I’ve just spent a disturbing few minutes catching up on news from my home state; more specifically San Francisco’s “Battle of the Bris”, the move to ban elective circumcision of boys under 18 that could show up on the city’s ballots as soon as November. In short, the city that banned the Happy Meal now takes up arms against what activists are calling “male genital mutilation.” I’ve breathed sighs of relief at having left California before, but none so deep and satisfying (despite the four little twin feet working away at my diaphragm) as the one I am enjoying right now. San Franciscans, what are you thinking?
If there was anything wrong or unhealthy with infant circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics would be leading the move to ban, and that is definitely not the case. Surgical removal of the foreskin, according to the AAP, reduces incidence of penile cancer, HIV and HPV, infection, and inflammation. In addition, many parents opt for the procedure for reasons of hygiene. Keeping the foreskin area healthy is difficult through the diaper years and late into childhood, requiring parent-supervised cleaning a few times a day. If activists now claim that the procedure has no health benefits and causes “severe physical, emotional, and sexual side effects”, they clearly must shoulder the burden of proof. If circumcised adult males are having physical or sexual problems, how can they conclusively pin them on a procedure they had at birth, giving them no point of comparison? And yes, some men apparently resent their parents for altering their physiology when they were too small to say “no”, but who’s to say their “mommy issues” wouldn’t have found another place to roost if they hadn’t been circumcised?
Other parents choose circumcision for reasons of normalcy, since it is performed on roughly 60% of American boys and is very common in regions such as the Midwest. You’d think that San Franciscans would appreciate the freedom to alter one’s appearance more than any other group. A walk around Pier 39 never fails to showcase the many bizarre things that people do to themselves for the sake of looks. There’s clearly no objection in The City to bars and studs through various facial features, huge tattoos, and ear piercings that have been stretched so grotesquely that I could throw a ping pong ball through the metal hoops. If it’s legal in San Francisco to have elective surgery to split the tip of the tongue, giving an individual a snakelike appearance and the ability to retrain the muscles of each side to move independently of the other, doesn’t the presence or absence of a tiny flap of skin that stays covered when you’re out in public seem a little insignificant? If the problem is not with the surgery itself but rather that it is performed on individuals too tiny to give consent, then why isn't anybody going after infant ear piercing as well?
After all, the main reason that parents usually make the decision to perform a minor operation on—uh—the most sensitive part of a man’s body is that it ISN’T a very sensitive part of a baby’s body. A little local anesthetic and a Tylenol chaser and baby’s none the worse for the experience, especially since being squeezed out a birth canal into a bright, cold world was also on the To Do list for the week. Delaying even a few weeks complicates the matter, as undecided friends of mine found out after they brought their son home unsnipped. When they later discussed the procedure with their son’s pediatrician, they were advised that he would need a general anesthetic, an overnight hospital stay, and weeks of recovery time. Undergoing the procedure as an adult is reportedly exponentially worse, with all of the above and painful side effects that, according to an anonymous friend, “leave you walking funny for a month.” Pragmatism, not patriarchy, is what usually puts the burden of choice on parents.
Activists may believe that the majority of American circumcisions are performed for religious reasons, but Jews and Muslims make up such a small fraction of circumcisions that this cannot be the case. Those who believe that circumcision is mandatory for Christians are mistaken. Yes, there are those Old Testament passages like 1 Samuel 18, in which David kills 200 Philistines, bringing back their foreskins to King Saul and earning his daughter Michal’s hand in marriage. I think, however, if I read the New Testament to my son he will not grow up thinking that we impress girls nowadays by killing people and cutting off their foreskins. My husband had a childhood friend who was told (probably by an embarrassed parent) that circumcision meant “to cut you up.” When in an exuberant mood, the little guy would run around striking his best karate pose and growling “I’m going to circumcise you!” When a kind adult took him aside and enlightened him on the real meaning, he immediately removed the word from his lexicon.
Whether to mandate circumcision as a nod to Jewish tradition was a question the early church had to settle. Their decision is recorded in Galatians 6:15, “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.” This means that an individual’s relationship with God is a personal choice. It doesn’t matter if a parent cuts off a tiny part of you or sprinkles a little water on your infant head; only you decide where God fits into your life.
I don’t want my son to think that something I chose to do to him at birth made him right with God. I want him to pursue his own relationship with God as he becomes old enough to understand. Yes, I chose to have my son circumcised, but I don’t believe the procedure carries any spiritual meaning. I honestly couldn’t tell any other parent what to do in the same situation, but I definitely don’t support a ban that would take choice away from parents, who are, after all, chiefly responsible for the well-being of their children.
In closure, San Franciscans, though I feel that you are misguided on this issue, it’s nice to see you taking up the rights of the newborn for a change. Could I just take a moment to remind you that abortion destroys a tiny foreskin along with the rest of the baby, and it’s also performed when children are too tiny to give consent. It seems that your anti-circumcision activists aren’t really bothered by this. Why is that?
No comments:
Post a Comment