I am 100% against strongly encouraging parents to routinely circumcise their newborn boys.

Here are my reasons:

The circumcision rate has decreased in the United States to the lowest point since before WWII. More and more people are realizing that the United States being the only Westernized country with the majority of boys being circumcised for non-religious reasons is wrong in its thinking.

The foreskin, which is a healthy body part that serves a major function in protecting the glans of newborns, belongs to the owner. Parents and doctors should only concern themselves in the VERY rare event that there is an anomaly necessitating the modification or removing of the foreskin. This is a civil rights issue. In our country, we have seen lawsuits filed against doctors and parents by young men who have been circumcised against their will. I believe there will be an increase in this activity. We have laws against modifying female genitalia, why not protect males as well? This is a double standard. The female genitalia is responsible for spreading and harboring disease, yet we protect females. "Circumcised" females would also be cleaner and lead to higher reductions in transferring disease.

The foreskin protects the glans, keeping the skin of the glans soft and sensitive. This is a major plus during sexual activity, whether it be masturbation, intercourse or other activity. In addition, the female and male both benefit from the foreskin's gliding action leading to more pleasure for both parties.

The foreskin has some 20,000 nerve receptors, providing more sexual satisfaction for the male.

The removal of the foreskin often has adverse results. Many men say they feel robbed because they find a hardening of the skin on the glans leading to less sensitivity. Many men feel robbed because they did not have the choice to choose between having and not having a foreskin. Circumcision also leads to too much or too little skin being removed. Too much skin removed leads to painful erections. Too little removed leads to re-circumcisions and penile skin adhesions. Also, the instance of meatal stenosis is high. Cosmetically, a lot of circumcisions have glaring scarring that is there for the life of the male.

The act of circumcising a newborn is painful. Even though there are guidelines strongly recommending proper anesthesia, many doctors use no anesthesia or use Emla Cream which is not recommended by the manufacturer or the AAP. Imagine, the pain of feces and urine stinging the open wound over the week to ten days it takes to fully heal.

A study that was unveiled on the opening day of the CDC Convention in Atlanta showed very clearly that mass circumcision would not make a dent in the number of HIV/Aids cases in the United States. Almost all of the cases are derived from male-to-male sex and dirty needles.

There is a belief that uncircumcised males suffer from an elevated level of urinary tract infections. Yes, there is a slight elevation compared to their circumcised counterparts, but still below the incidence of urinary tract infections in baby girls.

There is a belief that uncircumcised males will get penis cancer. As you know, it is VERY rare to see penis cancer in an uncircumcised man.

There is a belief that chlamydia is spread by uncircumcised males. It is a rampant disease with no relation to circumcision status.

It is said there is a slight increase in cases of syphilis and gonorrhea instances in and transference from uncircumcised males to others. It is important to note that these are slight increases.

As a country, we need to closely observe why in several European countries, circumcision rates are under 10% and HIV rates are also minuscule. I imagine it is because of more education of youth and adults so that protective actions are taken prior to sex. Unprotected sex is the problem, not the foreskin. The CDC's energies would be far better spent on massive education on how to have safe sex and about the need for abstinence if protection isn't used. Let's say the cost of circumcision is $300.00 and let's say that all insurance companies and all state Medicaid programs covered neonatal circumcision. In one year, a million circumcisions would cost $300,000,000. That is a lot of money that could be put into education and the availability of free condoms. And, because this program would not be aimed solely at circumcision (which would have only a slight positive effect of the spreading of disease) we would see a major downturn in all types of diseases and in children being born out of wedlock and in other non-planned pregnancies. We are talking about BILLIONS of dollars in benefit every year.

Leave our foreskins alone. Appreciate all of the positive aspects of leaving little babies intact. Should a young man decide he wants a circumcision, then it becomes his choice. In writing a recommendation, clearly state the true statements regarding the minor benefits of circumcision, but instead of recommending universal circumcision of baby boys, stress what needs to be done in preventing contact between infected and unifected people and stress the need for medical screening of sexually active teens and adults to identify and treat STD's.

Thanks you again for the opportunity to express my heartfelt opinion which is shared by the 75% of all men in the world who still are fortunate to have had the choice as to whether to have a foreskin or not. The foreskin is not just a flap of skin. It is there for a reason.

This is a decision best left to the owner of the body part, when he becomes an adult and can make an informed decision about what he wants. The baby's penis belongs first and foremost to the baby, and not to the doctor, mohel, mother, or father. Whether or not a male is circumcised or remains intact is rightfully HIS decision to make. One person forcing another to have a healthy body part surgically removed is NOT respecting the bodily integrity of that other person. This is true of both male circumcision and female circumcision.

Why is this even a question? Of course you don't cut healthy functioning body parts off minors without clear medical indication! If the individual in question wants to be circumcised when he's old enough to make that decision, he's free to do so.

Funny how the media and the CDC just refuse to look at Europe, especially Scandinavia. They have the lowest rate of HIV infection in the world and an almost 100% INTACT population.

I think a good step toward healthy sexual practice in this country would be to STOP sending the message to boys that they are such dirty little disease spreaders, incapable of hygiene or sexual common sense, that they deserve to have a living part of themselves chopped off at birth. I mean, its unbelievable that any thinking person would want this done to their son.
Most hold outs simply seem to be Dads who were circumcised. Hey, I truly sympathize with you. Something was taken from you and that can't be easy.....but when does the ego of , 'hey he has to look like me' bow to the paternal instinct of protecting the child?

I'm surprised and pleased at the comments here.

Cutting off my boys' foreskins because of HIV seems a bit like asking them to wear a helmet all the time in case a meteor hits.

I personally know of three adult males who were circumcised as adults, and ALL of them regret havign the prodecure performed - ALL say that it decreased their sexual pleasure, and one had ejaculatory issues after. Perhaps with the groups that are being looked at as having lower incidence of HIV, its due to other factors - maybe the preponderance of intact males belong to a economically disadvantaged group, and its a matter of lack of education about hygeine and safe sex.
...If your remove everyones teeth, it will cut down on tooth decay. This is stilted logic. Africa does not seem like the best test case anyway-
the norms about sex and protection, and womens rights varies too much - Circumcision is mutilation. Period. Male or
female. Address the real issues. SPend money on reasearch and education. Leave the little boys alone.

CDC cites NIH-funded studies of male circumcision as the basis for saying it helps to prevent HIV infections by facilitating penile hygiene. But private authorities, such as the American Association of Family Associations and even successive editions of the authoritative "Johns Hopkins Guide to Living with HIV Infections" have long recommended supplementing condom use with a post-sex washing of genitals for this purpose. Isn't washing a penis after sex an alternative way of accomplishing what circumsizing a penis would do to prevent HIV infections and other STDs?

it's illegal to cut a girl's prepuce off, or to make any genital incision, even without removing any tissue. Why don't boys get the same protection? They should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want the most sensitive part of their genitals cut off.

Circumcision is common under the Black people of South Africa but not under the Causations. It is not a “Gay thing” under the Black South Africans, but a true heterosexual disease.
Circumcised or not will not make any difference in South Africa. The fact is that most Africans are circumcised and the HIV rate among African men is the highest.
It is estimated that one of the Townships (Xhosas) in the City where I live 95% of the people are HIV positive and Circumcision is compulsory in the culture of the Xhosa people (as well as in most of the other tribes in South Africa).
What worries me the most is an article in a Johannesburg News Paper, about a boy of 18 who went for a circumcision. “I’ve heard we must come and circumcise so that we cannot get sick,” he said. “My parents think it’s a good thing.” Maiko is one of about 100 men aged 15 and up who come to the center every day and briefly occupy one of seven curtained-off beds in a one-room surgery”(see article http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=85726) The whole aspect about circumcision is scary. If the message is understood that HIV cannot be contracted if you are circumcised the HIV rate in South Africa will increase considerably in the next few years.
I think the best way to stop a lot of new cases is to educate students not to have sex until they are married. Otherwise to have protective sex if they cannot do without sex. My question is: Is this not only a moneymaking business? I was circumcised as a baby due to medical reasons but I would have preferred to not circumcise.
Here is a good article: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3419808.html.

I say, let the boy decide what to do with his own penis. If he wants to be an irresponsible adult, sleeping around with all women out there then he should be the one to decide. But what's the point of circumcising if they still need to wear a condom?

All of this, sounds fishy to me.

How about the health benefits of not cutting nerves and blood vessels and getting to have a natural member? 20,000 FINE TOUCH AND STRETCH nerve endings should NOT be amputated from baby boys without asking the owner. This is such crap.

There is a greater chance of the baby boy getting MRSA staph from this in a US hospital than the same kid getting HIV through his life. This is such a strange idea that one wonders why the US Meds have this obsession. We have higher HIV and very high Circ rate as compared to natural uncut EU and JP. Could it be cut male Drs and female MDs that are from cut tradition are trying to find a way to keep this barbaric practice going in the US? No other developed country is saying this! They think we are obsessed with choping off baby boy genitals.

The alleged risk change (not seen in non african studies) is from 3.2% risk to about 1.78 % risk. Oh and BTW, circumcision raises (makes transmission more likely) the HIV for women. Look it up the same africa studies found cut transfered HIV at a much higher rate. The individual does not get much from this. One needs to avoid risk and use a condom.

This is a fraud pushed by people that don't have it or don't know the main male pleasure zones are in the parts cut off by circumcision. One thing is certain, no person should have pleasure zones amputated without being asked. Stop doing this to babies.

I absolutely agree that baby boys should be left intact. My husband absolutely, adamantly insisted that they be circumcized. I wish that I had refused! "but when does the ego of , 'hey he has to look like me' bow to the paternal instinct of protecting the child?
" I couldn't agree more. How senseless, to cut up such a sensitive body part?! I am a Christian, but do not feel God tells us we must circ our babies. I agree that girls are protected-why shouldn't boys be? Believe me, I wept at what I allowed to happen to my sons. One has penile adhesions because he has too much remaining foreskin (explain why you have to keep ripping the skin back to a three year old!), and another son who appears to have no skin left at all. I wonder if he will have painful erections. It's just stupid, backward thinking, and the ego rules, I guess. I hope that in the future, we'll evolve. I hope my sons forgive me, and I'm thankful that my last baby was a girl!

What about discussing the REAL reasons for circumcision, dropping all this nonsense about health issues? It is time to stop grasping at statistics and look at circumcision of children as a human rights issue. Let's look closely at all the proponents of circumcision past and present and consider why they are so vehemently promoting cutting down healthy children's genitals. That is an extremely heavy-handed approach to enforcing hygiene, health and whatever other bogus nonsense is touted as "beneficial" on someone else's body. The damages from circumcision are never factored into the exaggerated "health benefits." I would have preferred having my whole genital organ, and I have enough respect for all my fellow human beings to recognize and respect their integrity also. It's long overdue to look at this issue honestly and bring and end to what can only be described as violent child abuse.

It is the unkindest cut of all.

This is a personal choice. But it's not a personal choice for parents; it's a personal choice for individuals. It seems like in our country it's everybody's choice except the boy strapped down facing the knife. There has never been an ethical justification for this, and there's still not.

As an aside, modern circumcision isn't even the ancient Jewish biblical rite (research milah and periah, especially in the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion and 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, both under "circumcision"). As such, it is certainly not Christian, and, from a broader perspective, it is dealing with our children on neither the basis of justice nor the basis of love.

With there being no conclusive evidence to conclude the procedure medically necessary, parents should be left to render the final judgment. Everything following from this foundation just so much rhetorical nonsense. Surprised this "skin" diatribing hasn't found its way into the current health care "reform" "debate" and the "medically necessary" versus "unnecessary" procedures flag-waving.

We, as a country have too much time on our hands. But for the record, wouldn't a desensitized penis help a man last longer in bed? Wouldn't women be happy about that? By the way, the baby doesn't remember si I would suggest trauma is minimal.

All of these comments are full of crap. I am a young adult who is circumcised and I feel no regret having this done to me. I have no problems at all and i fully plan to have my sons (if I happen to be blessed with them when the time comes) circumcised. I will not do it for religeous reasons (I am not jewish) but for the same reasons my parents had me circumcised.

First, babies do not have sex. So, RIC is not relevant to reducing HIV in the near term. Let the adult man decide if he wishes to have a portion of his sex organ removed by circumcision. If the man is smart, he will wear a condom when having at-risk sex with his foreskin.

Second, having non-medically required surgery on an infant is a violation of that infant's human rights and bodily integrity. It is illegal to perform non-medically required genital surgery on infant girls in the US. Why is there a double standard that allows genital surgery on baby boys?

Many men are finding out that they miss their foreskin. They, like myself, are restoring their foreskin to regain what was taken from us at birth. See http://www.RestoringForeskin.org to read accounts of men who wish they had never been circumcised and are doing something about it.

Its interesting that many of the commentators here have stated that sexual pleasure is a reason to leave the foreskin intact. One of the explanations for the biblical demand of circumcision is so that men will think with their brains instead of their penises, and will always be reminded that "something" did happen to thier penis and they should always be cautious about its use (ie., that it be used for procreation, not pleasure, and not anal sex leading to HIV). I'm always amazed by the knowledge of the ancients.

Non-medical circumcision performed on a minor is always genital mutilation, regardless of whether performed on a male or female.

* * * * *

These alleged pseudo-medical benefits are not a new phenomenon (actually quite ancient), and always serve the same purpose: hiding the real issues: ethics, morality, criminality, Justice. Of course for this strategy to work, there is always a need for a new alleged medical benefit, to replace the ones proved wrong. Otherwise, the practice would have long been dropped.

The real issues include:

- How do we put half the population in a criminal category overnight? No wonder why the population prefers the status quo of the taboo: to not find itself all of a sudden forced to acknowledge its own barbaric and criminal practices. Sounds better to try and make everyone else as filthy, through the World Health Organization for instance, largely US controlled.

- How do we suddenly acknowledge an overwhelmingly female violence against males (USA) and against males and females (Africa)? How do we face the fact that females have in fact demonstrated over eons a level of cross gender violence far superior in intensity and magnitude to the rapes and such commonly associated as male cross gender violence against females? How do we men recognize that we are sissies compared to females when it comes to cross gender violence?
The numbers have been known since 1966, a study in Ontario hospital environment shows that the signatures to authorize circumcisions (and with them the formal legal responsibility and liability) are 74% from moms, 14% from dads, and 11% from the doctor. In Africa, ritual ceremonies are the stronghold of clanic sisterhoods power: where females arrange forced marriages, where widows and repudiated women get a chance to sell their cooking skills, to get cared for by tribal branches from just a few days during the ceremonies to months and years. Admittedly this traditional support system also can serve other disabled tribal members (handicapped men), but marginally compared to how systematically women must lean on tribal support in their old days. Male and Female circumcisions are a strong element of an ancient tribal feminine retirement plan. Who kidnaps children for circumcisions? Dads don't need to, they have the deciding vote in patriarchal environments. It is largely the female tribal members who need to resort to occult methods in order to nullify the Man's authority; indeed, circumcision kidnapping is a "crying" and perhaps quite unique example on the male authority not working in such societies. A patriarchal society does not mean the matriarchal forces have vanished, far from that.

- how do we acknowledge the massive emasculation? Since I started restoring my foreskin, only after some initial results, I found my penis larger, now enjoying the additional layer of the skin that should have always been there.

- How do we start looking for who gains in encouraging circumcision, in a society which does not allow itself to criticize anything Jewish, under penalty of legal sanctions, despite Freedom of Speech constitutional requirements?

- Connection with violence: How do we start looking into how the military may have encouraged circumcision as a feature of the perfect soldier (since World War II!), as have other culture done before and still do. Can we even ask the question of the use of circumcision by governments to foster an artificially raised level of violence, in order to control the population towards making war and not love?

- Slippery slope of sexist laws. How do we face the fact that females have become "more equal" than males facing sexual mutilations. Doe it open Pandora's box towards all kinds of sexist laws?

* * * * *

Powerful lobbies against self defeating cultish gorilla intactivism.

When the 1996 federal law against female genital mutilation was passed, the medical establishment (with their lawyers) realized that such a sexist law was shaky and could brake anytime, a law which protects very few girls in the USA, but most importantly formally condemns millions of boys, creating a legal precedent (male circumcision was never explicitly legal until then: basically these so called anti Female Genital Mutilation laws are in effect more than anything: pro Male Genital Mutilation laws). The medical corps shied away from recommending circumcision, putting the burden of liability on the parents shoulders as much as it could. One can imagine the good doctors expected a reaction American style: a surge in grassroots political intactivism.
Unfortunately, intactivists have failed in delivering a coherent political movement, organized in gorilla cells, refusing to provide its troops with the necessary infrastructure to manifest political mass, starting with something like a modern unified communication tool for everyone to participate easily, for even casual intactivists to find something to do; instead, intactivism still means committing to an esoteric basic training of sorts, which includes many internet logins, and every day more logins, in order to communicate with others. No wonder why intactivism fails to attract the mainstream population towards its political cause. Hardcore intactivists will not win alone: the mainstream casual intactivist will, once it is allowed to remain casual and participate, once it becomes trendy to be an intactivist, once there is an open communication space provided for this trend to emerge (the opposite of the cultish version we currently have, which makes every intactivist feel and seem like an angry gorilla sniper instead of the hero he/she should feel like, and look like).

Unlike Canadian intactivism, the US counterpart even refuses to start a fund to challenge the Law in court someday, proving its profound commitment to never be ready to win this war on male sexual mutilations. This cultish intactivism has left its arch enemies (the pro-children mutilations) decide where the battle is waged: NOT in the realm where intactivism should and eventually will wiin: Justice, constitutionality, Human Rights, Equal gender rights, criminality, child abuse, torture, etc... Instead, the ennemies of children's sexual integrity get to choose the battelfield: the same as always, pseudo health benefits.

To sum it up, US intactivism does not need powerful ennemies to be on the loosing side, flower on the gun, hoping for miracles, instead of organizing a credible political assent. For ever delaying victory endlessly into the future.

Medical corps were ready for a quick reaction in the mid 1990's when anti female Genital Mutilations laws were passed. They have since realized that there is no sizable, visible, and credible opponent. They have long realized that institutionalized intactivism was shooting itself down all by itself. They have long devised their next expansion strategy: contaminating the world with male genital mutilations and sexist laws, so that by the time US intactivism wakes up, it will no longer be enough in order to win the battle which will then be international.

* * * * *

If parental rights don't include sexual abuse, how can they extend to the actual amputation of sexual tissue? Parents have been duped by the medical profession. If it turns out that circumcised girls have a 50% reduction in HIV, will the CDC recommend removing the clitoral hood and labia?

This pending recomendation is based on a lie and fraudulent study.

If male circumcision were effective in preventing HIV/AIDS, we would observe a similar reaction and result as seen with the polio vaccine which only has a 70% protective effect yet wiped the disease from the populace in a single generation. Instead, The US has the highest infection rate among the industrialized nations the others of which have virtually zero circumcision rates.

If circumcision were effective in confronting the disease, there would be stark differences in the HIV rates between circumcised and uncircumcised populations. These differences are not seen anywhere in the world.

A mass circumcision policy would result in more deaths than people it would save. Currently, the circumcision rate is about 56% with an estimated 230 deaths per year. Universal infant male circumcision would increase this number to 400 deaths per year.

There is a risk that the fetishists at The CDC will try to make male circumcision mandatory. Think it can not happen? Consider the vaccinations your child is required to have before entering school. Could there be circumcision inspections before a child is allowed to enter school? It has happened in Africa and it can happen in America if The CDC recommendation takes it's illogical path.

.

I am delighted to read the wonderful comments here. It seems that at least half the population is educated and cannot be duped by flawed studies that promote personal, cultural, and religious bias for circumcision. Instead, people realize that 75-80% of the world's male population is intact and without the dire consequences some suggest will happen if boys aren't circumcised.

A circumcision lobby has promoted the "circumcision-to-prevent-AIDS" agenda, and, in doing so, they've successfully elevated the circumcision issue to the worldwide stage, prompting informed people to counter their arguments and to join forces against the absurd plot for universal circumcision. The world is talking about these harmful traditional practices and we now know that most of the world is against them! We couldn't have paid for this kind of publicity.

Sadly, we also know that many Africans are suffering because of an agenda that was doomed before it was promoted. It won't take long to realize the agenda of the circumcision lobby won't work and to bring an end to circumcision for the obvious reasons.

Those promoting circumcision will be left with blood money on their hands and in their pockets. It's sad, really, because they will have to live with the realization of the lives they've harmed as the result of their absurd advocacy. Will they care? Have they no shame? Is it too much for us to hope that members of the circumcision lobby will have a change of heart and join us in protecting the rights of the child to genital integrity? Perhaps...but, then, hope springs eternal!

Look like dad? That makes no sense at all. The millions of kids who were circumcised in the 20th century - while their dads were not - didn't seem to have too much penis envy.

Besides, how many boys see their fathers' penises? And if they did, all the father would need to explain was that he was born in a time where people did really stupid things to their sons.

My son had a circumcision 11 days after birth, not only did he show no signs of pain or discomfort during/after the procedure, he is not traumatized by the even either (he's a happy, giggly, healthy boy). His father had to receive a circumcision at the age of 7 for medical reasons, resulting in him having to go under general as well as remembering the experience (a baby does not...which I'm sure you will argue, so save your breath).
We are not bad parents for having this done, and you are not a bad parent for choosing keeping the skin intact. It's a personal choice for parents to make for their child. You could argue that it's his skin, his choice...but then where do we draw that line? What about immunizations? His body his choice then too? Not until he has the tools to make those decisions, and until then it's up to us to make the best choice for our boys.
I felt stongly about having this done for multiple reasons, but the main for me was hygiene. Not only can it be difficult for a child to clean it properly, but as a nurse I frequently see elderly males coming in with less than acceptable cleanliness under the foreskin due to decreased dexterity, leading to UTI's which can lead to dilirium...a vicious cirlce.
Also I think it is ridiculous to compare this to female genital multilation. This is North America, where we supply more than adequate pain control and the procedure takes place in a controlled, sterile enviroment...not in tribal form.
I respect parents who choose to not circumcise. It's not an easy choice either way. I hope we can all learn to repect each others paths as parents and not harshly judge those with varying opinions.

My daughter had a circumcision 11 days after birth, not only did she show no signs of pain or discomfort during/after the procedure, she is not traumatized by the even either (she's a happy, giggly, healthy girl). Her mother got a circumcision at the age of 7, resulting in her remembering the experience (a baby does not...which I'm sure you will argue, so save your breath).
We are not bad parents for having this done, and you are not a bad parent for choosing keeping the skin intact. It's a personal choice for parents to make for their child. You could argue that it's her skin, her choice...but then where do we draw that line? What about immunizations? Her body her choice then too? Not until she has the tools to make those decisions, and until then it's up to us to make the best choice for our girls.
I felt stongly about having this done for multiple reasons, but the main for me was hygiene. Not only can it be difficult for a child to clean it properly, but as a nurse I frequently see elderly women coming in with less than acceptable cleanliness under the labia due to decreased dexterity, leading to UTI's which can lead to dilirium...a vicious circle.
Also I think it is appropriate to compare this to male circumcision. This is Aermica, where we supply more than adequate pain control and the procedure takes place in a controlled, sterile hospital environment.
I respect parents who choose to not circumcise their daughters. It's not an easy choice either way. I hope we can all learn to repect each others paths as parents and not harshly judge those with varying opinions.

it strikes me as interesting that the CDC is even considering recommending circumcision to reduce HIV in the USA.

The USA has had an infant circumcision rates as high as 90% ( for present day adults), yet has the highest rate of HIV of the other intact industrialized countries--so just HOW are even more circumcisions going to reduce the rate of HIV?

Where is there any rational thought behind this consideration?