# US CDC initiative to promote routine circumcision for all baby boys raises it's head **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 24, 2009, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442 "2009-08-24T01:22:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/121 "2009-08-26T04:37:27Z")
I doubt it. But I doubt there are many who were circumcised who care either, unless they’re completely self-absorbed and have nothing else in life to complain about. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/122 "2009-08-26T04:42:26Z")
I think that’s probably true too. I think most people are just happy with whatever they’re used to. But there’s only one direction you can switch in later on if you want to. But, whatever. Like I said, I don’t really care that much, so I suppose I don’t really have much to contribute to this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/123 "2009-08-26T04:44:26Z")
I think so too. I’m sincerely sorry for using words like “disgusting,” by the way. I didn’t mean to insult anyone. I get carried away sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/124 "2009-08-26T04:51:45Z")
Thanks, I appreciate that. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/125 "2009-08-26T05:01:12Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > A) Among all the myriad other things parents have to put up with for babies (e.g., cleansing them of their fecal excretions), I’m surprised that this in particular would stand out so. > > B) Foreskins generally don’t retract until puberty; it’s not something the parent would have to worry about beyond instructing the child to cleanse it on their own at the appropriate age. > > I’m a little wounded by you calling my penis disgusting, but alright, whatever; those are your aesthetic preferences, and there’s never going to be a situation where the incompatibility between them and me will be relevant. And I don’t have any major problem with infant circumcision; silly as I think it is, I’m definitely not worked up over it. But, I do wonder: Are there large numbers of people who were not circumcised as an infant and who came to regret this dearly? I think that maybe DtC is a little homophobic here and just can’t bear to even see his (hypothetical) son’s dick unless somebody thinks he gets turned on by it. And just to nitpick - I think the foreskin retracts well before puberty, isn’t it around 5 or 6? I remember mine retracting long before I got even fuzz on the cojones. Its one of the biggest misconceptions that parents have to retract a foreskin to clean it - nothing more is required when cleaning your baby boy than a swipe of the area with a soapy cloth - in comparison to changing dressings etc for the circumcised baby for the first few days. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/126 "2009-08-26T05:11:37Z")
I thought that comment of **DtC** ’s was silly, as I remarked upon above, but I don’t think your accusation is fair or helpful to the discussion. As for foreskin retraction, I suppose it must vary from person to person, but the sites I looked at before making that post seemed to back up what I was saying. But I’ll grant that I could be underinformed on that point (in my own now hazy memories, I could _partially_ retract long before I could fully retract, so perhaps that also clouds the discussion). At any rate, the main point was that, as you say, it’s not something that’s done while still a baby; [indeed, doing it prematurely can apparently be harmful](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forcible_retraction_of_the_foreskin). ---
**Author:** ![wierdaaron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eada6e/32.png) [@wierdaaron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wierdaaron)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/127 "2009-08-26T05:24:05Z")
Here’s a weird thought puzzler: If there were a way to quickly (under a minute), completely, safely remove the appendix from the body with a 100% success rate and with no chance of major complications, and it healed in under a day, but could ONLY be done within the first week after birth, would you have it done for your kid? Lets say at least 70% of people in the US are already doing this and have been for years. Lets also assume that the common conjecture is proven correct, that the appendix is completely vestigial and serves no function. The only thing the appendix can ever do is become infected later in life and/or burst, causing lots of pain, requiring an invasive surgery, and potentially be life-threatening. So do you have it removed, removing the chance of problem later, or leave him be? ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/128 "2009-08-26T05:30:36Z")
I don’t have a dog in the fight, so if I have boys it’ll be their father’s decision. > [@wierdaaron](#): > > Think how much pain the babies could be spared by not cutting the umbilical cord. The answer is none. The umbilical cord doesn’t have any nerves that contain [pain receptors](http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/umbilical-cord/PR00046). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/129 "2009-08-26T06:51:58Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > I think that maybe DtC is a little homophobic here and just can’t bear to even see his (hypothetical) son’s dick unless somebody thinks he gets turned on by it. This is asinine. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/130 "2009-08-26T07:23:37Z")
> [@wierdaaron](#): > > Here’s a weird thought puzzler: > > If there were a way to quickly (under a minute), completely, safely remove the appendix from the body with a 100% success rate and with no chance of major complications, and it healed in under a day, but could ONLY be done within the first week after birth, would you have it done for your kid? Lets say at least 70% of people in the US are already doing this and have been for years. > > Lets also assume that the common conjecture is proven correct, that the appendix is completely vestigial and serves no function. The only thing the appendix can ever do is become infected later in life and/or burst, causing lots of pain, requiring an invasive surgery, and potentially be life-threatening. > > So do you have it removed, removing the chance of problem later, or leave him be? Yeah, I’d probably go the removal route (but your 100% success rate is unrealistic, so if it was anything less that 100% I might have a different answer). In any case, I don’t think there’s any value in making analogies for the topic debate of this thread. People are prone to bring up female genital mutilation or similar examples to use as analogies - which just don’t work in the subject issue. Better to stick to the exact issue at hand and discuss the pros and cons of male circumcision. For my two cents I agree with the majority that it’s a terrible idea to make circumcision mandatory. Although I think parents should be free to choose what they believe is best. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/131 "2009-08-26T09:21:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is asinine. And this is a well reasoned, mature and well thought through comment? “we’re cutting that shit off. I ain’t retracting no foreskins to clean no dicks. Not even for my own kid” :rolleyes: One preview I see you have apologised for the “foreskins are disgusting” comment, so I guess that an olive branch is in order. Seriously speaking though I do wonder just how much of the “anti foreskin” brigade comes from some sort of fear of the penis, sex or the myth that snipping it reduces masturbation. Somebody that’s too scared to touch the penis is of course going to have many more problems with cheese, phimosis and other problems. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/132 "2009-08-26T09:33:35Z")
This is really dumb. Mutilating sexual organs for some very vague very slight potential benefit that is much more easily and effectively gotten by wearing condoms is an insane twisted logic that rails against the Hippocratic Oath. > [@wierdaaron](#): > > It seems like most of the people “against” circumcision for their kids are women, and almost always just to save the baby a bit of pain they wont remember. I’m a male and against it. Aside from Jews and Muslims who do it for religious reasons, America is the only culture in the world that doesn’t see it as bizarre. We only see it as normal because of being used to it, and few are aware that it was originally promoted as a way to discourage masturbation and help certain psychological problems. > [@wierdaaron](#): > > Then there’s guys who grow up and feel somehow betrayed that they were circumsized without their permission. They’re just unsatisfied with life and are trying to find something to rail against. I think that’s a fairly reasonable thing to be upset about, and find your generalization extremely dubious. > [@wierdaaron](#): > > Even without the health benefits and all that, I’d almost definitely get my kid snipped just because it’s so popular. When a boy is young and insecure about his body and everything about it, the last thing he needs is to be the only kid in his class whose dingie looks different. Since every other kid is insecure, they’re of course checking everybody else’s tackle out, and they’ll single out the “different” kid with teasing just to make themselves look better. I’m circumcised and my stepdad is not. I spent plenty of time in locker rooms and the bathtub with him growing up and never noticed we had different ‘dingles’. I wasn’t even aware of the whole circumcision thing until high school. I think it’s more likely that someone pointing out the difference would be teased for checking out other guys dicks than the guy who was ‘different’. And of course perpetuating atrocities merely out of tradition is ridiculous. I suppose you feel that victims of abuse should beat up their wives and children so they don’t seem different than their parents… :rolleyes: > [@wierdaaron](#): > > There are situations that can arise later in life where it’s a medical necessity to have a circumcision performed. There are no situations later in life where it would be medically necessary to have foreskin attached. There are situations later in life where it becomes medically needed to remove breasts, but none where it is medically needed to have breasts attached. I suppose we should remove the breast nubs from all baby girls so they don’t get breast cancer later in life. ---
**Author:** ![Henrichek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@Henrichek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henrichek)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/133 "2009-08-26T12:07:01Z")
I just realized that I have no idea how the cut is done or what exactly is removed. So I looked up some illustration, and it seems worse than I had guessed. Topologically speaking, it seems like cutting off a ring of bark around a tree. The skin is folded while the cut is made, but if you then imagine pulling it back it would leave a ring around the penis with no skin. Doesn’t that mean you have to pull the remaining skin up and stitch it together? Ok, the tree analogy breaks down :). Or do I get it wrong? Please enlighten me. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/134 "2009-08-26T12:27:57Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > There are situations later in life where it becomes medically needed to remove breasts, but none where it is medically needed to have breasts attached. I suppose we should remove the breast nubs from all baby girls so they don’t get breast cancer later in life. Man, just imagine if there was a way where we could eliminate the risk of breast cancer in women via a minor neonatal surgery that _wouldn’t_ remove the entire breast but rather remove a small portion which wouldn’t affect the function, development or even really the significant look of it later on. That’d be pretty great, huh? Also, it’d make a lot more sense than comparing complete mastectomies to circumcision. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/135 "2009-08-26T14:49:25Z")
> [@Henrichek](#): > > Well, I wasn’t kidding. I’ve just searched around and since they seem to cite very clearly I assumed all is well. What makes that necessarily anti? What’s the reason to mistrust them? Where do I find a better source? Sites on circumcision vary wildly in their approach to the topic. On the other side: > **[CIRCUMCISION: An Evidence-Based Appraisal](https://www.circinfo.net/index.html)** > > A balanced up-to-date review of scientific studies on circumcision that have been published in reputable international medical and scientific journals. Personally, I “trust” neither. I am however persuaded by the weight of scientific evidence that circumcision has, overall, health benefits that outweigh the risks, though both benefits and risks are relatively minor (as is the procedure, which I’ve seen performed). I also see that the anti-circ side is more likely to be both passionate on the subject and less than accurate with the science and statistics, often offering misleading distortions (note the cite of a 2% complication rate when the actual rate is less than a tenth of that), ugly and emotive pics of botched procedures, claims of abuse, etc. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/136 "2009-08-26T15:14:55Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And really, “immoral?” Give me a break. I’m a victim of infant circumcision, how come it’s never bothered me? That’s nothing, my father had his wisdom teeth, tonsils and appendix forcefully removed against his will. Still, he managed to pull through. ---
**Author:** ![Henrichek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@Henrichek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henrichek)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/137 "2009-08-26T16:18:37Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Sites on circumcision vary wildly in their approach to the topic. On the other side: > > [CIRCUMCISION: An Evidence-Based Appraisal](http://www.circinfo.net/index.html) > > Personally, I “trust” neither. I am however persuaded by the weight of scientific evidence that circumcision has, overall, health benefits that outweigh the risks, though both benefits and risks are relatively minor (as is the procedure, which I’ve seen performed). I also see that the anti-circ side is more likely to be both passionate on the subject and less than accurate with the science and statistics, often offering misleading distortions (note the cite of a 2% complication rate when the actual rate is less than a tenth of that), ugly and emotive pics of botched procedures, claims of abuse, etc. Well, I don’t see evidence that anti-circ (we need a positive term here :-D) are less accurate or more passionate. The debate is probably much larger over there than it is here, since over here it’s pretty universally not done except for Jews and Muslims, and a majority of doctors refuse to perform the operation for ethical reasons. You’ve probably seen much more debate than me, so you may be right about that. Regarding the facts, both sides seem to have a piles and piles of papers to support their arguments, and I must say that I there’s no chance in hell for me to go through and verify the validity of their arguments nor methods. This leads me to take a neutral stance with respect to the health factors. About hygiene the pro-circ people seem to overestimate the difficulty of proper hygiene for an uncircumcised man. It’s just like washing any other part of the body, very very easy. As long as you maintain your hygiene by showering regularly, there won’t be any nasty smell or anything, and if you don’t, you’ll smell anyway. I’m not arguing much about the complication rates, as it is probably very low in the industrialized world (though not zero I believe), where proper hygiene is maintained. It might however be different for example in Africa. I think that can be left out of the debate for now. I think the comparison with tattoos is pretty good, and I hold the same opinion there. What do you think? Or are you convinced enough of the medical advantages? I’m not. Oppositely, I think the comparisons with appendices and tonsils and so on are worse, as those are legitimate medical concerns that can be very dangerous if they go untreated. What about loss of sensitivity? I would never trade that away. Just like condoms reduce sensitivity, so does the loss of a significant part of your foreskin and subsequent hardening. I think sex feels better without condoms, but there are good reasons for using them anyway, but any further reduction in sensitivity would be highly unwelcome for me. To me it seems like a wholly unnecessary and pretty much irreversible operation for no other reason that it’s a cultural habit whose adherents get defensive about because you don’t want to feel that you have been violated or something (weakly supported hypothesis:)). The belief that the natural state is somehow unclean or disgusting is very alien to me, and the alleged advantages are not convincing at this point. I apologize if I appear rabid, but I think the pro-circ people’s claims that there are strong undisputed advantages are weak at best, and misleading or hurtful at worst. Beliefs in those claims are probably self reinforcing as well. Other than that, I don’t have any strong agenda here. I mostly joined the fray because of some unsupported statements upthread. The difference in approach seems to be mostly cultural, and as with all other such differences, we are right. So, stop slicing the foreskin off your boys, adopt the metric system, forget about Jesus, and get fix universal health care already. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/138 "2009-08-26T16:46:23Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Man, just imagine if there was a way where we could eliminate the risk of breast cancer in women via a minor neonatal surgery that _wouldn’t_ remove the entire breast but rather remove a small portion which wouldn’t affect the function, development or even really the significant look of it later on. That’d be pretty great, huh? > > Also, it’d make a lot more sense than comparing complete mastectomies to circumcision. The reasoning is the same. Follow your own reasons to their logical conclusions. People think of circumcision as normal simply because it’s common here. If you compare it to any other analogous situation it becomes quickly apparent how bizarre it really is. With regard to your “not analogous” comment, 1. Circumcision _does_ affect the function, development, and significant look of the penis. Your imaginary scenario would be more like breasts which can still breast feed but have no nipples and tend to chafe more often. 2. True, not nearly to the extent of the mastectomy, but given that breast cancer is so much more likely and so much more deadly than anything circumcision supposedly benefits, and unlike circumcision there is no simple safe and nearly 100% effective alternative with no side effects, it actually seems like the mastectomy is _more_ reasonable, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/139 "2009-08-26T17:07:15Z")
> [@Henrichek](#): > > Well, I don’t see evidence that anti-circ (we need a positive term here :-D) are less accurate or more passionate. The debate is probably much larger over there than it is here, since over here it’s pretty universally not done except for Jews and Muslims, and a majority of doctors refuse to perform the operation for ethical reasons. You’ve probably seen much more debate than me, so you may be right about that. > > Regarding the facts, both sides seem to have a piles and piles of papers to support their arguments, and I must say that I there’s no chance in hell for me to go through and verify the validity of their arguments nor methods. This leads me to take a neutral stance with respect to the health factors. > > About hygiene the pro-circ people seem to overestimate the difficulty of proper hygiene for an uncircumcised man. It’s just like washing any other part of the body, very very easy. As long as you maintain your hygiene by showering regularly, there won’t be any nasty smell or anything, and if you don’t, you’ll smell anyway. > > I’m not arguing much about the complication rates, as it is probably very low in the industrialized world (though not zero I believe), where proper hygiene is maintained. It might however be different for example in Africa. I think that can be left out of the debate for now. > > I think the comparison with tattoos is pretty good, and I hold the same opinion there. What do you think? Or are you convinced enough of the medical advantages? I’m not. Oppositely, I think the comparisons with appendices and tonsils and so on are worse, as those are legitimate medical concerns that can be very dangerous if they go untreated. > > What about loss of sensitivity? I would never trade that away. Just like condoms reduce sensitivity, so does the loss of a significant part of your foreskin and subsequent hardening. I think sex feels better without condoms, but there are good reasons for using them anyway, but any further reduction in sensitivity would be highly unwelcome for me. > > To me it seems like a wholly unnecessary and pretty much irreversible operation for no other reason that it’s a cultural habit whose adherents get defensive about because you don’t want to feel that you have been violated or something (weakly supported hypothesis:)). > > The belief that the natural state is somehow unclean or disgusting is very alien to me, and the alleged advantages are not convincing at this point. > > I apologize if I appear rabid, but I think the pro-circ people’s claims that there are strong undisputed advantages are weak at best, and misleading or hurtful at worst. Beliefs in those claims are probably self reinforcing as well. Other than that, I don’t have any strong agenda here. I mostly joined the fray because of some unsupported statements upthread. > > The difference in approach seems to be mostly cultural, and as with all other such differences, we are right. So, stop slicing the foreskin off your boys, adopt the metric system, forget about Jesus, and get fix universal health care already. 😉 Canadian here - we have the universal health care already. Opinions may certainly vary on the relative passion of “advocates” of each side, but I will simply point out that the facts appear to be that there are many, many “anti” websites and “anti” folks are much more likely to go around questioning “pro” people about their choices, claim that they are engaged in child abuse, use loaded terms like “mutilation”, etc. While one I suppose has to be a physician to decisively evaluate the competing medical claims, in my opinion at least a good, arguable scientific case has been made that the procedure has benefits that outweigh the risks. Others may of course come to a different conclusion. The decision has nothing to do with the asethetic considerations. The “defensiveness” you assert has more to do with the wild accusations of “child abuse” that the more radical anti types tend to fling. Who doesn’t get somewhat defensive when they are accused of abusing their own children? ---
**Author:** ![Maia\_s\_Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3bc359/32.png) [@Maia\_s\_Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maia_s_Well)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442/140 "2009-08-26T17:25:43Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > While one I suppose has to be a physician to decisively evaluate the competing medical claims, in my opinion at least a good, arguable scientific case has been made that the procedure has benefits that outweigh the risks. Others may of course come to a different conclusion. The decision has nothing to do with the asethetic considerations. I would ask (not just you but everyone) whether, when evaluating risks vs. benefits, do you factor in the baby’s experience? Someone mentioned earlier that the child experiences “pain that they won’t remember”. I took this to mean this person assumes that painful events children don’t remember must therefore have no long-term effect? Because I’m not so sure about that, so I would factor in the child’s experience in making my decision (if I had a son, which I don’t). > [@](#): > > The “defensiveness” you assert has more to do with the wild accusations of “child abuse” that the more radical anti types tend to fling. Who doesn’t get somewhat defensive when they are accused of abusing their own children? This is an excellent point, and is one of my frustrations with debates here and IRL. It is human nature to get defensive when people throw emotionally-laden arguments around. I suppose this is fine if your intention is to make people feel bad (not that I’m saying anyone here wants to do that), but I don’t think that’s a productive way to “fight ignorance”. Accusing someone of abusing their child for fun and profit is hardly the way to get someone to consider your argument. I’m just sayin’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-cdc-initiative-to-promote-routine-circumcision-for-all-baby-boys-raises-its-head/507442.md?page=8)