5 of 10

Write now Article Tools

It is not circumcision overall, but infant circumcision which should be abolished. Circumcision has been shown to have certain benefits including prevention of infection, transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, and even prevention of cancer of the penis. Infants almost never face these complex issues, and therefore the brutal practice of circumcision at birth without pain relief is unwarranted. Many callous people make the case that infant circumcision doesn't affect development, and that there is no memory of the pain. This isn't about pain, however; it's about cruelty. Cutting on an unanaesthetized infant is a barbaric practice, and its persistence in our society is due to religious tradition rather than medical necessity.

It is just as efficacious for a young boy or man to undergo circumcision later in life, under anaesthesia, with pain relief available after the procedure is complete. I rejected circumcision for both my sons at birth, however my older son required circumcision due to the fact that he had developed a phimosis (a condition in which the foreskin cannot be fully retracted). In my son's case, there was tearing and pain, so it was urgent that we get him circumcised, so we had the procedure done fairly quickly, with full anaesthesia. There is a big difference between this and his being cut on without anaesthesia; my son experienced pain after the procedure, but he did not experience being cut on without regard to his needs, feelings or experience.

My younger son remains uncircumcised, and unless he has a medical emergency that requires circumcision, he will retain the choice of whether, when and how he would like his own circumcision to be performed.

Learn more about this author, Jennifer Claerr.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about The case against circumcision?
We want to hear your view. Write now!