Though found in females too, circumcision is commonly applied to males, where the definition can be known as the practice of removing the foreskin, also called the prepuce, from the glans (head) of the human male genitalia. Circumcision, precisely male infant circumcision, has been practiced around the world for centuries, some continuing today. It can be predominantly found as a religious obligation in Jewish communities and the Muslim world and as a cultural practice in the United States of America, the Philippines, and South Korea; elsewhere is considered rare. Besides cultural and religious reasons, a great deal of people have practiced it for other reasons, namely medical and personal reasons. With apparent favorable reasons, as well
…show more content…
Although many sources and people state that the practice of circumcision on infant males can prevent or reduce certain, unfavorable diseases like “balanitis, balanoposthitis, phimosis, paraphimosis, smegma, common STIs – such as high-risk HPV, genital herpes, genital ulcer disease,syphilis, chancroid Trichomonas vaginalis ,and Mycoplasma genitalium – thrush, foreskin tearing, penile cancer, prostate cancer, and inferior hygiene,” (Source C), the so-called benefits have been refuted countless times, guaranteed to not prevent any of the listed and is not encouraged nor recommended by any medical organization (Source D). What people are usually deaf to is that male infant circumcision is medically unnecessary because the foreskin is a normal, healthy body part, prone to diseases just like any other body part in both the human body. Its nuisances can be easily treated without surgery and the “care of the foreskin is simple” (Source D). If the procedure produces “ favorable results” that are refuted easily with a generous amount of evidence, shouldn’t humans, the most evolved species with a sense of right and wrong, know when it’s time to break this “tradition?” With debunked facts about the medical benefits of circumcision, people should start to question if the practice of infant male circumcision, especially in the U.S.A, is only continued for profit, not for the welfare, but the expense, of your child (Source …show more content…
Violating someone’s ethical and human rights is brothers with body violations. What they all have in common is that the victim did not consent to the action whatsoever. Male infant circumcision is a part of body violation and disrupts the natural balance of body integrity because again, there is no consent at all and the perpetrators (doctors, surgeons, nurses family, friends, etc) forced the decision on the victim (the newborn male). “whose body and life will be most affected.”(Source D). Some people might say that it’s the parents’ choice if they want to circumcise their infant son or not, as it's their property until the age of 18, meaning they can do whatever they want with their son until he hits the legal age. While that’s true in some cases, it’s not and shouldn’t be for the case of permanently modifying someone’s body; that should be left alone for the person to decide and in this case, the son. The most perfect example to compare to infant male circumcision that people often see as not right (though they have the mentality of “children are parent’s property so parents can do whatever they think is best for them) is female genital mutilation. The practice of circumcising females is often seen as separate from male circumcision because of different reasons for doing so (reasons for FGM is usually to limit their sexual freedom), though they both are
Although many sources and people state that the practice of circumcision on infant males can prevent or reduce certain, unfavorable diseases like “balanitis, balanoposthitis, phimosis, paraphimosis, smegma, common STIs – such as high-risk HPV, genital herpes, genital ulcer disease,syphilis, chancroid Trichomonas vaginalis ,and Mycoplasma genitalium – thrush, foreskin tearing, penile cancer, prostate cancer, and inferior hygiene,” (Source C), the so-called benefits have been refuted countless times, guaranteed to not prevent any of the listed and is not encouraged nor recommended by any medical organization (Source D). What people are usually deaf to is that male infant circumcision is medically unnecessary because the foreskin is a normal, healthy body part, prone to diseases just like any other body part in both the human body. Its nuisances can be easily treated without surgery and the “care of the foreskin is simple” (Source D). If the procedure produces “ favorable results” that are refuted easily with a generous amount of evidence, shouldn’t humans, the most evolved species with a sense of right and wrong, know when it’s time to break this “tradition?” With debunked facts about the medical benefits of circumcision, people should start to question if the practice of infant male circumcision, especially in the U.S.A, is only continued for profit, not for the welfare, but the expense, of your child (Source …show more content…
Violating someone’s ethical and human rights is brothers with body violations. What they all have in common is that the victim did not consent to the action whatsoever. Male infant circumcision is a part of body violation and disrupts the natural balance of body integrity because again, there is no consent at all and the perpetrators (doctors, surgeons, nurses family, friends, etc) forced the decision on the victim (the newborn male). “whose body and life will be most affected.”(Source D). Some people might say that it’s the parents’ choice if they want to circumcise their infant son or not, as it's their property until the age of 18, meaning they can do whatever they want with their son until he hits the legal age. While that’s true in some cases, it’s not and shouldn’t be for the case of permanently modifying someone’s body; that should be left alone for the person to decide and in this case, the son. The most perfect example to compare to infant male circumcision that people often see as not right (though they have the mentality of “children are parent’s property so parents can do whatever they think is best for them) is female genital mutilation. The practice of circumcising females is often seen as separate from male circumcision because of different reasons for doing so (reasons for FGM is usually to limit their sexual freedom), though they both are