iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

The Other Side Of The Circumcision Debate

First Posted: 07/11/2011 10:13 pm Updated: 09/10/2011 5:12 am

By Ronald Goldman
Religion News Service

BOSTON (RNS) The ballot question in San Francisco to ban infant circumcision has stimulated a wave of discussion about religious liberty and parental choice, but the more general question of the advisability of circumcision is mostly avoided.

It's time to start talking, however uncomfortable that might be.

I started thinking about this question more than 25 years ago when I attended my first bris, or ritual circumcision ceremony. As someone who is very sensitive to the pain experienced by children, I was reluctant to go. The event is indelibly impressed on my mind.

When the circumcision began, the infant screamed, and I can't imagine an infant crying any louder or with more agony, pain, and sense of urgency in his voice. A few people were crying quietly, including his parents.

Using every bit of energy he had, the infant protested vehemently what was being done to him with the best of adult intentions. I resolved to do something about what I had witnessed.

My subsequent years of reflection, study, conversations and experience with this issue have convinced me that there are extremely important aspects of circumcision that are unrecognized or not talked about. Small group meetings with circumcised men, clinical experience, and independent surveys have contributed to a greater understanding of the deep feelings some people have about circumcision -- even if they, too, had trouble talking about it.

In 1995, I founded the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center, which represents Jews around the world who question ritual circumcision. We want Jews to know that if you question circumcision, you are not alone.

Jews have contributed books, films, research, and other work to bring attention to the harm of circumcision. Consequently, numerous articles in Jewish periodicals have debated circumcision, and the practice is no longer universal among Jews in the United States, South America, Europe, and Israel.

Jews have organized groups to oppose circumcision here and in Israel, and a growing number of Jews recognize that they actually have a choice about circumcision, such as opting for a welcoming ceremony without circumcision for baby boys.

While questioning circumcision may make some Jews uncomfortable, the continuing intellectual, emotional, and ethical conflicts about circumcision also make us uncomfortable. And it's time to talk about it.

Some mothers have revealed great distress about permitting and watching the circumcision of their sons and have regretted their
decision for years. "I will go to my grave hearing that horrible wail," one mother told me.

Recent information supports their feelings. Studies show that infants experience significant pain and trauma during circumcision, which can result in behavioral and neurological changes in infants. The behavioral changes can disrupt mother-child bonding, and circumcision carries some two dozen surgical risks including (in rare cases) death.

Some dissatisfied circumcised men report wide-ranging physical, sexual, and psychological consequences, partly because they are aware that the foreskin has significant physiological and sexual functions. Circumcised men have reported decreased sexual sensitivity and even erectile dysfunction.

Psychological effects can include anger, sense of loss, sadness, sexual anxieties, reduced emotional expression, and avoidance of intimacy. Such adverse effects of circumcision on men and infants are changing how some Jews feel about circumcision.

When Jewish-American parents choose circumcision, many procedures are done in hospitals without any religious ritual. Without a strong religious belief, many Jews circumcise because of cultural conformity and belief in medical or religious myths.

Yet consider these facts. Jewish circumcision has never had anything to do with health concerns, and neither is circumcision a requirement of Jewish identity. No national medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision of male infants. No experimental anesthetic has been found to be safe and effective in preventing circumcision pain in infants.

It's our responsibility as Jews to welcome new information and thoughtful inquiry on this or any other question. Because of the growing evidence of the harmful effects of circumcision, more Jews are trusting their feelings -- applying ethics, reason, and experience, and resolving their conflicts with a decision not to circumcise.

Perpetuating the pain of circumcision is far greater than the pain that comes with confronting the issues we and others have raised. Based on our contacts with hundreds of Jews who do not circumcise, there is growing support for this view.

We recognize the difficulty of questioning circumcision, but the traumatic cries or silent shock of circumcised Jewish infants have been ignored far too long.

(Ronald Goldman is executive director of the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center and author of "Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective" and "Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma.")

FOLLOW HUFFPOST RELIGION

By Ronald Goldman Religion News Service BOSTON (RNS) The ballot question in San Francisco to ban infant circumcision has stimulated a wave of discussion about religious liberty and parental choice...
By Ronald Goldman Religion News Service BOSTON (RNS) The ballot question in San Francisco to ban infant circumcision has stimulated a wave of discussion about religious liberty and parental choice...
Filed by Jahnabi Barooah  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,474
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
11:21 PM on 07/18/2011
To the Jewish member of this forum, who reflexively call any opposition to circumcision anti-semitic, I recommend you watch this documentary done from a Jewish point of view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx89xECfHG4
10:10 AM on 07/19/2011
LMAO! Just another self hating Jew!
08:10 PM on 07/19/2011
That's such a lame argument. Were Jews who opposed animal sacrifices "self-hating"? When members of cultures that remove girls' clitoral foreskins "self-hating" when they spoke out against it? That's gynecologically equivalent to removing the male foreskin.

It's not "self-hating" to speak out against a wrong committed by your own culture. It's called progress. And that's what we're seeing. A growing number of Jews - that's right, GROWING number - speaking out. Hurray for them for not giving in to the bullying of angry reactionaries. Keep fighting, intactivists!
08:28 PM on 07/19/2011
I also laughed when the female mohel, who is also a doctor, ridiculed the notion that there are "health benefits" to circumcision. I laughed even harder when the Orthodox mohel said that people who circumcise children for non-religious should be thrown in jail for criminal child abuse. I was ROFLMAO when the father of the director who is a rabbi and a neurologist, had to admit to his son that circumcision destroyed normal sexual function, that is was a degenerative lesion that, and his sexual sensation would get worst over time.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Landin
06:52 PM on 07/20/2011
I have met Eli and the dude is out to make a buck. Sad to turn your back on your people and try to take them for their money. He was bood off stage when I saw him....sad guy! BTW- He isn't much of a Jew!
09:11 AM on 07/21/2011
So you have declared yourself the "jewish purity" police officer. What about the other dozen Jews on the film who think circumcision is worthless other than as a religious ritual. They are not "jewish" enough for you?
07:17 PM on 07/17/2011
Circumcision in fact involves two extremely important issues:

1. the human rights of children in contrast to parental/religious wishes

2. equality of the sexes under the law

If you disagree then:

a) Please explain why girls have a right to genital integrity without regards to religion or public health claims, but you actively deny boys such a right.

b) Surely if children have no right to bodily integrity, you cannot advocate a right to be free from other intrusion. How can you stop the gang tattooing of a child by its parents, or removal of any other healthy body part (girls' infant breasts for example, in a family with a history of deadly breast cancer)?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
nikanj
free the fnords
12:05 AM on 07/18/2011
Would a parent be allowed to get their infant son's foreskin pierced
and have a ring installed ? I doubt it, although that reversible procedure
would be much less invasive than a circumcision.
12:45 AM on 07/18/2011
I agree with you! My point is that circumcision for years has been given a social "pass" that other practices (such as tattooing) do not - personally, I believe that all such procedures (unless needed for a current real medical condition of the child) should be banned. There really is no ethical justification for removing healthy functional genital tissue from someone too young to consent.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HotelDrama
12:48 AM on 07/18/2011
All genital piercing on boys and girls under 18 is illegal in the US.
10:21 AM on 07/18/2011
In #1, replace "circumcision" with every other life long decision that parents make
for their children and you'll see why you're being silly. For example, which school
the child is sent to, which religious indoctrination, whether to vaccinate or not.
Go here if you want to see a better explanation: http://circinfo.net/who_responsibility_legal.html

For #2, I'm tired of hearing what you call genital integrity.
It's better circumcised than not. There's no impairment from circumcision.
Instead of "mutilation" which it clearly is not, try calling it perfection.
You're equating female circumcision to male circumcision and that's simply wrong.
There are documented health benefits to MC.

For "b)", again there are documented health benefits to MC with no downside.
That is not the case for the other things you're talking about.
After circumcision, the penis is still fully functional and even better than it was before.
10:56 AM on 07/18/2011
The fact that you can conflate severing part of perfectly healthy genitalia with choosing a school shows how utterly corrupt and intentionally obtuse your opinions are; next you'll claim there is no difference between mutilating healthy pleasure-sensitive nerve-rich genital tissue with cutting dead insensate matter like fingernails. Good luck continuing to try to deceive yourself with false analogies...

The 85% of men around the world who are happy to be intact would disagree that circumcision is "better" - try actually looking at the studies I have posted (there are more):

http://www­.ncbi.nlm.­nih.gov/pu­bmed?term=­21672947 and

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/180947.html

An Israeli hospital recently admitted that more circumcised boys than intact boys there end up with UTIs. Here are three studies among many showing no health benefits whatsoever:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18280846?dopt=Abstract and
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102282676.html and
http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/medline/pmid;16925903
03:16 PM on 07/26/2011
The reason there are no CURRENT documented health benefits of female circumcision is because no one studies it. Yet there are hundreds if not thousands of studies of the alleged health benefits of male circumcision. Why is that? Doesn't it suggest that this is a procedure in search of a justification?
07:10 PM on 07/17/2011
Errol Morris, the great documentary director, cannot see in three dimensions, everything is flat to him; he claims he is missing nothing by not having that ability. But how would he (or, with circumcision, any man) know what he's missing? Just because you can live with what was done to you, does not mean you are not missing a great deal.

It's funny, but pro-circers scream that they want proof something is lost sexually from circumcision, yet the moment proof is offered they run screaming to ask for "a poll of sexually satisfied, emotionally stable circumcised men of all ages, races and backgrounds who consider this specious notion of "circumcision is barbarism" nothing more than body dysmorphic navel gazing", just to protect their own fragile egos...

Here are studies showing sexual damage from circumcision in Denmark and Korea:

http://www­.ncbi.nlm.­nih.gov/pu­bmed?term=­21672947

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/180947.html

Every health problem alleged to be cured by circumcision can be treated by other, less drastic and less ethically questionable means than infant circumcision, but these idiots cannot even recognize that they have normalized mutilation, and demonized men's perfectly healthy natural state. Circumcision really is a meme, a virus of the mind, and most doctors cannot begin to diagnose their own infection...
10:30 AM on 07/18/2011
No legitimate proof is ever offered about something being lost sexually.
I don't need a "poll" although the controlled studies show difference in sexual satisfaction
or emotional stability.

I'm simply telling you I'm missing nothing having had a foreskin and circumcised as an
adult. What don't you get about that?

Your first link didn't work. The second link is a survey done by a professor.
Without any more details, it's hard to know exactly who he asked and what he asked.

Try looking at peer reviewed articles if you want the truth.
11:06 AM on 07/18/2011
Thank you for pointing out the broken link! Try:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.abstract

I have no reason to believe you were cut as an adult, as your comments in response to my post are so utterly deceptive; the Korean study clearly documents the source of his information at the beginning. As for "peer-reviewed" articles, I have repeatedly posted some, which you conveniently ignore. Here are three yet again:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18280846?dopt=Abstract and
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102282676.html and
http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/medline/pmid;16925903

Further, even if you have no difference in sexual response after circumcision, your desperation in trying to foist it on helpless babies (who lack the ability to make the informed choice you did) betrays the same insecurity I see in pro-mutilators everywhere - essentially, for you to be psychologically secure, every male needs to be similarly cut.
05:46 PM on 07/16/2011
The majority of men do not suffer from their circumcision, I don't. It is regretable that there are some men who have suffered. For those who haven't suffered I don't know why they care. All medical procedures carry risks. I don't remember my foreskin nor do I remember it being cut off. If you can't remember it and the medical risks are extremely small why is anyone getting involved? Who cares if your little dude is wearing a turtleneck or not. It's all the same once it gets inside.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DakkonA
www.DisentangledReality.com
08:50 PM on 07/16/2011
Gliding mechanism, increased sensitivity, lubrication, etc. That's why some people, like me, care that I was cut as a baby. And in all likelihood, if you hadn't been cut you wouldn't have had any major problems with it, like most people in the world.
09:35 PM on 07/16/2011
So we are legislating because you think your sex life could have been better with a little more foreskin? I fail to see how this is a proper use of anyone's time. Sorry man but if the sex you're having isn't great it's not because you're missing a little bit of skin. If you were using it more often I don't think you'd have much to complain about.
05:27 PM on 07/17/2011
I always wonder what people are talking about when they say "gliding action".
When something "glides" it has to be free at both ends like a plane gliding
through the air. The foreskin is attached at one end.
From what I remember, the foreskin only got in the way.
On the out stroke it covered the glans and I was no longer in contact with
the vagina. I might as well have been masturbating.

Increased sensitivity (even if true) is not not something men particularly need or want.

The "lubrication" you're talking about is known as smegma which consists
of dead bacteria, urine, sweat and other such pleasant things.
I think I'd rather use some artificial lube if I need it.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HotelDrama
11:33 PM on 07/16/2011
Most people get to decide for themselves if the medical procedure they are going to have done to them is worth the risks. Obvious exceptions for medically necessary procedures. I elected to have surgery on my wrist because I had problems The key to that sentence is that "I elected." With male circumcision, the boy isn't electing anything. The parents are forcing the child to go through a surgery that can have potentially deadly complications.
People are getting involved and care because they view it as a rights and consent issue. Why do parents have the right to cut off parts of the genitals of baby boys? And why only baby boys and not girls? Isn't that discrimination based on sex?
05:31 PM on 07/17/2011
Infants don't decide anything. Their parents have a responsibility to make
decisions for them. Hopefully they'll make decisions that they think are good
for their children. Circumcision has many well-documented health benefits
with very low risk. Parents should be able to give those benefits to their sons.

Vaccinations have risks one of which is death. Children don't get to decide
whether or not they get vaccinated either. They may never encounter the virus
they're being vaccinated against so using your argument there's no medical
necessity to vaccinate either.

Will there soon be an initiative to ban vaccinations?

Let's hope not.
05:41 PM on 07/16/2011
Here's a side of circumcision that hardly anyone knows about. In some orthodox circumcisions the guy, (always a guy, never a woman), who does the circumcision, after he severs the foreskin, removes the foreskin with his mouth and draws blood with his mouth. Pretty nutty, eh?
05:33 PM on 07/17/2011
Yes, pretty nutty and pretty risky. Some of these guys have given herpes to infants!
Now this is something I could get behind banning. There are no health benefits to this
and there are serious risks.
06:00 PM on 07/17/2011
You're right. Religious freedom goes just so far. Some religions permit polygamy. Not acceptable­. Smoking peyote, clitoral circumcisi­on, underage and forced marriages, all unacceptab­le, the same as this practice of hiding one's identity behind some religious garb.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Landin
11:14 AM on 07/18/2011
First the 4ski wasn't removed with the mouth. At one time it was thought that saliva would help in the healing. You are also talking about Ultra Orthodox, but has a gentile you wouldn't have a clue! You are pretty nutty and you live in NYC?
11:26 AM on 07/18/2011
To be perfectly accurate, the circumcision guy sucks on the baby's penis to draw blood. This is not insanity?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DevonTexas
Eternal Optimism
01:07 PM on 07/16/2011
well said. good points. It's such a savage and cruel thing to do, whether motivated by religion or concerns for health. Billions of men are uncut and the benefits of remaining intact far outweigh the possible, remote advantages of circumcision.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Maymae
06:21 PM on 07/15/2011
Circumcision is barbaric and perverse.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DevonTexas
Eternal Optimism
01:10 PM on 07/16/2011
perverse.... good word. There is a great deal of perversion in the idea of people standing around a child, watching its penis being mutilated. Frankly, I could never do that for many, many reasons and perverse being an important element.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Landin
12:16 PM on 07/17/2011
So don't have it done.....I have 3 boys and each were circumcised and each has his Bris certificate to prove he is.
05:35 PM on 07/17/2011
Circumcision is healthful. Not barbaric at all when done with anesthesia.
And I don't see how you can call something with life long health benefits perverse.
03:12 PM on 07/18/2011
There are no health benefits. It is very simple: Virus enters the hole in the penis whether you are circumcised or not.
08:29 PM on 07/19/2011
Is that why more than ten national medical associations oppose infant male circumcisions and not one supports it? The Dutch Medical Associatio­n recently issued a report backed by 7 other medical associatio­ns finding infant male circumcisi­on is harmful, has no medical benefit and infringes on a child's right to bodily automony. www.norm-u­k.org/news­.html?acti­on=showite­m&item=130­6

Similar statements came from the British, Australian, South African and Canadian medical associations. Only the WHO supported it, but not *infant* circumcision, and only for sub-saharan Africa to prevent AIDS, and those studies are strongly controverted by other research.
04:54 PM on 07/15/2011
The process of being born through the vaginal canal is too traumatic for a baby. Their heads get deformed, contused, and swollen from being forced through the small pelvic opening. One can only imagine the "psychological" damage this traumatic experience does to a baby. I therefore propose that all infants be born via c-section.

Obviously I am using sarcasm here. I am circumcised, and I do not remember it whatsoever. It is as if it has never happened. And there are legitimate health benefits to circumcision. Ask my buddy who had to be circumcised in his twenties due to a serious infection. What is the big deal? My goodness all three of my sons cried way louder after the birth process than they ever did during their circumcision.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hugh7
06:14 PM on 07/15/2011
VB is the norm for human beings. Circumcision is not. The body has adapted to withstand VB. (If any studies have been made of physical birth trauma, it would be interesting to know what they say.) Making a baby cry after birth is no longer standard practice.

"It is as if it has never happened." Not quite. Your foreskin is missing. (You may not value it now, but many men who still have theirs, do,)

I will ask your buddy if I ever meet him, which is not very likely. I once knew someone who had to have her toes removed - so should we remove all babies' toes, just in case? In countries where circumcision is not customary, and doctors are taught more about the foreskin than how to cut it off, the lifetime risk of needing to be circumcised is one in thousands.

The big deal is human rights. His body, his choice.
10:05 PM on 07/15/2011
I believe that vaginal birth is many times more traumatic than having a circumcision performed under an anesthetic.

Studies have shown that circumcision dramatically reduces the risk of contracting HIV. That is why there is a huge circumcision push in Africa. And that alone is reason enough to have a male circumcised.

As far as I am concerned, really, it is a choice of the parents. I am not buying the human rights issue either. Under the same argument of "human rights" people can argue for an abortion with the logic of "her body, her choice." Pretty sure having your brains scrambled in utero is much worse than a circumcision that frankly no infant can remember.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DevonTexas
Eternal Optimism
01:11 PM on 07/16/2011
good point.
02:56 AM on 07/16/2011
As a sidenote: cesarean section is sometimes life-saving, but otherwise it is more dangerous for the mother and the child. Look into it.
09:47 AM on 07/15/2011
I'm sick of the argument as to the health benefits of circumcision in that there's one less thing to keep clean.

We don't remove fingers, toes, hair, ears and other bits that require regular maintenance, do we?
07:49 PM on 07/16/2011
You are soooooooooo right!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Landin
12:33 PM on 07/17/2011
So, don't have your kid circumcised!My wife and I chose to have our 3 circumcised......so it is none of your business or that of any other foreskin freak!
06:38 PM on 07/17/2011
I totally agree with you Landin!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Sherman
08:24 AM on 07/18/2011
The only freaks are the degenerates such as yourself, defiling and desecrating the bodies of your children despite all the information available to you on the damage it causes. They will go through the rest of their lives with half-dead, disfigured penises, with only you and your pirmordial desert cult beliefs to thank.
01:48 AM on 07/15/2011
I'm sick of people saying that the baby "...slept through it..." -- That's just the pro-circ way of saying the baby went in to shock and lost consciousness.
09:28 AM on 07/15/2011
I'm sick of the anti-circ people who ignore the facts. When local anesthesia is used,
there's no pain and the baby often sleeps through it without crying.
05:32 PM on 07/15/2011
I didn't feel much when when my 4 wisdom teeth were pulled either. As a matter of fact, there was some miscommunication among the dentists and they accidentally pulled a tooth which was supposed to remain in and receive a root canal.
Point is, I wasn't in pain during surgery, but when a few hours later , I was in incredible pain.
You're kidding yourself if you think a baby doesn't feel this. Urine is acidic and the cut area will inevitably be filled with urine and feces when the baby is wearing a diaper.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hugh7
06:34 PM on 07/15/2011
"When local anesthesia is used,..." Aye, there's the rub.

After a baby died in Ontario from a Plastibell ring blocking his urethra, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario completely exonerated the doctor. (In fact so excellent did they make his work seem, you would think the baby was still alive.)

"...Dr. X ... had tried using local anaesthetic over the years but found that the infant appeard to be in just as much pain, if not more
the needle to inject the anaesthetic is very painful, as is the local anaesthetic itself
there is a concern about the increased chance of infection with the injecting of local anaesthetic, as the puncture holes from the needle would be in the diaper area surrounded by urine and faeces, below the area of the circumcision [...which raises questions about the risk of infection at the much bigger circumcision wound itself...]
there is a concern regarding potential allergic reaction to the anaesthetic
local anaesthetic tends to distort the site of the circumcision and make it more difficult to perform
the period of restraint for the infant in the cirucmsion board is prolonged when using local anaesthetic, and the restraint causes the infant distress
in the community, local anaesthetic is not used, and not the standard of care "
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Landin
10:22 AM on 07/18/2011
It was a non-event for all three of my boys. They each had a local, the snip, we toasted and lunch began. We chose not to do the entire theme Bris that are so in these days. The last one was done on the bay on a friends motoryacht, which was very kewl.....
08:40 PM on 07/19/2011
Just hope they're not in the 50% of ones who lose significant sexual pleasure from it. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x/full

Of course, they'll never know the difference, but that doesn't make it ok. And by the time they grow up, the awareness will be much higher than it is today, because awareness increases every day.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anelder
06:42 PM on 07/14/2011
And yet, witnessing circumcisions performed at one or two days after birth in a hospital one see just the opposite of this scenario.
01:08 AM on 07/15/2011
Go to youtube and watch some of the videos there and try to make that argument again. When the nurse says that the baby "slept through" his circumcision, he actually had gone into shock. I know nurses who have worked L&D floors and their descriptions of circumcisions are of babies who sound much like the author's description above. Our Pediatrician doesn't do circumcision, it's not recommended by any medical organization. If you choose to circumcise, at least recognize that your child is in pain.
09:31 AM on 07/15/2011
I have watched the anti-circ video which shows a screaming baby when
anesthesia wasn't used and I have watched a video where local anesthesia
was used. In the first case the baby woke up and screamed in pain.
In the second case, the baby didn't even wake up.

The CDC recommends circumcision as does the American Urological association.
The AAP is due to update its stance based on all the recent evidence of the health
benefits of circumcision.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Landin
12:03 PM on 07/15/2011
The video's on youtube are made to shock....all BS! I was with my 3 boys and also have been to several others.....no big deal!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Landin
12:38 PM on 07/17/2011
My boys were done on the 8 day. Did you know the clotting factor is the highest it will ever be in for a boy on the 8th day of life? G-d wants a boy circumcised on the 8th and the clotting factor will never be higher.......
03:52 PM on 07/18/2011
That is all BS. There are many jewish boys who die even though it is performed on the 8th day. The jews even say that if your second child dies during a circumcision, you are allowed to keep the 3rd intact. This is nothing but a primitive made up story. God would never want men to be circumcised othewise he would have made them without foreskin.
05:03 PM on 07/14/2011
While of course this decision should remain 100% the parents', I think male circumcision should be done for hygiene and aesthetic purposes rather than religious or cultural. It's been shown to reduce infection. Many non-Jewish parents are chosing to have their boys circumcised as babies, and the men I've known who are are happy it was done before they could remember and that the didn't have to make the decision themselves as a teenager.

All opinion aside, please don't dare compare it to female circumcision (aka genital mutilation) practiced in some African countries - this is done solely for the purpose of repressing women by eliminating their ability to feel sexual sensation at all - it's apples and oranges.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HotelDrama
07:32 PM on 07/14/2011
Aesthetic purposes over rule religious? So just because you like the look a specific kind of penis you can surgically alter it? And you don't think that culture has anything to do with why and how people in a particular culture find it aesthetically pleasing?

And why can't we compare female circumcision to male circumcision? Both involve cutting genitals of non-consenting people. Along with that, it seems that your understanding of female circumcision isn't complete. Female circumcision (or FGM or FGC) is an umbrella term. It encompasses several different procedures, one called a hoodectomy which is analogous to male circumcision. Along with that, the cultures that practice this thinks female circumcision looks better. And they also do it for cultural unity. Same reasons why many practice male circumcision. So, it seems that they actually have a lot more in common than you think. And here's some links that go into more detail.

http://historyofcircumcision.net/images/stories/resources/rd-rose07.pdf
http://www.cirp.org/library/anthropology/bell1/
09:32 AM on 07/15/2011
The equivalent of female circumcision applied to the male would be to remove
the penis. And that's not what's being done. That's wy there's no comparison.
12:29 PM on 07/16/2011
You're right, I shouldn't have ruled out cultural purposes because the practice is in fact becoming more culturally acceptable among non-Jewish people. However, the female circumcision I am referring to is the cutting of the clitoris - the kind forced upon little girls and the kind there are entire human rights groups working to end. No, it is not comparable.
01:28 AM on 07/15/2011
As for your statement about female genital mutilation - the World Health Organization lists different degrees of FGM, some identical to male circumcisi­on, but all banned in the US. Rachel Stallings' study of mutilated women in Tanzania showed marked reduction in AIDS, while an Italian study states that FGM women reported orgasms 70% of the time during sex. None of this justifies FGM (a horror), it just shows the ignorance of those who promote male circumcisi­on, a dangerous process that kills babies everywhere (including the US), and results in deaths and castration­s due to infection across Africa. When you try to attack FGM by minimizing male genital mutilation­, you reveal your hubris and hypocrisy to FGM's practition­ers; your own prejudices weaken any attempt to end FGM by making its adherents see you for what you are, a biased product of a male-mutil­ating culture.
05:56 PM on 07/17/2011
Circumcision doesn't kill babies; bad doctors do.
Every surgery has risks. People have to evaluate the benefits vs. the risks.
I have not heard of any deaths from infant circumcision in the US.
Have you? Please send more info.

As for FGM, I'm against it. If there are as many studies for MC that show
some degree of FC has health benefits and no downside, then I'd be for it.
Let the research begin.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
openmindedma
02:47 PM on 07/14/2011
circumcisi­on is just a money making scam at the expense of the child.
03:37 PM on 07/14/2011
Not only money. When it comes to religion, it's also about CONTROL.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hugh7
06:12 PM on 07/14/2011
Not just when it comes to religion. "Medical" circumcision is also about control.
01:46 AM on 07/15/2011
Yes, about $250,000 a year if a doctor performs 3-4 surgeries a day. The surgeries are quick and big money-maker.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Landin
12:15 PM on 07/15/2011
That is total nonsense! The average doctor makes about $100 profit from a circ, that hardly comes to $250k........
photo
clownprince
I'm tired and it's a lot of baloney!
02:41 PM on 07/14/2011
Women should be circumcised. It would be healthier and cleaner. It looks better too. And it is a tradition for some cultures and we should respect other peoples cultures.

Do I sound ridiculous? Of course I do! But how can it be justifiable to cut boys but not girls?
03:27 PM on 07/14/2011
Are there health benefits to circumcising women with no downside?
If so, then it's not ridiculous at all..
03:38 PM on 07/14/2011
>implying circumcision has no downside

Your ignorance is obvious.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hugh7
06:14 PM on 07/14/2011
Stallings et al. found "circumcised" women have less HIV. Rather than assuming cause-and-effect and promoting FGC across Africa, they wondered what the real cause was. How sensible!
04:59 PM on 07/16/2011
People *think* your argument sounds ridiculous.
But, has anyone seen a picture of FGM ?
It honestly looks like the idealized porn-star vagina.
04:16 PM on 07/18/2011
I don"t think so. How can a vagina that has a clitoris missing look like a porn-star vagina. Maybe more like a child's closed up labia vagina.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
22Keys
01:04 PM on 07/14/2011
Circumcision provides statistically significant (additional) protection against the spread of HIV. Of course condoms, and other methods, provide far more protection than simply being circumcised. No one is suggesting that circumcision be a PRIMARY defense against HIV. Any psychological harm caused by this procedure is negligible considering the fact that a new case of HIV is prevented at approx. every 72nd circumcision.

Mills E, Cooper C, Anema A, Guyatt G (July 2008). "Male circumcision for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection: a meta-analysis of randomized trials involving 11,050 men". HIV Medicine 9 (6): 332–5.
03:29 PM on 07/14/2011
What do Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Tanzania have in common? Those are african countries where HIV is *more* widespread among the circumcised.

So much for "protection".
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
22Keys
07:27 PM on 07/14/2011
Please provide relevant data for your assertions.
07:57 PM on 07/16/2011
Even in the U.S. there was little to no difference in the rate of HIV between altered man and unaltered men. It is a lie to make a claim that circumcision prevents HIV infection! Amazing that people will believe anything.
06:59 PM on 07/14/2011
It provides additional protection for men who have untreated STDs that have caused gaping, open sores on their foreskin. In this country, where treatment for STDs is widely available, the protective factor against HIV is nil.
09:35 AM on 07/15/2011
Oh really? The protective factor comes from removing skin that provides
an easy entry way for STD's.