the government absolutely should not be able to decide if you circumcise your son!

this is crazy. yet another reason to have your baby in a birthing center or at home!

They will never touch my childs private parts. This is why I am having my kids at home.

What I hate about "science" is every couple of years there is a new study and numbers to show whether or not circumcision prevents AIDS. The last one I paid attention to (and it was highly visible in the news) was that it DID prevent AIDS and it was something that was being promoted in Africa. Make your own decisions. Circumcised or not, the penis tends to work plenty, so teach your son discretion and self control.

This is incredible - the government should not have a say in this decision. My son's body is his and therefore, it is his decision.

"...the Centers for Disease Control is considering making the procedure routine in an effort to prevent the spread of HIV."

I think the key word here is "routine", which does not equate to mandatory.

To answer the question, no the government should not be able to tell parents to circumcise their sons. It would be better to promote sex education and provide access to birth control.

Even though I did have my son circumcised and I plan on having my next child done also if it turns out to be a boy I feel that it was my decision and I do not believe that the government should tell my that I have to. It is a personal choice that the parents should be able to make.

There is nothing in the linked article to suggest that circumcision would be forced on anybody. These are recommendations. You are free to follow them. You are free not to. The CDC also "promotes" breastfeeding. That doesn't mean that there is a law that you have to do it.

"Should the government decide if your son is circumcised?"

I am curious as to why this is the question posed with relation to this subject matter? Since forced or mandatory circumcision isn't on the table, why would you mislead your readers into believing that it is?

Whether they are or not shouldn't be a question really.... people should be practicing safe sex and getting tested for std's and hiv. If people werent so lax about taking care of themselves, teenagers included who are NOT innocent victims, we wouldn't be rampant with std's and hiv like we are right now.

i think the question was phrased like that to get more responses.

Yea, I love the misleading title. This is talking about AAP policy, not mandatory circs. by the government.

What it mostly will effect is government funding of circumcision on low-income, medicaid-covered newborn boys. Currently, Medicaid doesn't pay for circs, which is something of a debate given the studies that show a significant reduction in HIV and other STDs. The thought is that an at-risk population (low-income babies on Medicaid) are potentially being put at further risk for disease by not circumcising...

Why can't there be articles on this site without the alarmist titles? NO ONE IS SAYING THE GOVERNMENT WILL FORCE CIRCUMCISION ON ANYONE!!!

This is an interesting article and one that is not new. MY good friend is on the AAP and this very thing has come up each year since the study was released.

Love the editing of the article without any indication as to the reason, time, or date of the edit. Super professional.

oops, just read the whole article.

the cdc can recommend whatever it wants. i hope that parents will find ways to educate themselves on the many choices they have as parents & decide, making an education, informed decision, not just because 'the cdc/doctor/friend' said it. there are so many sources of information & it's never a good idea to just go with one book or one organization.

Living in the USA is different from living in Africa. In Africa it probably DOES pevent AIDS, in the USA? Probably not.

This move is just a way for the CDC to cover it's own ass. It's worthless and not based on science. There is no medical reason to circumsize.

is unprotected, consensual, heterosexual sex different in africa? please explain. and are the epithelial cells of an uncircumcized penis on an african man different from those on an american? i highly doubt it. those are the cells that appear to be more susceptible to viruses, like HIV and other STDs. this is science, at a very basic level, with plenty of evidence to consider. dismissing it just because it is out of africa is absurd.

We will be a lot better off if the CDC proceed with their plan to suggest that infant circumcision be made routine. If only that had been the case when I was born, I'd have avoided ever so much anguish in the years leading up to my ultimately being circumcised.
Fortunately my mother, after tending to my irritated penis on several occasions, decided to have me circumcised. Unfortunately at that point I was frightened, fearful and embarrassed and tried to resist. It took firmness from my mother but I went through the surgery with only minimal discomfort, healed up promptly and then simply had to get used to my changed state. This adjustment was the most difficult part as every time my now bared glans chafed on underwear or bedclothes, I was made aware that my penis was different. If you can believe it was actually at least 6 months before I became fully used to being circumcised. Then I could glory in the new way I was - now my only regret is that I wasn't done as an infant or at an earlier age. For the sake of millions of boys, let's make circumcision routine!