Routine infant circumcision (RIC) is a practice that, in the Western world, only remains common in the United States, and even there has been declining since 1981. There has been much of a debate on whether or not this practice should continue.
As someone born in the United States (specifically, the state of Georgia) I am cut. In the state I currently live, California, RIC has not been Medicaid funded since the 1980s (iirc it was the first state to have Medicaid stop funding circumcision,) however, in the state I was born in, RIC continues to be Medicaid funded. If you read my original post in my Atheism/Agnosticism thread, you would know that I despise the fact that I am circumcised. I have been very vocally anti-circumcision among my friends, to the point of triggering debates on Facebook, but I will be trying to make this OP as unbiased as possible.
Arguments for (to the best of my knowledge)
1. Reduced risk of urinary tract infection
2. Reduced risk of female-to-male HIV/HPV transmission (there is no evidence for reduced risk in male-to-male transmission)
3. Reduced risk of penile cancer
4. "To match his father" (no, seriously, people actually say this one)
5. Hygiene
6. Practice considered mandatory in Jewish faith
Arguments against
1. Principle of "First, do no harm" is clearly violated
2. The infant cannot consent to the procedure
3. Foreskin required for homosexual sex act of docking
4. Procedure can lead to serious complications (bleeding and infection being the most common - and let's not forget about babies contracting herpes from traditional Jewish circumcisions in NYC)
5. Foreskin has actual functions, for example, providing a natural lubricant during sex
6. Why are you doing an irreversible procedure on someone who might end up disagreeing with the decision?
Well, that was my attempt to show some of the arguments for and against, but now to the point of this thread.
The point of this thread is to discuss the ethics of RIC - is it justified? Are the benefits enough to recommend it? If you're outside of the United States, how do you view the procedure as an outsider?
But anyway, for my contribution:
I really don't think the benefits are enough to justify the procedure. UTIs? Antibiotics. That's standard operating procedure for girls, who are at much higher risk of developing UTIs than intact boys, so why is it different for boys? HIV/HPV? So why are the rates of these higher in the United States (where circumcision is common) than they are in Europe (where circumcision is rare?) Use a fucking condom. Penile cancer? Come on, that isn't even common among intact men. And besides, nobody's advocating routine mastectomies for girls to prevent breast cancer, why advocate routine circumcision for boys when breast cancer is much, much more commonplace? Matching the boy's father? Come on, that one's so stupid I'm not even going to bother. Hygiene? Have you never heard of a shower? As for all of those benefits, here's the Royal Dutch Medical Association's statement on the practice. Practice considered mandatory in Jewish faith? Why not look into brit shalom, a Jewish naming ceremony that doesn't involve circumcision? Should RIC be outlawed, I think Judaism can, should, and will adapt. What exactly is wrong with letting someone choose to have it done as an adult, should their religious faith require it?
But anyway, that's that. Just keep the discussion civil, and let's not bring up female genital mutilation here - that's not the point of this thread and I feel like it'd just be used in a fallacious argument utilizing the fallacy of relative privation.
As someone born in the United States (specifically, the state of Georgia) I am cut. In the state I currently live, California, RIC has not been Medicaid funded since the 1980s (iirc it was the first state to have Medicaid stop funding circumcision,) however, in the state I was born in, RIC continues to be Medicaid funded. If you read my original post in my Atheism/Agnosticism thread, you would know that I despise the fact that I am circumcised. I have been very vocally anti-circumcision among my friends, to the point of triggering debates on Facebook, but I will be trying to make this OP as unbiased as possible.
Arguments for (to the best of my knowledge)
1. Reduced risk of urinary tract infection
2. Reduced risk of female-to-male HIV/HPV transmission (there is no evidence for reduced risk in male-to-male transmission)
3. Reduced risk of penile cancer
4. "To match his father" (no, seriously, people actually say this one)
5. Hygiene
6. Practice considered mandatory in Jewish faith
Arguments against
1. Principle of "First, do no harm" is clearly violated
2. The infant cannot consent to the procedure
3. Foreskin required for homosexual sex act of docking
4. Procedure can lead to serious complications (bleeding and infection being the most common - and let's not forget about babies contracting herpes from traditional Jewish circumcisions in NYC)
5. Foreskin has actual functions, for example, providing a natural lubricant during sex
6. Why are you doing an irreversible procedure on someone who might end up disagreeing with the decision?
Well, that was my attempt to show some of the arguments for and against, but now to the point of this thread.
The point of this thread is to discuss the ethics of RIC - is it justified? Are the benefits enough to recommend it? If you're outside of the United States, how do you view the procedure as an outsider?
But anyway, for my contribution:
I really don't think the benefits are enough to justify the procedure. UTIs? Antibiotics. That's standard operating procedure for girls, who are at much higher risk of developing UTIs than intact boys, so why is it different for boys? HIV/HPV? So why are the rates of these higher in the United States (where circumcision is common) than they are in Europe (where circumcision is rare?) Use a fucking condom. Penile cancer? Come on, that isn't even common among intact men. And besides, nobody's advocating routine mastectomies for girls to prevent breast cancer, why advocate routine circumcision for boys when breast cancer is much, much more commonplace? Matching the boy's father? Come on, that one's so stupid I'm not even going to bother. Hygiene? Have you never heard of a shower? As for all of those benefits, here's the Royal Dutch Medical Association's statement on the practice. Practice considered mandatory in Jewish faith? Why not look into brit shalom, a Jewish naming ceremony that doesn't involve circumcision? Should RIC be outlawed, I think Judaism can, should, and will adapt. What exactly is wrong with letting someone choose to have it done as an adult, should their religious faith require it?
But anyway, that's that. Just keep the discussion civil, and let's not bring up female genital mutilation here - that's not the point of this thread and I feel like it'd just be used in a fallacious argument utilizing the fallacy of relative privation.
