2003-08-01 - 10:05 p.m. - Cycle day: 35 weeks, 5 days

We have our last childbirth education class tomorrow, and we're focusing on post-partum issues like perinatal testing, breastfeeding, and that hottest of hot buttons, circumcision. I know there's a couple in our class planning on a bris, and I have no intention on railing on them or anyone else about their decision to circumcise, but since this is my journal, I get to say this: I don't believe in circumcision. In fact, I'm vehemently, passionately and in all other dramatic ways opposed to it. And here's why:

1. The reasons it was introduced into Western medical practice have everything to do with morality and nothing to do with sound medicine. Victorians thought it would cure masturbation, and therefore cure all the other illnesses, from asthma to arthritis, that they thought were related to masturbation. And why would it do that? Because it made sex less fun. They knew that. That was the point.

2. There isn't a single major medical organization that recommends routine infant circumcision. The medical "benefits" of circumcision are somewhere on the spectrum between exaggerated and made up. Studies showing an increased risk of cancer and STDs among the uncut have been widely debunked. The American Cancer Society even told pro-circ groups to stop telling people that circumcision decreased cancer risk, because it just ain't so. And the STD thing? How to explain the U.S.'s significantly higher STD rate, in comparison to European countries that don't routinely circumcise? It makes me really sad when I hear people quoting their doctors about the health benefits of circumcision, because these people have been gravely misinformed, and their babies are suffering for it.

3. The whole "so he'll look like Dad" thing makes me more than a little ill. On top of the studies showing no psychological harm to boys whose fathers had different circumcision status, this is just a dumb, dumb reason to perform surgery on an infant. Kids don't look like adults to begin with, especially in their genital regions. They manage to wrap their heads around that pretty easily.

4. It hurts like hell. Both during the surgery and afterward. Any claims to the contrary are nonsense. That sucks in and of itself, but it also complicates the bonding between baby and parents. Who feels happy and attached when their most sensitive area is in pain?

5. Have you seen how hospitals do it? Watch a video, or even take a look at some diagrams. It's horrific. I'll just say this: the foreskin is attached to the penis with connective tissue, like fingernails are attached to the fingers. In order to remove it, that connection must be broken, and the tissues must be separated. I don't know a single person who would consider pulling a newborn's fingernail from the nailbed, yet the procedure of circumcision is so very much more traumatic.

6. Taking home a newborn is scary enough without having to worry about tending to a surgical site, especially one that is bound to be soaked in waste products most of the time.

7. And here's my big one: Both sexes are born with foreskin over their most delicate genital bits. It keeps bacteria out and protects the sensitivity of the organs themselves. I would never, ever consider removing this useful skin from my daughter. The very idea makes me ill. Why would I remove it from my son?

Phew. Okay, there. Just had to get that out. This is something I feel very, very strongly about, so I just had to vent before I was let loose in a classroom setting. If anyone's curious, I do have references for the claims made above, but I don't really feel like footnoting my own diary. A lot of good general info can be found on www.nocirc.org. If you'd like info about any specific point, let me know and I'll dig up a citation. Or you could just trust me based on the knowledge that I've done an unsettling amount of research on this topic (it took about eight months and a particularly detailed pamphlet, but I think I've finally got The Husband convinced ...)

previous - next