Completely agree that all necessary medical procedures be made illegal in law! Particularly something as archaic and barbaric as all forms of male or female circumcision, all of which ought to be outlawed or treated with the same severity as rape.
If there is a religious element, then it could be still satisfied and allowed for consenting adults, rather than minors or entirely voiceless infants!
Consenting adults would likely be able to discern a difference in their sex life; and at least have a before and after personal comparison, that will, I'm almost certain, prevent them from also visiting this inherently cruel and barbarous punishment, on their sons and daughters? Rhrosty

Correction; the article ought to read, completely agree all unnecessary medical procedures---. Apologies. Rhrosty.

It is time religion was banned then we could all get on with our lives, to live as we see fit for the betterment of ouselves, not only with mainly religious indoctrinated Circumcision but Voluntary Euthanasia, Stem Cell Research, Gay marriage, religion is an evil curse which we as individuals have to suffer, either as a child or end of life choices, because of the buffoons who want to uphold their religious beliefs and inflict their belief on all of us.

The unkindest cut of all might be the author’s shoe-horning the practice of male circumcision into a religious dialogue. It is the pros and cons of health benefits which has had, until recently, the running in regard to this medical practice.
Is male infant circumcision a more-unnecesssary procedure than immunization - probably, but to what degree?
Let the lad decide after he has had sexual experience? - In the doubtful case where, having tried it with that odd appendage, he decides to give conjugal activity a go in its absence - he then finds( improbably - he has a preference for the former - what then?

This is an excellent article.

Read it together with the one on Men as Monsters.

It's curious how society is horrified by any whiff of violence towards women and children; and rightly so. But silent when it comes to the difficulties or death of men.

eg a ship is lost at sea: we hear "55 people died, and there were 30 women and 5 children".
The men don't matter.

Interesting to see what happens about abuse of young males by priests in the Catholic church. Do people care?

Do people care that we mutilate males without their consent?

People suffer- people are worthy of sympathy and respect. Males and females both.

What a pile of horse dung.

A medically untrained Imam does a procedure illegally in Germany, botches it, and the conclusion is that the procedure must be the problem. The logical flaws must be obvious to anyone with an IQ above a squirrel. Using this logic, if an unlicensed driver has an accident, then all drivers must be banned?

The procedure if done correctly with the right implements, anesthetic and antibiotic creams, by a professional is quick painless and risk free. The benefits are small but measurable, saving the child future risk from infection and a small risk of cancer. Neither myself or my wife have religious beliefs, but had a urologist do the procedure in 5 minutes, and my son did not even cry. The urologist in question has never had a problem with a circumcision, but has had to do several painful circumcisions in young boys sufferring from infections that could have been prevented.

As far as the emotive / unscientific use of words such as "mutilate", I mutilate my fingers every week as a matter of good grooming.

Like many men my age, indeed most of the footy team I played with years ago, I was circumcised as an infant. I have suffered no negative physical or psychological effects. I have fathered children and led a happy, fulfilling sex life.

My parents had me circumcised on the advice of their local doctor and I have never had any reason to regret their decision. This is not a matter for the state. It is a matter for parents. Leave us alone.

The responsibilty of parents is to protect and nurture the children, they have no right of ownership of the children; to inflict any form of physical abuse or personal ideology on the children.

Infection is usually caused by unhygienic practices. A father who has been circumcised does NOT know how to care for an uncircumcised penis. A mother has even less of a clue. Circumcisions can leave issues with gland sensitivity and erectile deformations. Which in latter life can lead to increases in erectile dysfunction. This cause and effect of erectile dysfunction in latter life has never been fully studied. I know as I've suffered a problematic circumcision obtained at birth in a Hospital.
Both my sons have NOT been circumcised are now in the latter 20's and neither have had any issues. As I went to great pains to learn how to properly care for an uncircumcised penis. Which I in turn taught my boys.
Why carry on this abuse of boys. Surely they have rights or are they supposed to shut up and be a "brave little soldier". Do boys have less legal rights then girls? I think so...

Circumcision is not child abuse, any more than making him eat his vegetables, and a lot less than subjecting him to "natural" medicine. If as shown by studies that a circumcised child has lower risk of infection or other penis related issues, then the choice of circumcision by a qualified medical practitioner or no circumcision is entirely their decision.

Great article Robert.

@Shadow Minister: what you do to YOUR fingers (fingernails?) every week has nothing to do with the question here, which has to do with something done to OTHERS without their consent. Also your fingernails grow back.

Helen

Helen,

Get some perspective. This issue is about a small flap of skin. We are not cutting off an ear.

Putting aside the operation itself, the circumcised penis has health benefits not only for the man, but his partner too. A source of infection inside the vagina is a common source of thrush etc, and if anything improves the sexual experience.

As far as the operation is concerned, modern techniques using a plastic tube? over which the foreskin is pulled and cut protects the penis and reduces the pain, and has almost zero risk.

My son was circumcised using a topical anaesthetic cream, and this was done while I distracted him. I saw no sign that he even noticed.

The argument about consent is one of the most fatuous I have heard because:
1) Performing a circumcision later in life is significantly more risky and painful. It is like suggesting that a woman waits 12 months to weigh up her decision before pregnancy termination.
2) With the low risks and health benefits while it is entirely in the purview of a parent to make the decision as there is no long term harm. There are many decisions the parents have to make for the child without its permission.

"Male circumcision can cause psychological problems in some young men and boys" according to the Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland.

This is a child protection issue and children must be protected from doctors and parents who continue both to perform or demand this practice.

Some people may claim not to feel they have been harmed others feel differently and that is the reason why it must be banned.

I don't want my sons to die from AIDs.

I don't want my sons to get infected by multi-drug resistant syphilis or ghonereah...

In the old days, doctors used to say that circumcision was for "hygiene". But in those days, you could not talk about these terrible STDs... so "hygiene" was the nod-nod-wink-wink way of saying protect your sons from dying from syphilis.

Again and again, research points out the obvious... that having a nice warm moist membrane-like foreskin area for the germs to hide in is a really great way to incubate and facilitate an infection.

Alternatively, only having external, dry skin on a penis is a really good way of protecting it from infection.

We thought that by now we would have cures for AIDs, Syph/Ghon etc... but sadly, nature has triumphed and these bugs have survived!

They are still killing many many people around the world and show no signs of being eradicated! Worse still, the cures we have are becomming less effective as antibiotic resistance spreads.

Protect your sons, get them circumcised!
Help prevent girls dying, get yout son' circumcised!

It's not 'ethics'... it's life-or-death.

"It's not 'ethics'... it's life-or-death."

But since the overwhelmingly vast majority of Western males with intact foreskins live out their lives and die comfortably of old age it clearly can't be THAT important, can it? By your argument we should -- since the human nose is the breeding ground for many nasty bacteria and viruses which can occasionally lead to serious illness or death -- cut off babies' noses as well. And just to minimise the risk of ingrown toenails -- because they CAN become septic -- chop off their toes as well.

Once again, as with gay marriage, it's good to see the religious trying so hard to find real rational justifications for their brainwashed views, and failing so miserably. It makes it clear just how rational atheism is by contrast.

ironic that many who get hung up about a snip don't mind the unborn being butchered. Go figure!

"Male circumcision is a simple procedure but a complex and emotive health issue that continues to generate great debate in the community and the medical profession. The child's welfare is foremost. The current prevailing public policy in Australia suggests there is no medical reason for routine circumcision in newborns. However, recent research has found a higher risk of some health problems in uncircumcised males. Ultimately, it is the parents' decision, which should be respected and based on balanced, well-informed, comprehensive information. If you do decide to have your son circumcised, ensure it is done by an appropriate and experienced practitioner."

Dr Christine Bennett
Chair, Medical Advisory Panel, Bupa Australia.

So the God of two of the three Abrahamic faiths has ensured that all males are reminded a number of times each day of one of the entry requirements of their faith. And a goodly proportion of the third faith.

Interesting also that one of the early and major arguments in the life of the third faith was to snip or not to snip. Won by the Gentiles (or is it Genitals ?) in the negative. But was and still is
commonly practiced.

It boils down to one big question:

WHOSE CHILD IS IT?

One may argue that "the child belongs to his/her parents", others may claim that "the child belongs to his/her tribe", yet others say that "the child belongs to him/herself". I understand those claims and prefer the later, but one response is completely absurd and most dangerous - that "the child belongs to the state".

The state, any state, may only have authority over those who accept it and ask for its protection. All others, it may still limit and fight, but only as necessary for the sake of protecting its consenting members, those who sought out the state's protection.

If a family (an unbroken family, where there are no disagreements) never asks to become subject to the state, never asks for the state's protection (and/or other privileges), then the state must have no say in the internal affairs of that family.

If the state was to prohibit religious circumcision, then no orthodox Jews and Muslims would want to be part of it: they would rather die than break what they believe to be God's commandment to circumcise. If possible, they would emigrate or circumcise their sons overseas, otherwise they would do it covertly, risking jail, but in any case they would do it no matter what.

As ugly as the practice of circumcision is, states have no authority to ban it. However, it's their right to refuse accepting members who practice it. While no one ought to be jailed for circumcising their children, it is proper to have their welfare/public-health/public-education/etc. denied and not employ them in the public service. Being members of a state (eg. citizens) should be optional and a two-way street. It is OK not to participate and not share the state's values, but also OK for the state not to support those who do not follow its ways.

An unwilling 11-year old boy should be able to walk into a police-station, ask for state-protection and receive it, thus severing his ties from his parents, so long as it is ascertained that he understands the implications.

Unfortunately this debate is very much like the vaccinate/don't-vaccinate debate whereby some irresponsible idiot parent(s) place others children at totally unnecessary and indefensible risk of contagious infectious disease because they don't want to risk their baby having a bad reaction to the vaccination - although the rate of bad reactions is infinitesimal. So, those irresponsible parents must carry the burden for the continued existence and prevalence of these otherwise preventable diseases, and for all the deaths and permanent disabilities incurred in consequence.

Circumcision is a similar 'disease and disability' prevention measure, with infinitesimal 'bad' reactions (when done proficiently, as specified by Shadow Minister). Men know the story. Women should butt out - particularly those who get an extra 'tickle' from the uncircumcised. Let those men who like the appearance of extra length in the flaccid penis get over their insecurity and admit that retention of the foreskin is more trouble than it's worth.

Incompetent practitioners in any field should be subject to appropriate condemnation and punishment, but an occasional or rare stuff-up by such incompetents is not cause to ban all procedures carrying some small degree of risk. Women who have bubbs at home without any professional assistance in Australia should be held responsible for any resultant injury or deleterious outcome for the bubbs - but that doesn't mean properly qualified and competent midwives should be banned or all home births banned, does it.

Parents have to make all sorts of important decisions impacting on the lives of their children, and this is just one such decision - play it safe and do a miniscule procedure (or adjustment) now, or risk the child having major problems down the track? Vaccinate - don't vaccinate? Prevent - or abrogate responsibility?

For better or worse, male circumcision should remain a parental decision, but vaccination should be mandatory for all. And, religion should have nothing to do with it.

"play it safe and do a miniscule procedure (or adjustment) now"

I don't know how big a role your penis plays in your life, Saltpetre, but mine has played a fairly prominent part in mine, and the thought of mutilating it for very dubious reasons fills me with horror and dismay. A 'minuscule' procedure? I think not. But if it's so 'minuscule' then why not do it after the age of consent, anyway?

Bear in mind too that any hypothetical increased risk from non-circumcision has to be weighed against the non-neglibible risk of death or serious injury during the procedure. Babies are fragile organisms; if anyone had even suggested taking a knife to my baby son they would have been shown the door immediately.

Another thoughtful contribution from Dr Darby. It is interesting that the cultural or religious beliefs of the parents get scant respect in the case of female circumcision yet in the case of boys can lead them, as it were, straight to
the guillotine

i havnt read the article yet
but note the passion of the shadow/''Helen,''

and want to say this without any sense of accusation
[we all do that we feel is right]..and yes dirty men/wether circumsised or not..will; get the dirty things

as a porevious poster has told
ba\sic education on how to properly care for those flappy bits

quote]

""Get some perspective. This issue is about a small flap of skin...
We are not cutting off an ear."""

circumsision is all about cutting off flaps of skin
[at its basic level]..at its next level its mutilation

i think prempting issues/
underestimates your ability to learn how to manage..them flappy bits

its not about guilt/morals ol friend
its about knowing facts..[im self circumsised]
its much like brushing your teeth[you pull back your lips and wash]

basic stuff*

under law..its assult*
wether boy child or girl child!

its worth considering what happens to them bits
i think its called in\terferon..

and used in face creams
it is rich in t cells..

or a great bit of skin for a skin graft

it has so many medical usages..thus theres a nice proffit in all that key kiddie flesh..so rich in those things ther old need to feign youth

again this is general;
like if sex dont feel anything[of course your NOT..going to get aids]
and those getting too much..cause it feels better..of course they aqre going to catch more aids

its a contra argument...
less aids must be proportional to sex ratio

1 in ten incounters contact it
have 100..you got a bigger chance to score 'positive'

how often/sex..duration..so much more to this simple issue
yet still i see it as assult..[even if done for the best reasons/much like spanking]..do it in secret

still i look at that place where enemies both cut
and thats where little loving goes on

cover up..it hurts too much to see a leg
and just so the wife dont like sex either
well..its only a flap of skin

Jon J,

>non-negligible risk of death or serious injury during the procedure. Babies are fragile organisms;<

Performed by a competent medical practitioner within days of birth, circumcision is even less risky or damaging than the removal of the dew-claws from a pup by a competent veterinarian. Why remove the dew-claws - because they serve no useful purpose but do present a real risk of injury and/or infection if retained. (Ever owned a dog with intact dew-claws?) The case for circumcision is really directly comparable - retention of the foreskin risks infection to self and to any partner. However, whilst it is a very minor procedure when performed on a baby, circumcision poses far greater intricacy and potential problems if performed even on toddlers, let alone later in life.

The foreskin may have served a useful purpose when guys were running around naked in the bush chasing mammoths (and of course could still serve this purpose for those who still wish to run around the bush -or the beach - naked), and when the common garb was dirty smelly old animal skins. Fortunately humankind has progressed somewhat since then - though, it appears, not as far as we would imagine. Some fictions and fantasies still prevail.

To outlaw male (penile) circumcision is comparable in reverse to the current practice of enabling parents to opt-out of vaccinating their children. Helps no-one, but places some at unnecessary risk.

Not sure what you mean by this, Legs2041:

>It is interesting that the cultural or religious beliefs of the parents get scant respect in the case of female circumcision <

If you're suggesting female circumcision should be condoned on any religious or cultural pretext (real or imagined) then I'm sorry for you. Such a procedure is totally barbaric and totally indefensible. Like foot-binding or head-binding this procedure needs to be condemned universally in the strongest possible terms.

Anyone who compares the male foreskin to the female labia and/or clitoris is a goon.

Dear Saltpetre,

This article and thread are about the rights or otherwise of the state to interfere in religion. If you truly believe that vaccination or the lack thereof has nothing to do with religion (<<but vaccination should be mandatory for all. And, religion should have nothing to do with it>>), then why did you resurrect that discussion here?
By the fact that you did, I must therefore take it that you DO realize that non-vaccination is, as much as you hate it, at least in some of the cases, a religious issue.

(and as a side-note, why did you and others brought into this discussion the medical benefits or otherwise of circumcision: these really have nothing to do with the topic at hand)

I am not in agreement with Jews/Muslims that circumcision is a divine commandment. On human level I actually consider it despicable, but the fact is that THEY believe so and THEY are willing to sacrifice their lives or go to jail for that practice, just as many Soviet Jews were sent to gulags in Siberia for the same: that willingness to sacrifice that much for God's sake and glory, though misguided, renders circumcisions made in that spirit a religious practice.

All hell breaks loose when the state dare to decide which practices are religious and which aren't - either on its own or with the aid of some corrupt churches that collude with the government of the day.

In the end, one cannot serve two masters. Water doesn't mix with oil and religion doesn't mix with statism. It may take long, but in the end states always collapse and religion always wins - the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it!

But I do have some perspective. My perspective is very similar to the writer of this article. It wasn't always, I once thought that male circumcision was a trivial issue. I was persuaded otherwise by the arguments of a student who did a thesis on the topic – and in the course of that supervision I also did a lot of reading from many sides on the topic. I read about different forms of male circumcision. "A little snip" is not the sole form of circumcision practised on boys nor is it the sole procedure. I read about catastrophes following on the procedure – and anyone who thinks that properly performed medical circumcision is without risks simply "can't be serious". There are many cases of moderate through to catastrophic damage to the child's penis, or damage to the child from aspects of the procedure like reactions to anaesthesia (for starters, google "botched circumcision"). I also read about issues of autonomy, dignity and respect.

This is not a debate that can be resolved by citing anecdotes of boys who "didn't feel a thing" and "are none the worse for it". This is a complex debate in which a great deal is at stake for both children and adults.

It is also silly to defend male circumcision by pointing out that various kinds of genital procedures and mutilation on girls are different and/or worse. They are different arguments in many if not most ways. But so what? The fact that something else is very wrong in the world doesn't exculpate those who do other wrong things. The question here is whether male circumcision is wrongful (and harmful), not how it compares to other practices.

Helen

Helen,

If you don't want to use anecdotal evidence, then please don't do the same yourself. Feel free to quote real statistics.

It's obvious to me that in a world where over-population is a problem we should be talking about penis removal.

Why worry about a bit of skin? Clear away the male tackle completely and give women and our planet a break! Besides, appendage-less men would be less inclined to wage wars!

When we have a billion people left on Earth, then we can discuss the situation again!

http://dangerouscreation.com

<<Besides, appendage-less men would be less inclined to wage wars!>>

But David, wars are good - they reduce the population!

Anyone who really believes that new-born baby boys don't feel a circumcision if it is done 'professionally' have never held babies still while they are having part of their penis sliced off with no anaesthetic.

I have, many times.
Yes, they scream in pain.
Some then bleed terribly a few hours later.
Others end up with a nasty infection.

There are very good reasons why the vast majority of medical practitioners today agree that this archaic, barbaric practice should be left in the past where it belongs.

The only ones who like it are old circumcised men who think all penis's should look like theirs, and the few boys/men who actually medically required the operation (with anaesthetic, luckily) later in life.

We aren't living in a third world country with poor hygiene practices anymore. If boys are taught to clean themselves well under the foreskin, then they are no more likely to be any dirtier than any circumcised male would be.

There are some useful statistics here (does not include any injury short of death however – which must also be reckoned into assessment):
http://mensstudies.metapress.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/
I think this space is pay per view, but the paper is posted on the net elsewhere. Both the statistics and the stories of course refer to real little boys.

Helen,

Here is some information from the CDC with respect to

http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/02/cdc-why-are-u-s-circumcision-rates-declining/

"However, the authors of the CDC report prefaced their findings by noting that recent evidence shows that circumcision greatly reduces the risk of HIV transmission through heterosexual sex.

Data also suggest that lack of circumcision is associated with other sexually transmitted infections, including Chlamydia, genital ulcer disease and human papillomavirus, or HPV. Women who have sex with uncircumcised men appear to be at higher risk of cervical cancer, which can be caused by HPV."

There is increasing evidence that male circumcision does not prevent HIV infection.

http://www.theafricareport.com/index.php/20120711501815186/southern-africa/zimbabwe-concern-over-high-hiv-rates-among-circumcised-males-501815186.html

The idea that it does prevent HIV is strongly disputed and has nothing to do with this argument.

Children should not be subjected to this procedure without their informed consent as it may cause psychological problems.

A lot of posts make the point that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV (and forms of venereal disease) transmission through heterosexual sex. There's conflicting evidence on this, and any effect along these lines appears to be pretty much confined geographically. So maybe an argument can be made that more research is needed as to this.

What we can be sure of however is that circumcision increases the risk of death, genital disfiguring, and disablement, as well of often serious infection or disease. There is no question that there are many different forms of circumcision, and some of them are more dangerous than others (eg http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/nyregion/infants-death-renews-debate-over-a-circumcision-ritual.html). Even in southern Africa, where some correlation has been found between circumcision and reduced risk of AIDs, mortality rates from the procedure are of great concern. The simple answer to concern about AIDS is not a potentially deadly procedure, but condoms. Seems like a no brainer to me....

Helen,

You make these broad statements, and the examples you give are of circumcisions done by untrained individuals.

What is the death rate among those whose procedures are done by medical professionals?

The transmission of disease has probably lead to far more deaths than the circumcisions.