Global Views
   Middle East & Africa
 Embassy News
 Arts & Living
 Travel & Hotel
 Medical Tourism New
 Letters to Editor
 Photo Gallery
 News Media Link
 TV Schedule Link
 News English
 Hospitals & Clinics
 Flea Market
 Moving & Packaging
 Religious Service
 Korean Classes
 Korean Weather
 Real Estate
 Home Stay
 Room Mate
 English Teaching
 Job Offered/Wanted
 Hotel Lounge
 Foreign Exchanges
 Korean Stock
 Business Center
 PR & Ads
 Arts & Performances
 Restaurants & Bars
 Tour & Travel
 Shopping Guide
 Foreign Missions
 Community Groups
 Foreign Workers
 Useful Services
 ST Banner Exchange
Op-Ed Special
Circumcision: Pope Francis States the Obvious, But Omits Half of Humanity
Special Contribution
By Thomas L. Knapp
Pope Francis
The United Nations designates February 6 of each year as an "International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation." This year, in remarks accompanying his Angelus prayer before a crowd at St. Peter's Square, Pope Francis denounced the practice of involuntary female circumcision, saying that it "demeans the dignity of women and gravely undermines their physical integrity."

For some reason, though, the UN doesn't designate an "International Day of Zero Tolerance for Male Genital Mutilation," nor to my knowledge has the Holy Father ever publicly applied his church's catechism to the practice of involuntary male circumcision.

According to that catechism, "except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."

Why is it considered unacceptable to genitally mutilate infant girls, but acceptable — or at least not important enough to vocally oppose — to genitally mutilate infant boys?

There are certainly religious explanations. The Pope's religion is an offshoot of Judaism, which practices male but not female circumcision, while female circumcision is confined to some sects of Islam and to some animist sects.

But the bigger reason seems to be simple popularity.

More than a third of male infants worldwide are circumcised. In western cultures, pseudo-scientific "medical" claims, ranging from a variant of "balancing the humors" to the notion that it reduced the desire to masturbate (a practice also pseudo-scientifically tied to various ailments), popularized the practice in the late 19th century.

Moving into the 20th century, male infant circumcision became nearly universal in the US. As each pseudo-scientific claim supporting it fell, another rose to replace it, but we invariably eventually find that infant male circumcision is almost never therapeutic, let alone universally so.

Some parents still allow their sons to be circumcised for aesthetic reasons (so junior's penis looks like senior's, for example), or because fake health claims continue to circulate, but the big reason seems to be "well, that's just what people do."

Fortunately, the popularity of male circumcision seems to be decreasing. That's a good thing. But it's disturbing that we continue to entertain it as acceptable at all.

If circumcision was invented from scratch — as religious ritual or "medical" procedure — today, we'd throw its inventors in prison or cart them off to mental hospitals. Hacking off healthy parts of infants' bodies is a violent and barbaric practice, and we should treat it as one.

Related Articles
    Murder Most Foul: Thoughts on Moral ...
    US Congress Tries to Wish Away Israeli Racism ...
    International Criminal Court: Sauce for the ...
    Contra Hobbes: Peace and Political Government ...
    So Long as There Are Nukes, We Had Better Hope ...
    Imperial Delusion Is the Enemy of Peace and ...
    Electric Cars: Great Idea, But Not a Panacea
    Mariupol: Let's Talk About "Chemical Weapons" ...
    Powell Lied, People Died: Justice Delayed Was ...
    "No First Use": An Empty Gesture That Would ...
    Facebook Gives the Most Dangerous Extremists a ...
    Wuhan Lab Leak: It's Not a "Theory"
    About That "Rules-Based International Order"
    A Biden-Putin Summit: Jaw-Jaw is Better than ...
    Joe Biden Reaffirms Washington's Message to ...
    "Vaccine Passports" and the Holocaust: An ...
    Same as the Old Boss, Julian Assange Edition
    Biden's Iran Dilemma: Serve Obama's Third Term ...
    COVID-19: The Way the Music Died?
    How Joe Biden Can Score a Major Foreign Policy ...
    Trump Regime vs. the ICC: The Wrong Side of ...
    Stop Blaming Russia, China for US Disarmament ...
    NATO is a Brain Dead, Obsolete, Rabid Dog! ...
    North Korea Nuclear Freeze? Finally, a ...
    US War on Iran: Evil, Stupid, Self-Damaging
    US Should Stop Meddling in Spratly Dispute
    John Bolton Vs. International Criminal Court: ...
    Syria: Is Trump Finally Putting America First?
    Some Questions from the Edge of Immortality
    More Korean War Is "Worth It?" To Whom?
    A Korean Spring after the Winter Olympics Is ...
    Microsoft Corp. vs. United States: Jeff ...
    August 1945: Let's Talk About Terrorism

The above writer, Thomas L. Knapp, (Twitter: @thomaslknapp), is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism ( He lives and works in north central Florida.






The Seoul Times, Shinheung-ro 36ga-gil 24-4, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Korea 04337 (ZC)
Office: 82-10-6606-6188 Publisher & Editor: Joseph Joh
Copyrights 2000 The Seoul Times Company  ST Banner Exchange