Let me make it clear here that I am not talking about the circumcision of male infants which is done for religious and/or cultural reasons. I am also not talking about circumcision when there is an obvious medical reason for it. I wish to discuss the routine circumcision of male infants in American hospitals.

Here's some basic background information:

Link

It's interesting to note that the rate of routine circumcision of male infants is unusually high in the United States, compared to other technologically advanced "Western" nations.



There is much debate about the benefits of this procedure.

Pro-circumcision:

Link

Anti-circumcision:

Link

I would certainly not say that the routine circumcision of male infants is "bad" in the way that female genital mutilation (sometimes inaccurately called "female circumcision") is clearly a harmful and evil procedure. As best as I can tell, both the benefits and drawbacks to male circumcision are minimal. However, I have to wonder why the rate of it is so high in American infants.

To be debated:

Is there a strong enough medical justification for the high rate of routine circumcision of male infants in the USA?

Should the procedure, when not clearly necessary, be encouraged by medical professionals, discouraged, or left entirely to the decision of parents and other guardians?

I had a similar topic started here on about a year ago (which I started about 3 days before finding out the sex of my upcoming child - turned out to be a girl ), which can be found here.

To answer your second question, AAP reversed its long-stated position and issued a statement stating that there's no sufficient data warranting male circumcision; therefore they do not recommend it. Like it or not, circumcision is a surgery (very minor of course) and any surgery has a potential for complications. This article quotes a complications rate of about 2 per-cent or less and states that deaths were reported in rare cases.
Then there're cases like this one - know about this one because it's local for me. How many cases like that happen across the country, I don't know, but the article quotes at least another one in US and one in Canada.


Another page listing potential complications can be found here. The website certainly has an agenda, but their references are solid.

So, it light of the above, my answer to your first question is no. Circumcision is a culturally accepted minor mutilation of a male infant's body with a real (although low) rate of potentially serious complications, including sepsis and death. There's not enough medical evidence to prove any long-term benefits of circumcision; therefore, there's no medical justification.

Is there a strong enough medical justification for the high rate of routine circumcision of male infants in the USA?

I think there certainly is. Some of the most convincing evidence I have seen deals with the correlation between male circumcision and the contraction of AIDS:

Male circumcision 'lowers risk of HIV infection by 60% (Needs subscription)

Another study puts the reduction of AIDS at 70%.


This information, more than any other in my opinion makes male circumcision very necessary. I mean 70% iis an impressive percentage and could possibly help to curb the AIDS virus around the world. Of course there is an ethical and moral question to the circumcision of young boys and mistakes can happen as English Horn's link pointed out. But i think that it should remain the choice of the parents if thats what they want for their child.

There is also a whole other subject that has to do when the boy becomes a young man and begins to have relations with women. Some women may be partial towards circumcision as it is the norm and it may hurt the boy in a psychological way.

Should the procedure, when not clearly necessary, be encouraged by medical professionals, discouraged, or left entirely to the decision of parents and other guardians?

It should be left entirely to the decision of the parents but strongly encouraged by the doctors. Its amazing that a practice as old as circumcision which had nothing to do with medical research has shown in modern times to have a true health benefit.

We shoud wait until the child is a free person.

Am I the only one that thinks of Elaine's comment from Seinfeld? "A circumsized penis has no personality." Too funny... anyway.

Is there a strong enough medical justification for the high rate of routine circumcision of male infants in the USA?

I guess this depends on the definition of "strong medical evidence." It appears that circumcision drastically reduces the transfer of the HIV virus. It also reduces a lot of there ailments. I'm the oldest of 5 and 3 boys. Two of us were circumcised and one was not. My parents ultimately regretted not having the one circumcised for various reasons, many which are mentioned in the pro-circumcision link.

There are obviously risks involved in the procedure as referenced by English Horn, but there are other common procedures that have acceptable risks as well.

Should the procedure, when not clearly necessary, be encouraged by medical professionals, discouraged, or left entirely to the decision of parents and other guardians?


I think the procedure should be encouraged, but the decision should solely rest with the parents.

In regards to your question, "Why is it that so many males in America are circumcized?" My response would be that the reason is a religious one. Like it or not America was founded on a by individuals who were Christians or who affirmed Christian principles. A recent article in the New Zealand Times reported...

"Instead of viewing the operation as an assault on the male sex, it was increasingly being seen as a lifesaving procedure which every parent would want for their sons.

Removing the foreskin is thought to harden the glans (head) of the penis, making it less permeable to viruses. Research carried out in 2005 showed the transmission of HIVE from women to men during sex was reduced by 60 per cent if the men were circumcised.

A study published last month calculated that if all men in sub-Saharan Africa were circumcised, it would prevent almost six million new cases of HIVE infection and save three million lives over the next 20 years."

Any male should conclude from this report that it would be in his best interest to be circumcised. So when one examines the answer to the question, "Why is it that so many males in America are circumcised?", they will find that it is because American men are just more logical and smarter then the rest of the world. Just kidding, the truth is American men are just as smart as the next guy, and they have nothing to brag about. So if American men are not smarter, and they still choose circumcision, it makes one wonder. This just points to the fact that this Christian principle has really been a blessing. No matter if Americans say it is a cultural thing, one must remember that it is cultural because Christianity is a part of the American culture. Therefore, it seems that because the God of Christianity has instructed Christians to choose circumcision, many Americans who have heard and obeyed him whether it be out of a heart of obedience to Christ, or just because they thought it was a cultural thing, they have been blessed as a result. Possibly, many Americans have avoided death because of circumcision. This whole issue points out that the wisdom of the God of Christianity is untouched by man. God has principles and it appears that once again if we will follow those principles, we will be blessed.

-Scipio Africanus

Is there a strong enough medical justification for the high rate of routine circumcision of male infants in the USA?

I don't know, but one issue that has not been mentioned is how circumcision effects the sexual performance or experiences of men. Does circumcision change the sensitivity of the penis to sexual stimulation, and the who has the right to decide this change?

Should the procedure, when not clearly necessary, be encouraged by medical professionals, discouraged, or left entirely to the decision of parents and other guardians?
It should be decided by parents, with accurate information provided by a physician.

Where exactly in the New Testament "the God of Christianity" has instructed Christians to choose circumcision?

According to this link, circumcision is an act of covenant with God for Jewish men. Christians achieve the covenant with God through faith and acceptance, not through circumcision.

Otherwise, thanks for the sermon.

Is there a strong enough medical justification for the high rate of routine circumcision of male infants in the USA?

I don't know about it nowadays. What I was told when my sons were born was that the penis can be cleaned more easily minus the foreskin and that women who married circumcised males stood less chance of contracting certain types of cancers. That sounded like it made sense to me, although the idea of injuring a baby a day old or so was troubling.

That was in the mid-1970's, when nobody had heard of AIDS.

Males in my family and in the family of the father of my sons were circumcised, so it was also a matter of tradition. We didn't take the time to quote Bible verses or anything; we were Protestants who just had males in our families circumcised.

Should the procedure, when not clearly necessary, be encouraged by medical professionals, discouraged, or left entirely to the decision of parents and other guardians?

I guess that all depends. If a medical professional feels the baby's family is slovenly and might not likely keep the baby as clean as they should or teach him how to clean himself, it would make sense, just as it would make sense to cut a child's hair if he or she refuses to shampoo it regularly and comb out the tangles on a regular basis.

As a serial monogamist (divorced once, widowed once, then remarried for 18 years), I have been married to two circumcised males and one uncircumcised male. Speaking from an aesthetic viewpoint, I prefer a circumcised male, and I disagree with Elaine's statement from the Seinfeld episode.

Yeah, I know: too much information. So don't thank me for sharing.

As far as surgical mishaps go, nobody wants a doctor doing a procedure on them anywhere on their body (I would think, unless they're thinking about a lawsuit in the first place) if that doctor has been drinking, or hasn't had enough sleep, or whose hands shake.

Is there a strong enough medical justification for the high rate of routine circumcision of male infants in the USA?

The main medical justification for circumcision is - and always has been - that it's a way for doctors to fleece parents for even more money on an unnecessary procedure that violates the basic tenet of the Hippocratic Oath: Primo non nocere. The post-WWII rise in circumcision in the US was part of the burgeoning medical and pharmaceutical industry. When I was a child, it was still not all that widespread and neonatal circumcision was little more than a status symbol (as indicated in the Orton quote above). It had nothing whatsoever to do with real public health concerns, but it made a lot of extra cash for greedy physicians. It was also suggested that circumcision helped prevent masturbation (when, in fact, it seems that circumcised men masturbate with more frequency than uncircumcised men).

There are some conditions later in life - a foreskin that doesn't retract, for example, or chronic balanitis - that could render circumcision an effective medical treatment, but neonatal circumcision is nothing less than child sexual abuse.

The main argument against circumcision, to my mind, is that it removes about half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft - fifty percent. Thanks, Doc. From personal experience (and, trust me, I've encountered a lot of penises), uncircumcised men take considerably more pleasure in sex than circumcised men. Further, in one of the sources cited in the first post here, it is reported that, in heterosexual intercourse, circumcision results in "decreased vaginal secretions, more vaginal discomfort, harder and deeper thrusting of the partner, less chance of having an orgasm, less frequent orgasms, less frequent multiple orgasms, and shorter duration of coitus." Cool - let's all get circumcised!

This is anecdotal, but I've known several men who were circumcised as adults and, without exception, they regretted the decision - even when it was for specific health reasons. Sex, it seems, just wasn't sex without a foreskin. I've also known two guys who went through an arduous foreskin restoration process and both claim it was the best decision they've ever made in their lives.

The argument for circumcision as an AIDS preventative is based on studies done exclusively in Africa where condoms are not widely available (or used) and hygiene may be more of an issue. Circumcision adds nothing to the prevention of HIV that would not already be covered by the widespread distribution of prophylactics and effective education. There is nothing to indicate that circumcision adds to safe sex practices in terms of prevention, so mutilating one's penis to prevent AIDS should be restricted to those who are totally uneducated, chronically stupid, or who have no possible access to condoms. Otherwise, using circumcision to prevent AIDS is like cutting off peoples' hands to prevent RSI.


Should the procedure, when not clearly necessary, be encouraged by medical professionals, discouraged, or left entirely to the decision of parents and other guardians?

When "not clearly necessary", no medical procedure should be practiced at all - assuming the physician has any ethical sense whatsoever. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, health care providers have "legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses". The emphasis is mine, but it should be everyone's.

Should parents request a circumcision, physicians should discourage the practice in the strongest possible terms. Were I a doctor, I would absolutely refuse to perform such a procedure, no matter how adamant the parents were. I was mutilated without my consent. I could not possibly do the same to another human being. (Fortunately, my obstetrician was far more interested in the payment than the procedure and left about half my prepuce and my entire frenulum. His shoddy work was my gain.)

As to the religious argument above, Scipio's response is not only inappropriate to America's Debate, it is also a load of cobblers. Only Jews, Muslims, and Coptics practice circumcision as a religious rite. Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians do not. Indeed, St. Paul told gentiles NOT to adopt the practice (in Acts 15) and the first Church Council determined that circumcision was not required in the Christian community. Suggesting that "the God of Christianity has instructed Christians to choose circumcision" is tantamount to heresy - should one be a Christian. Christianity does not forbid circumcision, but it sure as hell doesn't endorse it. So, unlike English Horn, I will not thank Scipio for his sermon (I will not thank anyone for misinformation) - but I will remind him that religious arguments have no place in this forum and that future infractions will be reported.