WARNING: Read no further if the words "genital mutilation" make you uncomfortable.
toothpastefordinner.com
This webcomic encapsulates in a very amusing way my essential feelings about circumcision (as practiced upon males routinely in the United States). In fact, I think circumcision is more accurately identified as genital mutilation. This is strong language, I know, and is arguably too strong. I say it is arguable because usual, male, United Statesian circumcision is not as damaging, most times, as female genital mutilation (FGM). With FGM procedures a woman is rendered incapable of orgasm, whereas with (most/successful) male genital mutilation, men may still achieve orgasm--thus the perpetuation of our species can still proceed. So, many people think the term "genital mutilation" should refer only to the alteration of the genitalia such that it removes the physical capability of orgasm. However, I feel that any alteration of the genitalia is mutilation. The removal of living body parts for cultural reasons is completely stupid to me, not to mention immoral where it removes the ability to experience orgasm.
Why would people just chop off parts of the skin of a baby for no apparent reason? The American Academy of Pediatrics
does not classify circumcision as medically necessary. So why is it so prevalent in the United States? The reasons are various. For example, Jews usually participate in circumcision because of historical/traditional precedent. I personally don't think that makes it right, but at least there is a reason for it. This rationale is less confusing to me than when Christian, atheist, or simply secular American parents decide to circumcise their children. They seem to have motivations such as, "It's cleaner that way;" "It'll be easier for him to handle and take care of;" "I don't want him to feel 'different';" "I want his to look like his father's." What kind of logic is that? It isn't, is the answer. Cultural norms that advocate circumcision do not equal real evidence that is is beneficial. In fact, circumcision only became routine in male hospital births in the 1950s. This was the same era in which women were encouraged, for the first time, to feed thir babies milk formula instead of breastmilk, and to stop co-sleeping, and encouraged the institution of routine cesarean sections--a major abdominal surgery. (Babies cannot be born laproscopically!)
And as for the religious/philosophical freedom defense: I don't think that a parent's religious practices morally condone mutilating the most sensitive part of a boy's (or girl's) body. Parents are charged with the responsibility to protect their children, not endanger them or alter their bodies. Therefore, any notion of cultural relativism should not be used to continue to support this demeaning and futile practice. At the same time, I don't think this is the kind of thing that should be made illegal. First of all, legal action never effectively counteracts an entrenched cultural practice. Cultural practices only change from within, and legal remedies come from without. The decision whether or not to circumcise, therefore, remains a personal one, and a deeply personal one at that. That is why in my capacity as a doula, I never counsel parents against circumcision, but rather keep my own opinions to myself. If prompted for my opinion, I frame it as a a personal choice that I would personally not make for my child. I also discuss the health risks of the surgery and point out that it is medically unnecessary, but that it is at the same time something every family has to decide upon individually. It is not something to do routinely, i.e. randomly.