RE: Glorantha Digest V1 #296

From: Dingleberry Pop! (bjm10@cornell.edu)
Date: Wed 31 May 1995 - 16:30:48 EEST



> Archaic? Is that why most western hospitals circumcise male babies?
> Gee, I thought it had something to do with general cleanliness and
> inhibiting disease.....

This is off topic, but I must address this superstition. Circumcision in the US (and the USA is the ONLY industrialized nation that routinely practices male circumcision of infants) was introduced in the 19th century, during the height of Victorianism, as an attempt to discourage masturbation.

I am sure that there were health reasons that were also valid more than a century ago, but they are no longer valid. Current research reveals that uncircumcised male populations in industrialized countries have no higher incidence of ANY disease or cancer than do circumcised males.

Furthermore, the American College of Pediatrics is on the record as stating that the sanitary effects of circumcision in the US are negligible. Nevertheless, it is done, more out of stupid adherence to routine than anything else.

My son is uncircumcised (and that was a HELL of a fight with hospital staff) and he has suffered no disease related to his natural state.

The idea that the modern practice of routine circumcision has anything at all to do with health is nonsense. It is a purely cosmetic surgery in an industrialized society, a surgery done WITHOUT benefit of any anaesthetic.

(And anybody who tells you that a baby cannot feel pain is full of shit.)

Again, apologies for being off-topic, but I could not let this piece of nonsense go unanswered.
- --
Do you have the power to hire me, fire me, or greatly alter my take-home pay? I didn't think so...



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:51:31 EEST