Scientists advocate for general circumcision of newborn boys?

Question

I read this online article at
http://www.baby-health.net/articles/381.html

Seems scientists are eventually proving that circumcision reduces the risk of STD's infections (and not only AIDS but also herpes or syphilis).

My question is: after all these evidences, shouldn't those who are against circumcision start to change their point of view and become more ‘sympathetic’ with this practice?

Answer 1

I don't think so, no. I had 3 boys and all three circumcised... but that was because back when I was having my babies, we were not really given much choice in the matter. They would simply tell the mother that if you have a boy, it will cost $25 more because circumcision is done automatically. If I had known then what I know now, I would not have allowed them to be circumcised. The incidence of STDs can be lowered or prevented by the correct use of condoms.

Besides, I am a nurse and worked in Maternal Child Health for many years and helped with the circumcision of many newborn boys. I'm not sure if the practice is the same now as it was then, but, used to be a rather barbaric practice of strapping the baby down to a pre-molded hard plastic "tray", assembly line fashion of up to 5 babies lined up next to each other, all screaming their lungs out while the doctor goes down the row cutting off their foreskins. Oh, and I forgot to mention- NO anesthesia!

How sympathetic is that?

Answer 2

we decided to get our son circumsiced right after birth for several reasons: 1. it's easier to keep clean and there's less risk of infection 2. there is a condition that can occur in uncircumcised men where the foreskin won't retract and gets tighter and must be corrected with surgery (not a possiblity if you're circumcised) 3.it does NOT affect sensitivity, i don't care what people say, it was a myth that circumcision would reduce sensitivity. 4. it is a very small procedure for a newborn, it takes only a few days to heal, and while yes it does hurt which was upsetting to me, most hospitals will use anesthetic and it doesn't even compare to the pain and recovery time if you have to get circumcised as an adult. 5. Frankly, I just think it looks better (this is a personal opinion of course) but my husband is circumcised and most children I know are and I certainly wouldn't want it to be an object of ridicule or embarrassment ...oh, and as a CNA who works with the elderly, believe me, circumcised penises age much better, the older you get the farther down the foreskin hangs and, well, it's not pretty. But ultimately it isn't actually a medical necessity so whatever you feel is best is what works for you. Good luck with your new baby boy!

Answer 3

No. Torturing newborns and amputating healthy, private, and *important* parts of their bodies is no justification for the simple (and *minimal*) decrease in likelihood that if they're too stupid/lazy to use a condemn they just *might* *someday* end up contracting AIDS.

Teaching them not to be stupid sounds like a smarter, kinder, and much more *practical* solution to me. But, hey, I guess increased birth rates are a-okay, too? You know, impregnating that HIV or AIDS infected women, and having her give birth to a baby with AIDS. So long as the adult *male* doesn't get AIDS, then where's the problem?!!

You know, other 'scientists' have spoken of the increased RISK of males contracting AIDS and other STDs because of the idiocy surrounding this crap--in assuming their circumcised penis is like a permanent condom and therefore they don't have to protect themselves. Then we've got the fact that the countries with the highest circ rates all have the highest proportions of people infected with AIDS... Yeah, don't think you'll be able counter *that* one anytime too. Never mind that when circ's are done with tools that aren't sterile (as is most often the case in Africa), HIV is all that much more likely to spread (as is also usually the case with female circumcision--which has also been 'proven' to lower the risk of STDs--somehow I don't think that's going to make all the anti-female-circ people more "sympathetic" to it, either).

Answer 4

um no, would you advocate for the removal of a woman's labia if it was found to reduce STD risk. the best way to reduce STD rates is not to remove skin it is to educate people on how STD's are spread, to give free STD testing, and to use A CONDOM! cutting off a senstive peice of flesh is not a treatment. many of those studies are flawed and many medical publications will not publish them because of the flaws. they are not taking acurate samples if population. also the the decrease in STD's is small not huge. it gives people the idea that oh i'm circed i'm STD immune or something. this is not true a circed male can get STD's too. i'm all about doing things for the individual not the greater good. this idea of circ them all for reduction of STD is about the greater good and ignores what is best for all men. some are not going to run around ahving sex and be put at risk for STD's. why should they get circed? isn't that something they can choose to do when they are older?

Answer 5

How about the fact that penis's arn't the cause of STD's or aids, one big factor is sleeping around or not knowing your partner's. They should give sex education and use protection and innocent boys should not be held responsible for uneducated or careless men. If circumcised girls were less apt to get certain std's or they found that uncut girls could get aids easier, would we then circumcise our daughters too? I sure as hell wouldn't, I would teach her about sex and all that. Leave healthy baby boys the way they are suppose to be and let's stop being so ignorant

Answer 6

No. I guess to me it's like this- there are two to reduce risk of AIDS, syphilis, etc. One of them is surgery. The other one is resposible sexual behavior. The surgery reduces the risk somewhat, but the responsible sexual behavior takes the risk down to almost zero. If you want to get as good a result from the surgery as from the responsible sexual behavior, then you would have to chop off the entire penis (not that I am suggesting doing that). I am not going to subject a brand new baby to painful surgery on the assumption that he is going to grow up to be promiscuous. If he decides to take that risk later, he can choose to be circumcised, but I can't subject a tiny baby to that pain and disfiguring surgery on the assumption that he will make irresponsible choices later in life. And before you tell me that condoms and things are not foolproof let me remind you of the one almost 100% foolproof method of preventing STDs- only have sex after you get married and marry a virgin. My husband is not circumcised, yet his risk of AIDS, herpes, syphillis, etc, is basically nil because we both chose to not to have sex until marriage. If my son chooses differently, he assumes the risk (or he can choose to be circumcised, but then there is still more of a risk than if he behaves responsibly), but I hope that if we raise him right he will not make those choices.

Answer 7

Let me see now...because some people in Africa MIGHT be saved from AIDS if all boys were circumcised, since condoms are hard to come by and culturally unacceptable in much of Africa, then boys in the rest of the world (where condoms are cheap, readily available, and generally used in risky sexual relations), need to have THEIR penises mutilated?

Teach your son morals so he doesn't have sexual relations promiscuously. And if he doesn't follow your teachings, be sure he knows how to protect himself until his hormones settle down. He will be grateful to you for leaving his equipment intact - and so will his wife!

The U.S. has a very high rate of circumcision among boys who are now old enough to be sexually active (fortunately the rate is now much lower, but the intact boys are mostly too young to mess around with prostitutes), but the U.S. has a much, much higher rate of HIV/AIDS than countries in Europe and Asia where circumcision has been rare for decades. Does that make you change YOUR point of view?

Answer 8

I respect all the evidence and such about circumcisions but when it comes down to the nitty gritty it is really the parents choice or religion that determines who gets it and who doesnt. My son wasnt circumcised and I know many people who have and havent and honestly alot depends on hygeine and such. If my son decides he wants to be circumcised I will let him no problem but I dont feel its right to force it on him because you cant reverse it.

Answer 9

Hey! the study you baby cutting reptiles worship says there was NO ADVANTAVGE FOR OTHER STDs. Translation for dummies YOU STILL NEED A CONDOM, so why cut little boy's penises.

Doubt me, just read down on the Johns Hopkins page linked by popbiz or scuba (or what ever else she calls herself today) in most of her answers.

Answer 10

To Sharlenne: How sympathetic are MILLIONS of CHILDREN DYING from AIDS?? In Africa, South America, India, Asia?

You say you are concerned because boys used to scream? Aren't you worried and concerned for all those men, women and children expected to die from AIDS in the forthcoming years, which could be saved if circumcision is practiced? As a nurse you should examine the situation more deeply.

To everyone else: Nowadays anesthesia is used, so the procedure is painless, easy and quick. Most boys even fall asleep while the doctor performs the circumcision.

Before being negative and start to say the old 'nah condoms is just what we need', or 'education against AIDS' or 'would you do the same to your baby girl blah blah blah...' stop and think about the victims. And by victims I mean the children in Africa, the families in South America, the mothers in Asia, who will die from AIDS. That small and insignificant piece of skin is not the victim here. The victims are all those who will die.

Circumcision has proved to be an effective weapon against AIDS, as condoms are.
Being against circumcision is like being against condoms.