I've been debating all day whether or not to touch this topic. I honestly can't think of another one in the parenting jungle, even breast vs bottle or SAHM vs WOHM, that causes such heated, sometimes hateful discussions. I admit, too, that it is a topic that I feel very passionate about. I usually at least try to remain a little bit unbiased when I'm talking here, and I doubt that I will be able to this time. I may know the arguments from the other side, I just don't find them persuasive at all. That's probably putting it mildly, too.
However, I'm also trying to create awareness of parenting topics, especially ones in the news, and this one is out there. So, I will attempt to tone down the rhetoric, but I make no promises of success. I'm a big opponent of the Mommy Wars, as I've stated numerous times, but it's quite likely that I'll lose a reader or two over this one.
That being said, as I write this, I've made a decision: I will write this from my point of view, and if a reader disagrees with me, and wants to write a rebuttal, I will post it. Deal?
A group in the US is taking its fight for the banning of infant male circumcision to the Massachusetts legislature. On March 2nd, the group, Bill to End Male Genital Mutilation, will appear at the State House to plead their case.
Personally, I doubt they will get very far. Circumcision is ingrained fairly deeply in US culture: nationally around 60% of baby boys have the procedure done within a few days of their births. Although the American Academy of Pediatrics says that there is no medical reason for routine infant circumcision, they have remained fairly neutral and refrained from actually coming out against the practice. There is still a lot of misinformation about the "benefits" of circumcision, plus the age old "He'll want to look like Daddy" argument. I actually heard about this issue from someone who referred to it as "ugly peen", and this was from a 41-year-old man I usually respect.
The other issue is that the leaders of the group may in fact turn people off: especially the one quoted in the article who went so far as to have a "foreskin restoration" in his 20s. Although he has valid points, he will be easy to tear down as a fringe activist.
So while I doubt that the group will get more than a token hearing, I do agree with them. There is no sound medical reason for routine circumcision. (Did I say that already? It bears repeating.) There is no other healthy body part that is routinely removed after birth. Should we remove everyone's appendix immediately because someday they may get appendicitis? Remove all baby girls' breast tissue because they may someday get breast cancer? Perhaps if the baby has mom's nose they should be given a nose job immediately because it's "ugly"?
"Personal choice" is a phrase I hear tossed around a lot. This I agree with, but the "person" involved differs in my opinion. By performing infant circumcision, you remove the choice of the person involved. The baby cannot argue with you. This is not a parent making a lifesaving medical decision for their child: this is a parent deciding on permanent cosmetic surgery, and I simply don't think that's one of our rights as a parent.
4 comments:
I don't agree with you. But it's been a very long day at work spent arguing and I don't really have the energy in me to "argue" here (you know I love you -- we've disagreed on tons of stuff over the years and we're still friends, right?!)
Okay... I read your article a few days ago and I've been musing over what (and how) to respond.
I agree with you. Honestly. BUT I often wonder if we made the wrong decision not to do anything to E when he was born. We are like the 40% of people who chose not to circumsise. Friends of ours, however, did make the decision. It's almost as if to them we were the 'freaks' who didn't do it. But to us, we couldn't see putting E through that kind of pain when he is oh so young, and at that point in time, not a real medical necessity.
The reason why I still struggle with whether it was the right decision was because my brother HAD to have it done - when he was 6years old - because of an infection. That said, could it have been prevented if he had been 'cut' within days after being born? I don't know for sure. No one was.
While I still believe in my heart I did the right thing, it still makes me wonder whether I should have...
But, to ban it altogether...? I don't think that is right. I do believe parents should have the choice of whether or not to do it. And, if the ban does come into effect, what will the Jewish population do? Since that is a right of passage at 11 days of age...?
Too many unanswered questions and far too great of a divide, I think, for any one person to say the other half is completely in the wrong.
I agree with you, Cynthia. Our son was born in November. In September we toured the hospital, and were shown the plastic baby-mold that baby boys are secured in for the procedure and it seemed positively medieval to us. My husband isn't circumsized and it has never been a problem for him. I couldn't bear the thought of putting our new baby boy through the unnecessary trauma of removing his foreskin.
As for him looking "different" from other boys, well isn't it our job as parents to raise our son to be proud of who he is, and to understand why there are differences present?
Cindy - it's okay if you disagree with me. Hope your day got better.
Janice - It's actually about 50/50 in Ontario. In some areas of Canada the rate is so low that they can't even come up with a numerator for it LOL. I know some people, too, question our decision, but as you may have guessed, I'm not one to be persuaded on this issue :) It's funny, because everyone seems to "know" someone (and in your case obviously you do) who "had" to get it done, but I was actually just reading an article on Today's Parent that was saying that because the foreskin is considered "expendable" - especially in the US - it's much more likely that a dr will just insist on circumcision at the first sign of trouble, as opposed to using less invasive methods of treatment.
As far as banning it altogether, I'd like to see it happen, I just don't expect to see it anytime soon. For me, the freedom of religion issue doesn't fly - mainly because I believe in freedom of religion insofar as it doesn't harm another person. Besides, at one point animal sacrifice was part of the Jewish religion, but that's gone by the wayside. Who's to say that circumcision won't eventually, too? Religions may be slow to evolve, but many do (on certain issues, anyway). Otherwise polygamy would still be in common practice.
Assertagirl - good point re pride in oneself :)
Post a Comment