Whether or not to circumcise a newborn baby boy has been a subject of heated debate in recent years. Is it simply an out-dated practice with zero health benefit, or is there still a medical purpose to potentially putting your baby boy through so much pain?
According to the NY Sun, circumcision is becoming less common in the US thanks largely to immigration patterns in the nation. Still, circumcision ranks as one of the most common procedures in the world, and, in the US, it is most commonly performed on newborns. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) convened to evaluate the evidence regarding male circumcision and settle the score once and for all. Circumcision: Is it worth it?
The Task Force included both AAP representatives from specialty areas and members of the AAP Board of Directors, as well as others representing the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). They convened to update the AAP’s recommendations on circumcision from 1999.
After a critical review of peer-reviewed literature using the American Heart Association’s template for evidence evaluation, the Task Force concluded that the health benefits from newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the health benefits associated with the procedure justify access to it for families who choose it. Specifically, male circumcision aids in the prevention of urinary tract infections, the acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. Male circumcision also does not seem to affect sexual function in a negative way. Significant acute complications are rare.
“Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision and should receive this information from clinicians before conception or early in pregnancy, which is when parents typically make circumcision decisions,” said the researchers. “Parents should determine what is in the best interest of their child. Physicians who counsel families about this decision should provide assistance by explaining the potential benefits and risks and ensuring that parents understand that circumcision is an elective procedure.”
The Task Force advised that educational materials relating to circumcision be revised and updated, but, for the most part, it turns out that circumcision rolls back to simply being a matter of choice as it doesn’t yield any negative effects if performed responsibly and correctly.
Do you agree with the AAP’s updated recommendation on circumcision?
this is so stupid. If men were not suppose to have foreskin we would not be born with it..If you have foreskin you clean it etc etc…common sense..Women get urinary tract infections, yeast infections, uterine cancer/fibroids etc and you don't see doctors carving out a woman's vagina when she is born to PREVENT this and that, that may or may not happen…Circumcision is pretty male genital butchery and I think it is not the right of the parents, doctor or religion to decide..I have quite a few male friends who have foreskin and they have never had a problem with it….I have also known men who do have foreskin and because sometimes there is a stigma and a gross factor for some people about foreskin the men have actually gone for circumcision at an adult age….Most European men have foreskin and it does not seem to be an issue in other countries..Leave it to North American antiquated idealogies to mess with and decide what is supposedly good or bad for someone else's body..I wish I still had my foreskin..HELL YEAH…
The AAP is now a disgrace. They are going to be the laughing stock among the international community; this new statement is way out of line with statements from other modern nations with advanced medical systems. The AAP should withdraw this statement immediately.
The foreskin is an important part of male anatomy, and circumcision has serious negative consequences for not only the man, but his female partner as well. Men who were circumcised at birth have never known what a foreskin is like and don't know what they are missing.
The foreskin is erogenous tissue, containing thousands of erogenous fine-touch nerve endings. The most sensitive and pleasurable parts of the penis are removed by circumcision. These are color-coded diagrams showing the areas of sensitivity for both circumcised and intact anatomy:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells
The boy is the one who should be able to choose what happens to his body once he is an adult. Bodily integrity is a fundamental human right. Clearly the AAP doesn't understand that.
This is an excellent video narrated by Dr. Dean Edell, a pediatrician:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_bEBAdhjGg
I most definitely do NOT agree with it and will continue to oppose any statements about routine infant circumcision preventing HIV transmission. It is a dangerous fallacy and one that the rest of the developed world recognizes. The NY Times also acknowledges the very real risk of complications and deaths following infant circumcision. Why anyone would change risk their baby's health and well being on false science is a mystery. Bodily autonomy trumps all, especially when the "all" is not even accurate.
AAP = no ethics. UTIs can't be treated with antibiotics and every medical reason has been debunked. Thank you, AAP, for padding doctors' wallets rather than protect our children.
No part of "infant circumcision " sounds "healthy".
It is important to remember that the task force charged with reviewing and updating the academy’s position on circumcision is not without conflict of interest. The AAP is a professional organization, which exists to represent and support the professional interests of its members. In its last position statement they acknowledged that those members stand to lose an estimated $150-270 million dollars if circumcisions were no longer performed, without including follow-up care and corrective procedures, which are quite common.[59] The new statement proclaims, "Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it, and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns," revealing whose interests they truly have in mind.
Given the medical evidence to the contrary, I have a hard time believing any statement claiming that benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. Circumcision results in more infant deaths each year than do car accidents or SIDS. Below I have included a sampling of the medical evidence contrary to the AAP's statement. Please peruse it and make your own informed decision for your child's health and well-being. Do not assume that the AAP has your child's best interests in mind with this statement. There are financial, political, and religious contexts that have clearly influenced this decision more than has the ample medical evidence.
- The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (2009) have written that the foreskin "is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even hemorrhage leading to death."
- The Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010) argues that the human foreskin is "a complex, erotogenic structure that plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourse and masturbation", and doesn’t stop there. The organization also states "circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity."
- Another statement by the Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010): "That the relationship between circumcision and transmission of HIV is at the very least unclear is illustrated by the fact that the US combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions. The Dutch situation is precisely the reverse: a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS combined with a relatively low number of circumcisions. As such, behavioural factors appear to play a far more important role than whether or not one has a foreskin. (…) Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity."
- A study published by the Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology (2011) concluded that "circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia [pain during intercourse] and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfillment."
- A paper in The Austrian Journal of Health Psychology (2002) argues "the complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings."
- A study published by the Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (2010) states "there is no medical justification for routine circumcision in neonates or children. It should be performed only for established medical reasons and should not be universally recommended."
- The British Journal of Urology International (2007) reads: “the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.”.
- Another study published by the British Journal of Urology International (2007) concluded "there was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings."
- The Finnish Medical Association (2004, translation courtesy of Wikipedia) 'opposes circumcision of infants for non-medical reasons, arguing that circumcision does not bring about any medical benefits and it may risk the health of the infant as well as his right to physical integrity, because he is not able to make the decision himself. The association emphasizes that according to the Finnish constitution, the parents' freedom of religion and conscience does not produce the right to violate other people's (children's) right to physical integrity.'
- A study in The Journal of Public Health in Africa (2011) states "there is no scientific reason to believe that the [African Randomize Controlled Trial] results would necessarily apply to the general population. It is quite likely that applying research results from a high risk population to the general population will lead to failure."
- An analysis of the African Randomized Controlled Trials in the Journal of Law and Medicine (2011): "the trials were compromised by inadequate equipoise; selection bias; inadequate blinding; problematic randomisation; trials stopped early with exaggerated treatment effects; and not investigating non-sexual transmission. Several questions remain unanswered. Why were the trials carried out in countries where more intact men were HIV-positive than in those where more circumcised men were HIV-positive? Why were men sampled from specific ethnic subgroups? Why were so many participants lost to follow-up? Why did men in the male circumcision groups receive additional counselling on safe sex practices? (…) any long-term benefit in reducing HIV transmission remains uncertain."
- The American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2010) published a study titled "Male circumcision and HIV prevention insufficient evidence and neglected external validity".
- The authors of one of the African Randomized Controlled Trials, PMID 16231970 (2005), have stated "This study has some limitations. It was conducted in one area in sub-Saharan Africa and, therefore, may not be generalizable to other places."
- A study published by the Naval Health Research Center (2004), which conducted multiple separate logistic regressions to evaluate the role of circumcision in the acquisition of HIV and STI determined circumcision "is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U. S. military population (…) Although known HIV risk factors such as inconsistent condom use, history of STI, multiple partners, and anal sex were found to be associated with HIV in this military population, there was no significant association with male circumcision."
- The French National Council on AIDS (2007) has stated “The same measures are not applicable to the Northern countries. The recommendations of the WHO state that this strategy is aimed at countries with high prevalence, and not at countries with low prevalence or in countries where it relates specifically to one part of the population such as in France or the United States.”.
- A paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics (2010) found "the [analysis of African Randomized Controlled Trials] noted that further research was required to assess the feasibility, desirability and cost-effectiveness of implementation within local contexts. This paper endorses the need for such research and suggests that, in its absence, it is premature to promote circumcision as a reliable strategy for combating HIV.
- A study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine (2012) among Carribean men reflects that "compared with uncircumcised men, [circumcised men] have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection (…) Findings suggest the need to apply caution in the use of circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy, particularly in settings where more effective combinations of interventions have yet to be fully implemented."
In 2002, only 8 states did NOT cover circumcision via Medicaid. Today, that number is 18. Circumcision rates continue to decline as Medicaid and insurance companies drop it, parents are not paying out of pocket, and they are learning the truth; circumcision is unnecessary, it removes a males most sensitive body part, it's unethical, painful, harmful and sometimes fatal. It is a human rights violation. It is torture. It is mutilation. It must come to a quick and complete end, worldwide.
Circumcision is legal for the same reason why marijuana is illegal. A war against freedom.
CircumcisionTV.com
An absolutely perverse and unscientific statement. STIs and penile cancer are far more effectively controlled by teaching men proper penis hygiene and condom use. Their comment that circumcision doesn't alter sensation is, at best, wishful thinking. They need to do an interdisciplinary review which includes statements from men who are unhappy and/or experience dysfunction in adulthood because of circumcisions and factor in the psychological effects of grown men in Africa currently being circumcised without full understanding of the ramifications.
gloria, stick to what you know, sex…and leave this subject to the other sites…and i notice you don't give ANY value to the numbers of lower std's in Africa…and why don't you ask men who are HAPPY with their circumcisions how THEY feel, too…because they do NOT take your side on this issue…and you want to "teach" men proper hygiene?…they don't even wash their HANDS, you gonna expect them to do MORE?…and it does NOT alter sensation, no matter what you say…not that i expect you to even consider anything but your made-up-mind on this…stick to sex, NOT medical procedures…signed: cut and like it.
women speaking on this subject is like a male speaking against choice…no dog in the fight.
How in the world would you know if it altered sensation if you were circumcised at birth?
How in the world would you know if it altered sensation if you were circumcised at birth?
because it makes as much sense as YOU saying it at all…and in speaking with my hooded friends, doctors and my own feelings (they do not cut OFF the penis, they remove a portion of foreskin you still have plenty of…and according to my hundreds of thousands of orgasms…it is a much better gauge than the speculation of women who are anti-circumcision…
Craig Au, sorry, if you were circumcised at birth, then a woman with her foreskin knows WAY more about intact genitalia than you do because she has a prepuce. Women can also speak to their "hooded" male friends and their doctors just as easily as you can. If you were circumcised at birth you will NEVER know sex as it is meant to be. You will never experience how intact genitals feel. And it is all great and dandy that you love it that way but please don't be ridiculous, you can be cut and like it all you want but that doesn't give adults an excuse to cut baby genitals. If grown men want a circumcision, they can get one, just like a grown woman can. I, and most women who you obviously think so highly of, are not "anti-circumcision" we are PRO-CHOICE, and the choice belongs with the person who owns and will use the genitals for their whole lives. We are anti-baby cutting! Women have every right to stand up for children's rights.
oh good, a woman telling me about what it feels like to have a cock…and grown men say that they experience not one bit of a loss of sensation…and please, the lecture you give would be better served without the 'because i'm the mommy" attitude…your bossy 'tude does NOT preclude facts…and the men who get circumcised as adults prove you wrong…have a nice day
ironic how a woman fights to be pro-choice but fights against someone else being pro-choice of a different matter…and the choice i make for my child is mine to make…whether you approve or not…
what part sounds unhealthy?
All of it.
all of it?…break it down, other than your own anti-circumcision bias…can you admit that adult circumcision in Africa is decreasing std's…despite what this story above says…
Parents are entitled to factual info all right, ABOUT THE NORMAL FORESKIN. But the AAP gives them info ABOUT CIRCUMCISION.
Foreskin feels REALLY good.
Craig, the only person who should have any say about circumcision is the person whose penis is being cut. Period.
As part of my doctoral work in this area I have interviewed many men who were circumcised as adults. Many of them have reported loss of feeling and other negative side effects. One said it was "the worst mistake he ever made" and others have said similar things.
This is a decision that adult males should make for themselves *as* adults and only after reviewing all the information. This is not a decision for parents to make for their children, nor any person for any other person. The AAP's statement is seriously flawed ethically and factually. The only good that will come from the AAP's mistake is that it will provide an opportunity for people to respond and call out the misinformation.
http://mothering.com/peggyomara/circumcision/aap-and-circumcision-whats-a-parent-to-think
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48798567/ns/business-press_releases/t/aap-circumcision-policy-seriously-flawed-condemned-canadian-childrens-rights-group/
I was circumcised at birth and I got some of the risks and harms, physical and psychological dysfunctions after puberty. According to the AAP, the financial, medical and religious benefits from infant circumcision are more important than the lifetime physical and psychological health benefits of an education on the physiological functions, proper hygiene, and safe use of the male and femlae prepuce. Our prepuces cause sexual arousal when physically stimulated. Parents have to choose what is in their best interest, education or circumcision, human rights or religious rights, psychological or financial stabilityl.
Craig Au Pressent studies show that the 40% of the circumcised men who still do get HIV and other STDs infect their female partners more easily because circumcision causes the glans to callous over from being exposed causing vaginal erosion. So the claim of only 60% protection rate for circumcised men is cancelled by the increased risk to women who have unprotected reproductive sex with HIV+circumcised men. It's all about the viral load and open wounds on the exterrior reproductive parts and nothing to do with having or not having a healthy male or female prepuce. The procirc fanatic crowd is being blinded by the light of their political Apartheid racist, religious, and finacial agendas. They cannot see the forest through the trees.
Break it down? You are taking a newborn baby in good health and cutting a part of them off. If you are worried about AIDS then spend your time preaching safe sex, spreading awareness or finding a legit cure. Don't take your fear out on innocent babies. Instead of getting a flu shot maybe people should cut off their sinuses so they can't sneeze and spread the cold?
I'm not actually bias but thanks for attacking me and therefore taking a mature argument and making it personsal and falicious. I believe that people should have the right to make an educated decision rather than blindly following what their doctor suggests
sorry jason, but that is wrong…with that logic, parents should not insist on brushing of their child's teeth…let them make that decision as an adult…and while your "experience" gives you anecdotal knowledge, the thousands of real medical studies do not agree with your personal political stance…i don't expect you to understand, nor to even allow another viewpoint on this matter…and saying "period" is not validation of any argument…sorry, you do what you think is right for your children, provided you have any…and i'll do what is right for mine…
faith, i can see by your wording that you are emotional about this so any effort to speak logically on this subject is merely wasted time…but i especially enjoy your silly comparisons…and your misuse of the word "attack" is also humorous…thank you for the entertainment…and your assertions and assumptions are also a laugh…
You can sense emotion through text? You must be some kind of psychic. But attacking a strange over the Internet doesn't make you seem insecure or emotional at all ? Thanks again for proving your immaturity by laughing.
Craig, brushing teeth does not remove 15 to 20 sq. inches of nerve-rich, vein-filled, perfectly healthy tissue. That is the amount of adult skin lost to circumcision. It doesn't look like that much on an infant, but once that infant is grown up, that is about the same amount of skin that is on the back of your hand, your cheek, or your forehead. If we were talking about removing all the skin on a person's forehead for religious, cultural, or "health" reasons, there would be no question that it was mutilation. When we're talking about even a minor pinprick on a girl's labia, the way some cultures do, it is deemed mutilation. And it is certainly mutilation when we are talking about a boy's genitals.
80% of the world's men remain intact their entire lives, and most countries around the world do not practice circumcision — of boys or girls. Those of us who do not circumcise our children are not suffering under epidemics of infections, cancers, or poor hygiene. Indeed it is the United States, with the highest rate of circumcision in the developed world, that has the highest rate of HIV and STDs in the developed world as well. If circumcision did any good at all, you would have seen it in the US by now, after generations of almost universal circumcision. Instead, you see just the opposite. Circumcision doe no good, and plenty of harm. The silly notion that "benefits outweigh the risks" will go down in history as one of the most absurd, right up there with "corporations are people" and "legitimate rape."
Craig, brushing teeth does not remove 15 to 20 sq. inches of nerve-rich, vein-filled, perfectly healthy tissue. That is the amount of adult skin lost to circumcision. It doesn't look like that much on an infant, but once that infant is grown up, that is about the same amount of skin that is on the back of your hand, your cheek, or your forehead. If we were talking about removing all the skin on a person's forehead for religious, cultural, or "health" reasons, there would be no question that it was mutilation. When we're talking about even a minor pinprick on a girl's labia, the way some cultures do, it is deemed mutilation. And it is certainly mutilation when we are talking about a boy's genitals.
80% of the world's men remain intact their entire lives, and most countries around the world do not practice circumcision — of boys or girls. Those of us who do not circumcise our children are not suffering under epidemics of infections, cancers, or poor hygiene. Indeed it is the United States, with the highest rate of circumcision in the developed world, that has the highest rate of HIV and STDs in the developed world as well. If circumcision did any good at all, you would have seen it in the US by now, after generations of almost universal circumcision. Instead, you see just the opposite. Circumcision doe no good, and plenty of harm. The silly notion that "benefits outweigh the risks" will go down in history as one of the most absurd, right up there with "corporations are people" and "legitimate rape."
yes, and it comes through loud and clear. thank you for the humor.
wow, you can explain away anything. call me when you actually have to make this decision, i don't doubt that you'll make it the way you see it now, but it will be nice when you actually have a dog in the fight. and to compare infant boys to girls and the process of removing the clitorus is pure folly, which is to be expected…
Craig, in answer to your question about circumcision, HIV, and Africa, let me shed some light on the subject. I am a PhD candidate who has done research in this issue and actually started my doctoral work in Thailand examining their success in combating HIV with condoms, *not* circumcision. Thailand is one of the world's few success stories where HIV is concerned. Brazil also deserves some credit. Neither country has used circumcision to achieve their success. Africa, meanwhile, continues to struggle.
The myth that circumcision prevents HIV is based on three recent trials in Africa. The problems with the African trials in question are too numerous to detail here. To summarize, however, you should keep in mind that:
- The circumcised men in the trials were *paid volunteers* which raises serious concerns about bias.
- The circumcised men also received safe sex instructions that the uncircumcised control group did not receive which raises serious doubts about the validity of the trials.
- *Hundreds* of individuals dropped out of the study. Their HIV status cannot be accurately ascertained. Indeed, so many individuals dropped out of the study that the final comparison made between those who remained results in a difference that is statistically insignificant. By the time the trials were (prematurely) concluded, there were almost as many HIV positive as HIV negative men.
- Finally, the trials concluded (again prematurely) after barely two years. It is impossible to conclude that any HIV intervention might possibly be effective after such a brief time when dealing with a disease that has such a long incubation period and where accurate determination of HIV status can be so unreliable.
I could go on. In any case, the trials that form the basis of inflated claims of circumcision's effectiveness are countered by *dozens* of trials that have shown either no difference in HIV rates between circumcised and uncircumcised groups, or even *higher* rates of HIV among circumcised men. Indeed, the United States has the highest rate of circumcision of any developed nation while also suffering the highest rates of HIV and other STDs. If there were nay benefits to be enjoyed from the near universal rates of circumcision the US once had, one would expect to see such benefits there. Instead, The US sees just the opposite.
UNAIDS own report admits that, like in the United States, HIV is actually *higher* is most of the African countries surveyed where circumcision is common.
Research has utterly failed to prove any demonstrable benefits of circumcision.
nice post, but again, denial on your part is futile…science wins out.
and hey, don't convince ME…convince God!
Craig, the science in question has been available for years. It is the same science that has prompted Dutch, Swedish, Danish, German, Austrian, Australian, and New Zealand medical associations, among others, to conclude that there are no demonstrable benefits to circumcision. Some of those countries in question are even considering severe restrictions and/or bans on circumcision due to the weight of scientific evidence that circumcision is harmful. As many news stories about the AAP's position have noted, theirs is obviously a reactionary response to this rising tide against circumcision. The AAP's statement is based more on politics than on science.
Likewise, your own responses are obviously based more on personal bias than objective facts. I'm guessing that, like most American males, you were circumcised as an infant and probably chose to do so to your children as well. You obviously want to believe very badly that you aren't missing anything important and that you didn't deprive your sons. That is understandable. Bust, sadly, it's just not the truth.
You are missing a large swath of sensitive, beneficial, and pleasurable erogenous tissue, as are your sons. The AAP's statement is designed to help victims like you and your sons rationalise the loss you have endured. But facts are facts. You are missing a part of your body, just like every other circumcised male (and female). That is not right, and no amount of rationalisation will make it right.
right or wrong (in your eyes) is not to say for me and my family…but i appreciate how much it means to you to make sure i do things as you see fit…
So craig, you are admitting that it should be a choice per individual family/persons?
Craig, by all means, do as you see fit to your *own* genitals. Every consenting adult should have the right to do so for whatever reason — religion, culture, aesthetics. Not to unconsenting children, though.
sorry faith and jason, YOU TWO are at odds regarding the rights of parents…as is common for those who like to impose their will against others…i'll let you two work it out…as for the rights of yours to deny me my rights as a parent…thank God i have Constitutional protection against you…who knows what other freedoms (religious and otherwise) you have in store to take away from myself and others…
That makes nonsense!
Craig, children have constitutional rights as well. Courts are increasingly ruling in favour of the rights of children and against the parents. Female circumcision — even the most minor forms involving a small nick — were banned in 1997 (although the AAP also supported some forms of female circumcision). Parents have also been prevented from choosing prayer over real medicine. Oregon was one of the last states to retain a faith healing loophole for parents. That was closed recently amidst cries of "parental rights." And there have been at least two cases where parents who converted to Judaism were prevented from circumcising their older sons, again despite the charges that "parental rights" and "freedom of religion" were being violated.
Freedom of religion also includes freedom *from* religion. As these rulings establish, children have those rights, too. And parental rights stop where permanent physical marking or harm is a possibility. Thankfully, more and more jurisdictions are seeing things that way.
you do what you want for YOUR kids, leave your anti-religious, unConstitutional, rights denying hands off of mine…and again with the nonsensical female circumcision…what other rights do you want to take from me…it never stops at just one…last time i looked, you didn't pay the cost to be MY boss…
It is not "anti-religious" to defend children's rights to decide for themselves how their own bodies should look in accordance with their own religious beliefs and not their parents'. It is not "unconstitutional" to defend children's constitutional rights to their own freedom of, and freedom from, religion. It is not "rights denying" to protect boys' rights to bodily integrity in exactly the same way girls' rights are already protected. No one is taking any rights from you, Craig. Indeed *you*, and all parents like who who physically scar your children in the name of beliefs they have no knowledge of or consent to, are the ones taking rights from others. Those of us who are stopping you are simply putting those rights back in the hands of the people who should have them.
you are NOT defending anything, you are crusading FOR a cause. you compare female circumcision with male circumcision and they are two totally different things…and that is a most telling part of your willingness to deceive…and you also give an infant a "right to decide" which is also a moot argument, dead and a non-starter. and yes, you ARE taking away MY right to practice MY religion and want me to do it YOUR way…are YOU circumcised?…have you ever met someone who is and likes it that way?…or are all your stories only concerned with your mistaken description of scaring and mutilation in order to build your box on which to scream from…don't answer that last on, it was rhetorical, we BOTH already know the answer…
Craig, there are some instances where ignorance is NOT bliss. We aren't trying to take away anyone's rights. We are asking FOR rights. For our children's and their children's and so on. We are not asking you to change your religious beliefs. We are pointing out how unethical this is.
The AAP report indicates that circumcision can lower your chance of getting infected with HIV. Meanwhile, virtually every European country has a significantly lower HIV rate than the US; ditto for China, Japan, and Australia. All places where circumcision is relatively rare..
The AAP task force report is based on studies in sub-Saharan Africa, and contains the following gem:
"Specifically, the Task Force recommends additional studies to better understand the impact of male circumcision on transmission of HIV and other STIs in the United States because key studies to date have been performed in African populations with HIV burdens that are epidemiologically different from HIV in the United States."
That is, the AAP is throwing it's weight behind slicing the genitals of male infants in the United States based on studies which it admits may not even be applicable! Not really great for their credibility.
Then there is the troubling comparison to female genital cutting. In the case of baby girls, would the AAP even dare to conduct studies designed to determine "potential health benefits"? Absolutely not, because girls are rightfully protected by law against ANY form of cutting, even a symbolic ritual nick (as previously recommended by the AAP), with no legitimacy given to arguments based on "potential health benefits", parental choice, religious tradition, etc.
Here is an excellent point by point rebuttal of the AAP's misguided position:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.jp/2012/08/leaked-aap-press-script.html
Here's a well written piece detailing why circumcision of unconsenting minors should be banned:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-livingston/circumcision-should-be-banned_b_1835614.html?utm_hp_ref=tw