Do you think male circumsision should be legal since it is an unnecessary medical procedure?

Question

I personally am against circumsision, but would have mixed feelings about making it illegal since so many people do it for religious reasons. On the otherhand, although rare, babies can still die during the procedure in North America, which makes me wonder why any parent would take the risk, no matter how small, if it had no benefits. How do y'all feel?

Answer 1

Who says it has no benefits?  

For example, recent studies showed that circumcision in heterosexual men cut the risk of HIV transmission by 50%.  And that study didn't even look at the possibility of the decreased risk of other STDs and infection.  The risk of urinary tract infections and penile cancer is also lessened among babies who have been circumcized.

I'm not saying that necessarily makes it a good enough reason for everyone to choose circumcision, but saying "it has no benefits" is a pretty bold statement, because research has shown otherwise.  Yes, there are risks involved as well.  But it should be up to the parents to decide.

Answer 2

I agree with you completely! I think that it should be illegal, except for those who actively participate in a religion that does it. Then again, female circumcision is illegal no matter what, so I guess it would be fair for male circumcision to be illegal no matter what too. Unless there's medical necessity of course.

Answer 3

While circumcision is certainly optional in terms of a person's health, there is the issue of keeping bacteria out of the folds of the f******n for the rest of one's life.  Some would argue that in the long run it's simply easier to have it off.

Eight days after a baby is first born, his immunity system and blood cells are at their strongest - it is the best time in a person's entire life to have a circumcision performed at all.  There is the least amount of pain and least amount of any medical hazard (unless the doctor is incompetant or unsanitary).

And only if you subscribe to Freudian hypotheses of psychic determinism will there be a concern about the event "traumatizing the child for life."  There are a great many far more painful things out there that people have survived quite well.

Answer 4

It does have benefits. Some males have a restriction to drawing back the f******n and removal alleviates problems later in life.  Benefits are having easier intercourse and easier washing of the glans which is more hygienic.

The moral debate is when it is used for religious purposes when the baby has absolutely no say in the matter.  Which I find very disturbing. Just because it has always been that way is no excuse.  Look at the many thousands of innocent people who have been burnt at the stake and tortured for just being accused of being a witch.  

Answer 5

I don't think it should be illegal because in some situations, it needs to be done. My friend didn't want her son circumcised but he had hypospadias (not sure of spelling) and they needed to circumcise him to help fix it.

I've noticed that a lot of people say that they "have" to make the decision to do it or not to do it as the baby's parents. I personally don't agree with that. You don't HAVE to make that decision just because you're the baby's parents. Don't do it and let your SON decide when he's older. Sure, it might hurt a little more but at least HE'S making the decision and you're not making it FOR him.

Let the male decide for HIMSELF if he wants it done or not since it's HIS body part that you're dealing with.

Answer 6

I think ELECTIVE circumcisions should be outlawed. I don't understand why people think it is okay to mutilate a baby's genitals. We don't allow people to do it to girls, why do we allow it to happen to boys?

The religious argument has little weight. Most churches that support this, offer other ceremonies, that do not involve cutting off your child's f******n.  

Answer 7

I think it should be illegal.

I don't think religions should be an exception, the parents should be able to practice their religion as long as it doesn't infringe on the human rights of their child. Which circumcision does. The child also does not have a religion at that time, they are just the child of religious parents, many people grow up and lapse or convert from the religion they were brought up in. I've seen Jewish guys on this site asking about f******n restoration.

There are no benefits to circumcision, can be complications, and it's very cruel.

Harriet

Answer 8

What's with these Qs today?

I don't think it should be illegal, but i do think it should NOT be done unless medically necessary.

Answer 9

I think circumcision of infants and children should definitely be outlawed unless there is a REAL medical reason (and they are extremely rare).

As for circumcising adult consenting males, as a cosmetic procedure, I think it's OK if they so choose, I don't see why I should be judging this any more than a woman having a boob job or a tummy tuck.

Answer 10

Circumcision should only be done for medical reasons or once the boy is of age to make the decision him self

We don't allow female circumcision even though some see as religious.

as for the lower risk of HIV in circumcised men there are also studies that show the opposite.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/...

penile cancer is a rare disease, the risk of penile cancer developing in an uncircumcised man, although increased compared with a circumcised man, remains low. National circumcision rate statistics show no correlation between circumcision status and penile cancer. Penile cancer affects 0.82 per 100,000 in Denmark and 0.3 per 100,000 in Japan, where almost all men are intact. In the USA, where the majority of men are circumcised the rate is 0.9 to 1 per 100,000. In parts of India the rate is 10.5 per 100,000 men per year. Two other studies have reported a rate of penile cancer from 3 to 22 times higher in uncircumcised than circumcised men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcisio...

there have been babies that have died as a result of circumcison in rare cases but more than the chance of getting penile cancer

http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

The part about it being done with consent but not consent the owner of the penise who should be the one to decide.

The cleaning issue is not an issue we don't cut off ears because it's easy-er to clean behind. It doesn't take much for after the f******n retracts on it's to simply pull it back and give it a little wipe in the shower or bath.

Infection is not really a problem ether. My 2 uncut son's have never had an UTI infection but my first daughter has has several ( dose she need to be circumcised? ) no antibiotic are give just the same as if a boy gets UTI infection.

The care of a uncut baby boys p***s is so easy to care for unlike so many people think just wipe it no pulling back the f******n. as apposed to a cut boys where his p***s will be extremely sensitive for a few weeks because the head of the p***s is raw and exposed (they have to tear the f******n off of the head in infants, it is naturally fused). During this time you will need to keep it VERY clean and may need to cover the wound with vaseline and guaze. Furthermore, to prevent painful and bleeding erections later in life, doctors are now commonly leaving more skin behind- in a cut boy this means you may have to push the left over skin back at every diaper change and clean beneath it to prevent it from readhereing or infecting. The very thing that mother's think they avoid by circumcising! there have been babies that have died as a result of circumcison in rare cases just as rare as the chance of penile cancer

http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

On occasion, a male is born without a f******n. This abnormality, called aposthia, occurs very rarely. When it does, hospital records must report it as a birth defect. It is truly ironic to think that this unusual defect is forced upon more than half of the males born in our country.

Answer 11

....There is no medical need for getting your ears/anything pierced, or getting a tattoo, or getting a haircut...should they be illegal as well?

Answer 12

I was all for it..until I saw horrible picture and found out how they really do it..most babies have no anesthesia and some babies defecate themselves some don't cry because they are in shock and some go into a coma..this is cruel. I would have no problem if the babies were under some kind of pain relief..because they feel pain just like we do and when they are so new and never felt pain before this must be horrible for these little babies..

Answer 13

It has benefits.  Mostly cleanliness type benefits, I'll include a link and you can read it for yourself.  Complications are EXTREMELY rare, as in 2/1,000 and are rarely anything serious.  

As for "pain" that someone mentioned, I don't know where YOU live, but where I live the doctors use a pain-killer on the baby.  Either a localized cream or something injected locally into the p***s so that there's not as much pain.  And every little boy I know had some pain-killers sent home with them that they could use afterwards.  

It would be wrong to make it illegal since there is support for and against circumcision, basically meaning that there's not enough evidence for or against it.  It's nothing like female circumcision, which is actually mutilation.  

Answer 14

I'm not religious...at ALL.  I did, however, get my son circumcised.  Frankly, I have no idea why I felt I wanted to give him the circ.  His father is (and he is NOT complaining...may I say)...I assumed everyone in my family was circumcised too but my mother spilled the beans that NO-body was--Not that I wanted to know.  Anywho....Whatever.  The little guy has a memory like a fish right now...I'm certain he's forgotten the procedure already.  And I'd hate for him to be a teenager and suddenly feel awkward or out of place and elect the procedure THEN.  How embarrassing, painful...

But as an infant...I mean...who cares.  It doesn't hurt anything, and there are studies that show that it is cleaner.  So hey.

Getting up in arms about it seems a little bigoted.  Live and let live.

And as for children dieing... Come on.  The statistics are negligible at BEST on that.  Infection and doctor error are just as prevalent in labor and delivery as they would be in a circumcision procedure.  Should we stop having children?  Or what about inoculations?  Some children get sick and die as a result of their shots, but again the statistics are so negligible that we elect to pump our babies full of viruses and bacteria.

If it were truly an issue, the academy of pediatrics would not let it continue.  Instead, they assert that there is no reason to choose one over the other and leave it up to a mother's personal choice.

Answer 15

I agree with you.  Illegal or not, I just wish it would stop.

I am always so dismayed at the ignorance and misinformation I see in response to these questions.

There are many parts of the body that could be amputated at birth to prevent possible health problems later, but anyone who suggested it would be mocked and laughed right out of the hospital (and rightly so!).  Yet we continue to cut off pieces of these boy's most sensitive parts, because of the supposed benefits (exaggerated, outdated/disproven or completely made up benefits) and people defend it to the death.  So sad.

Answer 16

I believe it should be illegal to circumcise a male under the age of 18 years old, unless a medical condition he suffers from requires the f******n to be removed.

Beyond the age of 18 years, it is his choice to have it done if he so chooses.

Answer 17

It's easier to keep clean if it's circumcised, according to my husband.  Plus I think it looks nicer.

It's in no way necessary, but should at least be left as an option for parents who want to do it (either for personal or religious reasons).

Answer 18

I don't think it should be illegal for any reason. However, I think we need to redefine it as a cosmetic procedure for all non-medical and non-religious cases. There is no scientific evidence which suggests circumcision reduces the risks of any major disease in developed nations provided proper hygiene is followed (the diminished HIV rate studies were carried out in un-developed nations, and were shown not to have the same effect in the United States and Europe).

However, like any cosmetic procedure, it may not be *necessary* but may be desirable to the individual person and they should have the right to choose that procedure.

However, insurance companies should stop paying for it in anything other than emergency situations, and doctors should be required to advice parents that there are no added benefits to doing it.

Answer 19

Of course it shouldn't be illegal.  Just as it shouldn't be mandatory.  Why should things be outlawed because A CERTAIN PERSON/GROUP DOESN'T APPROVE OF THEM?

Answer 20

Some baby's die sleeping in cribs so should they make that illegal?? God some people.....

It does have benefits!! I worked doing wound care trust me I have seen more infected p***s's because of f******n, then any one person should in a life time! these poor men were in agony...so maybe you could try talking to one of these men, seeing as it would have saved them much pain to have had it done as baby's.

Get a life, quit trying to start S**t!

Answer 21

Any number of cosmetic surgeries are unnecessary and carry some amount of risk, yet they are legal.  I think it would be fair to deny insurance coverage for the procedure.  It should be legal unless health risks are shown to be unacceptably great.

Answer 22

well i had my little boy done because his dad is and i didn't want him to feel different. and my doctor also told me that it is good for better hygiene, cause it is easier to clean. we made the right decision for our family but everyone is different. no i don't think it should be illegal that is dumb, then we would need to make all plastic surgery illegal too cause that is unnecessary also.

Answer 23

some babies die, only because its done improperly.

also, its done for religions like you said.

and, to some parents, its necassary, because

that way, when the boy is older his p***s

won't be all messed up.

Answer 24

i feel the same way. my son is not and im happy about that.

Answer 25

circumcision is certainly optional in terms of a person's health.

Answer 26

its a religious matter also its a parents right to have their child circumsized..  its not a responsibility

Answer 27

That is ridiculous. It's not a crime. They're not doing it without consent. And it is not unnecessary, it is very necessary. It reduces the risk of infections and sexually transmitted diseases. Also, As much as it may be possible for a baby to die from it, it is more than EXTREMELY rare. When has anyone ever heard of a baby dying from such a thing?