A Story on Circumcision

[dianahsieh]

In response to Shea Levy's post against circumcision -- Why I Will Never Attend A Brit Milah, some folks on OGrownups have been discussing circumcision. I liked the following personal story by Kate so much that I asked her if I could post it here on NoodleFood. Happily, she agreed.

I would like to share my personal experience as a parent regarding circumcision. When I was pregnant with my son, I was on the fence as to whether or not to circumcise him. I was actually leaning more in the direction of having him circumcised. My husband and I talked about this for months (he was firmly against circumcision). My arguments for having it done were similar to those commonly espoused: I wanted him to look like Daddy; I wanted him to look like everyone else; I didn't want him to have to worry about a potential increased risk for foreskin cancer; and I wanted him to be "clean".

We both did a lot of research on the topic. We also talked to our pediatrician about it. To my surprise, she told us that the percentage of boys being circumcised in the U.S. is only 50%, and the percentage of boys being circumcised in our state (Washington) is only 40%. So, my argument for him looking like everyone else went out the window. She also said that foreskin cancer is extremely rare, and removing foreskin was a bit like removing a healthy appendix in order to prevent the possibility of appendicitis. She told us that keeping an uncircumcised penis clean is not an issue, as you simply have to teach the child how to do it (just as you would teach him how to clean any other part of his body). The decision to circumcise is essentially based either on religion or esthetics . As neither of us would circumcise our son for religious reasons, it was really a matter of esthetics.

At this point, I was leaning more towards not having our son circumcised. However, I was not completely convinced. During one of our birthing classes, the instructor showed us photos of a circumcision. I was horrified at what I saw, I and I began to cry. I could not believe that I had thought of putting my son through what to me looked like a mutilation of a perfectly good organ, simply because I preferred the looks of a circumcised penis. We decided not to have our son circumcised, and it is a decision we do not regret.

I recommend parents (or future parents) do a lot of research before making a decision, including interviewing your pediatrician.

You can find my own views of circumcision, as well as that of Leonard Peikoff, in this post.

Update: In the comments, "Restoring Tally" posted a link to these pictures of a circumcision. They're very graphic, and I'm now even more horrified by the practice of routine circumcision. It might be done in a sterile hospital, but that doesn't make the practice any less barbaric.

Cross-posted from Metablog

[Jonathan13]

At the link that Diana Hsieh posted, she quotes Peikoff as declaring:

"There can be no legitimate reason for anyone to circumcise a boy."

Au contraire:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=222904

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=222925

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=223134

etc.

J

[brian0918]

At the link that Diana Hsieh posted, she quotes Peikoff as declaring:

"There can be no legitimate reason for anyone to circumcise a boy."

Au contraire:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=222904

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=222925

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=223134

etc.

J

Those three links all make the same argument. The argument is a line of reasoning - a hypothesis. Is there any evidence to support it? I believe there is evidence to the contrary - for example the observed cancer risk from non-circumcision is minuscule, as Diana's post points out. That goes against your first post, where you link increased sensitivity to increased dirtiness to increased cancer risk.

Edited May 6, 2010 by brian0918

[Jonathan13]

Those three links all make the same argument. The argument is a line of reasoning - a hypothesis. Is there any evidence to support it? I believe there is evidence to the contrary - for example the observed cancer risk from non-circumcision is minuscule, as Diana's post points out. That goes against your first post, where you link increased sensitivity to increased dirtiness to increased cancer risk.

As I said in my posts on that previous thread, I agree that there is indeed evidence to the contrary. There appears to be conflicting evidence. Some studies suggest links to cancer. Some don't. Some suggest a significantly higher rate of balanitis in uncircumcised males. Some don't.

J

[Jake_Ellison]

As I said in my posts on that previous thread, I agree that there is indeed evidence to the contrary. There appears to be conflicting evidence. Some studies suggest links to cancer. Some don't. Some suggest a significantly higher rate of balanitis in uncircumcised males. Some don't.

And from that you draw the conclusion that circumcision is a good idea how?

[brian0918]

As I said in my posts on that previous thread, I agree that there is indeed evidence to the contrary. There appears to be conflicting evidence. Some studies suggest links to cancer. Some don't. Some suggest a significantly higher rate of balanitis in uncircumcised males. Some don't.

J

I have more conclusive and damning evidence: all studies have shown that unwanted pregnancies are higher among uncastrated males than castrated ones. The mechanism by which this occurs is also well understood and documented.

So clearly, by your logic, unwanted pregnancy is a legitimate reason to castrate your child.

Edited May 6, 2010 by brian0918

[Jonathan13]

And from that you draw the conclusion that circumcision is a good idea how?

You might want to consider actually reading what I wrote. My view is that there can be legitimate health reasons for circumcision, but that it's something that parents should consider very carefully. I think that if there's no immediate family history of something like balanitis, then parents should leave the foreskin alone.

J

[Jonathan13]

I have more conclusive and damning evidence: all studies have shown that unwanted pregnancies are higher among uncastrated males than castrated ones. The mechanism by which this occurs is also well understood and documented.

So clearly, by your logic, unwanted pregnancy is a legitimate reason to castrate your child.

So, I guess that means that by your "logic," all circumcisions are necessarily barbaric, and you therefore prefer the idea of males potentially suffering years worth of pain due to balanitis in the name of putting an end to the barbarism? If certain males have a family history of falling outside of the average of what incomplete and inconclusive studies suggest about the effectiveness of circumcision, well, then, tough luck for them?

Maybe my mistake was in not posting links to images of the damage caused by balanitis so that people can emote just as much as they have over the images that Diana Hsieh posted of the circumcision procedure?

J

[brian0918]

So, I guess that means that by your "logic," all circumcisions are necessarily barbaric

Where did that conclusion come from?

Maybe my mistake was in not posting links to images of the damage caused by balanitis so that people can emote just as much as they have over the images that Diana Hsieh posted of the circumcision procedure?

I didn't look at those pictures. Should I have? More generally, what is wrong with emotional responses if one's emotions are rationally grounded?

Edited May 7, 2010 by brian0918

[Jake_Ellison]

My view is that there can be legitimate health reasons for circumcision

What reason? You seem aware of the fact that circumcision hasn't been proven to prevent any medical conditions, and yet you claim there is reason. What other reason could there be except proven facts? Inconclusive studies aren't a reason to do anything, let alone something as drastic as surgery on infants.

Maybe my mistake was in not posting links to images of the damage caused by balanitis so that people can emote just as much as they have over the images that Diana Hsieh posted of the circumcision procedure?

Your mistake is in not distinguishing between a picture that is evidently relevant (a picture showing a circumcision), and pictures that are not (pictures showing an illness not proven to be related to the subject). You might as well pull an Al Gore, and show me a dying polar bear cub to convince me to circumcise my son and buy a hybrid, to drive him home from his mutilation with it. It won't work quite the way Diana's pictures do, because I can differentiate between fact and fiction.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Jonathan13]

Where did that conclusion come from?

It came from the same place that your conclusions about my logic and castration came from. Wasn't it clear to you that that was my point?

I didn't look at those pictures. Should I have? More generally, what is wrong with emotional responses if one's emotions are rationally grounded?

There's nothing wrong with emotional responses that are rationally grounded. The problem is that people often believe that their strong emotional responses are rationally grounded even when they're not. That's the nature of emotionalism. For example, people might get all worked up about a medical procedure about which they have no expertise, and they might think that expressing outrage about it is "rationally grounded." And then someone inconveniently provides information that they weren't aware of, and that person then has to be attacked and vilified because calmly and dispassionately accepting that his argument is reasonable might be taken as an admission that the frantic outrage wasn't so rationally grounded.

J

[Jonathan13]

What reason? You seem aware of the fact that circumcision hasn't been proven to prevent any medical conditions...

That depends on which research you choose to believe.

...and yet you claim there is reason. What other reason could there be except proven facts? Inconclusive studies aren't a reason to do anything, let alone something as drastic as surgery on infants.

Jake, did you bother to read my posts from the previous thread yet?

As I understand it, the general view in the past has been that circumcision does prevent certain ailments, but recent studies have begun to question the value of the procedure. Some of the research supports the idea that circumcision can be of value, some doesn't. So, when there are contradictory and inconclusive studies, families and their doctors are going to base their individual decisions on their experiences with ailments like balanitis. When a seasoned medical professional observes over the years that dozens of his uncircumcised patients have suffered from balanitis, and that none of his circumcised patients have, I don't think it would be unreasonable of him to conclude that his own professional experiences reflect the studies which support the idea of circumcision being, at least in some cases, the best solution to preventing certain ailments. I think it would be rational of him to weigh the benefits and risks based on his own experiences and knowledge (which would include his exposure to the latest studies, and his evaluation of their merit or lack thereof).

J

[Jake_Ellison]

There's nothing wrong with emotional responses that are rationally grounded. The problem is that people often believe that their strong emotional responses are rationally grounded even when they're not. That's the nature of emotionalism. For example, people might get all worked up about a medical procedure about which they have no expertise, and they might think that expressing outrage about it is "rationally grounded." And then someone inconveniently provides information that they weren't aware of, and that person then has to be attacked and vilified because calmly and dispassionately accepting that his argument is reasonable might be taken as an admission that the frantic outrage wasn't so rationally grounded.

Good story. But it doesn't fit, since Brian didn't look at those pictures until you mentioned them. Neither have I. Maybe we actually identified something wrong with your reasonable argument, that we pointed out, and you are currently ignoring,and choosing to go off on tangents about our psychology instead of responding to that? (as you always do, by the way)

Edited May 7, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Jonathan13]

Good story. But it doesn't fit, since Brian didn't look at those pictures until you mentioned them. Neither have I. Maybe we actually identified something wrong with your reasonable argument, that we pointed out, and you are currently ignoring,and choosing to go off on tangents about our psychology instead of responding to that? (as you always do, by the way)

I never said that the emotionalism involved in this issue is related only to the images that Hsieh posted.

J