I wrote this a while back after reading Michael Talbot's The Holographic Universe and seeing a similiarity between the subject and circumcision. It stated exactly what I was thinking about how circumcision is justified, that the foreskin is viewed as a seperate part of the body while the whole is not taken into account. Circumcision and quantum physics may not be two subjects that people usually link together but I hope this may get people to look at the issue from a different perspective.
"If [man] thinks of the totality as constituted of independent
fragments, then that is how his mind will tend to operate,
but if he can include everything coherently and harmoniously
in an overall whole that is undivided, unbroken, and without
a border then his mind will tend to move in a similar way, and
from this will flow an orderly action within the whole."
--David Bohm, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" p. xi
"Indeed, Bohm believes that our almost universal tendency to
fragment the world and ignore the dynamic interconnectedness
of all things is responsible for many of our problems, not
only in science, but in our lives and our society as well.
For instance, we believe we can extract the valuable parts of
the earth without affecting the whole. We belive it is possible
to treat parts of our body and not be concerned with the
whole. We believe we can deal with various problems in our society,
such as crime, poverty, and drug addiction, without addressing
the problems in our society as a whole, and so on. In his writings
Bohm argues passionatley that our current way of defragmenting
the world into parts not only not only doesn't work, but may
even lead to our own extinction."
--Michael Talbot, "The Holographic Universe" p. 49
This is also a problem that can apply to circumcision. Whether you like it or not the foreskin is a part of the body, and a natural one that all males are born with. There's really no divider between the foreskin and rest of the penile skin, or between any skin for that matter. The foreskin has been shown to have functions which removing it just destroys. Even if they're not essential functions they exist and they should be considered a birthright. And it should not be our place to just choose which body parts we can remove from our children unless there's a real medical indication first.
When treating the body, too many people simply neglect to take it all into account as a whole. Even if a procedure is shown
to have slight health benefits there are several other issues which need to be taken into account before a body part is
permanently removed from an unconsenting child. Even if you don't think about it now the penis your son has as an infant is
going to be the same one he has for the rest of his life so any decision that involves it's permanent alteration must not be
taken lightly. Circumcision takes away a part of his penis that he can never get back while not circumcising simply leaves the
body the way nature intended it.
The human body is the result of millions of years of evolution. The human body fits together so well and chances are, when
nature has formed something that appears in the entire species nature has a plan. The body is not a machine and we cannot
be removing any part just because we feel it can function well enough without. It isn't our place to choose how our children's
bodies should be formed.
Western medicine has a history of treating the body like a machine which has resulted in routine removal of the tonsils,
anoids and mastoids, bloodletting, lobotomies, electroshock, the overuse of antibiotics (creating strains of bacteria that are
resistant) and sterilising mental patients among other things. It becomes all about fixing any small part of the body without
worrying what kind of outcomes this will have on the rest of it. Today circumcision continues to thrive on that belief. One
day will we look back at circumcision the same way we do these other procedures?
This is just something all too often left out of the whole discussion. Even if circumcision has some health benefits it doesn't
change the fact that a functioning body part is being removed without the owner's consent. Now that it's been shown that
none of the benefits are enough to justify the procedure anyway there's just no reason to do it. The risks and benefits may go
either way but no matter what the foreskin and everything that comes with it is lost forever. Better to let him make the choice
himself about his own body.
Some questions to consider:
Under what circumstances should it be justified for a parent to authorise the removal of healthy tissue from an unconsenting
infant?
Now that we know any benefits from circumcision are not compelling enough for the procedure to be recommended is it
ethical to remove the foreskin when it cannot be returned?
Are there any other parts of the body that are routinely removed just because they're not essential to living and they have a
chance of getting infected or diseased?
Back to Yuki's Intactivism Resource
