Twelfth century rabbi Moshe ben
Maimon (also known as Maimonides, or the Rambam) admitted that the purpose of
circumcision is to reduce sexual sensitivity and pleasure. Contrary to the position which the American Medical Association (A.M.A.) took until 1999, circumcision has no medical benefits which are proven and undisputed.
Fortunately, however, the A.M.A. no longer recommends circumcising boys at birth; in 1999 it decided that, while science demonstrates that some potential benefits of circumcision exist, that information is not sufficient to recommend routine circumcision at birth.
Circumcision does not reduce the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (S.T.D.s) as its proponents claim (to be precise, they only claim that it may).
Common sense should tell us that cutting at the foreskin actually unnecessarily opens the body up to infection; by exposing unprotected areas to the elements (thus increasing the risk of contracting blood-borne illnesses). Evidence suggests that circumcision increases the risk of contracting syphilis, and that H.I.V. (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) infection rates are lower in countries where males are not routinely circumcised.
Claims that circumcision may reduce the risk of contracting H.P.V. (Human Papilloma Virus), however, are dubious, because those H.P.V. contraction rates cannot be fully known (because most heterosexual males are not considered eligible for H.P.V. testing).
Too many parents make the mistake of believing that circumcision promotes sexual health; and that the benefits of not having to clean as much of their children's genitals, outweighs the detriments associated with risk of contracting diseases (that is, if they're even aware of that risk).
Fortunately, however, the A.M.A. no longer recommends circumcising boys at birth; in 1999 it decided that, while science demonstrates that some potential benefits of circumcision exist, that information is not sufficient to recommend routine circumcision at birth.
Circumcision does not reduce the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (S.T.D.s) as its proponents claim (to be precise, they only claim that it may).
Common sense should tell us that cutting at the foreskin actually unnecessarily opens the body up to infection; by exposing unprotected areas to the elements (thus increasing the risk of contracting blood-borne illnesses). Evidence suggests that circumcision increases the risk of contracting syphilis, and that H.I.V. (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) infection rates are lower in countries where males are not routinely circumcised.
Claims that circumcision may reduce the risk of contracting H.P.V. (Human Papilloma Virus), however, are dubious, because those H.P.V. contraction rates cannot be fully known (because most heterosexual males are not considered eligible for H.P.V. testing).
Too many parents make the mistake of believing that circumcision promotes sexual health; and that the benefits of not having to clean as much of their children's genitals, outweighs the detriments associated with risk of contracting diseases (that is, if they're even aware of that risk).
While circumcision reduces
sensitivity, it also leaves scars that can recur and cause pain long into
adulthood, including pain during sexual intercourse. Reduced sensitivity,
coupled with pain and scarring, can cause sex to become less frequent. This can
lead to emotional detachment from one's sexual partner(s), which can lead to
difficulty sustaining sexual relationships.
The removal of the foreskin at birth, occurring before informed consent is even possible, can result in feelings of incompleteness, and sexual and personal inadequacy. These feelings can lead to, and exacerbate, D.I.D. (Dissociative Identity Disorder) and gender dysphoria. When part of one's genitals are removed, one may experience feelings of separation and dissociation from the person who underwent the operation; this causes the feeling that the disfigurement actually happened to someone else, and the sense that one's current persona is distinct from the person they were born as.
Additionally, botched circumcisions can leave boys with mutilated genitalia; the resulting incompleteness of the genitals and loss of correct function can cause boys to cease identifying as male altogether. Botched circumcisions can also cause massive blood loss, and cause problems that cannot be fully corrected for years.
The ensuing frustration, and hindered ability to build healthy emotional relationships with people on a social level, can motivate aggressive behaviors. These feelings can even motivate rape; a person who has been deprived of their natural rights of bodily self-ownership and physical integrity, may be more likely to commit rape as an act of sexual self-empowerment.
Circumcision is a barbaric, archaic ritual which has no medical merit (unless the baby is suffering from a malformed penis, or appears likely to suffer from a malformed penis in the future). Moreover, circumcision creates more social and sexual health problems than it's claimed to solve.
The practice should be shunned by anyone who understands that an individual human being has rights to his entire body. Furthermore, circumcision should be considered genital mutilation, and even child sexual abuse. Therefore, in my opinion, doctors who perform such procedures should have medical malpractice suits brought against them.
The removal of the foreskin at birth, occurring before informed consent is even possible, can result in feelings of incompleteness, and sexual and personal inadequacy. These feelings can lead to, and exacerbate, D.I.D. (Dissociative Identity Disorder) and gender dysphoria. When part of one's genitals are removed, one may experience feelings of separation and dissociation from the person who underwent the operation; this causes the feeling that the disfigurement actually happened to someone else, and the sense that one's current persona is distinct from the person they were born as.
Additionally, botched circumcisions can leave boys with mutilated genitalia; the resulting incompleteness of the genitals and loss of correct function can cause boys to cease identifying as male altogether. Botched circumcisions can also cause massive blood loss, and cause problems that cannot be fully corrected for years.
The ensuing frustration, and hindered ability to build healthy emotional relationships with people on a social level, can motivate aggressive behaviors. These feelings can even motivate rape; a person who has been deprived of their natural rights of bodily self-ownership and physical integrity, may be more likely to commit rape as an act of sexual self-empowerment.
Circumcision is a barbaric, archaic ritual which has no medical merit (unless the baby is suffering from a malformed penis, or appears likely to suffer from a malformed penis in the future). Moreover, circumcision creates more social and sexual health problems than it's claimed to solve.
The practice should be shunned by anyone who understands that an individual human being has rights to his entire body. Furthermore, circumcision should be considered genital mutilation, and even child sexual abuse. Therefore, in my opinion, doctors who perform such procedures should have medical malpractice suits brought against them.
Circumcision
performed upon people who have not yet reached the age of consent,
should be prohibited. However, it would behoove circumcision
opponents (so-called "intactivists", a portmanteau of
"intact" and "activists") to include a religious
exemption to such a legal prohibition. I recommend this in order to
protect the right to informed consent to circumcision, while avoiding
trampling upon the rights of religious communities (namely, Jewish
people).
The
Jewish tradition considers the practice of circumcision to be part of
a sacred covenant (called brit
milah)
which unites the genitals of the "patient" with the head of
the mohel
and
G-d, symbolizing a completion of the Jewish Tree of Life (Etz
haChayim).
This is why to prohibit circumcision among the Jews would, for all
intents and purposes, prohibit
the full practice of
the Jewish religion.
That's why any legalistic method aimed at reducing the incidence of
circumcision, should consider the consequences upon First Amendment
-protected freedom of religious expression.
On a final note, claims that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting herpes, do not hold up well in light of the fact that a handful babies die each year after being infected with herpes by mohels performing the ritual metzitzah b'peh following circumcision.
Written on November 11th, 2016
Originally Published on November 11th, 2016
under the title "On Circumcision"
Originally Published on November 11th, 2016
under the title "On Circumcision"
Edited on November 17th, 2016
Edited and Expanded on April 9th and December 14th, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment