I completely agree with Andrew Sullivan – circumcision is wrong but an outright ban seems unlikely given the religious attachment to it.
It seems to me that parents have every right to bring their children up in a religion without asking the child’s consent because at some point the child will be an adult and be able to assess the faith for himself. But no man can get part of his body back, a part that was surgically removed from him without his consent as an infant. It is not as barbaric as female genital mutilation – but it does change a penis for ever and cover its most sensitive parts with scar tissue. I’m all for people deciding to do this for themselves, if that’s what they want. But forcing people into mandatory permanent mutilation?
67.164.249.161#1 by Ken on September 8, 2009 - 7:33 pm
The CDC may recommend circumcision for all male infants to fight Aids. Since other STDs are much more common why don’t we just chop the whole thing off?
Is it only a matter of time before Obama appoints a circumcision Czar?
67.199.176.42#2 by Lindsey on September 8, 2009 - 9:16 pm
I didn’t allow my son to be circumcised. There really is no medical reason why it needs to be done. I’m not buying the STD and cancer crap. My comeback to anyone who gets on my case about it (like my extended family) is that when my son is old enough to decide, he can make that choice himself. And I’m guessing he won’t…
97.117.49.135#3 by Larry Bergan on September 8, 2009 - 9:34 pm
I think this is a weird ritual and a very interesting subject. Why would God put skin in a place where it didn’t belong. Why don’t I remember somebody slicing off part of my dick?
How much does a circumcision cost? Now, maybe we’re getting somewhere. I still have my tonsils, and haven’t had one problem.
67.199.176.42#4 by Lindsey on September 8, 2009 - 9:38 pm
Exactly, Larry. I’ll even look past the religious symbolism of it for Jews. But why else? I think, although I could be wrong, that America is the only country that does routine circumcisions. And it is for aesthetic reasons. Crazy.
67.199.176.42#5 by Lindsey on September 8, 2009 - 9:43 pm
I was wrong, but the US has the highest rate of non-religious circumcisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Country_Level.png
58.7.83.199#6 by Barry Bigge on September 9, 2009 - 12:18 am
Read Royal Australasian College of Physicians 2009 paper which recommends against neonatal circ, and ask CDC to justify why they come to different conclusions?
97.117.49.135#7 by Larry Bergan on September 9, 2009 - 12:32 am
Barry:
Huh?
206.81.134.49#8 by Glenden Brown on September 9, 2009 - 8:55 am
I know of one man who, as an adult, chose to be circumcised; his reasons were somewhat eccentric and entirely personal. The upshot was that he was circumcised after marriage since he felt was giving up his old life and being circumcised was a physical sign that he was adopting a new life with his wife.
When I was an infant, circumcision was an almost automatic procedure in American hospitals. My mother doesn’t remember being asked about it – the doctors simply assumed she wanted it done. At the time, the case for circumcision was “hygiene” – being circumcised was cleaner; since keeping your penis clean isn’t exactly time consuming or difficult, circumcised or not, I find the argument mind boggling. I’ve said for years now that I think the procedure should not be performed unless there is some absolutely medically necessary reason.
80.193.158.142#9 by Mark Lyndon on September 9, 2009 - 4:10 pm
In Europe, almost no-one circumcises unless they’re Muslim or Jewish, and they have significantly lower rates of almost all STI’s including HIV.
Even in Africa, there are six countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised: Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn’t happen. We now have people calling circumcision a “vaccine” or “invisible condom”, and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost lives, not save them.
98.202.51.60#10 by bbart76 on September 9, 2009 - 8:42 pm
I think it has more to do with a tradition of our fathers then for religious reasons. I didn’t know better for my first son, after watching him get it cut, I thought never again. But the 2nd son came along and I lost the battle with my wife. She reasoned that the 2nd son would feel funny because his brother looked different. I didn’t buy that but had to keep peace.
121.74.68.216#11 by Hugh7 on September 10, 2009 - 4:51 pm
“She reasoned that the 2nd son would feel funny because his brother looked different. I didn’t buy that” – and of course you’re right bbart. Kids will always find differences if they want. And he’s going to spend most of his life not looking at his brother’s thing, to put it mildly.
That guy who got circumcised when he got married was not just eccentric, he was MAD, Glendon. A tattoo, yes, but cutting of the best part of your marriage tackle? It would make more sense as a sign of becoming a priest (as it was in ancient Egypt).
But people will grasp at ANY excuse to circumcise. ANY. (see http://www.circumstitions.com/Stitions&refs.html for a list of 390!) There’s a PhD thesis waiting for someone there.
And don’t blame Obama, blame one guy in the CDC called Peter Kilmarx. The CDC had to back down from that and say any recommendation would be “completely voluntary” – and who can object to that, since “completely” can only mean, the one person who can volunteer for circumcision is the man on the other end, when he’s old enough.