Keeping track of who said what (in comments and emails) is getting a little confusing, and I wanted to clarify my position. I originally mentioned circumcision in my post “Weird parenting priorities, cont.,” in which I also linked to Rixa’s thought-provoking blog (see my blogroll, on right). I didn’t comment on Rixa’s blog about her post on circumcision, because all I had to say was, amen.
My dad (a conscientious doctor) and my brother (a conscientious CNA starting medical school this fall) are both anti-anti-circumcision (to quote my dad). My dad seconded my cousin Josh’s (a conscientious doctor) comment (courtesy of his wife Sylwia) on my “weird parenting…” post. Brad (my brother) offers the best reasoning so far, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
In short, they all are pro-circumcision because it cuts down on the possibility of infection and resultant pain later in life. This can be included with the other medical arguments for circumcision that it reduces the risk of spreading cervical cancer and HIV/AIDS. (Other methods for reducing those risks include abstinence and fidelity, not to mention condoms–which do break, so frankly, I’m for A&F).
Any other arguments for circumcision are much less defensible, in my opinion (except if you are a practicing Jew or Muslim; enough of my own actions are dictated by my faith that I respect this decision). My dad was concerned that he might offend me in arguing against my position, because he thought (erroneously) that it stems from the fact that my husband (sorry to expose you, Dick) is “intact.”
This is the “boys should be like their father” argument that Rixa counters so beautifully, and as I said to my dad, we don’t augment or reduce girls’ breasts or dye their pubic hair to match their mother’s. I am not afraid of difference within my family. Also, maybe I was just completely excluded from this as a girl, but I don’t remember my father and brothers sitting around discussing how happy they were to all be the same “down there.” Maybe this was a major component of those father-and-son boy scout trips?
My argument/analogy, kept in reserve to counter the medical argument, is this:
We (as parents or doctors) have boys (sons or patients) who will grow up to be men. We know they will have to make choices regarding their personal hygiene and their sexual activity. We know they might choose unwisely, and neglect self-care and/or be promiscuous. We know that the consequences of these choices can be catastrophic. ….So, we decide to remove the possibility of these consequences by taking away (literally) their ability to make these choices. (Sounding familiar, yet?)
For those unfamiliar with LDS doctrine, I think (my opinion, not saying this analogy is doctrine!) that this scenario resembles, just slightly, the plan put forth by the Adversary. To pre-emptively save us from the consequences of our actions, rather than to teach us correct principles (like good hygiene and A&F) and then let us choose for ourselves and then be subject to the consequences.
Now, Brad almost ruins the beauty of my logic for me by pointing out that some of his patients have been old men who are no longer able to choose to practice self-care due to infirmity, and so they are subject to infection, pain, and medical personnel who also neglect to clean this area. I can’t think of any response to that, unfortunately. But give me a couple of days…
Oh, and my dad informed me that there are groups who go so far as to support plastic reconstruction of the foreskin. This I don’t understand. Two wrongs (unnecessary surgeries) do not a right make.
Subscribe by email
So, since I had both my sons circumcised without their consent, does that mean I took away (literally) their ability to make their own choices on self-care and promiscuity? Does this mean they will always be clean and righteous? Awesome! Even you, Shannon, would have to admit if this were true you’d do it in a heartbeat! Too bad I did it just for fun. Have you ever seen a circumcision? I sat in on both my boys – not a big deal.
[Reply]
good point (well, two of them), i’ve never seen a circumcision, i’ve just heard horror stories (including from nurses who tell of bleeding that won’t stop, etc). and, i don’t have any boys of my own (except tom!).
but, did you see that law and order episode about the “fraternal” twin girl and boy–turns out the girl was made into a girl after a botched circumcision. not a pretty sight. i think it was a CI one, no the one with maritska hargitay. dang, sometimes i do miss TV.
naturally, alden and emmett will be model children/men regardless!
[Reply]
The process is pretty harmless…they just put a rubberband on it and it cuts the circulation off and then the skin falls off. Not a big deal (if I remember correctly).
[Reply]
hi Adrianne,
you make it sound like how you get a pig’s or dog’s tail to fall off!
i know i said i hadn’t seen one, but i’m pretty sure there’s a sharp object and some blood involved.
wikipedia.org (i know, maybe not an unimpeachable source, but i find it very informative) says that it’s a surgical procedure, and lists possible complications.
in any case, your kid is too cute! and i hope his lip injury gets better soon. (injuries are how we know the kids are living life to the fullest, right?)
[Reply]
Shannon,
While following your masterful and gospel founded come-back, I can’t help compare a decision like circumcision at birth to vaccination at birth with regard to help prevent diseases: in your argument you use circumcision, in my example I want to use vaccinations. Newly born children are given vaccinations at birth as a preventative against future infections and diseases that they themselves may have control to exposure, (given there are many that they would have no control over) based on their activities, environment, and choices. Quoting your above line, replacing circumcision with vaccines: We (as parents or doctors) have boys (sons or patients) who will grow up to be men. We know they will have to make choices regarding their personal hygiene (where they live) and their sexual activity (as well as other hygiene practices and activities.) We know they might choose unwisely, and neglect self-care and/or be promiscuous (applicable to their hygiene choices, disease awareness.) We know that the consequences of these choices can be catastrophic (talk about non-vaccinated exposure to deadly diseases…) So, we decide to remove the possibility (or decrease the chance of disease, etc.) of these consequences by taking away (literally) their ability to make these choices (without their consent, decreasing their risk of being severely impaired by a now vaccinated disease) (Sounding familiar, yet?)
Now I do realize that it has been proven by science and logic that vaccinations SAVE LIVES, however I can’t help bring up the similarities between parents giving vaccinations and parents having their boy circumcised. Both are preventative measures proven to decrease risk of disease (how much for circumcision in question?), decrease problems in the future, and both are administered without the child’s conscious approval or choice. Wouldn’t any logical parent want to decrease any if not all health related risks of their infant child? (just think of all the precautions and paranoid care specifically for first time mothers?) If more problems are associated with “intact” males than circumcised males with respect to problems “down there” wouldn’t you want more reassurance for your infant son that they will have less of a risk?
Just some thoughts,
Ryan
[Reply]
Hi Ryan,
good point. thanks for taking the time to lay it all out. interestingly, a lot (most? all?) of the people who are against circumcision are also against vaccination (and a lot of other mainstream medical practices), because of the rise in autism (said to be connected to vaccines, though it hasn’t been proven), among other things (vaccines aren’t natural, did you know?).
there was a tragic story recently (read the article ) about a 2 year old who was exposed to the small pox vaccine (to the variant of small pox that is the vaccine) through his military father, who had been vaccinated before his tour of duty. the boy was in critical condition and had to be treated with experimental drugs. the mother also contracted the disease.
this is extremely uncommon, but points out the fact that, unlike moral questions, matters of health and hygiene have pros and cons on both sides, and the consequences are not clear cut as they are in matters of morality. so my analogy was not a perfect match.
but i’m glad it made you (and me) think!
[Reply]
I have three boys that have been circumcised. My last son Nephi didn’t even wake up during his circumcision. so it can’t be that horrible.
Putting all of the medical reasons aside, I had my kids circumcised for convenience. Boys naturally have horrible hygine. I have to remind them to shower everyday, and I’m glad I don’t have to remind them to pull their foreskin back.
Boys also have a tendency to play with their private parts for no reason. They have to be reminded over and over again to not touch their penis. Being intact might just give them the excuse to do that in the shower. Best to avoid that as well.
And last but not least. Women who are married to intact men are more likely to get urinary tract infections. I think women suffer enough in childbirth and in other female related problems, so if there is anything we can do to decrease their chance of UTI, we might as well do it.
That’s why I wanted my boys circumcised. Not only for themselves, but to make life simpler for their mom when they are little, and for their wife when they are grown.
sylwia
[Reply]
good points, Sylwia. i am all for making life easier for the women!!
how do you get your husband to take out the trash without having to remind him every day? as i tell Tom, he doesn’t have to remind me every day to take care of the kids. (luckily, he does to go to work without reminders
)
[Reply]
I wonder about shaving. It is not “natural” (surely one of the most often misused and distorted words). For any man or woman to remove any hair is not natural, but like circumcision is done for convenience, hygeine, cosmesis/fashion; “if God meant for us to be hairless…” I sometimes wish Joseph Smith had been more explicit in his descriptions of the Lord and of angels: did they have full, untrimmed beards? Do female angels shave their armpits?
In the BYU-based recurrent (cycles through every so many years) debate / complaining about their facial hair policy in light of Brigham Young’s beard, Spencer Kimball said that former prophets’ beards represented the difficulty in shaving back then, and that we have no such excuse now. Our hygeine and antibiotics and etc. seem to put circumscision in much different light than in Abraham’s day.
We just don’t undertand enough to make final judgements on things like circumcision, beards, sex and other relationship factors among immortals, and etc. I’m unconvinced that the Lord’s reasons for instituting cicumcision with Abraham was only due to hygeine or to mark the covenant, though I don’t really have other ideas as to why.
Isaiah, Alma, Paul, Shakespeare, and Joseph Smith all said words to this effect: “There is so much we don’t know!” Those passages always make me wonder, which is the awe that makes really good science fiction so enjoyable.
Meanwhile, I do enjoy this discussion.
[Reply]
thanks, Dad. so coincidental (i think we do think alike)–my last post is on the “instinct” or “natural” argument for other facets of parenting. i wonder what you would think of it?
[Reply]
I’m glad my parents made the decision to vaccinate and circumcise me.
[Reply]
Adam, I am glad that you are glad. reconstructive surgery just doesn’t seem a pretty prospect to me.
[Reply]