Tuesday, 30 November 2010
I'm just going to be blunt right now: I think circumcision is a benefit, and San Fransisco is out of line for trying to ban newborn circumcision. (Especially with the high number of gays there. Nt to be sexist, but I know for a fact gays find circumcision as a benefit for their own reasons.) It should be allowed.
I've always known that circumcision allowed men to keep their penises clean and make them less prone to certain infections, but doing some research, I found several benefits that outweigh the cons, especially some associated with newborn circumcision. (BTW: For those who don't think WebMD is a reliable source, it's written and reviewed by board certified doctors and is recommended by medical professionals.)
1.) When circumcisions are preformed as newborns, it's less complicated and less risky. For a newborn it takes 10 or less minutes, but it takes an hour when performing it on a grown man.
2.) They prevent urinary tract infections in men. I know urinary tract infections are painful for women, but my ex had one before (yes, he is circumcised) and they're more painful in men. They're rare in men, so they automatically run painful tests (that I've had before because I'm prone to them) such as sticking needles and tubes up the urethra. It hurt being led up the vagina, but the penis is only one tiny hole. It's a very traumatic experience, especially since I had it done when I was 4 and they wouldn't let my mom in the room because it's a sterile procedure. I wouldn't want my future son to ever be exposed to a UTI and such painful tests. Circumcision helps men clean their penis to clean it so they don't get UTI's. It's the same way women get UTI's... except it's not cleaning their vagina correctly.
3.) A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men (and HIV). I can see how this is a huge benefit with circumcision and again the diseases get trapped in the foreskin, making them more prone.
4.) Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners. I don't know about you, but I just prefer a circumcised man sooo much more right now and I'm glad I've only slept with a circumcised man. I'd want my son's and his future sex partner to be healthy and at less risk for cancer.
5.) Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin). These are like insane, painful erections that don't go away, to the point men can hardly wear pants [I saw it last night on Untold Stories of the E.R.]. Sometimes they can be relieved with icing or a topical cream, but in some situations they must be relieved with a surgical procedures, like the guy on UTS of the E.R. They also said, they're more common than one thinks..
6.) Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location). These cause permanent erectile dysfunction in most cases and may need surgery.
7.) Fewer problems with erections, especially at puberty.
To sum it up: If I ever have a son, I'll be getting his circumcised at birth. I feel like the benefits outweigh the amount of pain a baby won't remember when he grows up. If a guy gets it when he's an child, teen, or adult, he'll definitely remember it.
Are these benefits enough for you to circumcise your son someday or do you still think circumcision is irrelevant? Is newborn circumcision worse than adult circumcision in your opinion?