daniel and i found ourselves in an impromptu debate the other day regarding the non-religious, non-cultural, non-consensual circumcision of infant boys. truthfully, i’ve never given the subject much thought, but when it came up, i told daniel in the case that we have to make the decision, we’d likely go ahead with the procedure. of course he had plenty to say in opposition to that, so i did a little research.

according to dr. drew, “the practice of circumcision is thought to have originated 8,000 to 10,000 years ago in east africa. circumcision became common in the united states and england in the late 19th century, because it was thought to stop boys from masturbating. at this point in time, the united states is one of the only countries in which circumcision is still a regular procedure for all newborn boys.”

as for its purpose, “anthropologists surmise that circumcision was first used to protect men against infection and/or irritation due to dirt or sand getting underneath the foreskin. circumcision continues to have religious and cultural significance for people around the world, but whether or not it still offers health benefits is an issue currently under much debate.”

what proponents say: “circumcision proponents cite increased occurrence of urinary tract infections, STDs and penile cancer in uncircumcised men, as well as phimosis (inability to extract the penis from the foreskin), as evidence for why the procedure is still medically relevant.”

what opponents say: “research suggests that proper hygiene can eliminate almost all problems associated with not being circumcised. some people propose that circumcision decreases sexual sensitivity, although no valid research has been done on this subject. also, some fear that the pain of the procedure psychologically affects the infants, although circumcision is now being done under local anesthesia. perhaps the strongest argument against circumcision is the possibility of mistakes and complications inherent in any surgical procedure. a recent study concluded that one in 486 circumcised infants has some sort of complication. although most are minor, some can be significant.”

see, daniel’s against it because the child isn’t given a choice, and i can understand why it seems wrong to him, but there are so many instances where parents have to make decisions for their children because they’re neither old enough or educated enough to make them for themselves. of course, a child could grow up uncircumcised and decide later that he wants to have the procedure done after all. maybe it should be up to the child to decide.

but for me, it’s was never a question of choice. i didn’t consider how much it might hurt my baby, only because some things that hurt are good for you, like shots and weight-lifting (haha). i didn’t consider that my son might experience sex differently once he’s old enough to engage in it. i was only thinking about one thing: the supposed increased risk of UTIs, STDs, and other issues related to health and hygiene.

but since neither ryan nor i are very religious people, and because proper hygiene will absolutely be taught in our home (and maybe a little because one of my best friends is so passionate about giving people a choice), there doesn’t seem to be any good reason for us to have the procedure done.