Re: What were your medical reasons for circumcising?
While there are often medical reasons cited for justifying circumcision, it doesn't make sense when you use the same justification for other things. For example, we don't do appendectomies or tonsillectomies at birth to avoid those problems as children or adults. The foreskin is the only part of the body that we cut off in advance to avoid problems. I know someone who chose to have a double mastectomy because she had a history of breast cancer in her family and didn't want to get breast cancer. But she did it as an adult after she was done raising her babies, and quite frankly I don't blame her. But we'd never think of doing that to a child or teenager.
Also, for UTIs and yeast infections, circumcision is often suggested as a remedy. But we don't cut off toes for ingrown toenails. We treat the problem instead of cutting off the offending body part.
Honestly, I blame the medical community in general for not knowing normal penile anatomy and being too quick to suggest circumcision for things that can be treated instead. If you look at the history of circumcision, it's said that circumcision is a solution looking for a problem. It's been credited for curing epilepsy, paralysis, masturbation, etc. It's only fairly recently that it's being credited for lowering UTIs, cancer and stds. But that's not why we started circumcising. In fact, when circumcision really took off it was kind of a class thing. The poor dirty immigrants that came to our country weren't circumcised, so being cut became associated with being clean and in an upper class. And IMO, there has never been enough medical evidence to justify circumcising ALL baby boys, when so few will really ever have a problem.
Last edited by DesertRat; 10-10-2012 at 11:13 AM.