One of the things that baffle me is why are there parents who still want their baby boys to be circumcized?
I am not sure it is a necessary procedure. I think it is done in the name of tradition in the U.S., being a Jewish tradition that caught on. In Brazil boys are not circumsized, as in many parts of Europe. Pro-circumcision advocates say that it eliminates the chances of infection/diseases. I think that anyone with poor hygiene can have that problem. What about the fact that circumcized men are less sensitive in the area? I know men who are not circumcized and never had any problems at all with their foreskin. I am thinking of the pain a baby boy has to go through, and the added cost of the procedure in hospitals (and profit…).
I recently saw statistics that only half of babies are now circumcized. That’s good. I just wish that the babies had a say in that, and not the parents, sometimes motivated by religion and ancient traditions. I sure do not know the medical aspects very well, but I see it as barbaric, almost as bad as the female circumcision. Thoughts?
Look at this blogger from www.benettontalk/2007/10/ comments on the subject:
Over the last century, circumcision has become very popular worldwide (actually that is not true, only in the Anglo and Muslim worlds). According to a National Opinion Research Center survey, in 1965 about 85 percent of all American baby boys were circumcised, not only amongst Jewish people. Many felt, and continue to think, that circumcision has many hygienic and health advantages for the patient. Then things began to change. First, there is an increased awareness of the risks (blood loss, infection etc.) involved. By 2004, the rate had fallen to about 57 percent in the US, while the Canadian Paediatric Society did “not recommend circumcision for newborn boys.”
“I don’t believe it’s medically necessary,” Ayal says. “If we’ve done it, it’s just for cultural reasons.” Male circumcision in Judaism is a positive and obligatory commandment, attesting to a special relationship with God. Ignoring it is often seen in active Jewish communities as a rejection of Jewish religious and cultural tradition. “Never mind what we actually decided to do, just us having doubts about it was a challenge to our community”.
“I think circumcision rates will generally decrease when performed just for medical reasons,” Ayal continues. “They will stay the same where they’re connected with cultural practices”. Meanwhile in the US an increasing number of Jewish people are becoming “Intactivists”, refusing to circumcise their sons, as some Jewish writers and doctors make statements against it.
“At the end, we’re still not sure,” Ayal admits. “I don’t really know what we would do if we had a second son.”
This is an old Jewish tradition that is based in religion. It is not as bad as the female circumcision, but there is also a reduced sensitivity in a man’s future sex life.
A baby boy cannot make a choice. Others are making it for him. The chances of having infection with the existence of the prepuce are fo those who have no hygiene. Why submit a baby to such pain, why engage hospital workers and resources to waste time with that?
Only the Anglo countries and Islamic countries still carry this barbaric procedure. South America and Europe do not inflict that in their newborns.
I know men who are circumcized and those who are not, and the uncircumcized ones have never had any problems with their extra “skin”. And some men who are complain about less sensation in the area. By the way, the foreskin is very similar to the clitoris skin, full of nerves.
Follow this person on Twitter for more articles about how male circumcision is a barbaric and unnecessary pratice: http://twitter.com/Mindofown
Anyways, maybe it should be optional, when someone reaches adulthood?
Update 7/10/09: watch this video with Christopher Hitchens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U93ZiR692l4
- Being a mother
- Being a woman
- Dating world
- Difference between cultures
- Social Media
- World Events/News