Monday, April 27, 2009

Preventative Maintainence?

I don’t think I’ve done a post on the subject of circumcision yet so here goes.



One of the most contested subjects when it comes to infants is circumcision. Should little newborn infant boys have the foreskin removed from the tips of their penises or should they be left alone? I am personally of the opinion that unless there is a necessity to perform it then the foreskin should be left intact. By necessity I mean that there is a present danger or absolute certainty that there will be future complications. And this is where I get a bit lost. Quick question:



How many other body parts are removed from newborns for the reason that the removal MIGHT prevent future issues?


The appendix might rupture later in life and from what I understand that can cause a lot of complications. So does that mean the appendix should be removed at birth? Why not go ahead and take the tonsils out as well? Nip a possible future surgery in the bud before it becomes an issue.

Yes circumcision may lower the chances of a man contracting an STD but I'm sure there are plenty of circumcised men out there who still managed to contract one. Now don't get me wrong the possible prevention of disease is a good thing. However proper genital hygiene and safe sex also reduce the chance and they don't require a body part to be prematurely taken off. And then there is also the fact that circumcisions have been performed on infant boys long before any of these studies came about showing that it would help against STDs.

In the end I'm left wondering why in this day and age no other procedure is preformed as routine preventative maintenance on newborns while this one standard procedure.

1 comment:

elementary_watson said...

The STD argument is also pretty rubbish when you consider that the time of doing things which might get them an STD usually lies more than a freaking *decade* after the time of circumcision.

Too young to have sex = too young to be circumcised.

-->