About urinary tract infections:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says that the absolute risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI) in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most ~ 1%) (1999 Circumcision Policy Statement), and UTIs are usually successfully treated with antibiotics.
Thom, why should people cut off part of children's genitalia simply because parents may fail to teach children proper hygiene, especially when urinary tract infections are treatable and the harm caused by urinary tract infections is much less than the permanent damage caused by circumcision? Perhaps if parents were threatened with the loss of part of their genitalia, they'd do a better job teaching their kids about proper hygiene!
About sexually transmitted diseases:
Studies in the U.S. have found that intact males do
not have an increased risk of STD infection, including HIV (Laument, E.O.,
et al. (1997) JAMA, 277:1052-1057 and Thomas, AG,
et al. (2004) International AIDS Society).
I think you are referring to recent studies of African men who were circumcised in their late teens and adulthood. Although three studies in Africa found that men had approximately a 50% reduced risk of HIV infection in the year following circumcision,
over 1% of the circumcised men still became infected with HIV (Bailey, R.C.,
et al. (2007) Lancet, 369: 943-656). One out of 100 circumcised men still got HIV in just one year!!!
Rather than circumcising babies, who are not sexually active, parents who fear that their child may contract a sexually transmitted disease can teach him about the
most effective STD prevention techniques: abstinence, safer sex (which includes consistent use of condoms, fidelity to one's partner, and reduction in the number of partners), and genital hygiene (retracting the foreskin and washing and drying the penis shaft daily and after sexual activity).
About cancer of the penis:
The American Medical Association states that since penile cancer is so rare (0.9 to 1 per 100,000 men) and occurs late in life, circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified. One of the rarest cancers, penile cancer is even less common than male breast cancer! Known penile cancer risk factors are smoking cigarettes and having unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners.
If adults (18 years old and older) want to be circumcised, that is their right, but in my opinion newborn and older children should have a legal right to their intact, healthy bodies. Newborn and older kids should be allowed to grow up intact so that as adults they can decide for themselves if they wish to undergo cutting of their most private of body parts.
That's a really good question.
The organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision writes that "if we circumcise 100,000 boys we allegedly prevent 900 transient, curable UTIs (urinary tract infections) and one penile cancer case, in an 80-year-old (American Cancer Society Statistics). We have also caused between 1,000 complications (1 percent, AAP statistics) or 5,000 to 7,000 complications (5 to 7 percent, British Urology Statistics), including hundreds of permanent, sexually cripping, 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."
Also consider the functions of the foreskin that are lost to the child forever due to circumcision. The foreskin has protective, sensory, and sexual functions. A baby boy's intact foreskin, which is almost always fused to the glans at birth much like the fingernail is fused to the nail bed, protects it from urine and fecal matter during the diaper stage, contains numerous erogenous, fine-touch sensory receptors similar to those in the lips, and matures into a natural sliding and gliding mechanism that enables non-abrasive sexual activity.
Three of the most sensitive areas of the natural, intact penis are (1) the specialized foreskin structure called the "ridged band," (2) the tip of the foreskin, and (3) the frenulum, which attaches the foreskin to the glans, all of which are removed by circumcision. A recent study found that "five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis," which is the circumcision scar on the ventral side (Sorrells, M.L.,
et al. (2007)
Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis, BJU International, 99: 864 - 869).
You have provided me with exactly zero new information here. My comparison was that both forms of circumcision involve unnecessary surgery performed for cultural reasons rather than medical ones. And my comparison still stands.
Linear Mode
