Advice Needed: Circumcised vs Uncircumcised

I come from the UK, where it's rare for people to be circumcised but it's common for people to have their little toes chopped off.In our newspapers and tv shows over the last few years we've had the same sort of arguments - here's the digested version:Arguments in favour of cutting off the little toeReduces the incidence of toe cancer by 20%Prevents children feeling "feeling left out" because they have too many toesLittle toes just end up being misshapen because of tight shoesPromotes growth and development of the big toe, which is more important for balanceWe've always done it, and God thinks it's a good ideaFive toes is ugly and weirdLittle toes can cause infection if they aren't cleaned properly, and cleaning five toes is more difficult/time consuming than cleaning four toes. Most cases of athlete's foot start in the little toeIt's your baby. You own it. You can do what ever surgical procedures you feel like to your baby, because your baby is your property.Arguments against chopping off the little toe
Can't think of any, personally.So whatever you decide about the circumcision, you shoult take the little nipper's little toe off as well, just in case he visits the UK and wants to fit in.MickThis message has been edited by mick, 01-16-2006 02:08 PM

Dead right. We're only talking about ten minutes a day with a wire brush. It's not like a second job or anything.Mick

Hi Schraf,You are dead right. The UK and the US governments have brought in special laws regarding female circumcision. These laws rightly ban all forms of female circumcision including hacking off the clitoris and labia minor (80% of female circumcisions), hacking off the clitoris, labia minor and labia major (15% of female circumcisions), and the remaining 5% of ceremonial non-surgical practices involving "pricking, piercing ... and introduction of ... herbs into the vagina" (quote from British Medical Association guidelines).It strikes me as very strange that pricking and "introducing herbs" should be illegal on the basis of human rights and medical ethics, while chopping off the prepuce for absolutely no medical benefit (despite the claims of Holmes otherwise) is considered perfectly acceptable.We should bear in mind that there is no demonstrated benefit of circumcision. The recent suggestion that HIV is transmitted less when the male is circumcised have been taken to pieces in the medical literature; and other STDs (like gonnorhea) are actually more easily passed on from circumcised people.All circumcision is - for both males and females - is a prehistoric practice carried out by retrograde cultures based on religion and custom, and rooted in the patriarchal idea that parents can/should control the sexuality of their children.Sure, if somebody has a medical condition that requires circumcision then it's just bad luck and has to be done. But otherwise it is plain and simply UNNECESSARY SURGERY. Just the same as it's okay to pull the tooth of a child if the tooth is rotten, but it's not okay to do it just because the parent thinks it makes their kid look nice.It's typical of the way that parents view their children: my children are my property - I can do what I like to them. Fuck that!Mick

Hi arachnophilia, Sorry but I don't generally keep a record of the medical research I read (I'm into phylogenetics). But two relevant articles in my records are:From the Journal of Medical Ethics:
A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctorsFrom the American Journal of Bioethics:
Between Prophylaxis and Child Abuse: The Ethics of Neonatal Male CircumcisionBoth discuss medical findings, I think the latter goes over a number of studies and suggests that circumcision makes no difference to your sexual health; the material on gonnorhea is referenced in one of those articles, I think the first one.Mick

Hi Ben, If one could demonstrate the circumcision fulfilled a public health need (for example if circumcision prevented the transmission of STDs) then there would be a public policy reason for promoting circumcision as a universal practice. I do not believe that those pushing for universal circumcision have made such a demonstration (and such people do exist, see for example Medicirc: A Lifetime of Medical Benefits). It's not immaterial, it is rather the only justification one could possibly make for customary circumcision. It's not an ad hominem attack at all. An ad hominem attack is one that appeals to personal prejudices rather than reason and fact. The vast majority of circumcisions are carried out by people who appeal to custom or tradition as their justification; they appeal to prehistoric texts such as the bible or the koran; they are people who seem to have missed out on the Enlightenment and are therefore IN FACT retrograde in their reliance on prehitoric doctrines as motivation for their actions. No need to get bogged down in the semantics of "unnecessary" or questions about the meaning of life. All you have to do is read a book on medical ethics. Surgical intervention is commonly held to be justified in two types of situation. First, when consent is not given by the subject of intervention but intervention is necessary to heal a verifiable illness or injury. For example if you get into a bad car crash and have to have surgery while you're unconscious it would be ethical for a surgeon to carry out said surgery without your consent. Second, when consent is given by somebody who is legally entitled to give informed consent and is of sound mind. For example if somebody wishes to donate a kidney to their sister, or have their labia surgically reshaped.Anything beyond those two situations is both unnecessary and unethical. For example, carrying out plastic surgery on the face of your two-year-old daughter to make her more cute. Its unecessary because it doesn't heal a verifiable illness or injury, and its unethical because the two-year-old is not competent to give consent.It's really really simple when you think about it. It's not medically necessary and the kid can't give informed consent. If a dentist, walking down the street, happened to feel that a kid he passed would be more attractive if he pulled out her two front teeth, then went on to carry out that operation, then it would clearly be wrong, unethical and illegal. Fair enough.