Circumcision Rates Fall in the United States
The National Health and Life Survey reports that circumcision rates in the United States are now down to 57% among males born. That number is low compared to a whopping 90% circumcision rate in the 1960's. Some states have an even lower amount of routine circumcisions done at the rate of less than 50% of males are circumcised after birth. California has the least amount of newborns circumcised and reported 21% in 2004.
Circumcision is a surgical procedure removing the foreskin from the penis and is routinely done in the hospital to newborn baby boys. Despite the fact that there is a ton of evidence available that it is not only unnecessary but harmful and dangerous, many parents still end up choosing to have their babies circumcised. Medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics do not recommend routine infant circumcisions and most health professionals agree that it is a cosmetic procedure.
Even Jewish circumcision rates are going down, once a religious ceremony generally done when the male is 8 days old; this practice is becoming less common as parents are researching before making the decision to have it done to their infant.
Lower circumcision rates across the US may be a combination of immigration and information according to some experts. Other countries do not routinely circumcise their males without any medical reason, so when foreigners come here it may not even be something they've considered. The thought to cut off part of their newborn's body may just not occur to them. The worldwide circumcision rate is equal to about 1 out of every three males. So two-thirds of the entire male population remains intact.
US citizen's who are declining circumcising are doing so after giving the procedure much thought and making an educated decision before their child is born. Many parents today care about giving their children the very best start in life, including a peaceful, natural birth experience, breastfeeding, adequate bonding and attachment, and no unnecessary interventions and painful procedures done such as circumcision.
The trend of declining circumcisions is likely to continue as more and more respected professionals and organizations speak out about the danger, harm, even possible death that can occur when newborn baby boys go through this unnecessary procedure. One that was once so common in the US that many never even questioned not circumcising their baby boys at birth.
Sources: "circumcision" wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
"US Circumcision rates drop" AssociatedPress.com
Published by Katherine M.
mama, wife, student View profile
Social Networking Site Initiate Debate on CircumcisionArticle about the debate over circumcision that took place on Facebook.- CIRCUMCISION May Prevent HIV Circumcision may prevent millions of HIV deaths.
- Female Circumcision in the United StatesFemale circumcision is currently performed in the United States to enhanse sexuals sesation and for cosmetic reasons. In the past extreme forms of female circumcision were practiced in the United States.
- Rites of Passage: Male Circumcision Versus Female CircumcisionA look into the difference between male and female circumcision (or female genital mutilation).
- Prostitutes Spread AIDS, Not Lack of Male CircumcisionAccording to recent research, male circumcision is much less important than previously thought at hindering the spread of the AIDS pandemic. Instead, infected prostitutes are much more likely the spreaders of AIDS.
- Circumcision in the United States
- The Truth About Circumcision & HIV/HPV
- Circumcision: Why New Parents Should Reconsider
- Circumcision in America
- 15 Little Known Facts About Routine Infant Circumcision
- Do I Have a Say? the Seldom Discussed Ethics of Infant Circumcision
- Male Circumcision Going Extinct? An AC Experiment on Society's View on Circumcision
23 Comments
Post a CommentEww, glad I was a boy born in the United States of the 80's then.
I'm curious, of the estimated 30% circumcised males worldwide, what percentage are NOT Muslim, Jewish, North American, or African Tribal?
Any guesses or factual numbers?
It's a fact that it's not medically necessary or beneficial, not an opinion. The AAP says so. Why would anyone report what they know to be myths, rumors, misinformation, half-truths, and outright lies? She stated her opinion to demonstrate her happiness at the news that circumcision rates are dropping, which was the actual topic of the article. You have no right to tell her how or what to write; go write your own article instead of griping. The AAP's re-examination of its position on circumcision isn't relevant to the topic of the article, that circumcision rates are going down and the reasons why.
well, I don't think I need to point anything else out about the bias clearly evident here. You just did it for me with that last comment. You won't report anything from the "other" side because you are anti-circumsision and see nothing positive to come from it. That is your OPINION, and it shouldn't influence a news article. And the whole other news agency do it arguement is lame, why don't you just see if Faux news has a position open. Please don't get me wrong I'm not an advocate of circumcision. But if you can't maintain objectivity then you should not be writing news. And heather, if she didn't feel the need to include the fact that the AAP is re-examining its position on the issue because it suppossedly didn't apply to the topic then why did she feel the need to state their position at all? She should not have included only part of their position. Its not right to pick and choose facts and leave everything that doesn't support your opinion out, because opinion has no place in news
The "other side" is a bunch of myths, rumors, misinformation, half-truths, and outright lies anyway, so reporting it would be irresponsible.
Thank you Heather, you can most definitely leave certain information out of news articles, the media does it all. the. time. which impacts how the public perceives the topic. Being that I am very much anti-circumcision and can't see any possible benefit in the procedure... of course I am not going to mention anything from the "other" side as there's nothing positive to come out of it.
Condoms and other safe sex practices (like monogamy) still offer better protection from HIV than circumcision. I hope the AAP's new policy statement will remind parents that newborns don't have sex, and there are better means of protecting them from HIV when they do that don't involve cutting off parts of their genitals.
The AAP also states that all data in favor of circumcision and its 'benefits' is flawed and inconclusive. I can post the quotes if you like straight from the policy.
Actually, the AAP states that circumcision is unnecessary and not recommended as a routine procedure. Clearly the author didn't include such other information because she felt it wasn't relevant to the topic: that circumcision rates are falling. She was explaining why the rates were dropping not giving a rundown of the pros and cons of circumcision.
Got to agree with Stephanie on this one about the article being biased. Though I agree that circumsision is a cloudy issue and I am not neccessarily for it, I read the original article about this and you left out things that went against your position. Like the new studies done in Africa that found that circumsized men had a 60% less instance of HIV infection. According to the original article that information is causing the American Academy of pediatrics to re-examine their position on the issue. Why didn't you include that? This is op-ed not news. When reporting news you must report facts from both sides of the issue, not just one, and allow the readers to form their own opinions.