This story is weird from a few directions:

1. Balonitis - Seriously? Balonitis? It sounds like baloney-itis.
2. Balonitis is treatable with steroids - Maybe that's how Barry Bonds has been taking it... topical foreskin application
3. Neosporin is not recommend for Balonitis - Well, I guess it woudln't be.
4. Doctor Goldstein - Any surprise that the pro-circumcision doctor has Jewish last name and the anti-circumcision doctor does not.
5. 65% of 9 year-olds have a partially attached foreskin - what does that even mean?
6. The head of DOC's mother accosts pregnant women in supermarkets telling them not to circumcize their children - That's got sitcom written all over it.
7. National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers - They've got a cute acronym.

Bah, apparently you can't use html lists... OL and LI appear to have been knocked out.

I fixed it.

"Unnecessary amputation"- that's lovely.
I wonder if this is really all just the relationship between the parents playing itself out over the fate of their child's genitalia.

i feel really bad for this little boy. why do americans have such a jones for genital mutilation? freakin' puritans.

Can I be in favor of it for purely ethnocentric-aesthetic reasons?

I know I'm dating a Jew and all, but I've always thought circumcision kind of goes against the Hippocratic oath and common sense. If it ain't broke, don't cut it off.

I notice that at the end of the article, someone suggests that they let the kid make up his own mind when he's 18. That sounds all right, but I can't picture most 18-year-olds saying yes to voluntary genital surgery.

Presumably, the 65% of nine-year-olds with partial foreskins are the recipients of sloppy circumcisions.

crazymonk:

...the religious component is tremendously thorny.

The religious aspect isn't really thorny if analyzed from the child's viewpoint. I addressed it on my blog, but there are equally valid arguments against it put forth by others.

Ingen Angiven:

Can I be in favor of it for purely ethnocentric-aesthetic reasons?

Sure, if you're talking about having yourself circumcised. But I say no if you mean choosing it for someone else. For example, the aesthetic aspect may appeal to you, but what about the boy? Does his opinion matter? After all, the parents who have their sons circumcised for aesthetic reasons aren't have sex with their children (hopefully), so I don't see what's gained by it. It makes more sense to let the boy determine what he prefers.

Lorelei:

I notice that at the end of the article, someone suggests that they let the kid make up his own mind when he’s 18. That sounds all right, but I can’t picture most 18-year-olds saying yes to voluntary genital surgery.

So why do we impose it on infants? In America the anticipated future reluctance is one reason historically given.

Presumably, the 65% of nine-year-olds with partial foreskins are the recipients of sloppy circumcisions.

Actually, the foreskin is attached to the glans at birth in all boys by the same membrane that attaches nails to fingers and toes. Over time, the foreskin and glans separate naturally. This can occur in the first few years of life or last into puberty. Until it separates, full retraction will not be possible without force. Would it damage your fingers if the nails were torn away? That damage happens with infant circumcision.

I support your arguments re: the religious angle theoretically, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be thorny to put into practice. Your talking about shutting down a fundamental part of a religion that already has sufferred centuries of persecution. Regardless of your justification, they will see it as a personal attack against their religion. Sure, Jewish men could choose to get circumcised at the age of 18, but I guarantee you that the Jewish population will drop dramatically with such a policy in place (although those who would be left would likely be more observant). Not that we should let tradition dictate our policies (see, e.g, Leviticus on slavery), but you've got an uphill battle here.

I agree that imposing my viewpoint will not be easy. I avoided discussing it for a long time because it's too easy to be seen as anti-religion. I'm not. I just believe reform is needed to meet the basic protection offered by the Constitution. In that, religion is no different than parents who circumcise so the child will look like daddy. (I assume the meaning is deeper, of course, but that alone can't justify not having the debate.)

That said, there are many traditions that have been discarded as no longer compatible with modern society. Stoning adulterous women, or slavery, as you point out. I don't think it's unreasonable to lay out this same reform expectation with circumcision. At worst, assuming my viewpoint doesn't win out, having the discussion is useful. One need only look at the number of practicing Jews who do not circumcise their sons. In Sweden, for example, 60% of Jewish parents leave their sons intact.

Dr. Dean Edell is one prominent Jewish doctor who advocates strongly against. He had his first three sons circumcised before concluding that it isn't necessary and might be harmful. He didn't have his next three sons circumcised.

As for whether or not the overall Jewish population would decline, I don't know that you can go that far. The circumcised Jewish population, certainly. But the question becomes does a male have to be circumcised to be Jewish (or Muslim or whatever)? The Jews I've met who are intact don't seem too conflicted about being Jewish.

Overall, though, your point about the uphill nature of this change is correct.

i assume all above anti-circ arguments against removing healthy tissue would also apply to piercing? i have no problem with that, just want to point it out. do you think there's a hippocratic problem with piercing an infants' ears? clearly, we have state laws forbidding tattooage of those under 18, even with parental consent. i think people would revolt if they couldn't treat their children like little experiments: what's the fun otherwise?

also, crazymonk, i can't let your retrograde comment go. acknowledging practical reality is one thing, but hesitating to condemn a cruel practice because of religiocultural history sounds a little...er....scalia-ish. maybe that sicilian blood pumping through your body is clogging your brain cells.

Ha, I'm a straight male. I'm still allowed to judge aesthetics, right?

i think it's weird to see babies with piercings. let the little bugger rebel on their own time.

plus, i don't think too many doctors work at piercing parlors, so there's no hippocratic conflict.

You mean the guy who pierced my butt wasn't a real doctor?!?

(Mostly irrelevant.) I think piercings in infants is kind of gross too, but that's more because piercings are somewhat sexualizing. It's like pink clothes aren't enough to assert that their kid is female.

I do think piercing an infant's ears is wrong. Not to the same degree that circumcision is wrong, but yes, it is a violation of the child. Parents can't be certain the child will want it, even though it's reasonable to assume that she (or he) won't mind. It will close up, which can't be said for a circumcision.

Ditto on the hippocratic oath. That's a biggy, which can only be explained through willful ignorance by most doctors. And most medical schools.

I don't really have a strong opinion on this, but I figured I'd add a few facts (for both sides) from the medical point of view:

BENEFITS: Some studies demonstrate reduced incidence of infection, in particular STDs, associated with circumcision. This is thought to be due to the fact that the mucosal surface of the uncircumcised glans is more susceptible to small abrasions, which can act as an entry-point for microbes. An increased susceptibility to HIV has been described. There also appears to be an increased incidence of HPV (human papilloma virus) in uncircumcised men. HPV is associated both with penile cancer and with cervical cancer in women, and there have been studies demonstrating increased incidence of these cancers in uncircumcised men and their female partners. There's also a decreased incidence of UTIs in circumcised men (though UTIs are uncommon in males in general anyway).

Also, none of this data is black and white - the studies don't all agree with one another: i'm just reporting the overall trend in the medical literature...

CONS: There's a complication rate of 2 in 1000, which is pretty significant, given the number of circumcisions that are performed. Most of the problems are related to local bleeding and infection, which are generally not serious and easily treatable (though still, of course, avoidable). Too much (yikes!) or too little foreskin is sometimes removed, which leads to complications (some of which sound pretty upsetting). Circumcised babies can develop ulceration of the urethral opening due to rubbing against a wet diaper. Also, of course, circumcision is the removal of sensory mucosa and it's argued that sexual sensation may be decreased in circumcised men.

Just to weigh in, I, though a confirmed gentile, consider circumcision to be a mark of civilization (is there no truth to the stereotype that only hicks and orphans are uncircumcised?) On the other hand, genital mutilation in the name of racial/religious distinction is wierd. In my mind, aesthetics trumps the issues; well trimmed wieners are quite pretty (granted, its all pretty much the same when it counts --erect). I really write, however, to relate a tidbit I saw once on "Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update" (which usually draws on "realish" events) where they reported that NYC health officials were considering legal action against a number of rabbis, or "mohels" I guess I should say, who had been using their mouths to stop the bleeding. The reason this came to their attention? A spate of herpes among jewish boys, spread by mouth to genital contact. The punch line of the report was "I'm now going to throw up for the rest of my life." I haven't researched the truth of this; I throw that gauntlet to the crazymonk community and its superior google skills. In related news, a very good friend of mine from Middlebury College tried to convince me of the merits of having a hoodie by claiming that he could "jerk off superfast" --he was, of course, laboring under the twin delusions that any guy, ever, has difficulty jerking off, and that any guy, ever, considers celerity of ejaculation a virtue.

Liam,

That story is true. Unfortunately, the state health commissioner and local rabbis reached an agreement that does nothing to solve the problem. See http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=491041&category=CAPIT...

As for aesthetics, by whose definition? It's fine that you think it looks better, but what about those males (and females) who prefer the natural, intact appearance? It's his body, so why should the opinion of others matter in circumcision? We don't let parents tattoo their children, even if they like the appearance.

Thanks for the diligent researching. I guess I don't know what is weirder: publicly cutting up an infant's penis, or then putting your mouth on it. As for aesthetics, I humbly withdraw my claims. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder --the one-eyed trouser beholder.