The Big C: Circumcision

This is supposed to be for "relaxed chat" but I see gun control and Saddam here, so I would like to add a topic of my own.I'm talking about male circumcision, as practised throughout America on baby boys, and to a far lesser extent Australia. I've browsed around the forums here a bit, and noticed that ethics and evolution are two subjects the participants know a thing or two about. Both relate to the issue of circumcision so I'll pop a few questions.Is it ethical to cut off a baby boy's foreskin? Is it ethical for a doctor to perform this procedure if there is no medical reason for it? Are there in fact any valid medical reasons to circumcise?Has the foreskin out-evolved its usefulness, or does it have inherent value to male humans?Does a baby own his foreskin? Or can a parent decide to remove it "to make him look like dad" or for some other non-medical reason? If so, does that mean it's okay to perform an analogous procedure on girls?------------------
o--greyline--o

Male circumcision has the same basis in medical fact as antibiotics for the flu: i.e., none. It does, however, have a very long and hoary tradition. The first recorded evidence of male circumcision comes from Egypt around 2300 BC. Also, the OT has it listed as a "covenant" between Abraham and God (Genesis 17, IIRC), so odds are it was borrowed from earlier, animist or pagan tradition like a lot of the OT. My guess would be it orginated as some kind of rite of passage thingy. There has been a fair amount of religious support for the practice, at least Judeo-Christian tradition. There was a cultural tradition in the US that provided a "medical" reason for it - during the 18th and 19th Centuries circumcision supposedly helped stop masturbation (like that makes sense...), again probably derived from a puritan-type religious stance that masturbation was a bad thing. IOW, from a scientific standpoint there's no medical reason for the practice.As to the ethics of an infant "owning" its foreskin... Well, I'll let the people who like to argue obscure moral points take that one.

Is it therefore unethical for parents to consent to a medical procedure, which has certain risks, when there is no medical reason for the procedure?Is it unethical for a doctor to perform what is essentially cosmetic surgery on a minor, when there is no "default" being corrected?

Hi greyline. I guess I was unclear. I think I answered your question concerning the medical reasons (or lack thereof) and added a bit of history of the procedure. I also stated that I had no interest in discussing the ethics of whether a neonate can be considered to "own" his foreskin. By extension, this lack of interest in discussing ethics should be extended to the two questions you posted above. No offense, but I swore off philosophy and metaphysics (a New Year's resolution) because to me most of the discussions appear to de-evolve rapidly into the semantic equivalent of arguing over the square root of a duck. You'll need to find someone else to discuss ethics and morality with on that score. Happy hunting.

quote:

---

There was a cultural tradition in the US that provided a "medical" reason for it - during the 18th and 19th Centuries circumcision supposedly helped stop masturbation...

---

Yeah, that really worked! My two boys were both circumcised as infants, and I really wonder why now - I didn't give it much thought at the time. At least we Americans don't practice the "split the penis down the entire top" sort of puberty ceremony that some African (and maybe native Australian?) groups do.

Quetzal - my questions were really just directed at readers in general and designed to keep the topic on the track I intended (that is, square roots not ducks) as I'm very familiar with the history of the practice, but thanks for the further explanation. Perhaps we can find a topic elsewhere that suits us both.------------------
o--greyline--o

Yeah, I kinda figured you wanted to discuss the topic seriously, which is why I backed out. For me, it's an SQR(DUCK) question, but I know it's a hot topic for others. The problem's with me, not the topic.OTOH, I'm not sure how many takers you'll have here that will argue the "pro-" side of the question, which is why you haven't had huge response, I think.Anyway, as a peace offering, there's a nice discussion going on over on IIDB at this thread on the topic. You might have more luck over there for this particular conversation.

Wow, that forum (I mean the entire site) looks like it's the place for me. Thanks, Q.------------------
o--greyline--o

I personally like how a circumcised penis looks, but I've grown accustomed to it. I think my parents had me "done" when I reached 2 weeks of age or summat. I don't miss my foreskin. I even have a picture of my Dad bathing me as a child. You can see my foreskin-encumbered knob quite clearly on it. I felt kind of weird seeing that.

Rrhain, where the Hell are you? THIS IS YOUR TIME!

For what it's worth, I don't think it's ethical to cut off the foreskin of an infant just for looks.

Well, that's assuming you don't keep the foreskin and toss out the infant.

Agent Uranium [GPC] writes:

quote:

---

I don't miss my foreskin.

---

You can't miss what you don't have.You are perfectly free to think that a circumcised penis looks better. But the question is:Who should be the final arbiter on whether it gets hacked off?Don't you think the owner of the penis gets to make that decision?In another direction, breast cancer is a horrible way to die. We have found that there is a genetic component to some types of breast cancer and can even do screening for it. Some women have decided that given their family history of breast cancer and a screening that shows they have the genetics for contracting breast cancer, they are going to have a "preventative mastectomy."Would it be acceptable for parents to perform such a procedure on their infant girls under the same circumstances of family history and genetic profile? Or should it be left up to the one who actually has the breasts?I'm trying to see where one would draw the line. After all, one of the reasons given for circumcision is a supposed prevention of penile cancer. Given that more women will die of breast cancer than men will even contract penile cancer, I'm wondering at what point this "health" argument breaks down.On the other side: Knowing that our culture values larger breasts, should parents subject their daughters to breast implants should it appear that they're not up to snuff? Or is it something that the owner of the breasts gets to decide?Shouldn't it be the owner of the penis who gets to decide what to do with the foreskin?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

You can't miss what you don't have.

---

What the Hell are you talking about? You can only miss what you don't have!

Dan Carroll responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You can't miss what you don't have.

---

​

What the Hell are you talking about? You can only miss what you don't have!

---

Not if you never had it.Don't be contrary just to be contrary.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!