CDC accepting comments on circumcision recommendation. Now is the time to tell the CDC that genital mutilation of boys is unacceptable.

IndianaKid · 2014-12-02T22:39:47+00:00

Here's the main problem I have with the CDC's study: It was performed on consenting adults, and they're using this to justify nonconsensual removal of the foreskin from infants. I think that like many of you, I see no issue with the voluntary, informed choice of adults to be circumcised for whatever reason, but I don't know how you can morally support the routine mutilation of infants with otherwise perfectly normal foreskin.

awesomedan24 · 2014-12-03T05:14:04+00:00

Here's what I wrote:

While I am not opposed to an informed adult male making the choice to have himself circumcised, I believe that the compulsory circumcision of anyone under the age of majority is morally reprehensible.

One passage of the supplementary information I find particularly egregious is the following: "Such decision making [regarding circumcision] is made in the context of not only health considerations, but also other social, cultural, ethical, and religious factors."

I do not think United States physicians should be in the business of involuntary surgery for the sake of "social, cultural or religious factors." To me, that is reminiscent the female genital mutilation seen in Africa, where females' genitals are cut because of "social, cultural or religious factors." That being said, it should be made clear that the majority of female circumcision is far more severe, though this should not foster apathy regarding the ethics of male circumcision.

If a young boy feels compelled to be circumcised in order to fulfill cultural norms, I think he should be counseled to learn to accept, love and appreciate his natural body, not counseled to be convinced of the "benefits" of the procedure.

The conversation regarding circumcision in the United States often centers around "benefits" and "risks" though seldom do any US reports mention the functions of the foreskin. The foreskin offers protection for the glans from becoming desensitized and forming a layer of keratin that reduces sensitivity. The foreskin itself is highly innervated with thousands of fine-touch nerve endings, the exact number of which is unknown. In terms of mechanical function, it provides a natural lubricant and gliding motion, reducing pain and abrasion for both partners during intercourse.

As an adult male, I regret that my infant circumcision was performed on me, even more so that it was done for religious reasons. There is always a chance that a child will regret their involuntary circumcision, and they can never get back that innervated tissue. On the other hand, if an adult male is regretful that his penis was left intact, he can always have the procedure done as an adult, and be cut exactly the way he wants, while infants' foreskins are cut however the doctor chooses to do so.

The CDC website itself lists the risk of HIV transmission from receptive and insertive penile-vaginal intercourse at rates of .08% and .04% respectively. If condoms are used, HIV transmission is negligible. Circumcision may be seen by some as a justification for having unsafe sex.

Europe generally has much lower rates of circumcision, yet their rates of HIV and STI transmission tend to be lower as well.

Regarding general hygiene, smegma is found in both male and female genitalia and is easily washed away with water.

I have no doubt that the majority of healthcare professionals who read this will see it as a radical fringe opinion, I see it as fulfillment of the Hippocratic Oath with "utmost respect for human life from its beginning." Ablation of healthy living tissue from a baby boy's penis is no way to welcome him into the world.

I commend the CDC for not blatantly recommending routine infant circumcision, though I believe the "benefits and risks" of the procedure should be reevaluated while taking into the account with the many functions and benefits of the foreskin.

Thank you.

zpatriarchy · 2014-12-02T18:31:26+00:00

i don't see where to leave the comments?

benjiatwork · 2014-12-02T19:36:32+00:00

Your link is to a statement published in 2013. How about you post where we can actually submit a comment?

nothari · 2014-12-03T03:04:54+00:00

Here is where you should send comments on the current initiative:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CDC-2014-0012-0001

Gawrsh · 2014-12-03T04:23:09+00:00

Maybe the mods could sticky this at the top of the page so people know about it?

roharareddit · 2014-12-04T12:49:30+00:00

The page has been taken down! Does anyone have a screen cap of the original?

wufoo2 · 2014-12-11T16:15:24+00:00

Here's a more direct link:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CDC-2014-0012-0001

flyingvacuum · 2014-12-02T19:27:19+00:00

I worked as an Urology tech, in my experience circumcision was useful to deal with several urological issues, but was not necessary for everyone. Me personally, doing circs for kids made sense to me but thats because I've cleaned 70+ year olds and its nasty. All that the CDC is really saying is that it can reduce issues for some medical problems and to use some consideration either way.

icecow · 2014-12-02T17:38:33+00:00

I don't get it. I'm circumcised and glad. I also don't understand how 'genital mutilation' refers both to removing some extra skin for a male and to cutting out the clitoris in a female. Not comparable. Word disparity.

EDIT: I learned a lot. Kinda ironic all this information was buried because people down voted my inquiry.

Title	CDC accepting comments on circumcision recommendation. Now is the time to tell the CDC that genital mutilation of boys is unacceptable.
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	69
Comments	84
Date	December 2, 2014 5:30 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2o29a4/cdc_accepting_comments_on_circumcision/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/cdc-accepting-comments-on-circumcision.992682 https://theredarchive.com/post/992682

Comments