According to the more or less recent data from National Center for Health Statistics, up to 70 percent of all newborn boys in the United States are circumcised. The majority of them are neither Jewish nor Muslim.
This remains a relatively hot topic (among expecting parents in particular) since American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement recently reversing its previous position and declaring that there're virtually no medical benefits to perform circumcision routinely. Without medical benefits the procedure becomes an unnecessary surgical mutilation of the baby which may or may not be performed for religious reasons. In fact, circumcision in the United States stems from a belief that it discourages masturbation, which during victorian times thought to be a cause for many diseases. Many young parents are not even aware that it's possible to have serious complications from routine circumcision procedure, including death (see here).


DEBATE:
Do you think the AAP decision to reverse its recommendation warrants the abandonment of circumsicion for non-religious reasons?

I think you have misstated the basic reason the practice was popularized. It wasn't to "discourage masturbation", it was done for regions of basic hygiene.

I'll continue because I wouldn't want to cut this topic off too short...

All medical procedures have associated risks including the birth of the child in the first place. C-sections (which are very common now due to the impact of lawsuits brought by people like Sen. John Edwards) are even more risky.

I think that this procedure is a matter for individual parent choice. I think the risks are minor and so are the issues associated with not having it done.

I believe this is a father/son thing. My father's parents were European, and didn't have him circumsized, nor did he have his sons circumsized. My husband is, and when I suggested not doing it to our babies, he was adamant. I cried when they took our babies away in the hospital to have it done, but I'm kind of glad now that we did. Most American men have it done, and no one wants to stand out as different in the locker room. The ideal would be that it didn't matter, but we live in a non-ideal, human world, and being different would likely follow them through school, and later in relationships with women who weren't accustomed to that 'look'.

Obviously in the 1980s (when the percentage of circumcized boys) reached its peak) the hygiene was the main reason. However, back in 1890s - 1920s, when the procedure was really popularized, the reasons were the ones that I stated. Nobody back then knew about STDs, cancers, etc.
I am not sure I am ready to accept the "medical advantage" argument. After all, we don't cut out baby's appendix 5 days after the birth just because it may lead to appendicitis later in life.



To me, this is the only valid reason. However, the same could be said about female circumcision (which is obviously much more cruel and inhumane procedure) - that doing it in a sterile environment is safe and nobody wants his or her daughter to "stand out" if all the other girls in the community have it done.
My advice to a boy being asked about "it" would be to reply "What are you doing looking at it? What are you, ......?" If some women are not willing to have a relationship based on "that" (don't forget that 80 percent of world's male population is NOT circumcised) - maybe it's not such a good idea to date this woman after all. Kind of serves as a natural filter of narrow-minded people.

Edited for spelling.

Do you think the AAP decision to reverse its recommendation warrants the abandonment of circumsicion for non-religious reasons?

No. I think it should remain an option for parents to choose one way or another. Aside from aesthetics, I still believe there are other valid reasons to circumcise; hygiene being number one. Not to get terribly graphic, but I was married to an uncircumcised man, and I can personally attest to the problems (for both him and me) associated with it. Also, have you ever seen an adult man opt for surgery to regain his foreskin? No, but many have opted to undergo circumcision as an adult, which, from what I hear, is extremely painful. In my opinion, if a man that will endure that kind of pain as an adult in that particular area, then parents should think twice about not having their infant sons circumcised.

English Horn, your comparison to female circumcision is disingenuous. The procedures are nothing alike; female circumcision is a mutilation, the term a misnomer for a clitorectomy (and sometimes worse, complete removal of the labia), which eliminates any possibility of sexual gratification; a more apt male comparison to it would be cutting off the glans of the penis. And I don't think any of us advocate that.

Do you think the AAP decision to reverse its recommendation warrants the abandonment of circumcision for non-religious reasons?

Yes.

My understanding of the function of the foreskin is that it is an evolutionary feature designed by nature to protect the sensitive skin of the head of the penis. Its removal due to reasons of hygenie point more to the habits of the male in question, than to the nature of the foreskin.

In cases of yeast infection, femosis, or other complications of the foreskin, I can understand its removal, but then again, I'd say the same of any body part that gave rise to medical problems. I don't think however there is any real reason though that justifies the mutilation of a male baby, and given that christianity dictates we are created in Gods image, then I don't see any valid religious arguments either.

I certainly don't accept that mutilating a baby is valid because in later life he may 'stand out' in the locker room. By that argument we should force fat children to lose weight since they're the ones who are picked on the most.

Apparently, there are several clinics which would do "foreskin restoration" (just quick Google search will reveal several options; the first link that I got was this) - which shows that there's a market for such things (there would be no supply if there's no demand). As for female circumcision, I specifically noted that I consider it much more cruel and inhumane; however, at the core, both are mutilations of human body performed on a child who is not able to make decisions on its own.

Mea culpa; I had no idea. I'd like to put forth a casual observation (that I hope does not offend, I don't mean it to). It has been stated that 80% of men are uncircumcised, and I have no doubt that is true. But, have you ever noticed that every male in porn flicks is a "helmet" and not a "turtle"?

OK, now that site you referenced is just...icky. And it does state:

The other "method" looks like a (ahem) "hands-on" way of stretching the penile skin to "recreate" the foreskin. Sounds like an excuse for men to masturbate...not that they need an excuse! JOKE, it's a joke, guys...lighten up!

Certainly very few British (or other European) people would even remotely consider circumcision unless they were Jewish.

As far as I am aware, there are no health benefits - and indeed the foreskin plays a role as a barrier to infection, so circumcision can be mildly harmful to the individual concerned.

To be brutally honest, a lot of people in Britain regard the practice as akin to very minor mutilation, although understand that it has a religious role for Jewish people (and most Brits accept that they do not know enough about the subject to properly judge).

I have never heard that circumcision is in anyway 'hygienic'. I'm not saying it isn't - just that I'm suprised to hear that people say it is. I suddenly realise that any explanation may require more anatomical detail than I'd really want to read...so I'm not going to argue the issue too much.

I wouldn't know about that one. I've never viewed a porn film.

Do you think the AAP decision to reverse its recommendation warrants
the abandonment of circumsicion for non-religious reasons?

I don't know that it warrants the abandonment, perse. However, it does
put forth the idea that it is safe to forego such a procedure.

Both of my boys have been circumcised. My husband is Jewish, so he was
pretty adamant about it. Yet, I would have opted for the procedure, regardless.
We had it done in the hospital, though. I refused to follow the usual Jewish
tradition, which makes the undertaking a ceremonious occasion.

The main benefit of circumcision seems to fall under the heading of hygiene.