I was reading an interesting article earlier today and thought it was worthy of a post. Not quite sure how it fits in with my recent posts on alleged Indonesian criminals and the underage marriage and the alleged subsequent abuse of Manohara, I am guessing it doesn't. However, circumcision is something that we have thought about with young Will.
We talked about it with the doctor while we were in Indonesia. I am not sure 'talked about' is the right phrase, as we broached the subject with the doctor and his response was, "no need!" And, that was the end of the conversation. We have not talked about it with the doctor here and to be perfectly honest we have not talked about it between ourselves either.
So, onto the post.
Circumcision was a routine procedure when I was born. Estimates suggest that the rate of circumcision around the time of my birth was somewhere around 90%. Generally, the reasons for the procedure were health based. Simply, it was healthier to be without a foreskin than to be with one. It has only been in more recent times that the argument has moved to the rights of the child, serious questioning of the supposed health benefits of circumcision, and whether the "mutilation" is warranted. I must say that I have never felt mutilated myself and harbor no ill will to my parents for allowing the procedure to be done.
The current rate of circumcision in Australia is about 12%. The numbers are approximate. However, it is suggested that a great number of the circumcisions that still occur are for religious reasons. Religions where circumcision is required include Judaism and Islam.
The debate not only revolves around the physical and health implications of the procedure but also the legal implications. The recent discussion on this point by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute says that the criminal and civil law with respect to circumcision is far from certain, and in fact circumcision may abuse the rights of the child.
Circumcision is the general term in the sense that the mere utterance of the word is recognized by most However, in legal terms, the correct term for where problems may arise is 'non-therapeutic male circumcision'.
The main concerns revolve around the physical loss and then the social and psychological effects of having one's foreskin removed. The issues though are more interesting in that there is some debate as to whether circumcision is in fact an assault or wounding or maybe even grievous bodily harm.
If the argument is accepted that the procedure constitutes any one of the actions noted in the previous sentence, then it is unclear as to whether a parent could in fact provide consent to allow their child to be harmed. Nevertheless, the jury is still out on whether the procedure is in reality something that causes an injury in the strict legal sense.
So, is Will to be circumcised? The jury is still out on this one as well.
This post probably lends itself to a gratuitous posting of a penis picture...but I won't go there.