DISCLAIMER:
This profile is completely dedicated to raising awareness about Routine Infant Circumcision. It should be obvious what my personal stance on the issue is; however, I have tried to link to as many factual, unbiased sources as possible, but especially the American Academy of Pediatrics. I do link also to some that are biased in favor of my stance, but I do try to limit those to ones that cite references to any and all medical journals and periodicals used. OK, that's the end of the disclaimer!!
I think it's extremely important to question this practice in our country (the US being the last civilized country to still practice RIC). However, the U.S. circumcision rate declined 11.4% over two years, according to figures just released in 2005 by the National Center for Health Statistics, from 63.1% in 2001 to 55.9% in 2003, following a steady, twenty-five year decline. At this rate, in just 12 years, the US will join other English-speaking countries in abandoning circumcision.
INFORMATIVE LINKS:
American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision Policy
Essay on the Ethics of Routine Infant Circumcision
Doctors Opposing Circumcision
Intactivism Pages
Circumcision Information and Resource Pages
NOCIRC.org
NOHARMM.org
Christianity and Circumcision
WHAT DO YOU LOSE WITH CIRCUMCISION????
It is my assertion that anyone willing to do the research will come to the same conclusion: that modern-day routine infant circumcision has no proven medical or hygienic reasoning behind it. After all, we're talking about a "medical" practice that was initially begun in order to prevent the social ill of masturbation.
A pioneering woman doctor in the 1890's (when circumcision was only just gaining popularity) said:
"A serious warning against the unnatural practice of circumcision must here be given. A book of "Advice to mothers" by a Philadelphia doctor was lately sent to me. This treatise began by informing the mother that her first duty to her infant boy was to cause it to be circumcised! Her fears were worked upon by an elaborate statement but false statement of the evils which would result to the child were this mutilation not performed. I should have considered this mischievous instruction unworthy of serious consideration, did I not observe that it has lately become common among certain short-sighted but reputable physicians to laud this unnatural practice, and endeavour to introduce it into a Christian nation.
"Circumcision is based upon the erroneous principle that boys, i.e. one half of the human race, are so badly fashioned by Creative Power that they must be reformed by the surgeon; consequently that every male child must be mutilated by removing the natural covering with which nature has protected one of the most sensitive portions of the human body. The erroneous nature of such a practice is shown by the fact that although this custom (which originated amongst licentious nations in hot climates) has been carried out for many hundreds of generations (by Moslems and Jews), yet nature continues to protect her children by reproducing the valuable protection in man and all the higher animals, regardless of impotent surgical interference.
"Appeals to the fears of uninstructed parents on the grounds of cleanliness or of hardening the part are entirely fallacious and unsupported by evidence. It is a physiological fact that the natural lubricating secretion of every healthy part is beneficial, not injurious to the part thus protected, and that no attempt to render a sensitive part insensitive is either practicable or justifiable. The protection which nature affords to these parts is an aid to physical purity by affording necessary protection against constant external contact of a part which necessarily remains keenly sensitive; and bad habits in boys and girls cannot by prevented by surgical operations. Where no malformation exists, bad habits can only be forestalled by healthy moral and physical education.
"The plea that this unnatural practice [circumcision] will lessen the risk of infection to the sensualist in promiscuous intercourse is not one that our honourable profession will support. Parents, therefore, should be warned that this ugly mutilation of their children involves serious danger, both to their physical and moral health."
Elizabeth Blackwell, The human element in sex: Being a medical enquiry into the relation of sexual physiology to Christian morality (1884; 2nd edition, London, 1894), pp. 35-6
Elizabeth Blackwell (1821-1910) was born in Britain and emigrated in childhood to the United States, where she became the first woman to take a medical degree. She later practised in both the USA and Britain, where she played a significant role in the campaign to repeal the Contagious Diseases Act during the 1880s. She also denounced masturbation and fornication but believed they should be controlled by moral willpower. See American National Biography (1999), Vol. 2
Although still not widely known, there are also ways of reversing many of the effects of circumcision ( Foreskin Restoration ). For more information feel free to message me, or see my Groups for more details.
I edited my profile with Thomas’ Myspace Editor V3.6 !
