Dear MDC members, here is a little something I typed to get off my chest. I've just tried to articulate my views; I've tried not to rant. It would be great if this little piece could help people who are confused about this much maligned part of the natural male anatomy, but judge it for yourself!
---------------
In my opinion, if circumcision is done on an unconsenting individual (that is, a non-adult) without any medical need (by which I mean that his foreskin must be so threatening to his health that he must get it removed to ensure normal health), then it should be illegal. Natural, healthy parts of the body should not be expendable ‘options’ that others decide you can keep!
To the people who keep claiming that removing the foreskin potentially prevents certain problems, so what? Removing natural and healthy parts of the anatomy in order to fight disease is a very odd concept to say the least, and an utterly inhuman act to say the most. Do we preemptively remove breasts from girls so they don’t get breast cancer, or teeth so people don’t get cavities? Of course not, because the problems are the diseases and conditions themselves, not normal parts of the body* (see below). If you have a body part, it may get problems. We accept that for every part of our body. Why is the penis different? Why are some compelled to eradicate part of it?
As far as I understand medicine, isn't it widely accepted that what we are naturally born with must come before any human alteration, unless that alteration is utterly necessary to ensure normal health, or if we choose to alter ourselves? I think the people who advocate circumcision on unconsenting children and without immediate medical need are blatantly irrational and biased in that they make all of their arguments from the perverse and incredibly arrogant viewpoint that “this part of the body doesn’t need to exist”, and then proceed on to make arbitrary arguments “for and against keeping it” from the slanted and artificial view of expendability that has already been established^ (see below).
Frankly, such a mindset disturbs me, and I am thankful to my parents that they didn’t think my foreskin was simply expendable – having used it for 18 years, I personally can’t imagine what I’d be like without it, and I don’t really want to. The fact that I may have actually lost it, and had no say in the matter, makes me incensed that this is still done to others.
Finally, to the pro-circumcision advocates compelled to label those who oppose circumcision ‘anti-circ activists’, the idea that those opposed to circumcision need to justify the natural body and counter your arguments is misguided. (As another example, if I have a head, does that make me ‘anti-decapitation’, or ‘un-decapitated’? Would I need to explain why I am not decapitated, or why I am against decapitation? Silly, isn’t it.)
Indeed, opponents of circumcision should not have to say anything, because they are not defending any bodily alteration; they are merely leaving their healthy and natural children as they were born. Conversely, it is you, the supporter of circumcision, who must make an impressive case of why a natural, normal and healthy part of the male anatomy is so utterly dangerous to health and inherently pathogenic that it must be removed before a boy can even agree to such an alteration. So far, you have not made a good case against nature’s wisdom, as hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and the silent testimony of billions of intact males around the world demonstrates. I only hope that one day you, and everyone else, recognises that a male with a foreskin is as normal as having ten toes.
My two cents. I don’t think I could put it any simpler than that.
(By the way, I haven't addressed the issue of religion. I personally don't believe that the freedom to worship should include the right to violate the intact human body, but I thought that would be too sensitive a subject to broach here.)
* (see above) I think this is a good reason why the argument comparing vaccination, an injection to fight disease, to circumcision, a surgery to remove a healthy part of the penis, is moot.
^ (see above) Unless I am wrong about the position of the medical community in putting nature before alteration of the natural, healthy body, I would think this kind of warning should be made to anyone visiting a website that mentions circumcision and seeks to ‘balance’ arguments for and against it; such balance is a fallacy because of the bias towards the legitimacy of the procedure that has already been established - how can one defend the naturalness of the foreskin when it is automatically presumed to be an unnecessary part of the anatomy, and therefore presumably unnatural? I think this is especially true of the horrible Wikipedia article on the subject, and the people who are insistent on editing that article to provide a sufficient ‘anti-foreskin’ view as a counterpoint to ‘anti-circ’ arguments. Expectant parents beware, and remember that your child’s body is a beautiful thing…all of it!
---------------
There you go. Feel free to judge for yourself, and to share it with others if you wish, this is a place of sharing ideas after all. Thanks!
---------------
In my opinion, if circumcision is done on an unconsenting individual (that is, a non-adult) without any medical need (by which I mean that his foreskin must be so threatening to his health that he must get it removed to ensure normal health), then it should be illegal. Natural, healthy parts of the body should not be expendable ‘options’ that others decide you can keep!
To the people who keep claiming that removing the foreskin potentially prevents certain problems, so what? Removing natural and healthy parts of the anatomy in order to fight disease is a very odd concept to say the least, and an utterly inhuman act to say the most. Do we preemptively remove breasts from girls so they don’t get breast cancer, or teeth so people don’t get cavities? Of course not, because the problems are the diseases and conditions themselves, not normal parts of the body* (see below). If you have a body part, it may get problems. We accept that for every part of our body. Why is the penis different? Why are some compelled to eradicate part of it?
As far as I understand medicine, isn't it widely accepted that what we are naturally born with must come before any human alteration, unless that alteration is utterly necessary to ensure normal health, or if we choose to alter ourselves? I think the people who advocate circumcision on unconsenting children and without immediate medical need are blatantly irrational and biased in that they make all of their arguments from the perverse and incredibly arrogant viewpoint that “this part of the body doesn’t need to exist”, and then proceed on to make arbitrary arguments “for and against keeping it” from the slanted and artificial view of expendability that has already been established^ (see below).
Frankly, such a mindset disturbs me, and I am thankful to my parents that they didn’t think my foreskin was simply expendable – having used it for 18 years, I personally can’t imagine what I’d be like without it, and I don’t really want to. The fact that I may have actually lost it, and had no say in the matter, makes me incensed that this is still done to others.
Finally, to the pro-circumcision advocates compelled to label those who oppose circumcision ‘anti-circ activists’, the idea that those opposed to circumcision need to justify the natural body and counter your arguments is misguided. (As another example, if I have a head, does that make me ‘anti-decapitation’, or ‘un-decapitated’? Would I need to explain why I am not decapitated, or why I am against decapitation? Silly, isn’t it.)
Indeed, opponents of circumcision should not have to say anything, because they are not defending any bodily alteration; they are merely leaving their healthy and natural children as they were born. Conversely, it is you, the supporter of circumcision, who must make an impressive case of why a natural, normal and healthy part of the male anatomy is so utterly dangerous to health and inherently pathogenic that it must be removed before a boy can even agree to such an alteration. So far, you have not made a good case against nature’s wisdom, as hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and the silent testimony of billions of intact males around the world demonstrates. I only hope that one day you, and everyone else, recognises that a male with a foreskin is as normal as having ten toes.
My two cents. I don’t think I could put it any simpler than that.
(By the way, I haven't addressed the issue of religion. I personally don't believe that the freedom to worship should include the right to violate the intact human body, but I thought that would be too sensitive a subject to broach here.)
* (see above) I think this is a good reason why the argument comparing vaccination, an injection to fight disease, to circumcision, a surgery to remove a healthy part of the penis, is moot.
^ (see above) Unless I am wrong about the position of the medical community in putting nature before alteration of the natural, healthy body, I would think this kind of warning should be made to anyone visiting a website that mentions circumcision and seeks to ‘balance’ arguments for and against it; such balance is a fallacy because of the bias towards the legitimacy of the procedure that has already been established - how can one defend the naturalness of the foreskin when it is automatically presumed to be an unnecessary part of the anatomy, and therefore presumably unnatural? I think this is especially true of the horrible Wikipedia article on the subject, and the people who are insistent on editing that article to provide a sufficient ‘anti-foreskin’ view as a counterpoint to ‘anti-circ’ arguments. Expectant parents beware, and remember that your child’s body is a beautiful thing…all of it!
---------------
There you go. Feel free to judge for yourself, and to share it with others if you wish, this is a place of sharing ideas after all. Thanks!
