Table of Contents
Those people who are opposed to routine infant circumcision believe that removing a baby boy's foreskin is nothing but a cosmetic procedure. From my experience with the anti-circumcision movement, I feel comfortable in saying that most believe the procedure to be genital mutilation just like female circumcision. The feeling that only the individual who was born with the foreskin has the right to decide to have it removed persists, often even in contexts where the parents practice a religion that calls for circumcision.
The pain a baby boy experiences during a circumcision is another major concern
Sometimes, circumcisions are carried out without appropriate anesthesia. This leads to a lot of pain. This concern can easily be eliminated by ensuring that the procedure is carried out with a local anesthetic cream, followed by injections of local anesthesia.
Parents who have the procedure carried out under these conditions report that their baby did not cry or even flinch.
A third reason to oppose circumcision is that, as with most medical procedures, this usually minor medical intervention can go wrong. Some baby boys have died from hemorrhage following circumcision, while others have sustained permanent damage to their penises, or have needed follow-up operations to correct a botched circumcision. These concerns are certainly valid, and taking the possibility that the procedure may not go as planned into account is wise. Choosing a very experienced physician to carry out the circumcision will reduce the worry of this happening, but can never completely take it away.
Yet another concern is about the man's sexual pleasure
Sexuality studies have shown that circumcised men do not have a problem with sexual satisfaction, and some even report that their pleasure increased after an adult circumcision. On the other side of the story, some men are really angry that their parents had them circumcised as babies. A few go as far as to attempt to grow their foreskin back. There are techniques for this on the internet, though they are not able to return the sensitivity that the original foreskin would have had.
Finally, hygiene. Are uncircumcised men unclean?
This opinion seems to be prevalent in America, where most men are circumcised Those opposed to the procedure hold that proper personal hygiene is really the only thing required. And surely, even circumcised men need to wash themselves? As a European woman, I can definitely say that I don't find the natural penis repulsive, but also that no woman likes a man who doesn't want to wash himself before engaging in intimate activities — whether he is circumcised or not!
My conclusion is that circumcision has some benefits, as well as some risks. For people who practice circumcision for religious reasons, there is no dilemma. The same might even be true if you would circumcise for cultural reasons. If you are considering circumcising for medical reasons, there is certainly evidence that those exist. Do the benefits outweigh the risks, or do the risks outweigh the benefits? No doubt, you will do your own research. Whatever conclusion you draw, many others have agreed with you and will continue to do so. By the same token, if you do choose to opt for a circmcision, there will always be those who are eager to condemn that choice.