Mothering Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

· Registered
3,799 Posts
The Academy's 1999 policy against routine circumcision is based on an attempt to establish a balance between the "benefits" of circumcision with the "risks" of remaining uncircumcised.
I like that they put "benefits" and "risks" in quotations
Makes it sound as though there really are no benefits to being circumcised or risks to being intact (you know, like it really is). The 3-5 year thing is incorrect (of course) but at least they do specifically mention that there should be no forced retraction. And 3-5 years is better than saying one year like I've seen before.

They admit that UTIs and cancer are so rare that there is no "benefit" to being circumcised for those reasons and clearly state that the only reason to have it done is for social aspects. I like that they end it with the statement that it's a decision that will have a lasting impact. It will... I just wish that they would mention WHOSE decision it should be, but that might be expecting too much.

Good for a mainstream site though! Balanced and yet slightly on our side.

love and peace.
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.