I admit that I am personally not very neutral here. While I am among those who think "barbaric" is a perfect description of this practice, I think I've been fair in my coverage. Someone with less interest may want to check my prose though. --
Lee Daniel Crocker
I looks pretty good to me; I did some minor editing. But I think the practise is pretty barbaric too. --STG
I think you guys have spent too much time in American hospitals. :) I have seen an American doctor perform a circumcision, and the event was pretty damn barbaric. But the barbarism wasn't in the fact that a tiny piece of foreskin was removed. What's wrong with that? Its not as if they touch the penis itself. When done skilfully and moderately, removal of a piece of the foreskin will be no worse than having someone pierce your little girl's ears for earrings. No, the real problem was the way that doctors literally strap a frigthened newborn down to a board, and then dig into the penis. I no longer wonder why so many gentiles are repulsed by this. But as a Jew I have been priviliged to personally see two Brit milahs (Jewish ritual circumcisions) up close, and it was a different sort of thing. No panic, little pain, and the infant was happy again in under one minute. People who have been to many of these events inform me that the two I saw were standard. RK
Since you probably don't have the benefit of a foreskin anymore, let me tell you that it is the most sensitive part of the body. There is absolutely no comparison with an ear lobe. And your phrase "it is considered barbaric if performed by a doctor without anaesthetic" is plainly false; it is considered barbaric if performed without anaesthetic, period.
- What I mean was that to me, I think a doctor's way of performing circumcision is barbaric because of the way that they do it, and they pain and fright it causes the baby. That's why I consider their way barbaric. As for the comparison to the earlobe, I hold that it is correct because (a) Babies don't have fully developed nervous systems at birth the way that an adult, teenager, or child does later on. Thus, while it must hurt, it isn't the same thing to them as it would be to you or me. (b) I was actually thinking about the amount of physical damage done to body tissue. Its more, yes, but not that much more. RK
There certainly is no comparison between a modest circumcision of the foreskin, and female genital mutilation (FGM). A better comparison would be to kidnap a 12 year old boy, strap him down, and literally chop off the head of his penis, leaving only the shaft and testicles. That, sadly, is the biologically correct analogy to FGM. There is no need for people to exagerrate what male circumcision is in order to disagree with it. RK
- Sorry, RK, but the idea that infants don't feel pain the same way or as intensely as adults was debunked long ago, and you shouldn't be hanging your hat on that. And it's a weak justification at best. I would tend to agree that as practiced by a skilled Moel it's probably a lot less traumatic than the hack-jobs done by American doctors, but "less traumatic" is hardly a recommedation. Even if it were completely painless, and even if it had real health benefits, it still amounts to permanently lopping off a normal, functional, healthy part of a kid's body without his consent. Any son I have will grow up intact and make that choice for himself. --LDC
203.109.250.xxx, whoever you are, even though I may happen to agree with you, your additions about legal challenges don't really add to the reader's understanding of circumcision in general, and so I'm going to move them to a new page, where hopefully others may add other legal tidbits on both sides. Even the cause of lobbying for its elimination is better served by keeping the rhetoric to a minimum and being rigorously unbiased. --LDC
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)