There is a debate being help up again over circumcision. The choice to circumcise or not to circumcise. Those who are against it say it is a form of mutilation on newborn baby boys.
It is usually done with in 24 hours of an infant boy being born. Some nurses who have experienced the procedure have had a hard time with it seeing a helpless infant be in that kind of pain even if it is temporary.
This and and other reasons are causing new possible laws to be thought up to prevent any more circumcisions from happening. It used to be that people thought there were health reasons to circumcise, but that does not seem to be the case after all.
Some parents are not even sure why they have their sons circumcised other than that they’ve always known it to be done – like a cultural thing. Many parents do not have any real reason after that. Seems like we have more to learn about circumcision than we thought.
Tom Tobin
Mar 23. 2012
I’m thinking it is mutilation. I’ve seen too many articles like this one:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/3/23/courts/10974192&sec=courts
There are 3.15 billion men with foreskins in this world. Most of them are very happy to have one. They protect the head, make sex easier and more lubricated, and provide pleasure for both. There are many studies in the US and Europe, which show that circumcised and uncircumcised men get the same diseases, at the same rates. There is no disease which circumcision prevents. Why not enjoy the other half of the skin of the penis, as nature intended? What other body part can you remove half the skin of, and expect it to give the same response?
Hygiene is simple. A few seconds in the shower, and you are as clean as any circumcised man, and cleaner than some.
If you have to wear a condom to prevent sexual diseases anyway, you might as well get to enjoy all of your body. The subtlety of response is amazing.
Mike Collin
Mar 23. 2012
It seems the anti-circ activists love to promote the idea tha circumcision is dangerous and useless. Well is it? First, if we lived in a perfect world
withought harmful viruses etc.and if body parts such as a foreskin never caused a person any problems, then maybe we could consider circumcision harmfull
and useless. Sorry but its not a perfect world. Viruses such as HIV,Herpes and HPV all have an easier time entering the inner surface of the foreskin
either through small tares in the lining or because of the immune response from such cells as Langerhan. Unfortunately an immune response to a virus such as
HIV and Herpes is pretty much the same as the Trojan horse, and once its in its there to stay.
Large number of studies show each of these viruses to be more common in the uncircumcised. Circumcision is not a cure all but it is considered
by many to be a preventive measure. Yes condoms provides protection from these viruses, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think for one second
that people always use them.
Have you ever checked into unplanned pregnancies for example, especially among young people, i think this speakes for itself.
From day one after an infant is circumcised, benefits start. UTI’s are less frequent for the first year of life, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, thrush,
cancer, frenulum tares (which can be very painful involving a lot of blood ) can all be either reduced or eliminated for a lifetime. As for ceanliness,
well, thats a no brainer.
Smegma, and fermented urine can form under the foreskin within a couple hours especially if small amounts of urine get trapped and start mixing with oils
and shedded skin. Many reports describe the smell as repulsive.
If anything can be done to help give someone and better defence against any these problems then maybe it should be considered more and parents should start
requesting it more often.
John
Mar 23. 2012
Mike, you’re way off base with your comments. They’re not factual and not a good enough reason for forced genital mutilation. Plus, you can’t even spell words.
Mark Lyndon
Mar 23. 2012
(I tried to post this with all the supporting links, but it didn’t go through, so sorry if this appears twice. You can find all the quotes at the medical organizations’ own websites)
It’s easy to find circumcised doctors who are against male circumcision, but surprisingly difficult to find male doctors in favour who weren’t circumcised themselves as children.
Canadian Paediatric Society
“Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”
“Circumcision is a ‘non-therapeutic’ procedure, which means it is not medically necessary.”
“After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
“In the absence of evidence of risk of substantial harm, informed parental choice should be respected. Informed parental consent should include the possibility that the ethical principle of autonomy may be better fulfilled by deferring the circumcision to adolescence with the young man consenting on his own behalf.”
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia.)
British Medical Association
“to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”
The Royal Dutch Medical Association
“The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications.”
Drops in male circumcision since 1950:
USA: from 90% to 55%
Canada: from 48% to 17%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (about 1-2% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.4% (“routine” circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
It’s worth remembering that no-one except for Muslim and Jewish people would even be having this discussion if it weren’t for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but that’s how they thought back then, and that’s how non-religious circumcision got started. If you don’t believe me, then google “A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians’ Own Words”.
Heck, they even passed laws against “self-pollution” as it was called.
It’s not like it can’t wait. There are just two countries in the world where more than 50% of baby boys are circumcised – the USA and Israel. Other countries circumcise, but it’s usually anywhere from the age of seven to puberty or adolescence.
Intaction
Mar 23. 2012
An intact baby is one who has an intact prepuce. This double layer of skin is also commonly known as the foreskin. The prepuce is a natural, healthy, important fold of skin that normally covers and protects the glans of the penis.
Nature has masterfully designed the human body so that every part was made for a reason.Some may think they can improve on nature with surgical intervention in the absence of any disease. Time and time again this approach has been proven wrong. A recent study by the Harvard School of Public Health compared European and American men. European men were found to have a longer lifespan than non-intact American men. While many factors affect longevity, European men are over 95% intact.
In 2012, researchers have discovered that cells in the mucosal lining of the foreskin produce a protein that “eats up” invading HIV — possibly keeping the spread of the AIDS more contained than it might otherwise be.
Even more important, enhancing the activity of this protein, called Langerin, could be a potent new way to curtail the transmission of the virus that causes AIDS, the Dutch scientists added. Langerin is produced by Langerhans cells, which form a web-like network in skin and mucosa. This network is one of the first structures HIV confronts as it attempts to infect its host.
However, “we observed that Langerin is able to scavenge viruses from the surrounding environment, thereby preventing infection,” said lead researcher Teunis Geijtenbeek, an immunologist researcher at Vrije University Medical Center in Amsterdam. The finding, reported in the March 4 online issue of Nature Medicine, “is very interesting and unexpected,” said Dr. Jeffrey Laurence, director of the Laboratory for AIDS Virus Research at the Weill Cornell Medical College, in New York City. “It may explain part of the relative inefficiency of HIV in being transmitted.”
NTACT BABIES ARE HAPPIER
Intact babies have been spared the pain and trauma of needless surgery after being born. Intact babies have better sleep patterns, higher activity level, increased mother-infant interaction and non-disturbed bonding, less irritability, and fewer disruptions in feeding. Intact babies cry less during vaccinations. There is a correlation between circumcision and intensity of pain response during vaccination months later. Infant genital mutilation may result in psychological harm, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Babies cannot consent to non-therapeutic cosmetic surgery. Non-therapeutic means the procedure does not cure a specific disease. Having an intact baby means the parents have recognized the child’s right to body integrity. In the absence of a specific & urgent medical condition, the infant has the right to be left intact into adulthood.
Find out more at intaction.org
match
Mar 23. 2012
I was circumcised as an infant. I’m not sure of the exact reasoning for me being circumcised, but I was born right at the peak of circumcision rates in the United States, and in the region where it was most common. I am unhappy with the decision to have me circumcised. If I have a son, I will not have him circumcised, because it takes away his right to bodily integrity.
There is no way for me to know exactly what I am missing, but I have begun the process of manually restoring my foreskin. Sensitivity has definitely increased because the keratinization that inevitably occurs on the glans of a circumcised penis is reversing. Keratinization occurs because of constant exposure of the glans to clothing and drying of the glans. In addition to the keratinization, circumcision removes a large amount of nerve endings.
While there will inevitably be people that encourage you to circumcise him for hygienic or health reasons, hygienic and health problems related to the foreskin are so rare and easy to avoid and treat without circumcision. The African HIV studies are inherently flawed, as there was no control group given the same sex education, access to condoms, and STI screening that those that were circumcised were given. As this article states, circumcision is nowhere near as effective as a condom.
Arguments about him fitting in with others in the locker room are becoming increasingly less valid. In 2005 only a little over half (56%) of newborns were circumcised. In 2009 one report showed only 32.5% (although this only counted circumcisions performed in hospitals). Chances are in his future cohort of friends there will be more uncircumcised boys than circumcised.
The bottom line though is that once he is circumcised, it cannot be undone. It is a permanent alteration to his body. If he chooses later in life, when he is able to understand what circumcision is, to get circumcised he will still have that choice if you leave him intact.
Ashley
Mar 23. 2012
For those who believe that it is unclean, would you have your wife/girlfriend be circ’d because it is cleaner? Women get the same “build up” in their labia as men do in their foreskin. Thankfully no one decided to chop off part of my genitals under the assumption it would be more clean or reduce the number of UTI’s. I do not have a problem with circumcision if the one who is making the decision is the one with the penis. We hold our right to choose for ourselves so dear in this country but we are over zealous to cut off parts of others bodies. Leave the choice up to him.
Ron
Mar 23. 2012
Male genital mutilation should be illegal like any other assault against a defenseless person! Thankfully people are discontinuing this heinous practice.
Hugh7
Mar 24. 2012
Mike Collin:
“if body parts such as a foreskin never caused a person any problems” That’s a high standard to meet. There ARE no such parts, but we don’t consider for a moment cutting any other parts off unless and until they do cause problems.
The Langehan hypothesis was made up on the basis of some in vitro studies, by some of the same peoplle who have been determined to push circumcision for any reason or none. Langhans cells are all over the body, not just the foreskin. They’re also plentiful on the vaginal walls. What are you going to do about that?
Sure you can list diseases till the cows come home, but without some numbers they mean nothing. Thousands of circumcisions would be wasted to prevent (perhaps) one penile cancer, hundreds (perhaps) for one UTI, scores (perhaps) for one prostate cancer.
I can list risks of circumcision, too
aesthetic damage
- skin-bridges
- skin-tags
- scarring
- unevenness
- excessive skin removed
phimosis
hairy shaft
haemorrhage
meatal stenosis, meatal ulcer
de-gloving
urethrocutaneous fistula
infection
- MRSA
- hepatitis
- tetanus
- bladder infections
– septic arthritis
neuroma
blockage of the urethra
buried penis
penoscrotal webbing
deformity
necrotising fasciitis (galloping gangrene)
priapism
gastric rupture
oxygen deprivation
clamp injuries/plastibell ring injuries
loss of glans
ablation (removal) of the penis
death – from
- haemorrhage
- infection
- anaesthesia
Though each of those is rare, at 1.2 million circumcisions in the USA a year, one every 26 seconds, that’s still a substantial number. A Richmond VA pediatrician reports having to surgically revise 1600 circumcisions by other doctors in three years, suggesting a 13% complication rate,
The scandal is that we don’t even have a good figure for the number of circumcision deaths.
“As for ceanliness,well, thats a no brainer.” You’re right. Washing is a no-brainer. Smegma, by the way is Greek for soap, and women have smegma too. What are you going to cut off them?