Cole, I think you are overreacting a bit. Firstly, the CDC has not yet made this decision. At worst, the recommendation will be changed. You write that circumcision will be imposed. How did you make this jump?

I say this as someone who did not have her son circumcised.

They will “impose” circumcision, but the “mandate wouldn’t make [it] completely mandatory”? Lets work on the language a bit.

The CDC pressuring parents to circumcise is one of the most asinine ideas I’ve heard of. My husband is Indian and grew up in Nigeria. He didn’t know anyone until he moved here who was circumcised. Instead of circumcising newborn boys out a remote fear of AIDS, why don’t we offer better education about safe sexual practices.

I see nothing offensive. Circumcision makes good sense. And if you weren’t aware, AIDs is more common here than you would think. The CDC says that roughly 1 in 300 Americans has AIDs with 21% undiagnosed. The most common forms of transmission are male to male or high rsk heterosexual sex. While many gay men are practicing safe sex, I suspect most who do not practice serial monogamy are not. Despite 30 years of fear, these high risk behaviors have not stopped.

This is an outrage. I have twin boys who I did not circumsize and this was something I feel VERY strongly about. My boys were premature and having issues feeding and losing too much weight as it is-why on earth would I do something to them that would cause them MORE pain and put them in greater danger right then???? Sick. I would have snatched them up and ran out of the hospital if they tried to circumsize my boys.

The fact is that MANY doctors already pressure moms about not circumsizing. One of the pediatricians at the hospital came by and after my chart saying “NO circumcision” and the nurse telling him I said “NO” like four times, he STILL came down and tried to let us take our children away to be circumsized. I had to say “NO” like 20 times and finally tell him to leave the room!!!!

I am by no way a hippie crunchy mom. I am a very surburban uptight by the book mom, but this is one thing where I might be against the grain. Here in the South US most boys are circumsised. I am the minority as is my uncircumsised husband. I really don’t care. I know I made the right decision.

Gee talk about a knee jerk reaction. So if you have two studies, one old and one new, you just choose the one you like better and go with it? Stopping the spread of HIV is important, everywhere, not just in Africa. How can you be so cavalier about that? Circumcision used to be elective but recent studies show it can save lives, maybe the life of your grandchild someday. Circumcised males spread a lot less STDs than those who are not. Even infections such as chlamydia and bacterial vaginosis is easier to spread if the man is uncircumcised. Both cause infertility issues in women. So looks like it would be smarter to follow CDC recommendations. Sure Europe does not have the same circumcision rate at the US but Canada does. Europe is not HIV free either. I am sure they will soon have circumsions rates rising, too to help fight this awful disease. Would you not give a small piece of your skin to save a life? Some people give an entire organ.

Ali, unfortunately, this is not an issue of TWO studies. This is an issue of DOZENS upon DOZENS of studies against circumcision. I appreciate your health concern for uncircumcised males and their partners, but do yourself a favor and read the actual research.

And I’m just going to say this now because eventually someone will: how would we feel if the study showed FEMALE circumcision reduced STD rates? And remember, the foreskin is an essential part of the male sex organ, as Ron pointed out.

Laure68, while I completely agree, female circumcision is far more extreme than male circ (which is why I hesitated dragging the parallel out) I think we’ve become far too cavalier about male circumcision. And it’s not an issue of a study not saying what people want. There is ALWAYS a study out there that will say what people want to hear, but in this case we’re talking one study of a very divergent culture and set of circumstances being weighed equally with a mountain of more relevant data to the contrary.

Who would you rather hear this recommendation from; for or against. If you hear it from your doctor, could it be an income generator? I think it should be said, for or against, by an independant group of well educated and experienced professionals, that are trusted to not have a vested interest. CDC anyone?

“belief” not “believe”
Can I has larger comment window? kthxbai

Cole, I understand your comments about male circumcision being important. But can you please answer the rest of my post. Do you not agree that the CDC has to investigate this? Should they just ignore it because you don’t like it? Unfortunately, since this was such a large study, if they just said “oh, we don’t have to look at that because circumcision is bad and we really don’t think it is applicable”, would that really stand?

I know this is just a blog, but I am with mom to one.

This is yet another outrageous post that distorts the truth in order to manufacture false outrage. I don’t think I am going too far in asserting that the author of the post is being dishonest in his description of the CDC recommendation. In order to push your own agenda, you are lying, sir, and you should be ashamed.

I agree with Laure68 and Chiken, since it seems that the CDC must responsibly take new data into consideration, and it sure doesn’t seem like they are jumping the gun. The author of this piece seems to believe (for unknown reasons) that the CDC suddenly and inexplicably decided to have a “biased” and offensive “agenda” on circumcision, even though they have previously advised that it’s not necessary. To me, however, the only “agenda” in evidence is that of the author, who writes to mislead and inflame, rather than educate and stimulate.

I had read about the CDC proposal on another news website earlier and like others was also immediately taken aback at how misleading the first two sentences of this post were. May have been a simple misunderstanding/misuse of the word “impose” or an attempt to inflame. I think it was the latter, but we must remember the author is a blogger, NOT a journalist so some leeway should be allowed. Bloggers offer ideas and personal thoughts and it is up to us to determine whether the blogger is a good communicator, critical thinker, or intellectually honest.

that is just absurd. it’s a choice that the parents are to make, not he government nor one of its agencies. big government just “kills me”. i hate all the drama. you cannot make someone circumcise their son no more than you can make them dye their hair blond and wear blue contacts.

Let’s see, if peridontal disease (gum disease) harbors bacteria that are responsible for heart disease, then it seems reasonable that we should remove all teeth from our children to prevent a possible cardio vascular episode. Makes sense, right? Then let us also remove the foreskin of infants to prevent a possible std episode. Oh, the teeth are much more functional? Well, they are, but the foreskin is very functional and not something that should be discarded! How stupid are we to spend millions to remove something that, if one could have their foreskin and live with for one week, they would never, never, have cut off. I guess that what one has never had, they never miss. Sad!

I can’t believe that Babble still has “Circumcision to become mandatory?” as the title of this post on the news feed. That is simply NOT TRUE. The CDC also recommends we all wear sunscreen, but last I looked they’re not sending armed forces to our houses to apply 50 SPF lotion to us. Whether or not you agree with it, this is A RECOMMENDATION.

Cole, for Pete’s sake, I didn’t say that foreskins are gross. That was someone called Sirius. My son is not circumcised. I am not pro-circumcision. What I am is pro-ACCURACY, and you are being factually inaccurate by saying that “Soon the choice whether to cut or not may get snatched out of your hands.” and by implying that this is any kind of mandatory requirement for anything. It’s a recommendation. You are misleading people.

I’m not anti-circ or pro-circ by any means, but what makes me immediately suspicious of this is two things. Firstly, as already mentioned, the African meta-study was conducted under very different conditions than those found in the United States. And let’s not get all homophobic about it either, let’s be completely conservative about this and say that since HIV has not reached the same critical levels in North America as it has in parts of Africa, that recommending this surgical option is not likely to be a similarly cost effective preventative measure as opposed to something such as, for instance, promoting condom use. The study found that in these critically afflicted regions of Africa, circumcision was not a substitute for condom use and was merely a supplement. So we have no compelling reason to think this is going to be a cost effective HIV control measure here in North America based mainly on North American data.

This leads me, as I’ve said, to suspect two things, that, on the one hand, this is an example of an American institution looking for a way to justify American cultural practices, and what seems to me to be the far more likely of the two (though not to say the two are mutually exclusive, and indeed, they almost certainly have something to do with one another), with the United States having no universal health coverage and medical price gouging as omnipresent as it is, this looks like a quick and easy way to generate revenue. Not that circumcision is extravagantly expensive or a lucrative source of revenue on the scale of populations, although I’m certain that hitching circumcision to the HIV wagon could drive up prices a bit.

But whatever, that’s my two cents worth. Don’t recommend a procedure like this until you have unambiguous evidence that it’ll be a cost effective preventative technique under the conditions in which you’re planning on implementing it.

I’d like to revise my statement…

AAHAHAH

America, your “unprogressive” nature has finally reached its peak :D
Have fun cutting your sons foreskin and ending any right he had from day one :D

*is glad europeans are so much more progressive in these matters*

These studies about AIDS are bullshit, USA has the highest rate of circ (among industrialized countries) and the highest rate of AIDS. Empirical evidence shows circumcision is a lie. It has become a medical procedure and the norm but when you think about it, it’s just crazy to do that and very bizarre.

Did you know the flawed studies were not long term, and ONLY studied if AIDS negative man got AIDS from an infected women? And, why not do this in the USA? If the CDC is so adamant about circ (instead of condoms) preventing AIDS, then why delay their ‘recommendation’? So, I guess the STD that I got from a one night stand from a circumcised guy was just my imagination? I wish. The CDC has hidden agendas, that is for sure. Read “A search for health, an anthology” by Tom Valentine. He shows why cancer ‘research’ has never found a cure, why the flu is so hyped up, and how few ‘choices’ we really have for health care. If the CDC, the WHO, UNICEF and the Gates Foundation didn’t have hidden agendas, they would ALL recommend CONDOMS to prevent AIDS/STD’s. What IS their agenda? Genocide? World population control? Hmm…. Maybe Daniel Estulin is right.

You know what, everyone needs to stop imposing there opinions and beliefs on others and let them decide for themselves. You put a misleading title on an article to get people up in arms when nothing has been done yet. Just like with breastfeeding what one feels is best may not be best for everyone. The people who are against it are so against it that they make others feel uncomfortable whether they are for or against it. Get the procedure done older is 100 times worse then getting it done for them as a baby. Stop making it a bigger issue then it is and stay out of peoples decisions for there child.

117 baby boys died from their circumcisions last year. Male circumcision kills more baby boys than suffocation or car accidents! To further put this into perspective, last year in the US 115 baby boys died of SIDs… 117 died from their circumcisions! And many more deaths caused by circumcisions remain unreported.

Saying that circumcision has had “no ill-effect” demonstrates ignorance and lack of knowledge about the procedure. Circumcision removes thousands of sensitive nerve endings, leaving the area desensitized, raw, and vulnerable. The prepuce (foreskin) is a healthy body part that functions to protect from disease, bacteria, and abrasion.

The American Academy of Pediatrics describes the pain of circumcision as: “Severe and persistent” and states that circumcision is “Non-therapeutic”, providing no health benefits whatsoever.
Actual population statistics show that the rate of AIDS/HIV is 2-4 times HIGHER in CIRCUMCISED males. The higher the rate of circumcision in a country, the higher the rate of STD’s. It should be common sense that removing healthy, protective tissue is damaging to the body.

Many studies also show that the trauma of circumcision results in life-long negative psychological and behavioral patterns, even in infants only hours old. Most parents in the United States now have this knowledge. The infant circumcision rate in hospitals has dropped to below 30%. Over 70% of males, the overwhelming majority, are being left intact. Circumcision is now being seen for what it is: sexual abuse.

We must remember when the equivalent procedure is performed on girls, we call it “female genital mutilation.” Why don’t we call it by what it is for boys, too?

Typical female circumcision and male circumcision are the same, and they are both very sexually damaging. Female circumcisions just cut off the clitorial hood which isn’t any worse than male circumcision. The AAP made the statement that male circumcision is ‘more invasive’ than female circumcision. And yet, female circumcision (a religious right) is illegal, while males are offered no protection.

If a vet circumcised an animal he likely would go to prison for animal cruelty. Does anyone find it odd that dogs and cats have rights that baby boys don’t have in this country?

No medical organization in the world supports circumcision. It’s not justifiable to circumcise baby boys for health reasons.
We now know there is no medical reason for circumcision on boys. Cutting the sexual organs of any person without their consent is mutilating their genitals.
It is not safe and the negatives effects may not be noticed until decades later when the men suffer from erectile dysfunction.