Circumcision: The Elephant in the Hospital.

I’m going to try to make this a short as possible and spare literary embellishment to facilitate the dissemination of my beliefs about circumcision. I will be presenting my argument from an American point view, meaning that I do not want to apply these beliefs to foreign cultures.

I strongly feel that male circumcision violates the rights of a human child. In our culture we believe that people have the right to their body, this should include the right to the whole of their flesh. The decisions of a boy’s parents to remove his foreskin should not be available in my view of a better world.

Some people try to defend male circumcision as a protected religious or cultural practice, I will present two arguments that I believe successfully nullify this approach. The first is that in the United States the similar practice of female circumcision; or as it is more commonly and more appropriately called female genital mutilation, is illegal and considered child abuse by many Americans. This practice is supported by the cultural and religious traditions of many people. The second point that I would like to make is that forced circumcision violates the religious freedom of the child. This rite is not akin to a baptism in that if the child ages and decides not to follow the religion of their upbringing there is no genuine harm or foul. In this case they have been subjected to an irreversible procedure for a faith that they do not follow.

Others attempt to promote the circumcision of the young by touting that it decreases the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Even thought the validity of these claims is debated I would like to establish an effective rebuttal that works from a stand point that the aforementioned belief is accurate. Circumcision does not affect the spread of sexually transmitted diseases when prophylactics such as condoms are properly used. In the absence of condoms circumcision will not effectively shield an individual who continually engages in high risk sex. The spread of STDs is most effectively combated with proper education and safe sexual behavior.

I’ve heard some parents claim that they had their son “cut” because they wanted to spare them the pain of having a procedure that they would “know” their son would inevitably have latter in their life. Their justification for denying their child the right to their flesh is to spare the child pain or embarrassment. This to me represents the definition of overly protective. No matter what society or future sexual partners may think of the status of your child the only opinion that matters is their own. We as strong individuals also should strive to create society where we don’t shield our young from decisions because they are harrowing.

Finally I conclude that the prevention of child hood circumcision does not prevent a man from having the procedure latter in life. If I must be forced to declare an age at when circumcision is acceptable I will pick the age of fifteen. I feel as this is more than old enough for the boy to have a good enough understanding of their situation to properly decide how they want to proceed in life.