The ongoing debate over circumcision
To circumcise or not? It's a question any parent of a baby boy wrestles with, and the medical community is currently giving conflicting advice. This column by Brian Alexander, the author of the book “America Unzipped: In Search of Sex and Satisfaction," breaks down all the deciding factors and concludes:
"Deciding to skip a circumcision can be a responsible choice. So can opting for one.“It is important to give parents information,” Brady explained. “Then they can make the decision they think is in the best interest of the child and (doctors) should be supportive of that.”
So ignore the politics swirling around circumcision; they only obscure the issue. No parent needs what may be the first decision they make on behalf of their child to become a morality play."
More Parenting news today:
MedicineNet.com: Very Low Levels of Lead Harm Kids' Kidneys: Study
Psychology Today: Un-family-ar Values: On an Overpopulated Planet Do 'Good, Decent People' Have Children?
Motherlode: Is Refusing Bed Rest a Crime?
CNet: CES: Is Taser's phone-monitoring product overparenting?
Comments
Restoring Tally
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 10:28 p.m.
Why is circumcision a decision for parents? A newborn infant does not have a medical problem with his penis and there are no overwhelming reasons to perform elective surgery on the boy's sex organ. Circumcision does not need to be done and should not be done. Let the boy grow into an adult and decide for himself if he wants his sex organ altered by circumcision.
Mike Myers
Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 5:30 p.m.
Hmmm In the U.S. some women have trouble getting their baby boys to take the nipple and breast feed. A consequence of the breach of trust when the mother allows someone to inflict the first sexual abuse on this newborn son? In the U.S. men have among the lowest incidence of using preventive health care on Earth: seeing the doctor. Might this be due to a deep-seated fear rooted in that first experience of medical care? In the U.S. premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction are almost ubiquitous in older men. Maybe there is some causal effect from circumcision. And painful intercourse well, who knows? Bottom line: circumcision provides not benefit for 99.4% of baby boys in the U.S. and the practice should be stopped. Interestingly, the world outside the U.S. is aghast at our male genital mutilation rate, while the U.S. has a Federal Law protecting girls from one and the same.
Frank OHara
Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 12:47 a.m.
Circumcising a child is a moral issue. A parent can legally force a circumcision on a child until he is 18 years old but would it be moral to do this to a child who is 17 years and 364 days old if he strenously objected? No? Well, what if he is 12 years old? Still no? Well, how about 8 years old? Still no? Then how about 5 years old? Maybe? Is it OK to do it to an infant simply because he can't object? Circumcision of an infant is simply the violation of his body in the most personal and private manner possible at the most vulnerable time in his life. It is most certainly an imoral action against the child and the man he will become..