1) The AAP doesn't recommend circumcision:
This is actually a convinient interpretation (or rather misinterpretation) of the AAP's actual policy which states: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/c...trics;103/3/686
So the AAP doesn't recommend routine infant circumcision, which means that all baby boys would be circumcised. However, that's a far cry from not recommending it all. What the AAP actually recommends is that parents make an informed decision based on the pros and cons of the procedure. Simple.

2) No organization in the world recommends circumcision:
Technically true (although again, no organization recommended routine circumcision, all positions are basically the same). However, that changed just today. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UNAIDS) have recommended circumcision as a preventative measure against AIDS. Here are some links:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releas...0/en/index.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...line-news_rss20
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/ap_on_...ds_circumcision

The American Urological Association (AUA) also came out of a more positive position on circumcision stating that "circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits".

http://www.auanet.org/about/policy/services.cfm#circumcision

3) Circumcision is already illegal in South Africa and Finland
No, not true in the slightest.
In South Africa, President Thabo Mbeki signed a law making it illegal to circumcise anyone under 16 unless performed for religious or medical reasons by a trained practitioner. However, that law never took effect. Furthermore, this president was more famous for his controversial views on AIDS which including denying that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Infant male circumcision is perfectly legal in South Africa.
In Finland, the whole myth that circumcision was illegal began after a court case http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Court+rul...l/1135220958830 However, this case wasn't about cirucmcision at all! The issue was proper consent. Circumcision in Finland, although rare, is perfectly legal.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Finland.html (although this is an anti-circ site, it's accurate infromation. Just be careful with the "comments" in red)
"The Task Force convened by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has concluded that parents should be permitted to consent to circumcision of boys for religious or cultural reasons."

Now, from the original court link:
"Legislation is somewhat vague on the matter, and practice varies in Finland. For instance, a report drafted by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in 2004 notes that male circumcision is permitted in all countries."

http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20030324IE5
"Finland currently has no legislation on circumcisions."

"All religious-based circumcisions performed in hospitals are for Muslims. Finland's Jewish community has its own specialists who perform the procedure under hygienic conditions."

Which brings me to a letter from Finland's Chief Rabbi:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthrea...6678&page=2

"No, circumcission is not illegal in Finland and almost 100% of the boys born to a jewish family are circumcised. The circumcissions are performed in Finland by a Mohel."

The fact is that circumcision is perfectly legal and acceptable everywhere in the world.

4) Circumcision is a human rights violation:
Not true. I agree there are some people that think that circumcision should be a human rights violation and they have every right to feel that way. Still, that doesn't make it a reality. We have accepted organizations that deal with these issues and decide- based on many factors- which activities are acceptable and which violate basic human rights. These organizations have agreed that circumcision IS NOT a human rights violations because of it's a very safe procedure and it carries some medical benefits. This myth usually goes hand in hand with a comparison of male circumcisio nand Female genital Mutilation (FGM). However, the two practices are completely different in every single aspect: physical, psychological, emotional, social and religious. They're not comparable in the slightest, but since they're bot hdone is the same general area, and because FGM is a degrading practice and an accepted human rights violation, anti-circumcision activists usually use it to try to put circumcison in a more negative light. IMO, it does the opposite. By comparing something as traumatic, damaging, dangerous and degrading as FGM with a simple, safe and beneficial procedure demeans the impact of FGM. It's a poor way of treating the women that have been victims of FGM and a way to demean their pain.
Finally, Amnesty International has directly declined to accept male circumcision as a human rights violation 3 times.

Here are some links:
An article from the New England Journal of Medicine

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/3...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

(WARNING! Link contains explicit pictures!)

Here are the responses to this article, including acommentary by the author:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/332/3/188

"I use the term ``female circumcision'' to acknowledge its cultural importance, the positive perception of this procedure on the part of those who practice it. These characteristics constitute the main similarity of female circumcision to male circumcision. The difference is that, unlike male circumcision, the most commonly described types of female circumcision are anatomically and functionally mutilating."

"[i]From the perspective of public health, female circumcision is much more damaging than male circumcision. The mildest form, clitoridectomy, is anatomically equivalent to amputation of the penis."

"In my extensive clinical experience as a physician in Sudan, and after a careful review of the literature of the past 15 years, I have not found a single case of female circumcision in which only the skin surrounding the clitoris is removed, without damage to the clitoris itself."

http://www.euro.who.int/document/e60522.pdf

"According to Dr. T Turman of WHO headquarters, there is a technical difference between male and female genital mutilation. The removal of the clitoral prepuce (female circumcision) is equivalent to male circumcision and constitutes less than 1% of all female genital mutilations. In young girls this procedure is extremely difficult to perform. In over 95% of cases, the clitoris, the labia minora and (in some cases) the labia majora are excised and the vulva sewn up. The biological equivalent in the male would be partial to almost two-thirds removal of the male sexual organ, inculding in some cases removal of tissue from the scrotum followed by stitiching the remaining tissue."

5) Only circumcised men get adhesions and meatal stenosis.
Not true. Adhesions are also common in uncircumcised boys and although meatal stenosis is more common in circumcised bouys, it's easily preventable and, more importantly, it definitely isn't exclusive to circumcised boys.
Furthermore, you'll probably encounter an argument that says the incidence of meatal stenosis in circumcised males is 10%. Exaggeration. Some studies have shown it can be as low as 0.9% http://www.springerlink.com/content/l62453...cbb58&pi=14

6) 80-90% of the world's population is uncircumcised
A little exaggeration, probably because it sounds like a dramatic number. Although no exact data is available on this, the recent information package by the WHO, UNAIDS and UNICEF roughly estimates that 30% of the world's population is circumcised, which accounts for about 662 million men.
Here's the link: http://www.who.int/entity/hiv/mediacentre/infopack_en_2.pdf

7) Circumcision causes emotional problems
After reading that 662 million men are circumcised... do you honestly believe this myth? 

8) Circumcision affects sexuality
No reliable study has proven that circumcision has any effect on sensitivity and overall sexual function. Several have actually shown th econtrary:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...758ea3de16e68c0

"In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum

"Penile sensitivity had variable outcomes after circumcision."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum

"Circumcision was unrelated to most sexual difficulties, but circumcised men were less likely to report physical pain during intercourse or trouble keeping an erection"

9) Any pro-circ is a fetishist:

Clever move, but again a lie. It's a common tactic: when you cannot discredit the message, try to discredit the messenger. However, most people that are in favor of circumcision are in favor of it as a parental choice. They certainly don't think "foreskins for none. Circumcision for all!!" Surely there are people who think this way, but it's the minority. Mostly view circumcision as a valid, positive parental choice, but they view choosing not to circumcise the same way. It's not a matter of circumcision being better/worse than no circumcision. It's a matter of believing it's a choice parents can make or not.
And fetishists come in all shapes and sizes and can have a fixation on pretty much everything under the sun: including foreskins. Oh yes, there is such a thing as a foreskin fetish. I'm sure the anti-circumcision activists don't want to be all grouped with these people and the majority of them certainly aren't fetishists. Those of us who advocate responsible parental choice also doin't enjoy being compared to a fetishist. Fair is fair.

10) Informed parents will choose not to circumcise
Actually, since information exists to support arguments from both sides, informed parents can make either choice. Choosing to circumcise isn't a result of ignorance, sheepishness or stupidity or proof that some parents feel less attached or bonded to their children. Is simply taking the facts, using one's personal experience, values and social surrounding to make a choice that's best for the child.

Anyway, plenty of myths and misinformation going around. It's important for parents seeking to make an informed decision to look at the facts and make their own minds without being bullied. Each of us is different and we'll make different choices. That doesn't mean one of those choices is wrong.

11) Circumcision interferes with bonding and breastfeeding and/or moms who choose to circumcise don't feel that bonding with their child
These depend on so many factors that implying that circumcision actually has a significant impact is ridiculous and frankly, rather pathetic. It's a scare tactic. No mother wants to be portrayed as not bonded with her child, however, even mothers that for various reasons don't feel that initial bond, can become the most wonderful, loving, caring mothers. That's another myth that needs to be brought down.
Choosing something that we feel is right for our children has nothing to do with how bonded we are with them. Even if it's a painful, difficult choice to make, our thought are on what's best for our children. That's all that matters.
As for breastfeeding, well a new study came out!

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1...54.2007.01202.x

"Results: Circumcision status was not significantly associated (P > 0.05) with breastfeeding outcomes in infancy, even following adjustment for covariate factors, including maternal age, family socio-economic status, ethnicity and birthweight. Also, circumcision status was not significantly associated (P > 0.05) with health in infancy and cognitive ability outcomes in later childhood, even after adjustment for covariate factors."

12) Most babies are circumcised without pain relief-
Lies, lies. Unless you're stck living in the 70s.
But for the rest of us who accept and embrace the new millenia, the vast majority of circumcisions are now performed with pain relief.
http://news10now.com/Default.aspx?ArID=20899
According to this article, "ninety-seven percent of all new doctors who deal with babies are now learning pain relief techniques for circumcision. That's up from 71 percent ten years ago". Unless your definition of "most" is a bit distorted, 3% is certainly not "most".

13) Moms who choose not to circumcise are protecting their sons

Nice emotional outburst, completely in character of intactivism who love to use guilt and fear to spread their message, but completely false.
Protection is highly subjective and according to what we believe, our definition of "protecting" will be different. Sure they're "protecting" their children fro minitial pain and from the tiny risks of circumcision. But parents who choose to circumcise will tell you they're protecting their children from penile cancer, phimosis, balanitis and all that list we now know by heart.
It's a common anti-circ tactic- language twisting. They always do this. Instead of simply saying something like: "good for you for not circumcising your child", they say instead "good for you for protecting your child". You see the trick there? The first one simply states that you agree this is a good choice. The second one implies that mothers who choose to circumcise aren't doing their job as "protectors".
Another great example of twisting words to create an emotional impression. It's good to know they haven't found facts to support their cause yet.

14) How can it be cleaner to have urine and feces directly up against an open wound?

Ok, first of all, the "open wound" lasts for like two days. I know many intactivists don't think much farther ahead than that, but when we say that it's cleaner we mean in a lifetime, not in the next couple of days. So yes, we're willing to go through the initial extra cleaning and care if that means being cleaner for the rest of their lives.
Second, the tip of the penis is covered for the first week with a gauze. And that gauze is changed with every diaper. Furthermore, disposable diapers absorb almost immediately. Not enough time to have th elittle urine a newborn makes sit on the open wound.
Third, urine is sterile. It cannot lead to infection.
Fourth, I dont' know what these people feed their children the first weeks of life, but my exclusively bf boys pooped very little. I also don't know where they think their sons poop out from (guess they didnt' Google that one?), but mine do it from behind, not to the front. The first time I had to clean poop from the penis, the "open wound" was pretty much healed and that was because I fed David a bean burrito or something (not recommended before potty training, lol). Not even when they started on formula they pooped enough to have it all smeared in front. It started happening with solids and it's probably unbelievable, but by the time they started solids, the "wound" was pretty much closed.

15- Babies don't cry during circumcision because they "pass out" from the pain

This is probably just an attempt at creating an emotional response. The idea of a baby that's in so much pain he passes out is repulsive to anyone. But in regards to circumcision, it's a completely false image. It's another common anti-circ tactic when normal conditions fail to create outrage: Exaggerate. And the more exaggerated, the better. The best way to end this disgusting lie is to encourage parents to be with their sons during the procedure. This way they can see for themselves that the baby isn't "passed out". Any mother that has fed her child after his circumcision will tell you that her baby wasn't passed out.
Furthermore, here are some studies on newborn pain that show that even simple measures like close contact, rocking, sucking and oral sucrose can significnatly reduce the pain in newborns. Add those to proper pain relief and you really have no "passed out" babies.

http://pediatriconcall.org/fordoctor/pharmaupdates/sucrose_ana.asp
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FDMC%2FDMC43_01%2FS0012162201000056a.pdf&code=385dd103aefe335e0e528452fc6608c7


Finally, pain-induced shock isn't as simple as they like us to believe. It's a serious life-threatening condition. A newborn baby wouldn't simply pass out from shock and be awake and alert 10 minutes later without any measures. And considering that's how most mothers receive their sons after their circumcisions, it's very unlikely that the baby went into any kind of shock during the procedure.

16- Circumcision isn't "just a snip"

Actually, that's exactly what it is. You see, a "snip" is "to cut with a small, quick stroke, or a succession of such strokes, with scissors or the like." and "a small cut made by snipping". Both describing circumcision perfectly.
Why the common lie saying that it isn't a snip? Because intactivists love to say that the adult foreskin measures 3 x 5 inches. But we're not talking about adult foreskins, are we? At the moment the foreskin is removed, it's a small piece of skin, therefore, regardless of how big it becomes, at that moment, it's a "snip". So infant circumcision is just a snip. Adult circumcision is a little more complicated.

The choice is YOURS. However, before making one, make you sure you have the FACTS, not just the strong opinions of one particularly outspoken group.

Just remember...

Whatever you choose, it's OK.

© Copyright 2007 by Sharon R.

Add A Comment