So, San Francisco is trying to ban circumcision
So, San Francisco is trying to ban circumcision. Here in he UK, cutting is relatively uncommon, and generally only done for religious observance. In the US, circ is far more the norm, and apparently the City by the Bay has had it up to *here* with it. To be honest, I don’t care either way about the issue – my husband decided we weren’t going to do it, and since he has the penis, he got the deciding vote on this matter. What is annoying me about the matter is people going on and on that parents should respect that it is their son’s bodies, and they have no right to decide what happens to it.
Bullshit.
My son, left on his own to make his own decisions about his life, would die of starvation and dehydration within 3 days. 24 hours a day, I make decisions for him. I decide when he eats, and what he wears, and whether he takes a bath at night or not. I put sunglasses on him when it is too bright outside, and add a blankie when I think he is cold. I run his life, because I have to. Believe me, some days I would like to just tell my 3 month old kid ‘You sort yourself out for the day, Mummy is going to the spa!’, but I can’t, because if my husband and I don’t make decisions for him, decisions over his body, he would die.
While I personally think circumcision isn’t needed, I’m not going to call a parent a monster for doing it, and I’m certainly not going to accept legislation which hinders a parent in doing something they feel strongly about, whether it be for religious reasons or not. Now, some say it is abuse. Some say it is tantamount to torture. Some say it’s just like female circumcision, which is outlawed. And I am not sure how to respond to these people. Do I show them the files of kids I have worked with in the past who *were* legitimately tortured by their parents, and are still in mental wards over it? Do I introduce them to women who were mutilated through female circumcision not for religious or outdated hygiene purposes, but so that they would be unable to feel sexual pleasure when they were older, and ask those ladies if getting a small flap of skin removed is the same as them being held down at the age of 9 or so and having a large portion of their external genitalia removed, often with unsterile instruments and no pain relief, the same? Or do I simply remind them that every single action or inaction I take on the part of my child is making a decision for them, and I am just trying to do my best to raise my kid in a positive manner. Do I tell them that as they tend to dislike when people make decisions for them through legislature (I wonder how outlawing abortions would go over in SF?), and that this legislation is no different – it is taking away the rights of the parents over their children’s bodies.
For what it’s worth, by the group’s own stats over 90% of kids born in SF leave the hospital without getting the snip. You would think they would see it then as the non issue that it is, and work towards something else – keeping school lunches healthy, or outlawing the show ‘Toddlers and Tiaras‘ (kiddie beauty pageants are far more traumatic in my opinion than getting your weiner sliced, but that’s just me).
When my kid gets older, he’ll make decisions over what foods to eat, and what he would like to wear. As he gets even older, he will decide if he would like to get a piercing or tattoo. He’ll have autonomy over his body. But for now, that responsibility is my husband’s and mine. We are in charge of him, all of him. To take away that ability is to take away our right to choose. San Francisco, you know better.
Joe Auerbach 1:41 pm on April 27, 2011 Permalink |
Personally, i'm torn on the issue. Circumcision is medically needless, sure, but there are some pros on both sides. It DOES make things easier to clean and boys are bad at cleaning their junk even on the best of days. Also, I want to do as little "stretching" of my baby boy's foreskin as possible. To say nothing of the fact that the foreskin can tear in the course of "enthusiastic" sex and who wants to have any other kind?
Right now, I don't care a bit except as a mental exercise. if I ever have a baby boy, I'll think about it a lot more.
Monkey 2:16 pm on April 27, 2011 Permalink |
How enthusiastic does sex have to be before my foreskin tears? I’ve had one all my life, and not had any tearing. But then maybe my sex life isn’t enthusiastic enough…
MythicalMagpie 3:38 pm on April 27, 2011 Permalink |
It doesn't have to be *that* enthusiastic. But I've known men with very little "give". (Sorry I don't know the proper term).
Now that is, to my knowledge, not entirely common, but the care needs to be taken when your son is young so that isn't a problem later in life. Not all parents are comfortable with that.
Thankfully, like HyperHam, I'm leaving it all up to Joe. I'm not strongly drawn in one direction or the other.
almost witty 2:36 pm on April 27, 2011 Permalink |
San Franciscans seem to have a peculiar obsession with circumcision.
Besides, if peer/health professional pressure is good enough to persuade new mothers that breastmilk is best, then surely you can apply the same pressure to circumcision? Not above the cut, obviously…
Alice 3:37 pm on April 27, 2011 Permalink |
Circumcision isn't like putting sunglasses on your kid or feeding or bathing him though. It's permanent, purely cosmetic, has lifelong ramifications, and is not risk-free – more babies die from circumcision than SIDS a year. We're talking about a permanent surgical procedure that can't be reversed… it makes a lot more sense to me to wait until he's an adult and can decide for himself, like any other permanent cosmetic body modification.
HyperHam 5:35 pm on April 27, 2011 Permalink |
The American SIDS Institute estimates there are 2500 deaths per year to SIDS.
The American Academy of Family Physicians states that the death toll due to circumcision is 1 in 500,000
(http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/guidelines/Circumcison.html) .
In 2009 4.1 million babies were born (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-28/us/birth.rate.decline_1_statistics-center-birth-rate-great-recession?_s=PM:US).
That means the death toll from circumcision is 9.
2500 SIDS deaths is a lot more than 9 from circumcision.
HyperHam 7:34 pm on April 27, 2011 Permalink |
I should say, these are all US stats. However, a quick glance at world stats seem to reflect the US trend.
stoatsinjackets 4:03 pm on April 27, 2011 Permalink |
I'm with Alice on this. A parent has a right to make decisions about their child's body which are in that child's interest and protect its safety and survival.
A parent doesn't – or shouldn't – have a right to put an infant through a cosmetic surgical procedure which carries risks that child's life, significant risks to the child's genitalia (penises have been accidentally cut off, and more commonly become infected and have to be partially amputated); and which may impact the child's sexual enjoyment or mental wellbeing as an adult. That isn't a decision any person should have over any other person, of any age.
I don't think one can compare anaesthetised circumcision with forced FGM other than in principle, but that's working on an assumption that:
a) all circumcisions are anaesthetised – some aren't; and
b) that there are never complications with awful consequences for that child, both at the time and later in life.
This should be a procedure carried out where medically necessary.
HyperHam 7:32 pm on April 27, 2011 Permalink |
Here's the toughie: There is new evidence (as recently as the January 2011 edition of the Lancet) that circumcision can help prevent HPV in men, and cervical cancer in women (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61967-8/fulltext).
To quote: ''Our findings indicate that male circumcision should now be accepted as an efficacious intervention for reducing the prevalence and incidence of HPV infections in female partners. However, protection is only partial; the promotion of safe sex practices is also important.''
Would that therefore make the snip medically necessary? Technically, no. Should parents who were concerned with future HPV statistics get the snip in an effort to give their son a leg up medically be demonized for doing so? I don't think so. In this litigious country, would an adult be able to sue the city of SF if he gets HPV and could have helped prevent it by getting circumcised? It wouldn't hold up in court, but it would cost the City a lot of money to deal with. This doesn't even touch how you enforce such a ruling (doing a Bris at home, etc).
And on a less serious note, I fully expect something that I do or not do to damage my kid's mental wellbeing as an adult. That's just part of being a parent. 😉
Joe Auerbach 9:29 pm on April 27, 2011 Permalink |
I don't know what "rights" they're talking about above, because as far as I can tell a parent has the "right" to make every god damned decision they want. they'rte parents. You wan to get your kid a tattoo and a pierced asshole? You're the parent. Your call. It might not be a good decision, and it may not be wise, but I don't hear anyone whining about parents who choose to feed their kids mac and cheese and soda till they're 18, and those kill WAY more people every year. Childhood obesity is an epidemic. Not having a foreskin makes a small number of people butthurt. Perspective, people.
Heidi Rempel 7:09 pm on April 28, 2011 Permalink |
"It might not be a good decision, and it may not be wise, but I don't hear anyone whining about parents who choose to feed their kids mac and cheese and soda till they're 18, and those kill WAY more people every year. Childhood obesity is an epidemic."
Oh, you mean except for every screaming media article and TV chef and random Internet commenter who thinks that all fat people must be stuffing themselves and their children on junk food every day? Really? You think nobody gives parents a hard time, particularly the parents of fat children? God, I wish I lived in your world (I was in fear for the first two years of my son's life that when he bounced from being born at the 25th centile to being in the 50th centile for weight, I'd get blamed because I'm fat and therefore MUST be feeding my child junk food all day, every day).
Whether or not a parent has a right to do something (smoking around kids), etc. doesn't mean they should and surely it should be left up to the child to make permanent decisions about their body when they're old enough (read: no longer a minor) to do so with some modicum of informed consent.
stoatsinjackets 9:35 pm on April 27, 2011 Permalink |
Ha! Yes, good point – your JOB as a parent is to screw up somehow. I have always thought of this as "nature's way of making sure the kid eventually resents you enough to move out." 😉
There is a perfectly effective vaccine against HPV (and thereby a perfectly effective vaccine against HPV-caused cervical cancer) which is given to all girls of school age here in the UK. So that's that one dealt with (if someone is worried about contracting HPV, get vaccinated. Don't place the onus on your not getting cancer on your BF washing his dick, because if the only incentive he has to do so is not giving you cancer, he won't bother.)
Presumably if you cut men's penises off completely, you'd drastically reduce the spread of HIV. But I don't see anyone petitioning for that. 😉
And none of this addresses the risks of death and infection/long term genital damage an optional circumcision exposes an infant to. A parent definitely should not have the right to choose to risk their child's life for a medical procedure which COULD perfectly well be carried out later in life with much reduced medical risks, at puberty.
Kristi W. 4:37 pm on April 27, 2011 Permalink |
My Hubby and I had big discussions on this, as he is Circumcized and I didn't want our boy to be. When finally agreed we would not, we had to reinforce our decision over and over in the hospital – they kept pushing the papers to have it done. I agree with hyperham that it should be a choice. I also agree that there is very little literature to find here in the states if you don't want to do it. It is just assumed you will and you are looked at like you are crazy if you don't. Because why wouldn't you?? I had lots of reasons – many already mentioned here. I was lucky, I had other family member who weren't cut that I could ask for advice. Finding info on it only gave me "cleanliness" arguments on why it should be done. But I don't think it should be outlawed. Education and choice are the best tools.
Joe Auerbach 9:30 pm on April 27, 2011 Permalink |
I have heard of people who's babies were circumcised without anyone ever asking them. It does bug me that nobody ever thinks about whether you will or will not want them cutting your baby's penis.
almost witty 7:33 am on April 28, 2011 Permalink |
But why was the hospital so keen for your boy to be circumcized? Was there a quota or bonus for hospital staff or something ?!
HyperHam 7:24 am on April 28, 2011 Permalink |
Ah, but now you are getting into the muddied world of vaccinations and children, another major talking point in the US. If I get my kid vaccinated with a HPV vaccine, I am…wait for it…making a decision over his body WITHOUT consulting him! The very thing the anti circ people don't want me to do.
Of course, it doesn't even cover how one would enforce the law. Sure, you can make sure that no one circumcises at the hospital, but a Bris must be done at 8 days – will the City send folks round to homes after a week to get out the kids' weiners? And if they do, those inspectors will have to go through strenuous screening – I don't want my boy's wang inspected by a perv. Last week a TSA screener in Philly, a man in charge of patting down kids as well as adults, was busted for distributing kiddie porn, and never had a criminal record.
It boils down to a law that would be near impossible to enforce, with massive implications for the 1st Amendment (Freedom of Religion), and would cost an enormous amount of time and money that the city doesn't have, over frankly a non-issue as over 90% of kids who leave the hospital in SF are intact. They should concentrate their efforts on further education, not inefficient legislation.