Is snip, snip OK?
A recent segment on The Doctors show dunked into the debate on circumcising baby boys, and whether or not a ban the procedure. From health and religious justifications to a baby's rights and comparisons of male circumcision to the act of female genital mutilation, arguments on both sides can be cogently made.
And the debate is not a new one. Last year a proposal to ban circumcisions in San Francisco garnered enough signatures from petitioners to get onto the ballot. Being shot down via a California law against banning circumcision, the San Francisco ban did not pass. The presiding judge stopped the proposal in its tracks "noting that only the state can regulate a widespread medical procedure," as reported by USA Today.
Having a son, my husband and I had to make the decision on whether or not to have him circumcised. There wasn't much of a debate.
But while we came to an agreement quickly, I can't imagine how it would feel to not even have the choice.
I have to say that I am personally not an advocate of circumcision, for any medical or health reasons. A study reported by Scientific American shows that circumcised males are less likely to contract HIV— a point one of The Doctors diminished by stating that by that reasoning, society should just attach condoms to newborns.
It's a more vulgar way of looking at the statistic than I would, but it's also a great point.
We all know that religions like Judaism and Islam proscibe circumcision, making it meaningful to many.
But parents choosing to circumcise in the belief that it is more aesthetically clean should really take a look at why they feel that way.
Cutting off a piece of one's body to look visually pleasing is not something that a parent should force on a baby. Would you give a child a nose job because it made them look better? Better yet, would you be able to?
