Circumcision

[jedusor]

I can't believe this is even debatable. I can't believe that in a society we consider civilized, I have to actually present a structured argument against cutting off pieces of babies when they're born.

Comments

[bookishfellow.livejournal.com]

As an impending parent who is planning to sign off on a circumcision within the next couple weeks, I can say you have offered me nothing to convince me not to do so. "Why are we even arguing about this?" is not an argument, it's an assertion of moral superiority. If you want to try to convince me, go ahead, but you're going to have to do better than that.

[gerald_duck]

OK… so.

Why do you think circumcision is a good idea? Or, if you think it's a neutral idea, why do you accept circumcision, rather than doing nothing, as a sensible default?

Even if you, now, think circumcision is a good idea, do you think your son will feel the same way in decades from now? That is, after all, the timescale over which your decision matters, and the person most affected by it.

[bookishfellow.livejournal.com]

No, don't ask me for my arguments. I could offer a bunch, but I'm not justifying myself to you. You're trying to convince me that I'm mistaken. Give me your arguments.

[gerald_duck]

OK. As I alluded to above: my first argument is the simplest — do nothing without a reason. Not circumcising is the default, and requires no justification unless arguments are put forward in favour of circumcision.

However, if arguments are put forward in favour of circumcision, the key arguments I can see against it are:

• It's painful and traumatic
  
• It exposes the glans to unwanted continual stimulation and desensitises it during sex.
  
• The procedure, though objectively pretty safe, isn't completely risk-free.
  
• The decision to circumcise has cultural and religious implications.
  
• Although circumcision is an easier and safer procedure when conducted on an infant, adult circumcision is a considerably more practical proposition than foreskin restoration.
  
• It's all being done to an infant, who might not in adulthood agree with the decision. The relative difficulties of circumcising an infant, circumcising an adult and restoring an adult's foreskin suggest one must be much more than 50% sure it's what the child would want before proceeding.
  
• There are ethical implications to making a non-default choice on behalf of an infant without good reason.

[bookishfellow.livejournal.com]

Okay...I was actually hoping to engage J on this, but at least this is a reasonable argument. As I see it this boils down to three major categories: pain/risk, consent, and sexual functioning. Taking them in reverse order:

I do not, as a circumcised man, believe that my sexual functioning has been in any way impaired by the procedure, nor that of a thousand generations of my randy circumcised ancestors. The sensitivity assertion is one that's inherently impossible to prove, as sensitivity is a subjective characteristic that is also affected by other factors than anatomical makeup.

The consent issue holds a bit more water with me, as this is a decision my wife and I will be making for our son. But you know what? We're his parents. We'll be making decisions for him—without his consent, and at times directly counter to his wishes—for the next umpteen years, affecting his health, nutrition, education, socialization and any number of other factors. That's our job.

Pain and risk: The risk is, as you admit, minimal (though non-zero); the pain is unquantifiable. I would contend (with admittedly no evidence to back me up) that in comparison to, and in such close juxtaposition to, the trauma of birth itself, the trauma engendered by the circumcision procedure pales. Again, this is inherently impossible to prove, and I doubt either of us will be able to convince the other of our views on this point.

You also cautiously state that "[t]he decision to circumcise has cultural and religious implications." Here I wholeheartedly agree with you, but I don't see that as an argument against; rather the contrary. (See above reference to a thousand generations.) This has nothing to do with my (non-existent) faith in the holy covenant struck between YHVH and Abraham, but it has a lot to do with the idea that I am a part of my heritage, and it is a part of me, that the passing down of this heritage through the generations is a valuable thing, and that circumcision is a part of that heritage made manifest.

[vvvexation.livejournal.com]

Your pain argument is no argument at all. Is inflicting pain ever morally okay just because it's not much pain?

[gerald_duck]

Quite apart from the glans being unprotected from stimulation if uncircumcised, I know that masturbation is a more straightforward exercise without the cut: the foreskin moves with the skin over the shaft and helps stimulate the glans. The same is true in penetrative sex, although less so because the glans is likely ensheathed to some extent anyway in that case.

Either that or I happen to have discussed this with cut people (and one with foreskin naturally absent) who have difficulty masturbating for other reasons.

Um… I don't think that was TMI in this context? /-8


Yes, parents have to make decisions on behalf of their children; that's unavoidable, or at least vastly preferable to the state making the decisions in any normal circumstance. However, I don't see why that justifies unnecessarily committing one's child to things they might later thoroughly dislike, which are extremely hard to undo. My view is that, apart from obviously bad options like becoming a serial killer, it's best not to close doors for one's children. Let them leave home thinking they've been allowed to develop into their own person, not who their parents wanted them to be.


I wasn't being cautious about cultural and religious implications so much as generic. I know there are Brits, Canadians and Americans reading this, atheists, agnostics and Jews; I expect there to be people from other cultures and religions as well. There are a lot more people in the world circumcised because of Islamic traditions than because of Jewish.

Yes, I can see why it would make you happy if your children retained a link to their heritage. But isn't it meaningless if they have that link imposed on them involuntarily?

[all-ephemera.livejournal.com]

I would say that my thoughts for not circumcising would be along these lines - and these are just my thoughts:

The penis works just fine without being altered, excepting certain rare cases which are the exception to the rule.

The argument of "It's more hygenic." seems to me to just be symptomatic of laziness. I've known men who were uncut who never had any issues with cleanliness once they were taught how. (In much the same way that a girl can be taught how to properly and carefully wash her vagina, for example.)

There is no conclusive evidence that an uncut penis leads to diseases more often than a cut penis.

The child is already distraught after being born, and a surgical procedure makes that worse. If it's not necessary to a healthy and happy life, I see no reason to do it.

I don't feel that it's necessary to remove the foreskin, and therefore will not do it when the time comes for me to have a son. Just about all of the previously accepted medical reasons to remove the foreskin have since been debunked, and from my own observations an uncircumcised man has every chance of being as happy and healthy as a circumcised man.

[gerald_duck]

I think the hygiene issue is even simpler than that, these days: it's pretty hard to do anything that causes ejaculation without creating a need to wash up afterwards, whether cut or uncut. At that point uncut people wash under the foreskin anyway.

The hygiene issue is only relevant if someone is neither having sex nor masturbating regularly. Telling people they mustn't masturbate is a whole other can of worms…