Do You Know the Facts About Circumcision?

November 2, 2008

The parents of a baby boy have one very big decision to make — whether or not to circumcise their son. Culture, religion, and personal preference all come into play, but how well do you know the medical facts about circumcision? Take this test and find out!
Source

Circumcision Quizzes

46 Comments

3 years

I am not circumcised neither are any of my sons, naturally I was free to have this done to myself when I reached the age where self mutilation becomes a choice, along with tattoos having bits of metal put through parts of my body etc. I was just never tempted to have it or any of these other things done, regardless of what Moses was told. I understand the function of the foreskin and that is a good enough reason to leave it alone. There is absolutely no reason for doing this aside from some strange religious cultural rite left to us from the Jewish religion.

3 years

This article was pretty much biased towards circumcision except for mentioning the risks - which are greater than people imagine. They didn't mention death, and quite a few babies wouldn't qualify for that T-shirt. How about mentioning what is removed, the foreskin, its structure and function? The only thing most US doctors are taught about it is how to cut it off. It's not enough to say circumcision "reduces the rate" of this or that disease without some figures. When a disease is very rare and circumcision makes it rarer, you can get a huge figure for the difference with very little actual benefit. "Circumcision reduces UTIs tenfold" Wowee! But since it's from 1% to 0.1% (by circumcision advocates' own figures) that's 991 circumcisions in every 1000 wasted (1 on a boy who will get UTI anyway, and 990 on boys who weren't ever going to get them). You obviously can't compare African tribal FGC with US surgical MGC, but when you compare apples with apples they’re not so different – tribal with tribal, 80 boys died of tribal circumcision in one South African province last year, and others lost their penises - surgical with surgical, Blue Cross Blue Shield covered FGC until 1977, but now it's illegal. Let’s compare male and female genital intactness instead. Leaving a little boy alone is just the same as leaving a little girl alone. That's their right. Let’s do both.

3 years

Some of these questions are erroneous and too simplistic. Actually, circumcision can also apply to females, and the healing time is generally a week to ten days. Also, even though it's considered a "safe" procedure for children, the risks of circumcision are TWICE that of remaining intact. Circumcision is medically unnecessary, not to mention barbaric and cruel (though most parents who decide to have their baby cut will dispute that, of course - however, they would never entertain the thought of allowing the genital mutilation of their female child); and it deprives a child from the right to make his OWN decision on the matter as an adult. Female genital mutilation is illegal in the U.S. It's time we afford our baby boys the same protection.

3 years

I'm sorry, I don't get this argument about having a kid done because the father was. If his parents made the mistake of cutting him, why would you repeat that? The kid doesn't care, especially if you explain to him that he was treated better. My dad was cut and he cut me, partially for that reason, and I'll never forgive him for it. It's so selfish. It has nothing to do with the son, but making the dad feel better. I, for one, would not hurt my child because my parents made an ignorant decision. That's not his fault. Also, for the women who think it's the "norm" in the US, that's really not the case anymore. I'm in my mid-20s and I would say about 40% of my friends have their whole penis, which pretty much tracks the national average. We don't make fun and in fact most of us wouldn't do it to our kids, because we think it's just an old punishment gone too far. Also, the world is more globalized now than it was in the 50s (when people were harming their children a lot) and people know better. If you spend 1.5 seconds thoroughly cleaning yourself (seriously, that's what it takes) and wear a condom, then the health arguments are nill. Also, like the previous poster said, if you do it bare with an infected person, chances are pretty good that you're getting what they have, even if you have a nasty old circumcised penis (on that point, I never got the aesthetic argument, I think circumcised penises look unfortunate and are screwed up far more often than a foreskin...how a woman would choose the dried up nob with a surgical scar over the aerodynamatic natural penis with moving parts is beyond me).

3 years

My God, what is wrong with people? I would never NEVER even consider circumcising my child. The infection arguments are silly (there's a 99% chance it'll never get infected, closer to 100% if your parents don't screw with it) and the STDs and HIV? You have a high chance of getting them anyway if you're having unprotected sex with infected people. It's disgusting that people would do this for aesthetic purposes (re: to fulfill their own sexual fetish to the detriment of their child) and the sexist women who insist on keeping this practice should be ashamed. Why aren't they cutting off their labia? Wouldn't that prevent a lot of infection?

xxstardust 4 years

Actually, it's not just HIV that can reduce the risk for - according to a 2009 study at U Washington, it also reduces the risk of HPV by 25% and the risk of herpes by 28%. So clearly, there is some medical benefit, albeit small. If I have sons, I will more then likely circumcise them as my boyfriend is circumcised. Also, I remember my brother having to have it done as a teenager because of an infection, and having to stay home in pain for days.

xxstardust 4 years

Actually, it's not just HIV that can reduce the risk for - according to a 2009 study at U Washington, it also reduces the risk of HPV by 25% and the risk of herpes by 28%. So clearly, there is some medical benefit, albeit small.If I have sons, I will more then likely circumcise them as my boyfriend is circumcised. Also, I remember my brother having to have it done as a teenager because of an infection, and having to stay home in pain for days.

Roarman 4 years

"If circumcision is a "safe procedure", then why do children die from it or have to undergo sex changes?" When they say safe they are comparing it to the number of circumscisions performed and the number of deaths or injuries that occur due to it. I also think that the comparison of FGM and MC is a bit extreme. FGM completely alters that part of the woman's body not only in appearance but in function. Making a young girl infertile for life. This occurs in male circumcision only in very extreme cases. This is a personal choice for each family to decide. I do not think it is someone elses place to say whether a person is right or wrong for choosing or not choosing circumcision.

Roarman 4 years

emmebeth 4 years

I think it's cruel. But when I have a son I'll decide based on whether or not my husband is circumcised.

Sarana 4 years

ml66uk thank you for your posts on this subject, it is exactly what I wanted to say but in a better way. I honestly do not understand how people can defend cutting of a part of their son's psnis when it is not neccesary. Why would you cut in a healthy body? I also don't believe in piercing ears of children that have no idea if they want their ears pierced. It is not as serious as circumcision but stiil not right in my opinion.

Sarana 4 years

ml66uk 4 years

Why is it a "human rights travesty" (and illegal) for the prepuce to be cut off a baby girl, but not for the prepuce to be cut off a baby boy? Did you read the first two paragraphs of post 16 btw?Frankly I find it absurd and offensive that people see a fundamental difference between cutting parts off girls and cutting parts off boys. How can we expect to stop female circumcision, while male circumcision is still considered acceptable? The countries that cut women don't see a difference.

ml66uk 4 years

Why is it a "human rights travesty" (and illegal) for the prepuce to be cut off a baby girl, but not for the prepuce to be cut off a baby boy? Did you read the first two paragraphs of post 16 btw? Frankly I find it absurd and offensive that people see a fundamental difference between cutting parts off girls and cutting parts off boys. How can we expect to stop female circumcision, while male circumcision is still considered acceptable? The countries that cut women don't see a difference.

graylen 4 years

My problem isn't with what other cultures deem acceptable. The Jewish and Christian cultures both deem circumcision acceptable. I realize that in some other cultures, female (sometimes called sunna) circumcision is also becoming the norm. My fault with the logic is the comparison to Female Genital MUTILATION which the World Health Organization states: "FGM is internationally recognized as a violation of the human rights of girls and women." This is also supported by Amnesty Int'l. I feel that this is a human rights travesty to the women it happens to- especially the women who had it savagely and not medically done with no thought to their urinary needs or reproductive health. To have that thrown around as an equal to male circumcision in the US is absurd and offensive to me. I respect the viewpoints of others, but don't throw something like that around. In the US, you can go to prison for performing FGM. It's also illegal in Canada and 10 other industrialized nations. It's even illegal in many African countries. Male circumcision in the US is legal whether you agree with it or not. Stepping off my soapbox. ;)

graylen 4 years

macgirl 4 years

Maybe I'm not reading the right magazines or watching the right TV channels but I am pretty sure I have never seen a pro circumcision advertisement. I've been the target of many condom ads though. I also didn't have any health professionals try and push circumcision on me as well. I did not choose to circumcise my boys for religious reasons. Their fathers who were both circumcised were who I consulted and in the end felt were the ones who had most of the say. I will say that my view could be skewed as I do live in America where it is the NORM and to not circumcise my sons could adversely affect them in their young adult life.

DesignRchic 4 years

I see you've made your point :medal: :rotfl:

ml66uk 4 years

Anyone who thinks there is a fundamental difference between female circumcision and male circumcision needs to find out more about them. The Canadian Children's Right Council says the following:"It is the position of the Canadian Children's Rights Council that 'circumcision' of male or female children is genital mutilation of children." (go check their website)Some of the forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision, it's performed by doctors in some countries, and the people that do it use the exact same reasons to justify it. They don't see any difference either, and one of their main justifications is that if it's ok for boys, why shouldn't they be able to do it to girls. Try debating with bloggers in Egypt and Malaysia who've just had it done to their daughters, or are just about to. It's not that long ago that some girls were circumcised in the USA btw. It was promoted in the medical literature at least up until 1959, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for it up to 1977.As far as AIDS goes:1) circumcision can't help anyone unless they're having unsafe sex with an HIV+ partner.2) the two continents with the highest rates of male circumcision have the highest rates of AIDS (Africa and North America)3) There are six African countries where the intact men in those countries are *less* likely to have AIDS than circumcised men. If circumcision was so good, that just shouldn't happen.4) condoms work *way* better than any of the claims made for circumcision, so why are people not allowed to promote condoms, but hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to promote circumcision (it's actually because some people would prefer that people died than promote condoms, as they're against birth control).5) female circumcision seems to work against AIDS, but no-one would suggest promoting that.I'm not a huge fan of piercing babies' ears either, but that's not really comparable. Male circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis (it's not just there to protect the glans).What's wrong with letting people decide for themselves if they want part of their genitals cutting off? If my son wants to be circumcised later, I'll gladly pay for it and help him find the best surgeon. Until then, it's his body, and I don't have the right to have living tissue cut off him.Drops in male circumcision:USA: from 90% to 57%Canada: from 47% to 14%UK: from 35% to about 3% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)South America and Europe: never above 5%

ml66uk 4 years

Anyone who thinks there is a fundamental difference between female circumcision and male circumcision needs to find out more about them. The Canadian Children's Right Council says the following: "It is the position of the Canadian Children's Rights Council that 'circumcision' of male or female children is genital mutilation of children." (go check their website) Some of the forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision, it's performed by doctors in some countries, and the people that do it use the exact same reasons to justify it. They don't see any difference either, and one of their main justifications is that if it's ok for boys, why shouldn't they be able to do it to girls. Try debating with bloggers in Egypt and Malaysia who've just had it done to their daughters, or are just about to. It's not that long ago that some girls were circumcised in the USA btw. It was promoted in the medical literature at least up until 1959, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for it up to 1977. As far as AIDS goes: 1) circumcision can't help anyone unless they're having unsafe sex with an HIV+ partner. 2) the two continents with the highest rates of male circumcision have the highest rates of AIDS (Africa and North America) 3) There are six African countries where the intact men in those countries are *less* likely to have AIDS than circumcised men. If circumcision was so good, that just shouldn't happen. 4) condoms work *way* better than any of the claims made for circumcision, so why are people not allowed to promote condoms, but hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to promote circumcision (it's actually because some people would prefer that people died than promote condoms, as they're against birth control). 5) female circumcision seems to work against AIDS, but no-one would suggest promoting that. I'm not a huge fan of piercing babies' ears either, but that's not really comparable. Male circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis (it's not just there to protect the glans). What's wrong with letting people decide for themselves if they want part of their genitals cutting off? If my son wants to be circumcised later, I'll gladly pay for it and help him find the best surgeon. Until then, it's his body, and I don't have the right to have living tissue cut off him. Drops in male circumcision: USA: from 90% to 57% Canada: from 47% to 14% UK: from 35% to about 3% (less than 1% among non-Muslims) Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower) New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans) South America and Europe: never above 5%

DesignRchic 4 years

I guess I'm a cruel mother then :oy:Well said graylen!

DesignRchic 4 years

I guess I'm a cruel mother then :oy: Well said graylen!

graylen 4 years

I know it's not really the same thing, but a lot of cultures also pierce girl's ears at the baby stage as well, therefore altering the little girl without permission. Lots of parents let their kids eat and do all sorts of things I wouldn't let my kids eat and do. It's a matter of what the parent feels is right. I don't think parents that choose to circumcise should be blasted for cruelty to their child as they obviously believe it's okay, not to mention perfectly legal and in most cases, perfectly safe. As for Shadowdamage's question, I think that is an irresponsible comparison as FGM is, as it states in the title, mutilation- generally done at a much older age and in a savage way. Comparing someone who circumcises to someone who crudely mutilates a girl's genitals with little respect to the biology of the genitalia is uncalled for and wrong in my opinion.

graylen 4 years

milosmommy 4 years

It's a personal choice and I woulnd't judge another parent for what they decided to do/or not do for their child. But the fact that the WHO said it can help lower the risk of HIV transmission it was a selling point. But that's just my take.

Link Love

46 Comments