CDC Proposes Mandatory Circumcision
views: 14,527
The CDC is finally catching up with Jewish teaching, 4000 years later, by proposing mandatory circumcision for all baby boys. This proposal is based on data that finds circumcision can reduce the risk of HIV by 50%. Studies also show that circumcised men run a reduced risk of diseases like syphilis, HPV and cancer of the penis, even urinary tract infections.
The value of circumcision comes as no surprise to many. According to Jewish teachings, cirumcision was recommended by God, who told Abraham that cutting the foreskin would symbolize the convenant. Muslims, too, believe in circumcision. And Victorian doctors blamed the foreskin for all manner of psychiatric illnesses stemming from excessive masturbation, which the presence of the foreskin was said to promote. The United States, in general, has been mostly pro-circumcision, especially compared to other countries, particularly in Europe, which have given up on the procedure. But even with all of the evidence of its benefits presented by its supporters, many opponents to circumcision, a.k.a. “intactivists,” refuse to forego the foreskin, making comparisons between circumcision and female genital mutilation and calling it a human rights violation. Regardless of what the CDC decides, this little piece of skin will no doubt continue to house a whole lot of controversy, perhaps for another 4000 years.
Comments
atmoore12 4 weeks ago
::CONTINUED:: Here lies the contradiction: I am both opposed and supportive of the procedure. In underdeveloped countries where the surgery can benefit the patient, the procedure is needed due to the lack of sexual education available in conjunction with the lack of resources needed to provide sanitation (i.e. few opportunities to properly bathe and cleanse under the foreskin). It is noted, however, that circumcised men in such climates still possess a high probability of transmitting a sexual disease, meaning the procedure is not a 'cure,' but rather a 'treatment.' In developed nations, such as Great Britain or the United States, however, where widespread access to resources such as water exists, there are no compelling reasons to perform the procedure. A fundamental rule of medicine is to never harm healthy tissue, a category under which the prepuce, or foreskin, falls; thus, it is entirely unethical to destroy this tissue, which provides benefits to sexual function. Bacteria lives under the foreskin, which allows it to remain healthy and supple, very similar to bacteria produced within the vagina. When the prepuce is removed, this healthy bacteria no longer exists, creating an external callus on the gland of the penis, theoretically making it less prone to sensation, or sexual pleasure, due to the severed nerve endings.Thus, having the privilege of being raised in America or the UK, circumcision is not necessary so long as healthy habits are imparted upon the child. I apologize for this article worth of writing, but I do wish for parents to thoroughly research this topic before making the decision to alter the gift God has provided them. Ms. sfbarbra, I must say that I mean no offense to neither your decision nor your intellect. Your son will be absolutely fine and I am appreciative that you held out and asked your health care provider for their honest advice before making the decision. However, please do make sure to speak directly with a medical doctor for specific information in the future, seeing as nurses, while entirely deserving and competent, have not had the advanced training that specialists, such as your pediatrician, have had.
atmoore12 4 weeks ago
Studying abroad in America, I cannot understand the reasoning behind circumcision here. As a graduate student in medicine, I can say that neither my studies at home in the UK, nor my studies at the University of Kentucky have EVER made mention of benefits concerning the practice of circumcision (and, quite obviously, I have studied anatomy thoroughly). Upon asking my flatmates as to why two of the four of them were circumcised, they responded it was "tradition" in their families, which I am able to accept. However, I refuse to accept the fact that I am an endangerment to my wife based solely upon the fact I was born as God created me. To Mrs. 'sfbarbara' and her previous comment - I in no way intend to disrespect you or your decision, however, I cannot I say that I am in alignment with your choice of action. In even the most basic sexual education courses, which I am sure your nurse completed prior to her certification, it is taught that keeping the genital area properly cleansed and maintaining only one sexual partner conveys the best sexual aptitude. Both circumcised and uncircumcised men are capable of transmitting diseases and they are on fairly equal levels in developed countries. However, in places such as Africa, where circumcision has shown to improve sexual health, I believe (along with a great deal of the medical community) circumcision to be highly beneficial.
sfbarbara 1 month ago
Dena - when my son, Robert, was born I was reluctant to have him circumcised. I put it off for a few years until my pediatrician's nurse called me and said, "Barbara, if for no other reason, do it for your future daughter-in-law." She said there was a higher incidence of cervical cancer among the wives of uncircumcised men. That convinced me. I hope my future daughter-in-law appreciates it! Barbara
Create an account or Sign in to post a comment.