Don't Be Scared to Circumcise Your Baby Boy

Reader Comments
Back to article

There's a lot wrong with this article (it is basically just myth after myth) but I'll pick on this one:
"Experiences no discomfort"???? I've had local anesthesia injected into my private parts (repairing a small tear after giving birth). The injection ain't painless and neither were the stitches. It hurt a lot (I'm saying this as someone who gave birth twice without any drugs). And I was just having 2 or 3 stitches, not having anything removed.

Hannah of WA 3:24PM February 29, 2012

Do you believe in God? I don't. Either way, if you do believe in God, and trust him, then why is it okay to remove something that he gave us from our GENITALS?
Non-believers: You were born with it, leave it on, and actually wash it. It's the people who already have bad hygiene that have problems. You know... it's like saying "oh, you have bad breath, let's rip out your tongue." Dramatic, yes, but it's the same idea.

foreskinless and sad of SC 1:02PM October 08, 2011

Evidence indicating adult protection against cervical and penile cancer and HIV does not warrant infant circumcision. The evidence could warrant circumcision for sexually promiscuous adults.
Non-medical circumcision is cultural mutilation.

john b 11:50AM August 01, 2011

Is God getting his kicks watching male boys being mutilated. Why did he give boys a foreskin in the first place?
Maybe male genitals should be like the animals. A penis inside a sheath... no foreskin. Like your dog... or horse.

Jason 12:41AM June 05, 2011

I am in despair that we even need to have this discussion in America. Women have fought long and hard for the right to vote, for equal pay, for the right to make reproductive choices, and yet mothers allow their infant boys to be taken from the breast just hours after birth to have a piece of skin surgically removed from their genitals. Most don't even understand WHY this is being done--it's just done... Just as women have been taught that they are equal to men and should demand equal rights we should demand the same civil rights for our baby boys. If a man wants to be circumcised later in life then let him. But that is a choice he should be able to make...and I would be willing to bet my hard-earned paycheck (a paycheck I make as a woman whose grandmother fought for my right to vote and work outside of the home) that circumcision would die out in this country within 50 years.

Catherine of MT 10:24AM May 07, 2011

It has been widely printed that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection by 50-60%, but no one prints 50% of what. The actual difference in the African study in which the general population has an infection rate of some 15-20% is a little less than 1% between the circumcised group and the uncircumcised group after almost two years of exposure in this group. So if the circumcised group has a 1.6% infection rate and the uncircumcised group has a 2.3% infection rate then 0.9% over the 1.6% is about a 56% reduction. But the real difference if you believe the African studies at all is still less than 1% in the two groups. Note that in excess of $80,000,000 that is 80 million dollars U.S. were on the table if circumcision is proven effective, if not effective then no money.. That may have had some effect on the outcome of the study, YOU THINK????

Steven Guillory M.D. of LA 6:50PM March 31, 2011

Those opposed to circumcision fail to consider the preventative health benefits THE SCIENCE IS IN !!! The HIV virus is absorbed by the inner lining of the foreskin within ONE HOUR of making contact !!! Women have 25 % less chance of acquiring the papilloma virus and cervical cancer if the male is circumcised (published in the Lancet last week)
Highly emotional subjective arguments should be ignored
Rest assured, his minor operation is very safe and has a lifetime of benefits

John glazebrook of CA 2:15AM February 15, 2011

As a doctor, your DUTY is to due what's in the best interest of the PATIENT. The patient is the newborn, not the parents. Advocating "cosmetic", "non-therapeutic" surgery on newborns is NOT just, and should be considered reason enough to constitute revoking one's ability to practice medicine.
Doctors know there is lots of money to be made in circumcising newborns. There's money in it for all the complications, both immediate and long term. Psychologically speaking, there's drugs to deal with PTSD. There's drugs to deal with erectile dysfunction and sexual displeasure. There's BIG money in selling foreskins to biotechnology labs. It's a MEDICAL FRAUD, and it's these poor, innocent, helpless babies and children who're paying the high price for these doctors' circumcision related profits. They don't pay for it just at the time of their surgery, but for THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.

Linda of MI 11:17PM January 14, 2011

I'm glad to see that the only two pro-circ comments on this thread are from obvious nutcases. The first a young male from the Philippines who I regretfully see is now working in Texas as an RN.
The Philippines is one of the few circumcising nations on Earth, where male circumcision is a primitive tribal ritual. As a gay man he obviously has no appreciation for what he is missing out on, and as a Christian he is obviously unaware of the manifold pronouncements within the New Testament of the irrelevance of male circumcision to spirituality. He mentions Genesis 17 (a reference to Jewish circumcision) but fails to mention Leviticus 18 which is used by fundamentalist Christians to condemn homosexuality.
He also fails to state that the only reason their neighbour, South Korea, practices RIC is because of American military influence during the Korean War. His blogspot has an apt name for his mental state.
The second pro-circ comment is from a person who calls himself 'Ralph Mouth' and who indeed sounds like Ralph from the Simpsons regurgitating the most inane and stupid American propaganda on genital aesthetics.
All in all we have both the religious argument ("foreskin is a powerful symbol of sin") and the secular argument ("the look of an intact penis is gross and should have no place in America") covered. If sin does exist then surely the greater sin is to defile God's creation in the most heinous way by mutilating the genitals of a child. And it is the idea that intact genitalia look "gross" that is gross. If American's want to look better they can start by losing weight; leave personal genital aesthetics up to the individual and the decision of whether to surgically (read "cosmetically") alter genitals up to the owner.

Anthony 6:37AM January 10, 2011

What male wants to cut off part of their body on purpose? let alone their penis! circumcision should be illegal for all babies! I made an uninformed decision because I was never told anything by doctors, nurses etc. Now I have to feel guilty forever for making a decision I should never have had to make in the first place!

Becky of WI 1:54PM December 10, 2010