Dutch Doctors Call for Circumcision Ban

[tumbleweed41]

Spoiler: Warning, graphic and bloody

A) This series of photographs depicts the process of facial scarification. First, the scar pattern is divined with cowrie shells cast into a water pot.
B) Next, the child is placed on a bed of leaves and then the cutting begins on the temple. Every child I witnessed being cut screamed and writhed in pain. One passed out halfway through the cutting, but he regained consciousness towards the end and resumed his bloodcurdling cries.
C) Finally, once the shea butter is applied to the wounds for healing, every child seemingly fell fast asleep which was a calming sight. I can only imagine how my body would react to such a surge of physical and emotional shock especially at such a young age!

Lars Krutak - SCARIFICATION AND TATTOOING IN BENIN: THE BÉTAMARRIBÉ TRIBE OF THE ATAKORA MOUNTAINS


Compare that description to the following...

We students filed into the newborn nursery to find a baby strapped spread-eagle to a plastic board on a counter top across the room. He was struggling against his restraints—tugging, whimpering, and then crying helplessly. . . . I stroked his little head and spoke softly to him. He began to relax and was momentarily quiet. The silence was soon broken by a piercing scream—the baby’s reaction to having his foreskin pinched and crushed as the doctor attached the clamp to his penis. The shriek intensified when the doctor inserted an instrument between the foreskin and the glans (head of the penis), tearing the two structures apart. The baby started shaking his head back and forth—the only part of his body free to move—as the doctor used another clamp to crush the foreskin lengthwise, which he then cut. This made the opening of the foreskin large enough to insert a circumcision instrument, the device used to protect the glans from being severed during the surgery. The baby began to gasp and choke, breathless from his shrill continuous screams. . . . During the next stage of the surgery, the doctor crushed the foreskin against the circumcision instrument and then, finally, amputated it. The baby was limp, exhausted, spent.

Infant Responses to Circumcision

Spoiler: Warning, graphic

It would depend on the level of physical trauma.

 

[Magic Man]

Not as a child, no.

When I was 6 or so, I had a minor and optional surgery. It was terrifying, and I would have opted out. My parents overruled me, and had every right to do so.

Why did they have every right to do so? Of course it depends on the surgery. If it was one that had a chance of preventing or correcting something, they'd be in a better position to gauge the risk vs. reward. If it was just a personal preference of theirs, that's different.

I think the default position should be "You can't mess with your kid's body". There would be exceptions like medical necessity or correcting deformities, but you'd have to have a good reason to mess with the kid's body. That comes from the belief that one's body is one's own to be altered as one sees fit, not as others see fit.

 

[England my lionheart]

That's because it isn't YOUR cultural mandate. It's theirs. Which brings us back to my initial assessment of c. imperialism.

Or is it because having a choice means not many people would be queing up to have it done.

 

[Magic Man]

That's because it isn't YOUR cultural mandate. It's theirs. Which brings us back to my initial assessment of c. imperialism.

I think it's because it's easier to see how it's really just mutilation when you're outside the culture. I still think cultural imperialism is inaccurate. That makes it sound like they're unfairly imposing cultural values on others, as if they're no better than people banning same-sex marriage. All they're doing is trying to protect children's right to protect their own bodies.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't see how male circumcision differs in principle from female genital mutilation. Any ideas?

 

[Oneatatime]

I think it's because it's easier to see how it's really just mutilation when you're outside the culture. I still think cultural imperialism is inaccurate. That makes it sound like they're unfairly imposing cultural values on others, as if they're no better than people banning same-sex marriage. All they're doing is trying to protect children's right to protect their own bodies.

I've tried that line of reasoning before with religious people and it won't get you anywhere. When it comes to the welfare of the child they often genuinly think it's in the childs best interest to put it through whatever initiation rituals exist in their religion and are incapable or unwilling to understanding why from an outsider their childhood innitiation rituals are innapropriate.

I know a person who baptised their children despite not being religious themselves because their parents were Catholic and worried that their grandchild would end up in purgery if it wasn't baptised. Granted baptism is a relatively benign thing but I still feel it's innapropriate to initiate a child into a religion before they are able to understand what is happening and decide if they want to join.

Citing culture or religion is in my opinion a feeble justification for such practices because it amounts to doing something because that's what always been done, not because it's neccesary or in the best interests of the child.

 

[Storm]

Why did they have every right to do so? Of course it depends on the surgery. If it was one that had a chance of preventing or correcting something, they'd be in a better position to gauge the risk vs. reward. If it was just a personal preference of theirs, that's different.

I think the default position should be "You can't mess with your kid's body". There would be exceptions like medical necessity or correcting deformities, but you'd have to have a good reason to mess with the kid's body. That comes from the belief that one's body is one's own to be altered as one sees fit, not as others see fit.

They had every right as the guardians of a minor incapable of informed consent. It's not different; it's parental duty.

Or is it because having a choice means not many people would be queing up to have it done.

No concern of mine (see previous posts). I'd be just as happy if all men were uncut. Happier, actually. But it's not my choice.

I think it's because it's easier to see how it's really just mutilation when you're outside the culture.

Then why is it so difficult for me?

I still think cultural imperialism is inaccurate. That makes it sound like they're unfairly imposing cultural values on others, as if they're no better than people banning same-sex marriage.

Well, that's precisely what *I* see here. Mileage obviously varies.

All they're doing is trying to protect children's right to protect their own bodies.

Children have no such right. With the exception of physical abuse, what happens to a child's flesh is the decision of their legal guardians. Children are rightly denied the "right" to make their own decisions regarding surgical procedures.

 

[Storm]

I don't see how male circumcision differs in principle from female genital mutilation. Any ideas?

Simple: FGM is not circumcision. Even castration falls short. FGM in the best case scenario is completely destroying a girl's genitalia, making her incapable of sex. THen she's required to have sex anyway once she's married.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Children have no such right. With the exception of physical abuse, what happens to a child's flesh is the decision of their legal guardians. Children are rightly denied the "right" to make their own decisions regarding surgical procedures.

Children have every right that adults do; it's just that some of their rights are vested in their parents or guardians, however, this is predicated on the assumption that the parents are safeguarding the interests of the child. When the parent is subjecting the child to physical harm, I think we need to revisit this assumption.

 

[Sunstone]

Simple: FGM is not circumcision. Even castration falls short. FGM in the best case scenario is completely destroying a girl's genitalia, making her incapable of sex. THen she's required to have sex anyway once she's married.

Those are the details. But how is the principle any different?

 

[Storm]

Children have every right that adults do; it's just that some of their rights are vested in their parents or guardians, however, this is predicated on the assumption that the parents are safeguarding the interests of the child. When the parent is subjecting the child to physical harm, I think we need to revisit this assumption.

Semantic games.

Children are incapable of informed consent; therefore such decisions are left up to the parents.

I would not choose to have my newborn son circumcised, nor would I pierce my daughter's ears. However, these modifications are not extreme enough to merit intervention. Disapprove all you want, but mind your own business.

 

[Sunstone]

Children have every right that adults do; it's just that some of their rights are vested in their parents or guardians, however, this is predicated on the assumption that the parents are safeguarding the interests of the child. When the parent is subjecting the child to physical harm, I think we need to revisit this assumption.

Excellent distinction.

 

[Storm]

Those are the details. But how is the principle any different?

Those are the principles. Neuter her then demand sexual function she's physically incapable of. Circumcision is nothing compared to that.

 

[Sunstone]

Those are the principles. Neuter her then demand sexual function she's physically incapable of. Circumcision is nothing compared to that.

Circumcision, like female genital mutilation, is a procedure carried out without the consent of the victim. The victim is too young to give consent. The principle is the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Circumcision, like female genital mutilation, is a procedure carried out without the consent of the victim. The victim is too young to give consent. The principle is the same.

But there is a difference in magnitude. The effects of FGM are much worse than those of circumcision.

 

[Sunstone]

But there is a difference in magnitude. The effects of FGM are much worse than those of circumcision.

True. But the principle is the same.

 

[Storm]

Circumcision, like female genital mutilation, is a procedure carried out without the consent of the victim. The victim is too young to give consent. The principle is the same.

If you generalize to the point of inanity.... The same level of generalization could be applied to conflate marital consummation with brutal rape. :areyoucra

 

[Sunstone]

If you generalize to the point of inanity.... The same argument could be applied to conflate marital consummation with brutal rape. :areyoucra

So, according to you, circumcision is the equivalent of marital consumption? And you call my argument inane?

 

[Storm]

So, according to you, circumcision is the equivalent of marital consumption? And you call my argument inane?

Nope. BTW, you were too fast... I misspoke and edited.

 

[Songbird]

Has anyone watched their son get circumcised? I realize personal stories use emotionalism, so take it as you will.

My husband really wanted our son circumcised, and I really didn't. But I deferred to his desire, because he understands growing up as a boy. I insisted on him watching, though, and making sure the doc used anesthetic. I was going to watch myself, but I had complications from labor and was being treated while the circ occurred. He said they strapped him naked onto a plastic board, hands and feed strapped down. Our baby was making noises of discomfort at this point. The restraint is of course necessary for safety. The doc put a topical anesthetic on, then did the circ about five minutes after. (Not long enough for the anesthetic to be effective.) He said our son screamed and cried, and although he was calmed after 10 minutes, each urination and diaper change was painful for him for about two weeks. Also, the doc nicked him, which bled on and off for about a week.

In the long run, this was a short amount of pain that my son forgot. But it's not clear how neonatal pain affects infants. There are various studies of post-op cortisol levels in newborns after various procedures, and studies of their responses to painful experiences (like immunizations) after undergoing surgery or painful procedures as newborns. Newborns who were circumcised reacted more strongly to future pain. Neonatal intensive care units put a lot of effort into reducing pain and stress in infants, because it helps them heal and develop faster.

Based on circumcision and subsequent reaction to pain:
ScienceDirect - The Lancet : Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination

And from: Experience in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Affects Pain Response
"Greater frequency of invasive procedures is associated with behavioral immaturity..."

Many babies must undergo invasive procedures, but I wouldn't again choose to do one unnecessarily.