Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Thank goodness it would only be a recommendation...

Okay as we all know circumcision has become the standard medical routine for newborn boys. Well in recent times people have begun to not only question the process but to start refusing to put their baby boys through it. Well you know what happens when you take someone's toys (in this case scalpels) away. They begin to dig for reasons to keep them.



It would seem that the Center for Disease Control may officially recommend that newborn boys be circumcised.

The reasoning for this is due to data from studies among African men showing that circumcised men were about 50% as likely to contract HIV and AIDS as those who weren't. Thing is that the vast majority of African men are heterosexual meaning that most of the spreading of HIV/AIDS is heterosexual contact whereas most of the spread of HIV/AIDS in the USA is homosexual. It would seem that here in the USA circumcision does not have the same effect on homosexual as heterosexual men. So at a seeming stalemate what may be the deciding concern to tip the balance? Women.

The people talking here seem to think that the deciding vote may be a matter of whether or not circumcision can reduce STIs and STDs in women. If such a thing can be shown then it may convince the deciding forces that recommending the cutting of little boys may be the right thing to do. Now don't get me wrong I'm all for protecting people from disease and infection but hold up. Its bad enough that males get drilled with the idea that suffering injury and death for women is the right thing to do but we could be looking at a surge in a routine in which baby boys are put through a painful surgery without their consent (and there is the slight but very damaging possibility that things go wrong) because it might reduce the risks of STDs and STIs in women. Interesting that no other body part, male or female, is removed under the guise of preventative maintenance.

Alright before doctors start sharpening their cutting tools would it not be worth it to you know...find out if simply teaching boys good hygiene would reduce the risks. Or how about teaching them about the practice of safe sex? It would be one thing if there was proof that the practice of safe sex and good hygiene were not as effective as cutting but I worry that the CDC is not going to bother with this and just reignite the innate desire to chop little boys up right after birth. Why? Because its the thing to do.

Good thing it would only be a recommendation...

3 comments:

OuyangDan said...

OMG yes! My husband and I have been having this discussion forever, it seems. I am against genital mutilation of any kind. He seems convinced (as does his dudebro friend) that it leads to disease and that it is too hard to take care of...blah blah blah.

On this issue I tell them that since I don't have a penis then I am not the authority, but I do repeatedly repeat my objections.

But we aren't having a kid anytime soon...

OuyangDan said...

OMG yes! My husband and I have been having this discussion forever, it seems. I am against genital mutilation of any kind. He seems convinced (as does his dudebro friend) that it leads to disease and that it is too hard to take care of...blah blah blah.

On this issue I tell them that since I don't have a penis then I am not the authority, but I do repeatedly repeat my objections.

But we aren't having a kid anytime soon...

Danny said...

I personally think that until there is some solid evidence that circumcision is actually more effective than good hygiene and safe sex (which are the responsibility of parents anyway) the procedure is simply a horrible thing that violates boys and robs them of their bodily autonomy.

-->