[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by Rood at 22 Dec 2002 01:33:09: Re: UTI's, Penile cancer, and other justifications for circ
As an answer to: Re: UTI's written by Ivan at 21 Dec 2002 17:11:54:
Strange, but the pages of Circlist have been overwhelmed the past few days with discussions of penile cancer, RIC, etc. Those of their membership opposing routine infant circumcision must walk a fine line to prevent the resident wolves from eating them up, gnawing on their bones, and burying the remnants in a heap. They have convinced themselves that a 1:100,000 chance of being diagnosed with penile cancer (the evident rate in the USA) justifies RIC, because the longer one waits to remove the foreskin, the greater the chance at acquiring cancer. Never mind that penile cancer is a disease limited largely to elderly, poverty-stricken, uneducated men with a history of poor hygiene, smoking, alcoholism, STD's, etc. We would all far better strive to end the truly tragic habit of smoking than torture newborn babies with genital mutilation. After all, more American men die of breast cancer than penile cancer. When have you ever heard anyone advocate removing breast tissue in newborn baby boys?
All of the arguments, however weak or strong, advocating circumcision to prevent various diseases...cancer, UTI's etc...are really an attempt by advocates to find justification for their obsession. Would that they simply admitted the fact that they are preoccupied with the exposed glans and leave it at that. Then the casual observer wouldn't be so confused by the statistics and spurious arguments thrown their way.
>Okay, I knew the argument was shaky, although I thought the incidence was accepted. I thought the problem was more akin to poking your eyes out to prevent pinkeye - i.e. taking a very drastic approach about a mere potential, when the reality of a condition can be treated far more safely and gently.
>The point I was getting at was that there are arguments, though terribly weak, justifying circumcision. I did not want to use the penile cancer argument because that seems to be a question of cleanliness and exposure to microbes, chemicals, etc. more than whether there is a skin (except of course to the extent that you can say that a part which has been removed can never get ill - but only because it is dead). Perhaps it would be better to say that even looking at circumcision as a purely cosmetic procedure, it's still several orders of magnitude less vicious than mass murder.