SecretMethod70

Funny, that's pretty much what every single medical organization says too...yet that is somehow not enough.
xepherys, I find it interesting that you haven't responded to a single one of my posts. Being a social norm is not a valid argument for *any* permanent surgery. Female circumcision (let's speak specifically here and take this to mean the removal of the prepuce, or clitoral hood (NOT the clitoris in any way), which is essentially the equivalent of male circumcision) is quite common in some cultures, yet there is still outrage against it. In fact, just as recently as the 1950s, it was advocated by doctors in the US in papers published in medical journals.

Even setting that aside, when dealing with surgery, the case is such that a convincing argument must be made FOR it. The only exception seems to be male circumcision, and even then it is only really so in America. Why? The FDA doesn't approve drugs that have no clear evidence that they help or hurt, why then is a permanent removal of a body part different? Like I have said, I agree that some things posted here have been extreme. I *DON'T* think it is even relatively common for a circumcised male to suffer physchological problems due to the circumcision, and, no, complications are not all that common. But, I *will* make the assertion that it removes a significant source of sensitivity. The foreskin contains nearly the same concentration of nerve endings as the glans penis (this is exactly how sensitivity is measured in medicine, so don't bother to tell me that it doesn't prove anything). It also accounts for about 50% of the skin of the penis (British Journal of Urology). And, frankly, the idea that circumcision means the male can last longer is both a ridiculous and immature argument. It is also the same justification used for removal of the female prepuce, since it "gets in the way" of clitoral stimulation (and, in fact, back when that type of female circumcision was relatively common in the US, many women testified to this fact).

But, again, I will set aside the issue of sensitivity because, really, it doesn't matter. It all falls back on the fact that every other seriousmedical procedure must be JUSTIFIED, not disproven. Medicine is not unlike our justice system: you must prove the foreskin is "guilty" if you're going to cut it off, not the other way around. And, for a permanent operation on a person unable to provide consent, the standards of evidence have not been met. And medical organizations outside the US have been keen to point this out, as I have already shown. Even in the US, they are unwilling to recommend non-therapeutic, neonatal circumcision, despite not being willing to take the harsher stance other medical communities have taken.

You have also not countered my post regarding the sordid history of male circumcision: why it began as a "medical" procedure, the changing justifications for it when the old ones were no longer viable but after it had become a common part of society, and the extreme similarities in its early history among Western countries between its justification and that used for female circumcision. You have not countered my pointing out that numerous medical organizations at the very least do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision and others outright recommend against it with any similarly recent statement from a respected medical organization that not only says it doesn't hurt, but recommends FOR it. Again, we go back to the standards of evidence. When dealing with a medical procedure - most especially one that is permanent - the case must be made FOR it, not against it. The idea that circumcision may "POSSIBLY effect him in a positive way... permanently" is irrelevant when circumcision is held to the same standards that other medical procedures are held.

I have, for the most part, kept emotion of of this. I am circumcised and I have nothing against my parents for doing so. I don't think other parents who have had their children circumcised are vile people. Nor do I think that parents in cultures where female circumcision is popular who have that procedure done are vile people. In both cases, it is not the parents, but the repugnant social norm that must be criticized.

Keeping the issue of sensitivity set aside, circumcision, at the very best, amounts to plastic surgery. No one has yet had the courage to admit that they would be opposed to me having my child's earlobes removed, and, likewise, I think (for god's sake, I hope) most/all people here would be opposed to me giving my baby child some other form of plastic surgery.

The issue with Medicaid is an important one too, because it shows that more and more states are listening to the doctors and recognizing that, at the very least, the surgery is totally unnecessary. Again, if it WERE necessary I can only imagine the problems they'd have in most other Western countries where the circumcision rate is as low as 10%.

So, no, those opposed to circumcision do NOT need to make a convincing argument against it (although I will admit that the position is hurt when attempts are made to make circumcision sound like it's something that *terribly* harms those who get it). Just like any other serious medical procedure (and the permanent removal of something, even if it *is* "just skin" (remember, I'm setting the sensitivity issue aside for the sake of argument) is a serious medical procedure), a convincing argument must be made FOR it.

And, as a final note, while I have absolutely no ill-will towards the fact that I'm circumcised - unlike now, where circumcision rates are slowly approaching 50/50 in the US, the situation was far different when I was born - I can't help but wonder what it is like for the entire shaft of the erect penis to rival the sensitivity of the glans penis (and no, UsTwo, this is not something I wonder about a lot - in fact, I only wonder about it when responding to this thread). I know at least one person who was adamantly FOR circumcision before reading this thread has now turned against it. I don't think the opposite can be said.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling