{"id":9318,"date":"2007-06-24T16:37:55","date_gmt":"2007-06-24T22:37:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/?p=9318"},"modified":"2007-06-24T16:37:55","modified_gmt":"2007-06-24T22:37:55","slug":"9318","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/?p=9318","title":{"rendered":"Forcekin [Dan Collins] – [updated by Jeff G]"},"content":{"rendered":"

A blogger whom I don’t know named Ben Buckman<\/a> quotes Sully<\/a> this way:<\/p>\n

If parents tore the skin off their infants in any other part of the body, they’d be arrested for abuse. The great unmentionable, of course, is that religion, not medicine, is behind this practice – Judaism and Islam, to be precise. Many secular men, in other words, bear the scars of someone else’s religion on their own bodies for life. (I should add, as I have written before, that female genital mutilation is exponentially worse. It removes a girl’s sexual pleasure, rather than simply scarring and numbing it.) One commenter on Jeff Goldstein’s blog put one rationale for it this way:<\/p>\n

Further proof that God exists: he mandates a ritual that tones down the male sex drive, if only by a little, to help men become more godly instead of more carnal.<\/tt><\/p>\n

Now, I’m not so sure that i agree with our commenter’s quote, which is, for my taste, a bit Candide-y. Still, it’s a bit funny coming from the left, which generally has trouble with any concept of “Natural Law.” However, as one of those people who has made the decision (quite apart from religious or aesthetic concerns) to have his (male) children circumcised, I believe that my decision was quite rational, considering<\/a>:<\/p>\n

According to the report in the November issue of Pediatrics, circumcision may reduce the risk of acquiring and spreading such infections by up to 50 percent, which suggests “substantial benefits” for routine neonatal circumcision. most research has found that circumcision reduces the rates of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), syphilis and genital ulcers, the results are more mixed for other STDs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And it may be true that the results are more mixed for other STDs, but at the same time, it’s undeniable that syphilis and genital ulcers are among the afflictions that AIDs “piggybacks.”<\/p>\n

The 356 uncircumcised boys had a 2.66-fold increased risk of sexually transmitted infection compared with the 154 circumcised boys, lead author Dr. David M. Fergusson and colleagues, from the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences report.<\/p>\n

Moreover, this elevated risk was largely unchanged after accounting for potential confounders, such as number of sexual partners and unprotected sex.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Numerous other studies have backed up these findings.<\/p>\n

Now, I was personally present for the circumcision of both of my sons, and this despite the fact that I’m rather queasy regarding blood (whenever I give it, I pass out). Gay or straight, I don’t expect my sons to behave any better than I did (though I would rather they did), but I would be devastated if they acquired HIV. In my case at least, it was a matter of considered costs\/benefits analysis. One may criticize my calculation, if one wishes, but it is asinine to believe that I chose this out of untutored and unreflecting brutality.<\/p>\n

And as for those hygienic practices that we have inherited from the ancient Jews–are they really nothing more than superstition, or do they make sense, empirically?<\/p>\n

****
\nupdate<\/em><\/strong> [Jeff G]: Typically, Sullivan quotes a commenter from my earlier post<\/a> in an attempt to suggest that those who disagree with his argument are, of necessity, being quaintly religious.<\/p>\n

But as Sullivan knows, my<\/em> argument has nothing to do with religion (apart from it being the impetus for choosing a procedure that is medically quite defensible) but instead takes issue with calling an elective procedure with scientifically quantifiable health benefits “child abuse” — a rhetorical maneuver that makes a mockery of actual<\/em> child abuse, and weakens the impact of the charge. Ditto calling the procedure “mutilation” in an attempt to tie it to female genital mutilation; as I noted in the comments to my earlier post, one does not routinely talk about ear piercing or tattooing or liposuction or Lasik surgery as “mutilation”.<\/p>\n

As I thought I’d made clear, I’m sympathetic to the choice argument Sullivan floats. But at the same time, I’m similarly sympathetic to parents who elect to have their boys circumcised — especially when a potential for “increased stimulus” is weighed against a potentially substantial decrease in STDs and HIV as a product of “routine neonatal circumcision.”<\/p>\n

I suspect that for many (male) parents who are themselves circumcised, they have no basis for comparison with respect to what they might be missing in terms of stimulation; and so they conclude, quite reasonably, I’d say, that the stimulation they’ve been left with as a result of circumcision has been more than adequate. Given this rationale, I hardly think the desire to perhaps substantially reduce the chances your son will one day contract certain STDs or AIDS rises to the level of “child abuse.”<\/p>\n

Instead, it rises to the level of parenting — which is difficult enough without those excited by studies of penis mapping working to vilify parents whose responsibility it is to make tough decisions on behalf of their children.<\/p>\n

And yes, it is funny to watch those who would celebrate as “liberating” the female’s “right” to terminate a pregnancy, argue that the “choice” to cut off foreskin is a violation of an infant’s human rights.<\/p>\n

Let me hear from those of you who are opposed to circumcision on human rights grounds? How many of you are also adamantly pro-life?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A blogger whom I don’t know named Ben Buckman quotes Sully this way: If parents tore the skin off their infants in any other part of the body, they’d be arrested for abuse. The great unmentionable, of course, is that religion, not medicine, is behind this practice – Judaism and Islam, to be precise. Many secular men, in other words, bear the scars of someone else’s religion on their own<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":587,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9318","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9318","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/587"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9318"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9318\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9318"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9318"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9318"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}