Circumcision opinion piece (The Age)

[DivinelySophistimicated]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/10/23/1192941062383.html

This is very interesting!




People give plenty of reasons for circumcising their male children, writes Catherine Deveny. But most of them don't amount to anything.
NO ONE seems to be able to explain to me why the circumcision of baby boys is not considered child abuse. Why in 2007 is it still acceptable for parents to have their babies' foreskins ripped off? How can it be legal, let alone ethical, for any human being to choose for another human being's body to be irreversibly mutilated? No medical reason, no rational thought and in many cases no aesthetic. Just because.
I suggest that we should ban the use of the term "circumcision" and force people to use the term "genital mutilation". Because that's what it is. It's not "a personal choice", because that person is not making a choice. It's human rights abuse.
The We Circumcised For Religious Reasons camp justify genital mutilation citing religion. They embrace the parts of religious texts that suit them and dismiss the ones that don't. And when I say "they", not all of them do. Many believers I know have all applied a little rational thought to the equation and just decided not to inflict unnecessary pain on their child or expose them to avoidable risk. They've decided to file that bit of the Holy Book under the other things that just don't fit; like selling your daughter into slavery or killing your neighbour if they work on the Sabbath.
What kind of God would disapprove of you, stop loving you, or not give you eternal life if you don't mutilate your child's genitals? That doesn't sound like a nice kind of God. And what caring community would shun you, judge you or ostracise you for not inflicting genital mutilation on your child?
Then we have the We Circumcised Our Boys So They Look The Same As Their Father camp. Sure, it's not fair for me to pick on people less fortunate in the brains department than the rest of us, but when they are subjecting innocent children to genital mutilation I'm going in swinging. I'm not going to bother asking the hard question "why do you need them to look like their father?", because you cannot reason with something that has not come from reason but from mindlessness.
I ask the So They Look The Same As Their Father camp, why stop there? If you want them to look the same as their father, dye their hair, have them undergo cosmetic surgery and if the father has any tattoos or facial hair, sort that out too.
Related to this camp is the We Circumcised Our Boys Because A Circumcised Penis Looks Nicer camp. We are talking the shallow end of the intelligence pool here. How would they feel if they had had their nipples, nose or ears cut off by their parents when they were a child because their parents thought "it looked nicer"? I must say that I do applaud these two camps on their frankness and honesty despite it revealing their stunning stupidity. After all, they could do what others do and make the decision for no rational reason and then rationalise it by joining the We Circumcised Our Boys For Health And Hygiene Despite Looking Closely At The Research camp.
I have read the various studies suggesting that circumcision may reduce the spread of HIV and cervical cancer. I have also read the studies disproving the circumcision-reduces-infection myth. Here in Australia, all of these risks can be effectively and safely managed with condoms and cleanliness. That's right, a bit of frangers and face washers, rubbers and rubbing. Why would you expose a child to an unnecessary medical procedure and all the risks that come with it when you could teach them how to clean themselves and use a condom? Because you can, I suppose. By the same logic, removing all your children's teeth would prevent them getting fillings.
Unless, of course, there is a sound medical reason to circumcise. And when I say sound, I mean sound as in last resort. I don't mean that you walk into a GP with a seven-year-old with a constricted foreskin that is not retracting and walk out with a referral to a surgeon to have your child's genitals mutilated, as a family I know could have.
One of their sons had that very problem. They were offered a referral to a surgeon to have him circumcised. They didn't like the sound of that. Luckily they didn't have private health insurance, because that meant that they were given a referral to the Royal Children's Hospital, where they saw a general pediatric surgeon, or as their son referred to her, a **** Doctor.
Yes, she said, he could be circumcised, but she was having great success using an ointment available over the counter from the chemist. Three days later, the boy had a retracting foreskin. And two years later, he still does. The wonders of a health service on a budget as opposed to a private business. So if he wants to get himself circumcised as an adult, that's his choice. And he'll have that choice. Because when you circumcise someone, you can't uncircumcise them.

[DivinelySophistimicated]

I think this lady said it well!! She was quite frank about it all dont you think LOL

[the_queen]

:yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap:

FANTASTIC article. Tells it like it is. Hopefully reading this will make some pregnant couples think twice about doing this to their tiny babies.

Thanks for posting it :-)

[demeter]

Ooops I must not have looked very carefully when I made my post!

I was really appreciative of her for writing this piece because she summarised how I feel on the issue. I've no doubt she'll cop a lot for it. I don't imagine it will do much to change the minds of those who disagree, if anything I imagine it will alienate them further from those who agree with her.

[~*clairesmum*~]

:yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap:

FANTASTIC article. Tells it like it is. Hopefully reading this will make some pregnant couples think twice about doing this to their tiny babies.

Thanks for posting it :-)

here here

[~Alicia]

:yes:

[mum_I'm_hungry]

Ooohhh, I love a good rant! Always nice to see a mummy with her knickers in a twist that isn't me! :laughing:

[mumx3littlies]

Great article:thumbsup:

[cheezelz]

I think that was a bloody fantastic article.

[DivinelySophistimicated]

She was brutally honest and thats what i love most about this article, It made me feel guilty about actually thinking whether i should get my (if i ever have one) son circumcised or not....

This article comfirms my decision is negative hehe

[Roxy]

She certainly pulled no punches!! Great article.

[Pippi Longstocking]

Heh, I reckon she must have researched that here on bubhub and stolen my best arguments! :D

It was an excellent article! It covers points that just cannot be argued with.

[Can I?]

Is that your alter-ego Guv? I immediately thought "Hey...she's been listening to the Guv's rant on circumcision!" :laughing:

[Pippi Longstocking]

I wish I could take the credit for it! :D But nope, it's not my brilliant work this time! :p

[ShadyCharacter]

Excellent article. Though I am surprised it has not been deleted yet :rolleyes:

[Beany]

I thoroughly approve :yes:

[xkwzit]

We mods are full of surprises ;)

Provided that the thread remains relatively free of judgement, the discussion of this article is fine. I have deleted some posts, so any more editing might prompt a close.

Cheers

[AquaDevil78]

:yelclap: Great Article, couldn't have written it better myself :D

[TreeFrog]

Woohoo! I loved the bluntness of it:thumbsup:

[Milliner]

I completely agree with everything in the article.

[xkwzit]

Just by way of explanation, this article does use language that we would not normally accept on the forum, but as it is a quote from an external source, we are allowing it to stay (as has been our practice for other external sourced quotes). This does not change the rules for posters in these threads.

As this article is from a recent edition of a main stream Australian newspaper, the moderators have agreed that it is a subject that is appropriate for the "Discuss it" section, provided that the discussion of the article adheres to the site rules and guidelines.

As you were ;)

[Blueberry Crumble]

I agree with everything that this woman has said- EVERYTHING. Excellent stuff

[RedPanda]

I wish I could take the credit for it! :D But nope, it's not my brilliant work this time! :p

I think you'd have done a better job Guv. While I agree with the content completely, I don't believe it's particularly well-written. Is it a letter to the editor, or is it written by a professional journalist? Love the content, disappointed by the clumsy writing. Sorry... that's a bit off-topic :o

[mum_I'm_hungry]

It's an opinion piece. Deveny does stand-up -- she's brilliant. Very 'tell it like it is' and her opinion pieces are always fantastic. She did an amazing one a while back on women changing their surnames when they marry which was spot on as well. I think she's the perfect opinion piece writer.

[RedPanda]

Meh - she sounds like she's talking at a BBQ. I'm used to more formal writing. I don't read a lot of opinion pieces to be honest. Perhaps they're all like that.

[pookiesossige]

That was so freaking awesome.

I think that writing in that manner is the best way of tackling this issue sometimes. And I'm another who can't remember the last time I came across an opinion peice I liked, aggred or identified with.

I particually enjoyed reading her perspective on this:

I'm not going to bother asking the hard question "why do you need them to look like their father?", because you cannot reason with something that has not come from reason but from mindlessness.

Well, that's one way to explain it!!

[MamaSage]

Yay! :thumbsup: I love it.

[xkwzit]

I have been thinking about this article and now that I know the author does stand up I understand it much better.

I never got the feeling that she was really trying to convince ppl NOT to circ. The language was all wrong for that.

I realise now that it was about entertainment and not education. There's no new evidence or revelation here, just someone having a go at others.

Cheers

[the_queen]

Having a go at others - yes, having a go at others who do that to their children. Raising this issue to our social conscience, to invite debate and to question the whole "parent's choice" ridiculousness. I don't think the writer wanted it to be about "education" - I think it's meant to prod people to really consider this issue.

[xkwzit]

I just don't see that any of the ppl she is talking about will be "prodded" or persuaded by it. The language is terribly condescending and not geared towards reaching any of the pro crowd (or even the "it's not such a big deal" crowd). They've tuned out before the end of the first paragraph.

It's preaching to the converted, I think.

[the_queen]

That's true X - but what I mean is that the article prods the "anti-circ brigade" to really stand up and say they oppose circ, rather than perhaps just having the opinion and not expressing it. If someone at my mummy's group said something about possibly circing their son, and I said nothing, then I may as well have patted her on the back for it. But if I express my opinion, OK maybe it ruffles some feathers (who me?? :D) but at least it's questioning her actions and perhaps even planting a seed of doubt in her mind as to why she's actually allowing this to be done to her son. And maybe someone else at the group starts thinking about the issue for the first time.

[xkwzit]

Ah, I am seeing what you are saying now Queenie. Thanks for posting that.

I think that you are right, it may well encourage ppl who believe that circ is not a good thing to voice their opinion on it.

Cheers

[mum_I'm_hungry]

I don't think the writer wanted it to be about "education" - I think it's meant to prod people to really consider this issue.

:yes: Definitely. Opinion pieces are just that -- opinions. Deveny's are usually very strong (which is why I think they're great...). They're not about education or information, but are put up as her opinion alone, one which will hopefully inspire debate. Which it has obviously done really well!

[Pippi Longstocking]

They're not about education or information, but are put up as her opinion alone, one which will hopefully inspire debate. Which it has obviously done really well!

Yep, I agree. Inspiring debate can be a really powerful tool to bring about social change. Getting those topics out there and discussed is really valuable, no matter how it's done.

[secondtimearound2]

OMG what a PERFECT WOMAN :rolleyes: She has the biggest brains and KNOWS everything...much better than the rest of us. I hope she has her doors open to the little Deans, Jayden's and Daniel's of Australia. These boys were abused and resulted in DEATH. This is child abuse Catherine Deveny :thumbsdown: .

[mum_I'm_hungry]

:confused:

I guess one thing she has going for her is that she can state her case well.

[OscarTheGrouch]

OMG what a PERFECT WOMAN :rolleyes: She has the biggest brains and KNOWS everything...much better than the rest of us. I hope she has her doors open to the little Deans, Jayden's and Daniel's of Australia. These boys were abused and resulted in DEATH. This is child abuse Catherine Deveny :thumbsdown: .
Yeah must be damn hard being so perfect.:rolleyes: Makes you wonder if she even gives a thought of writing anything about little children that are genuinely abused.

[secondtimearound2]

Who and what gives you the opinion that she thinks of herself as perfect?
Im sure she has made mistakes, so why come back with that attitude?

She was giving her opinion on something she views as unneccessary. Everyone is entitled to that, no matter what your stance on a topic.

To justify an insult by calling it an opinion does not make it an opinion PP. To result to name calling truly shows ones intelligence and attitude.

NO ONE seems to be able to explain to me why the circumcision of baby boys is not considered child abuse. Why in 2007 is it still acceptable for parents to have their babies' foreskins ripped off? How can it be legal, let alone ethical, for any human being to choose for another human being's body to be irreversibly mutilated? No medical reason, no rational thought and in many cases no aesthetic. Just because.
Why don't you Ms Deveny get off your soap box and speak to someone who has truly been abused, then speak to a circumcised male. Maybe then you will find your answer. Open your eyes to the real problems of child abuse and the lack of support, funding and community commitment in helping children that are abused.

[the_queen]

Yes but Ms Deveny is talking about circumcision in this article. There are different levels of child abuse, aren't there? You would agree with that? I think what Ms Deveny is trying to point out is that if I rubbed some Emla cream on my daughters earlobe and then sliced it off, I'd be an out-and-out child abuser. Yet doing it to a newborn penis is acceptable? She's highlighted the hypocrisy of our child abuse laws.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

I believe it was a good article. A good read:thumbsup:

[secondtimearound2]

Yes but Ms Deveny is talking about circumcision in this article. There are different levels of child abuse, aren't there? You would agree with that? I think what Ms Deveny is trying to point out is that if I rubbed some Emla cream on my daughters earlobe and then sliced it off, I'd be an out-and-out child abuser. Yet doing it to a newborn penis is acceptable? She's highlighted the hypocrisy of our child abuse laws.

Good answer...instead of slicing them off lets just pierce them for cosmetic reasons. "cause they look good and ya know she's a baby girl" (painful and unnecessary also) is that a "different level of child abuse too".

Not having a go :) but to call it "child abuse" is a lot over the top don't you think?? When we have just recently seen and heard what happened to a dear little 2 yr old boy. He's name WAS Dean who was known in the system by DOCS. But lack of funding, support, too many cases per case manager, etc.. things like this still happen. Really look at the big picture.

Awareness is going to be what will change the future of male circumcision. Not name calling.

[the_queen]

Hey - I agree with you! And I don't think it's over the top though, because there are different levels of child abuse. It is awful what happened to that little boy, but a kid who only gets a cigarette burn on his leg is just as much an abused child as a child who is shaken to death.

[Pippi Longstocking]

Good answer...instead of slicing them off lets just pierce them for cosmetic reasons. "cause they look good and ya know she's a baby girl" (painful and unnecessary also) is that a "different level of child abuse too".


While I agree that ear piercing is also unacceptable, you cannot compare a small pin prick to removing a large piece of functioning nerve-rich skin. Apples and oranges.

Your argument could be likened to say...burning a child compared with locking them in a box for an extended period of time. Both are different acts and yet both damage the child. *

*No, I am not necessarily saying that circumcision is akin to either of those things. I am comparing the two, not comparing them with child abuse. Thought I'd better clarify before panties become twisted...

An opinion piece is just that, an opinion. Nobody is forcing you to agree with her. But, for what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly.

[andrewJ]

instead of slicing them off lets just pierce them for cosmetic reasons. "cause they look good and ya know she's a baby girl" (painful and unnecessary also) is that a "different level of child abuse too".


yes

difference of degree, not of type.

[secondtimearound2]

Child abuse is child abuse. Weather it be a physical, mental or sexual nature they do all bear the same wounds. In most instances the abuser will abuse more then just a once. The abuser of a child is usually the a caregiver or someone left in charge of the child.

Gov said "Your argument could be likened to say...burning a child compared with locking them in a box for an extended period of time. Both are different acts and yet both damage the child. *"

More than likely the child has been burnt on numerous occasions and locked in the box on regular basis. Yes that indeed is "child abuse" and is deemed by LAW "child abuse". Circumcision and ear piercing are not classed acts of abuse simply because they are not acts of abuse. The are classed by LAW parents making (in thier opinion) the best decision on behave of thier child. To class it as child abuse is just nit picking. There are so many children in Australia that are genuinely abused.

So then call it child abuse and then what?? Take our children off us, drag us through the courts cause we had our child's ear pierced or son circumcised :rolleyes: .

Like I said before "Awareness is going to be what will change the future of male circumcision. Not name calling."

Do a bit of research on child abuse and speak to people that have been abused. There is no levels of abuse. You were or are abused. Not I was abused a little.

Have a great day :)

[meme]

So then call it child abuse and then what??
then change society so that this abuse isn't supported by law and seen as acceptable.

sending kids out to work was once a real part of society i believe. we don't do it anymore though. and i don't have any judgement of parents who did it because it was just what happenned in society. kids worked down mines, cleaned chimneys, and were probably beaten if they didn't behave, then society changed and this was no longer seen as acceptable.

do you think that female circumcison isn't abusive either? is that just a plain choice?

i didn't feel the opinion was making light of child abuse, only making a talking point about circumcision.

[Lillynix]

That was a good read! She certainly summed up the way I feel about it all!

The thing I find really ironic is that certain members of our society want to make smaking a child illegal...yet it's still okay to circumcise? I would have thought that circumcision would be a hell of a lot more painful and damaging than a mere smack on the bum when they're being naughty, not to mention it's a permanent, body altering modification, like a tattoo really.

If it was family tradition, or because "daddy has it done" does that then make it okay to permanently tattoo our baby boys? No it doesn't, yet it's still a form of permanent body modification that the child then has to live with for the rest of their life...

[andrewJ]

Circumcision and ear piercing are not classed acts of abuse simply because they are not acts of abuse. The are classed by LAW parents making (in thier opinion) the best decision on behave of thier child. To class it as child abuse is just nit picking.

The parents good intentions dont disqualify anything from being abuse.

Sudanese parents are (in thier opinion) doing what they believe to be the best thing for their daughter when they have her circumcised. It doesnt change the result.


So then call it child abuse and then what?? Take our children off us, drag us through the courts cause we had our child's ear pierced or son circumcised :rolleyes: .

You invoke some kind of slippery slope argument, but for me the distinction is very clear...dont modify your childs body unless its in the name of medicine.

so then dont call it child abuse, and then what?? female circumcision isnt either, foot binding is fine, tattoos for babies :rolleyes:



Do a bit of research on child abuse and speak to people that have been abused. There is no levels of abuse. You were or are abused. Not I was abused a little.

there are pretty much degrees of everything.
it is quite possible for one person to have suffered more abuse than another.

[PaperTiger]

Yes that indeed is "child abuse" and is deemed by LAW "child abuse". Circumcision and ear piercing are not classed acts of abuse simply because they are not acts of abuse. The are classed by LAW parents making (in thier opinion) the best decision on behave of thier child. To class it as child abuse is just nit picking. There are so many children in Australia that are genuinely abused.


I personally dont take to much notice of what the LAW says about what is classed as child abuse and what is not.
40 years ago it was LAW that allowed and encouraged children and babies of indigent Australians to be taken from their parents without good cause.
Today we now know that to be child abuse, and a particularly abhorrent form of it at that.
In 5 or 10 years time, the LAW may well be putting circumscision in the same basket as child abuse, and the author of this piece will be one of the people that will help to bring it about. Good on her I say.