The Child Abuse Prevention Council defines child abuse as “Any act of omission or commission that endangers a child’s physical or emotional health and development.”1 Child abuse is a felony. Yet thousands of parents each year commit an act that does endanger their child’s health and development, all without consequence. The majority of the United States actually condones it. Even doctors, who are supposed to protect the health of their patients. Thousands of parents do something that can cause their baby extreme amounts of pain and to potentially face lifelong suffering, disfiguring injuries, body image issues, or even death. One in 77 male neonatal (under 28 days old) deaths is caused by something completely preventable, unnecessary, and generally done because of its popularity. That’s over 100 babies a year in the United States alone, or about the same number as who die from SIDS. Given these facts, would you allow this? Any responsible parent would say no. ‘Of course not! Why would I do that to my child?’
All you have to do is tell your doctor you don’t want your son circumcised.
I know this is a hotly debated topic, so let me present you with some facts.
Nobody really knows how many little boys are killed due to circumcision. After all, many of these deaths are reported as ‘natural causes,’ ‘hemorrhage,’ ‘meningitis,’ ‘staphylococcus,’ etc.2 Of course, it’s not only death one needs to worry about. Some boys develop necrotizing fasciitis (galloping gangrene). Their skin dies—sometimes just on the penis, and sometimes on the testicles, thighs, and abdomen. Imagine your little boy having to have a third of the skin on his body removed and grafted, being horribly scarred for the rest of his life. Many boys end up with staph infections due to the open wound on his penis being near fecal matter in his diaper. A friend of mine contracted meningitis and nearly died. And imagine, if you would, how much a cut that size can bleed. A baby only needs to lose a tablespoon of blood before he is in danger of hypovolemic shock and needs a blood transfusion. What if your son has hemophilia and you don’t know it? After all, most circumcisions are performed when a baby is only a few days old. Slap a diaper on him, thinking you’re good to go, and he may bleed to death before you even realize what’s happening.
Many circumcisions are performed by placing some sort of clamping device around the foreskin. Sometimes these can slip down onto the shaft of the penis and cause degloving. The skin of the penis will slide down toward the base. This can cause many complications. Degloving can also happen if the outside of the foreskin is cut but the inside isn’t. Still other boys end up having the head of their penises completely cut off—by accident, of course—and end up horribly disfigured. Sometimes the entire penis is, or needs to be amputated. There have been cases where these little boys are surgically turned into little girls following a botched circumcision. To hear a particularly tragic case, look up David Reimer.
Sometimes, the glans is severed, or the meatus (urethral opening) develops ulcers. Sometimes the skin is twisted. Sometimes veins are severed and re-route themselves or get knotted. During circumcision procedures, the foreskin has to be physically scraped off the glans; this can cause scarring and other disfigurations.
A big argument for circumcisions is that it ‘looks nicer’ or ‘most boys are circumcised; I don’t want Junior to feel embarrassed because he is different.’ Do you really feel comfortable putting your son at risk of injury and death just because it ‘looks nicer’? Just so he won’t be made fun of in the locker room? What if your son would look nicer with differently-colored eyes? And kids get made fun of all the time, for every reason you can think of. It’s not a rational excuse.
The negative effects of circumcision aren’t always seen immediately, either. Frequently, they’re not present until puberty or adulthood; no doctor can predict how much a boy’s penis will grow once he hits puberty. If the person performing the procedure (often a nurse or inexperienced intern performing his first surgery, not a doctor) removes too little skin, there can be adhesions (the healing skin will stick together, forming unsightly ‘skin bridges’ between the glans and shaft) and overhang. If too much skin is removed, when the penis becomes erect, scrotal tissue will be pulled up the shaft, resulting in a ‘hairy shaft,’ skin that is too tight and often painful during intercourse, unnatural curvature, and an unpleasant aesthetic. In adulthood, serious complications occur in 18% of men due to circumcision, and 6% of men end up with erectile dysfunction3 (some studies have reported substantially increased instances of erectile dysfunction in circumcised men; other studies reported negligible difference).4
There is, supposedly, scientific evidence suggesting that circumcision helps to prevent HIV. This is not proven to be the case (the studies were all ended prematurely)5. But even if it was true, it is far from 100% effective; condoms and other safer sex practices are far more effective at preventing HIV. And there may be evidence to suggest that a circumcised male is more likely to pass on HIV to another person than is an uncircumcised male.6
In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that “there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.”7
Some folks claim that a circumcised penis is ‘cleaner’ and more hygienic. In reality, the penis is just like any other part of the body; it just needs to be washed properly.
Another claim is that penile cancer is more likely in an uncircumcised penis; this is true in a tiny percentage of cases: those few males whose foreskin will not retract by adulthood. This is because remnants of HPV and carcinogens caused by tobacco released in urine use cannot be rinsed away. These men should consider having their foreskin made retractable, or simply rinsing underneath with a bulb syringe. This does not require a circumcision, and is only a problem in smokers and sexually active men.8
Given all of this, one begins to wonder why this atrocious, unnecessary, and archaic practice is still legal.
Footnotes:
1 http://www.capcsac.org/abuse
2 http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
3 http://tessera2009.blogspot.com/2009/05/circumcision-and-hivaids.html
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision
5http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193
6 http://www.avert.org/circumcision-hiv.htm
7http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm
8 http://www.cirp.org/library/hygiene/
And for more information about the intact penis, visit http://www.circumstitions.com
Well said!
Thanks bundles, Eric. I took my lead from you, ya know.
Of course, you’re more in the professional vein; I’m just a dude writing shit. But hey… if, once I write a few more, you like them and felt like maybe sharing the link with your millions of friends, fans, and followers, that’d be a-okay. 
Nicely put together and plenty of supporting facts, very nice, especially for your first post.
Thank you very much! :-*
Well put. I was circumcised at birth and I really wish my parents had left my body whole. After all, it is my body, not their’s. I am the one who will use my penis, not them. My body, my choice.
Exactly. It is your body, and it should be your choice. And if a person who isn’t circumcised decides to get clipped later in life, then regrets that decision, at least the regret is on their own heads, not their parents’. After all, you can always cut a foreskin off, but you can’t just slap one back on. I’m sorry for your misfortune, and really wish people were more educated on the topic, and considered their children’s future feelings.
I agree it has no business being ‘routine’ in hospitals, but for those of faiths that circumcision is a requirement, I am going to have to say that is their right. Would it be nice if they waited until the kid could make up its mind? Sure, but just as I don’t expect religions to have the right to dictate their morals onto me, I have no right to dictate my morals onto them.
A circumcision done properly and properly cared for cuts down the risk- a risk present with any kind of procedure where a person is cut and sadly mistakes happen all the time with routine procedures that are ‘elective’- shall we ban those too?
Yes, I understand you are trying to say the parent has no right to make that particular decision for a child, but I am not buying that either. The parent is responsible for their child and until that child is an adult, the parents make the decisions and if that includes rearing the child as Jewish, which circumcision of males is a sacred rite, then that is the parent’s decision. Should something go wrong and it be found out that the child was not properly cared for after or had been exposed to an unsanitary procedure done by someone who didn’t know what they were doing, then yes, that would be child abuse.
You’ll notice that I didn’t bring religion into this– religion is its own special entity. Jewish circumcisions are typically performed by a mohel, not a doctor, at a synagogue, not a hospital or doctor’s office. Therefore, there is always that special exemption. The law usually can’t touch religion, so there’s no point in talking about it. However, I can debate. Religions do not always have complete freedom, and shouldn’t.
Say I have a son (which I don’t), and said son is mauled by a bear or has his arm amputated in a car accident or something, and needs medical attention. Now, pretend I take him to the hospital and they say he needs a blood transfusion in his surgery. I tell them no, then scoop him up and take him home, where he dies of exsanguination. I would be arrested and likely prosecuted for felony child abuse, child abuse resulting in the death of a child, child endangerment, willful neglect, and negligent homicide or manslaughter.
Yet, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a protected class because of their religious status, don’t believe in blood transfusions. Would this situation be okay for them? Would they be protected? Could they take their son home and let him die? Short answer: probably not. The doctors would do the surgery anyway. At some point, they would likely end up in court– either before the procedure (if there was time) to be awarded with temporary guardianship of the child because the parent was unfit, or after the procedure, to defend themselves against a malpractice suit issues by either the parents of the injured child, or by the state because of missing consent forms, or at least by the medical board to discuss the ethics of the case. And the child would be okay.
And some religions believe in human sacrifice. We don’t allow that either. So saying that just because it’s their religion, that means it’s their freedom to do what they want to their child doesn’t make for a foolproof argument.
And also, as for parents making decisions for their child– yes, they do all the time. Of course. But I can’t think of another decision that is made that is injurious to the child and has a risk of death and almost complete permanence. If a parent chooses his child’s school, the kid can go to whatever University he wants when he’s an adult. If a parent wants to raise his kid to be Jewish, the kid can convert to Catholicism or any other religion (or lack of religion) when he’s an adult. He has the freedom to do that.
But if the kid is circumcised and decides as an adult that he doesn’t like it, there’s very little he can do. He can’t convert to intactism. That’s the difference.
And with elective procedures– if a person is old enough to understand and sign a consent form for themselves, then by all means go for it. An infant cannot sign a consent form.
Hullo, I was wondering why I hadn’t seen much from you recently ’till I found this site! I think it’s a marvelous idea.
Ok, so I’m English and over here circumcision is (as far as I’m aware) rather uncommon. For the vast majority of us, it never even crosses our minds. Is it not the same over there? I wonder what it’s actually like for the boys at school – do they really compare foreskins?! If so, ew, but then I can understand the feelings of the parents. I have to say I come down firmly on the ‘why bother’ side; there seems to be no real benefit to circumcision, provided the boy/bloke in question then remembers to wash properly!
Thanks for popping by!
I think in most of the world circumcision is pretty uncommon (the only places, I think, that it’s really common are the USA and the Middle East (and areas with a high Jewish population, of course). One begins to wonder why, if it’s sooooo necessary (according to many Americans), nobody else around the world does it, and those that do, generally do it for religious reasons.
I think all little boys compare their goods, or at least see each others’. There’s always nudity in locker rooms, and nearly every American male will end up in a locker room at some point in his life. But really, it’s a lot worse if the kid ends up, say, having his penis accidentally amputated, horribly scarred, or burned, than just, y’know, retaining something he was born with.