Public health officials are considering promoting required circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States. Officials hope that taking this action will help slow down the spread of H.I.V. and AIDS. The proposal that circumcision will be required in the United States has already generated controversy. Read about it below.
Required Circumcision for
All Baby Boys Born in the United States?
There is scientific evidence that circumcision can lead to a reduction in the risk of males contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. AIDS has been at epidemic levels in Africa and studies show that African men who have been circumcised reduce their risk of getting AIDS by half. The clinical trials performed in Kenya, South Africa and Uganda focused on heterosexual males who were at risk from getting HIV from infected female sexual partners. The studies showed they were 60% less likely to become infected with AIDS if they had been circumcised. Circumcision did not seem to have an impact on the likelihood of homosexual men contracting the disease.
As a result, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States is considering a proposal that all newborn baby boys in the United States should be circumcised. They are also considering offering the surgery to heterosexual adult males whose sexual behavior is such that they are at greater risk for the disease.
An official proposal hasn’t been made yet, but is expected to be made by the end of the year.
The problem with the studies being applied to males in the United States is that there is a huge discrepancy between available medical care in the United States and the countries studied in Africa. There is also a difference in the populations most at risk. While heterosexual males are at risk in Kenya, South Africa and Uganda, homosexual males are more at risk in the United States. The study shows that circumcision doesn’t impact the risk level for homosexual men.
The predominance of circumcised men in the United States has been cyclical over the years. At times it is just more common for baby boys to be circumcised than others. But, there is a higher percentage of males circumcised in the U.S. than many other countries, primarily because of the influence of Judaism. About 79% of adult men in the U.S have been circumcised. Even so, the numbers have dropped off since a high of 80% of newborn boys being circumcised right after World War II. White males are more likely to be circumcised than Black or Hispanic males.
The controversy is over whether or not it is necessary to expose newborn boys to unnecessary surgeries. It is apparent that circumcision would help reduce the out of control AIDS epidemic in Africa, but would it make a difference in the United States? Its reported that the largest ‘at risk’ population in the United States wouldn’t benefit from circumcision, so I’m not quite sure what the point is of requiring it.
It seems that providing education as to the risks and benefits would be helpful, and allowing parents to make informed decisions about whether or not to have their child circumcised. Having it required will only create controversy and anger on the part of many parents who already feel the government is too intrusive in our lives. Circumcision is a delicate topic for some people. Some people have strong feelings for and against it. Some of it is religious and some is health oriented. The point is, its a pretty personal decision and most people don’t want the centralized government making the decision for them.
The money spent on requiring this procedure could be spent on education about it with plenty left over to put into more productive preventative medicines. There would probably be some left over to help offer circumcisions in African nations if they wanted the help. Either way, NOT having required circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States would save money and a lot of irritation on the part of the people. Let parents decide.
What are your thoughts?
Photo: Nils Fretwurst
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:25 pm
This is a terrible idea for many reasons, the most fundamental of which is that removing sexual tissue from a nonconsenting human, male or female, is cruel and evil, unless absolutely medically necessary.
Would we even consider a similiar policy for newborn girls if we discovered that trimming a female’s vulva conferred a similar protective effect against HIV?
Circumcision often removes an integral part of a male’s sexuality - the frenular area and in particular the frenulum. Ask any intact male to describe the importance of this tissue and it will become quickly apparent that male circumcision is a form of sexual destruction.
If an adult male or female wishes to have tissue removed, for whatever reason, then that is fine.
In fact many adult males do indeed choose to do this, but spare the most sensitive areas. Babies are not so fortunate, as many methods completely ablate the ventral inner prepuce.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:04 am
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/
Please, please be educated about this brutal procedure!
Watch one for yourself before you decide on this!
I know you will change your mind forever and will help educate others against circumcision!
August 24th, 2009 at 12:34 am
even if there is a higher chance of a man getting an STD if the man isn’t circumcised is negligible come paired with his sexual practices. (e.g., if he uses condoms, if he has more than one partner, etc.)
so the money spent on circumcising all baby boys would have more of an effect on spending the money on sexual education.
and you all know the saying ‘if it’s not broken, don’t fix it’?
we are doing more damage to the male population removing the foreskin than we would if they are left the way they are, and having a slightly higher chance of infections or contraction deasises.
we’ve got to spot looking at the foreskin as a bad thing, something that is just causing problems. and start to look at is as something which is ment to be there, something that protects the penis and prevents the skin from being dryed out by the everyday wear and tear of being next to fabric most of the time.
August 24th, 2009 at 1:07 am
This is sick. We can’t let kids out of the house because of pedophiles. And now we can’t let them have foreskins because of AIDS. Why don’t we just box them up? “For their safety and comfort.”
August 24th, 2009 at 4:24 am
l want to see how child born
August 24th, 2009 at 4:52 am
NO NO NO Advise, educate, but do not force!
August 24th, 2009 at 5:15 am
One issue I have never heard discussed is the fact that circumcision makes intercourse more painful for the wife, thus increasing the need for KY jelly. The foreskin is designed to unroll during penetration, thus self-lubricating. I am uncircumcised white man - those who have been circumcised don’t know what they’re missing.
August 24th, 2009 at 5:38 am
The CDC does not have, nor do they claim to have, authority to require any procedure be done to infants. They do not have the authority to withhold reimbursement, or set healthcare policy.
This blog post tries to make the case that circumcision will become mandatory because there is an unfinished draft of a proposal to the advisory committee of the CDC to recommend circumcision in most cases. Sensationalistic drivel.
August 24th, 2009 at 5:45 am
20,000 FINE TOUCH AND STRETCH nerve endings should be amputated from baby boys without asking the owner? You want to take their main pleasure zones and expose them to srtaph infection. This is such crap.
There is a greater chance of the baby boy getting MRSA staph from this in a US hospital than the same kid getting HIV through his life. This is such a strange idea that one wonders why the US Meds have this obsession. We have higher HIV and very high Circ rate as compared to natural uncut EU and JP. Could it be cut male Drs and female MDs that are from cut tradition are trying to find a way to keep this barbaric practice going in the US? No other developed country is saying this! They think we are obsessed with choping off baby boy genitals.
The alleged risk change (not seen in non african studies) is from 3.2% risk to about 1.78 % risk. The individual does not get much from this. One needs to avoid risk and use a condom.
This is a fraud pushed by people that don’t have it or don’t know the main male pleasure zones are in the parts cut off by circumcision. One thing is certain, no person should have pleasure zones amputated without being asked. Stop doing this to babies.
August 24th, 2009 at 5:53 am
Female genital mutilation is outlawed and male circumcusion is promoted! Who does benefit from these practices? Think people!