Congrats to DwnWthVwls for doing some research. The link he posted makes a strong argument in favour of circumcision although in the end I found it to be suspiciously biased. Evidence of their bias is here, in the way that they demonize people who consider circumcision unnecessary:-
Quote:
|
They attempt to intimidate doctors, even mounting lawsuits that are inevitably thrown out of court. It has even been suggested that anti-circumcision groups should really be regarded as a cult devoted to worship of the foreskin - the parallels are obvious to any observer.
|
Not investigating very far, I found another site which seemed less biased. It notably prefixes the medical benefits of circumcision with the word “may”, indicating that the pro and con argument is still open to discussion:-
Circumcision: Learn the Pros and Cons of This Common Surgery
While there is some undeniable statistical correlation between better hygiene and circumcision, imo it´s not sufficiently strong to outweigh the downside of infant circumcision: –
> it´s not essential
> it´s done without the victim´s consent (which WhateverDude rightly condemns)
> it´s irreversible
> it may lead to various problems in later life:
Spoiler for statistics I´ve already quoted:
Quote:
|
...one such organization distributed questionnaires to circumcised men. The complaints included prominent scarring (33%), insufficient penile skin for comfortable erection (27%), erectile curvature from uneven skin loss (16%), and pain and bleeding upon erection/manipulation (17%). Psychological complaints included feelings of mutilation (60%), low self-esteem/inferiority to "intact" men (50%), genital dysmorphia (55%), rage (52%), resentment/depression (59%), violation (46%), or parental betrayal (30%). Many respondents reported that their physical/emotional suffering impeded emotional intimacy with their partner(s), resulting in sexual dysfunction. Prominent men known to be unhappy about being circumcised include Sigmund Freud, A E Houseman, W.H. Auden, Geoffrey Keynes and his brother John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist. In 1996 the British Medical Journal published a letter by 20 men saying that "we have been harmed by circumcision in childhood"; they argued that "it cannot be ethical for a doctor to amputate normal tissue from a normal child". Dr. Benjamin Spock (1903 – 1998), whose Baby and Child Care is the biggest selling American single-author book in history, originally supported circumcision but changed his mind near the end of his life.
|
Chula says it´s a no brainer and that newborns don´t feel sh*t. TBH I would refute both these statements. Firstly, there´s plenty to be discussed on both sides, as this thread indicates. On the second point, regarding newborn sensitivity, newborns are actually infamous for crying at the least discomfort (too hot, too cold, etc). Yes, the operation is less painful for newborns, but even though they won´t remember the trauma of circumcision, they will have to live with
whatever the consequences may be for the rest of their lives - as mentioned in the statistics above.
My bottom line is that there is sufficient uncertainty over the issue that forcing an irreversible nonconsensual operation on a newborn is a mistake. Better to wait and see if health problems arise in later life; after all, not every uncircumcised male runs into the kind of problems that Chula´s and mordwry´s brothers-in-law had. The options come down to this:-
..........Infant circumcision - may cause problems in later life; can´t be undone
..........No circumcision - may cause problems in later life; circumcision with patient´s approval remains an option
To me, if the issue really were a no brainer, the no brainer would be there, between the words "can´t be undone" and "remains an option".