Bravo.
Male newborn circumcision has been claimed to provide
potential benefits, meaning that not every circumcised child will experience them, and it is important to note that these potential benefits can be achieved through non-destructive, non-invasive means.
The potential benefits also do not outweigh the medical risks and complications of circumcising children, or the certain and permanent destruction of the foreskin, an erogenous and functional part of a male's body.
Proponents of female genital cutting (ranging from cutting off the child's foreskin covering her clitoris, to cutting off the whole vulva or worse) also argue that it has benefits (nothing collects in the folds of flesh! Easier to clean! Less chance of sexually transmitted disease! Girl will look more beautiful!!). Yet these alleged benefits are outweighed by the physical and psychological harm and by the violation of a girl's right to her own body including her healthy genitalia.
What amazes me about the cultural debate over genital cutting is that those of us who oppose genital cutting of children have to argue, and argue, and argue to try to get adults to see why they should keep their hands off of children's genitalia. I wish more people had Oojay's reaction.
Here is information about the potential alleged medical benefits of infant male circumcision:
(1)
Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Chapter 3: Alleged Medical Benefits of Circumcision
Genital Integrity Policy - Alleged Medical Benefits of Circumcision
(2)
Doctors Opposing Circumcision pamphlet entitled, "Does being born a healthy male require surgical correction?"
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...d_brochure.pdf
"If we circumcise 100,000 boys we allegedly prevent 900 transient, curable UTIs (0.9 percent – many possibly iatrogenic; some even diagnostic) and one penile cancer case, in an 80-year-old (American Cancer Society statistics). We have also caused between 1,000 complications (one percent, AAP stats) or 5,000 to 7,000 complications (five to seven percent, British urology stats) including hundreds of permanent, sexually crippling, botched circumcisions and at least one death. The STD studies are murky and inconclusive and do not suggest prophylaxis worth even the immediate risk, let alone the lifetime losses."
