A Collection of Information Resources for Expectant Parents
Here are a few more of the arguments and counter-arguments concerning
The removal of the foreskin ensures that it will never become
cancerous, but a man is more at risk of breast cancer than foreskin
cancer. Should men then have their breasts removed at birth? The American
Cancer Society says that circumcision should not be promoted as a
preventative measure for penile cancer, cervical cancer, or any other
Some doctors think that because the circumcised penis stays
drier, it should be less susceptible to the AIDS virus. Yet others
have argued that skin abrasion during intercourse is far more
common in circumcised men, making AIDS infection more likely.
They point out that the highest AIDS rates in the world are found
in the US and Africa, both of which are among the only regions that already have high rates
of circumcision. Either way, this argument is dangerous. Suppose
for a moment that your son in his adulthood thinks his penile
condition makes him safer from AIDS or any other disease. The
only possible influence of such an idea would be to make him less
cautious in a sexual encounter where a spontaneous decision is
required. Condoms, not foreskins or the lack of them, are the
only effective precaution during sexual intercourse.
Some have argued that the circumcised penis is easier to keep
clean. The same argument would apply to our fingers, if only we
had the nails removed. Does someone want to advocate that newborn
infants have their fingernails removed before they leave the hospital?
While some research indicated higher rates of urinary tract infection (UTI) in intact boys, analysis of the data shows that UTI is not the pivotal issue. Other research has indicated that circumcision itself puts boys at immediate risk of UTI.
The surgical removal of sexual tissue can almost certainly reduce the
incidence of some diseases. Islamic physicians seem to have evidence
that this can be even more effective in females than it is in males.
The most common female circumcision removes only the hood (the foreskin)
from the clitoris. Then the vaginal orifice is sewed almost closed.
Statistics show that as a group these women begin their sex lives later
and have fewer sex partners, which means they are exposed to fewer
diseases. Islamic medical institutions have produced statistics which
show these women live significantly longer. This is a more compelling
"benefit" than any claimed for male circumcision.
Such "benefits" of both male and female circumcision work only to
the degree that they cripple one's sexuality. Such results don't justify
the removal of healthy body parts from non-consenting juveniles.
Whatever their stated or underlying motives may be, those who desire to
sexually mutilate children must at least learn to content themselves
with mutilating only their own children.
What happens when a child circumcision goes wrong?