raise a hot button issue (with some important constituencies) before most know your name.

Hardly knew ye.

Do they still do the kind of crap they did back when my oldest son was born in 1975? A big sign on his nursery crib saying: NO CIRCUMCISION. (I don't remember that for the other two sons in 1985 and 1989).

Of course, anyone is free to circumcise for religious reasons. But as for health reasons, I remember the rebuttal: "Do you cut off your ears because you have to wash behind them?"

It's pro-choice. I say let the baby decide.

(me) had to decide at age 18, when it was necessitated by a medical condition. And my parents were not to credit/blame because that's the way I was at four months of age when they adopted me. After having gone through all of the pain, I made damn sure that my sons were taken care of long before they could possibly remember it.

Andrew Yang has officially joined the sideshow in the presidential election with this comment.

they aren't concerned about the rest of us.

American Academy Pediatrics Circumcision

After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.

Links to more information are below.

https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/Newborn-Male-Circumcision.aspx

I wouldn't advocate pulling all your teeth to prevent tooth decay. I advocate proper brushing and flossing and washing all areas.

This policy is nutzo.

Claiming otherwise is a fatuous argument.

with personal experience.

And I saw him a couple minutes later and he seemed fine.

The novocaine (first topical, then injections) must have helped. (And the healing was very easy. I'm guessing in adults that's harder.)

Their mother reported that the eldest son really wanted badly to nurse after that, but otherwise, no apparent discomfort.

And, thankfully, neither of them remember the experience as I still do, some nearly forty-five years later. Chances are, they would have inherited my medical condition.

In any case, would-be presidential candidates, especially those who think that the presidency of the United States is an entry-level political job, don't have any business telling people how to bring up their children in regard to healthcare choices, with the possible exception of vaccinations.

And you're not supposed to be pulling at their foreskin to clean them at that age.

But the Academy says the risk of a UTI isn't high and the decision should be up to the parent.

whose militancy cowered the medical establishment into limiting itself to "soft support" for a procedure that brings far more benefits than risks.

Not a moment of courage for the Academy. Those with pitchforks were undeservedly rewarded for reasons having nothing to do with medical science.

so, like you, he thinks the AAP should have come out more strongly for circumcision.

On medical grounds alone, the benefits far outweigh the risks. That is clear.

On the political front, the "intactivists" have won an undeserved partial victory due to their militancy. Unfortunately, we live in an era where extremism often trumps science.

This men are at high risk for complications and infections later in life.

is this really a government issue?

Not sure if it will be negative or positive.

He probably just cut off any shot he had.

12 comments in and this isn’t a pun-fest. Get with it folks.

skin in the game I have no more.

You should consider a self-delete.

but the decision is close enough that parents should be able to choose either option.

The World Health Organization says that three large scale studies showed it reduced HIV transmission by 60% -- among men who were practicing safe sex.

https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/


There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.

It is not their decision to make, even if the medical system encourages it.

All the research that has been done boils down to the fact that it IS a medical decision, with benefits and risks to be weighed.

My father had had friends who had to have the procedure done as an adult, and he said they wished their parents had done it when they were infants.

Reducing the risk by 60% would have been significant.

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58456

My belief that none this should happen, was reaffirmed by a women I met summer before last. She was born intersex. She was unhappy with her parents decision and implied she would have had something "to work with" to make her own decision when she became an adult. She really wanted to be a man. This was way past my comfort zone and I was great full she did not linger on the subject.

and the result was a 60% reduction in HIV transmission. That is a significant reduction in HIV beyond that achieved by safe sex procedures alone.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of people born intersex. Doctors can't know which gender a baby will one day identify with.

But doctors can know that no one wants to get HIV; and that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV, and parents can take that into consideration when making their decision.

It hurt like a sonofabitch.

to do so, it was the "cure" as recommended by two doctors in Seattle when I was 18.

My roommate was a Jewish friend of mine from high school, and while I went through the pain of changing bandages, I yelled at him for being lucky enough to be born into a religion that had the good sense to do this at the right time. He certainly sympathized with me, and we are still good friends.

I agree kinda. I was for it before and then I met my boyfriend and he talked to me about it. I realized I am pretty much like those pro-lifers when it comes to the choice of the the person. I am a woman, and I should stay out of this kind of life changing choice only a man can make.

Oh wait

Regarding a government law devoted to the male body

I don't remember it. I don't feel it was anything traumatic. Girls seem to enjoy it. I enjoy it. But hey, we all gotta have our pet issues.

And Bernie's face!

His parents had had him circumcized at birth. Which was a good thing!

Well, that will get him a few votes, I suppose. It will also lose him a lot more, I'm guessing.

Circumcision is NOT a winning issue, from either side. It's one of those, "Leave that alone" issues.

I don't have a son, but if I did I wondered if I would have him circumcised or not. To me, it's weird that's even an idea I'd entertain, because I have no religious reasons for it. So there's just the cultural reasoning for doing it, and it bothers me that I would even consider that a valid reason to cut a kid.

I've yet to read many convincing arguments that there are any solidly verified health benefits to it.