cut clit hood, then y can cut dick hood, if you ban clit hood removal,m then pinus hood removal is even worse as the pinus is a big big clit, and a pinus hood is a big big clit hood!
Mark thank U for writing this below! So True its not so important that the penis head is better of a un-cut guy, but that the foreskin produces erotic sensations when touched ever so feather lightly, no other part of penis gives those sensations, so Un-cut is like leaving your son a special sex Upgrade Option for free! And for the money you save by not destroying his sex toy accessory, you can buy him a $800 gift! Also U have zero chance of your son getting killed during the circumcision, cause lol you are not gonna "Texturally Lobotomize" Him like Mark said!
"Actually circumcision prevents the Masturbation from being as satisfying as real sex, also Circumcision increases AIDS! In Africa as more men are Circumcised they get Aids and so do the women. Just wait and see Aids no explode as USA is giving free circumcisions to Africans. Its a racist move to “Sexually Lobotomize ” Africans! And the dudes are lining up to cut their dicks so that they can have condom free sex, so they all will learn lol:)
BTW Foreskin produces a symphony orchestra of erotic sensations very different then what the penile head produces. Anyhow if clit hood cutting is wrong then so is dick hood cutting. How ignorant not to know that clit hood converts tto dick hood when the boys y chromosome kicks in, and the clit converts to the dick ok! Boys and girls are the same, so if you can cut clit hood, then y can cut dick hood, if you ban clit hood removal,m then pinus hood removal is even worse as the penis is a big big clit, and a penis hood is a big big clit hood!"
Channa, thats Indian and Indians do not circumcise, Oh I gues your a Hindu orgin who was force converted 3oo years ago and into a mutilating faith:) God says cursed are those who Mutilate the Body is the Temple of God! Ears hole get refiled, cuting your sons forskin robs him of the joys of masurbation at its best quality, and the forskin makes tingly pleasures thet you just distroyed ! yours son will no only have orgasims, but no added tingly errotic heaveny sensations to boot, glad its your son not mine. My son now enjoys the extra forskin sensations and lucky son, I am a great dad!
Angie, are you kiding, I have seen it done with anestisia, and the baby shakes violently as they inject that needle into the pinus to numb it, nothing can numb a babies pinus, God is too smart, when you do EVIL you will have pain! No numbing EVIL! And wow you like em cut huh, so you do not care that the forskinmakes tones of errotic sensations unique to the forskin? Yes if some idiot adult wants his cut, yes he should be unburdened of such joys permanently!!! LIke I say if you are filthy rich and see no more happiness then poor people, you should circumcise away your wealth immediatly!!!
CAGEy, I am so glad you circumcised your son, as he will never get the errotic unique sensations only the forskinmakes distinct from the heads! Ha ha! My son will have way more fun masturbating then yours ever will! ANd never will he need sex lube, save the mony son! Enjoy Gods forskin, your lucky your mine and not cut so you may son enjoy the forskins errotic sensations luck you, and luck me, I have a forskin too! I personally can say MASTURBATION with a FORSKIN feeles like the thing is gluiding in a vagina that is of perfect fit, no real vagina is a perfect fit, but forskin makes it feel like that! SO both masturbation and real vaginal sex is awsome. Cut guys only get the friction pleasures, I get those and the gentile tactile feather touch erotics! Cut guys have no tactile sensations that can be had a t the head area, ha ha! Pro CIrc parents are like the ones that say what you don't know can't hurt you, but hey Radium and poison will hurt you, even though invisible! So well cut guys have no idea that the forskin makes errotic pleasures, they think that oh we have orgasim and we have no forskin so no big deakl, ha ha, big deal is we Intact MEN HAVE orgasim too, but big deal is we have the separate types of errotics from the forskin! If you cut a finger tip, then still you can do what a full finger can, just minus the tips extra fine sensations, so why not cut finger tips of you don't need them, pluss less germs without finger tips!
I d NOT UNDERSTAND, why no one states that forget the worthless clean or who has orgasm arguments! The fact is if you cut just the finger tips you still have full hand control yet you cut by 1/3rd the risk of cancer of the fingers! OK now as for foreskin hum, I know 1st hand that when my girlfriend has me close my eyes and she just feather light touches caresses the foreskin alone, I get such erotic sensations its like a symphony orchestra. And when she retracts my foreskin and does same featherlight touching of the exposed glans/head I can only feel the pressure but not even that as she is doing feather light method, so I am blind when eyes are closed, only my foreskin can see those sensations haha! Anyhow I know a blind guy really blind, he at home reads brail via forskin as he was born without arms, so if he had been circumcised he would have zero other body parts that have such extraordinary HIGH DEFINITION RESOLUTION to read brail!!!
College Educated Women Talk frankly what the cut vs un-cut is really like to them!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu6y4CbJkEg&NR=1
Mario Lopez tell Wendy Williams why Cut is No fun!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu_uYwDx_H8&feature=related