UPDATE: US: Officials Weigh Circumcision to Fight H.I.V. Risk

Feel free to use any part hereof. Original writings however tend to work better. But still, you may lift and edit and use what works for you.

----

I learned from various sources that you and others will be taking up the question of recommending universal circumcision for infant males in the US at a meeting to be held in Atlanta this week.

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to this idea. The evidence on this matter is inconclusive but the rush to institute circumcision all over the country ostensibly in the name of curbing HIV spread is unorthodox in and of itself. For centuries now men have been susceptible to all manner of STDs and aside from those who have had just one exclusive sex partner, all have had to face the risk of catching an STD. Likewise the same can be said of women. And while one could make the same case for surgical genital alteration of women as for men for the purpose of slowing the spread of HIV, such is an unacceptable possibility, as it ought to be. Equally unacceptable is circumcising boys.

One of the issues that strikes me as a source of conflict of interest between the medical community and the general recommendation for circumcision is the desire to procure fresh stem cells and other body cells from the foreskins of infant boys. The utility of this tissue has been well-established for both research and commercial purposes (skin care products, for example). Thus the economic appeal for instituting government-recommended circumcision is obviously present. This causes this sudden effort in favor of circumcision to come under especially close scrutiny.

The case against circumcision as a human rights issue is very compelling. How circumcision got into general practice in the human race is subject to a great deal of speculation. Not only has it been woven into religious traditions but also seems to have taken on an identity imperative of its own. As with many traditions however, if they did have some utility in the past, they often lose their application as technology and circumstances change. Yet once established, many are hard to modify much less abandon due to the emotional and cultural attachments they tend to create among people.

Circumcision is, however, one of these traditions that, despite its long history of practice in the world, must come to an end. The arguments in favor of it simply do not match up the human rights issues around the matter.

Political and legal movements to hold governments and institutions accountable for allowing or encouraging male genital mutilation that has no immediate medical value to the infant are gaining traction, and for good reason. To assert that for the greater good of a society it is all right to vacate the right of bodily integrity to an infant is to open (or in this case, keep open) the door to any number of legally and ethically indefensible actions. If the CDC, based largely on a few studies that may or may not been conducted to appropriate epidemiological standards, goes ahead and recommends immediately-unnecessary routine surgical interventions on infants that have been upheld by domestic courts to be tortious, I feel the government will be exposing itself and private entities to a level of legal as well as ethical liability that they will be hard pressed to fend off.

Aside from these political and economic considerations, the practice of circumcision without compelling medical reasons associated with the immediate well-being of the infant is simply reprehensible. I ask you, if by removing a small part of a baby girl's genitalia you could slow down the transmission of HIV or some other disease generally in a population, would you advocate for it? If so, you'll have to do that in this case, since the removal either of a foreskin or the labia minor of an infant's vagina both have the same effect of reducing the entry point surface area for infectious diseases. Are you ready to advocate for that?

Sincerely,

...

Thanks for posting this.

I sent an email to Kilmarx.

I thought the skin care thing was a 'hoax'?

-ax

I e-mailed some pictures of botched circumcisions which I found on some random urology site. I realize this might be a bit disturbing but ultimately a necessary and sobering reality. A picture is worth a thousand words. As far as I'm concerned, this is currently MRA issue #1.

MANN, as usual, has their pulse on the most important issues.

Cheers!

It's like something from a horror film or sci-fi. Remember "War of the Worlds"? The aliens wanted to use humans as fertilizer to grow something for themselves.

Same thing only we are using our own babies, just not killing them. Only mutilating their genitalia... only if they're boys, that is.

Read it and weep:

http://www.plasmetic.com/skin/skin-care-cosmetics/foreskin-face-cream-from-skinmedica-promoted-by-oprah-winfrey.html

http://www.alternet.org/environment/47421

Yes, thank you for posting this.

If there was any question that Oprah is a piece of rancid feces, the link provided should put the debate to rest.

Sascha Konietzko --

"LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IT'S COMPLETELY INANE
PROFOUNDLY PROFANE AND IT DRIVES ME INSANE"

I usually sit back and say somebody else will take care of it, but I opted to send one this time. Here it is:

Dear Sirs,

I am writing regarding your potential endorsement of removing a natural, vital part of a non-consenting infant male's genitals in an effort to slow the spread of HIV.

I have some suggestions you should look into if you plan to endorse this. All should also be done at birth:

* Remove the bones upon birth, as they can cause leukemia.
* Remove all of the respiration system, as you can get a cold by breathing.
* Remove all cells, as they can mutate and cause cancer.
* Inhibit the growth of teeth, as they can get cavities.

I could go on with the ludicrous list of prevention, but I'm sure you see my point.

The fact is, no parent, doctor, or guardian can or should cosmetically remove a normally functioning part of a healthy newborn. Instead of suggesting everybody should mutilate their sons genitals, why not suggest education? Condom usage? We live in the United States of America, not a backwards sun-worshiping tribe. We know what causes somebody to get HIV.

Please refrain from endorsing this form of torture on a child.

Thank you,

Timothy (30 years old, uncircumcised and HIV free)
Collin (3 years old, uncircumcised and healthy)
Owen (1 year old, uncircumcised and currently sleeping)