So, a study was recently done that claims circumcision to be a good thing, saying that it cuts down on the risks for various diseases and the like. It suggests that the decline in circumcision will raise healthcare costs - something like four billion dollars in the coming years.
I used to be kind of neutral on the subject until fairly recently when I did more research on it. Having done that, I have to call bullshit on the study.
First of all, the medical justification behind circumcision is that nature screwed up by giving us a foreskin - a belief I find very arrogant. It took millions of years for us to evolve as we are, foreskin and all.
Secondly, what do y'all think of the female circumcisions done by some African tribes to reduce or eliminate sexual pleasure felt by women? Horrible? Yeah... well, reducing sexual pleasure is the same reason it was done to men. The foreskin has a lot of nerve endings and glands for lubrication in it. Also, supposedly it discouraged or prevented masturbation. Let's not bullshit: the reason male circumcision became so widespread is because it is condoned/demanded by a couple popular and widely accepted religions. If said religions had demanded female circumcisions (I imagine the reason they don't is because the Hebrews had less understanding of the mechanics of a vagina), there would be similar studies talking about the health benefits in preventing diseases in female circumcision. Sure, having less to get diseased may prevent a disease, but that's not really a good reason to start cutting stuff off, is it? I mean, by removing a kidney, maybe you could cut your chances of kidney disease in half, but that doesn't mean you should do it.
Unfortunately, some do take kind of an arrogant approach to medicine with the mentality that nature screwed up, or that we've advanced beyond evolution. Until very recently, the appendix was thought to be a useless organ that would be removed in a heartbeat. While it's still routinely done, they have found that it does serve a purpose (a safe haven for the good intestinal flora when you have diarrhea and such like), and aren't quite as quick to remove it. Similarly, I don't believe the foreskin should be removed without legitimate medical reason. It serves a purpose, even if that purpose be taboo by the standards of some. It amounts simply to institutionalized genital mutilation.
Interestingly this has been a raging debate in Germany recently. One of my favorite news sites
ReplyDelete(http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/commentary-circumcision-without-medical-justification-is-wrong-a-846395.html)
did a story on it. The courts in Germany were trying to outlaw circumcision altogether because it was unhealthy. Of course freedom of religion came into the picture to stop that legislation from passing.
I'm not circumcised and I'm quite happy this way. The reason I mention is because when I was younger my step-dad asked me if I wanted one since I didn't have one at birth and the procedure gets more dangerous as men get older. The benefits he told me about were that it makes the organ look bigger and that it doesn't have to be cleaned as often. Suffice it to say my step-dad was no medical professional; I declined. No sharp objects near my business thank you.
I agree with your statement about the arrogance that goes into believing that nature screwed up. It's there for a reason, don't mess with it!
Yeah, what a lot of people in America don't realize is that the First Amendment is a double edged sword - the government can't say what religion we have to follow or how to worship, but at the same time, a crime committed in the name of religion is still a crime. Circumcision should be an informed decision on the receiver's part, not a decision of one's parents/church.
ReplyDelete