A very much heated and touchy talked about debate is whether or not to circumcise our nations young baby boys and the opinions are vast. Circumcision involves the surgical removal of the foreskin of a male (Our Sexuality, Pg 112). Some parents choose to remove the foreskin due to obligatory cultural and religious beliefs. Others argue that it is more hygienic, aesthetic, and will prevent STD’s later in the young boys life. However, this is a very neglectful argument and does not take in an infinite amount of counter arguments. If I were to have a son, I would not choose to have him circumcised due to the pain infants and young boys go through, its comparison to female circumcision, the loss of sensitivity, it being ultimately the boy’s choice, and alternative ways to ensure hygiene.
Denise Leto, a mother who chose not to circumcise her two boys, discusses her midwife’s bumper sticker in the article titled To Cut or not? Circumcision Controversy Flares by MSNBC author Victoria Clayton. Leto’s midwife’s bumper sticker reads, “100 percent of babies oppose circumcision” (Class Reader, Pg 117), and this is absolutely true. Less than half of infant boys that undergo this procedure receive analgesia (Our Sexuality Pg. 126). The other infant boys either are too small to receive any analgesia or their parents opt not to allow it. Complications from the surgery include bleeding, infection, cutting the foreskin too short or too long, and improper healing. The pain associated with circumcision could have long-lasting negative effects on future infant behavior as well as health risks such as hemorrhage, infections, mutilation, shock, and psychological trauma. The American Academy of Pediatrics changed their stance on the debate from a neutral one to a moderate opposition. If the AAP has an opposition to a procedure that many young boys have to endure, why are we still doing this to the nations baby boys?
When Americans think of female circumcision, they often are appalled...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document