Infant circumcision benefits outweigh the risks according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).?


They never mentioned anything about insurance in their 1999 position on circumcision. The result of the 1999 statement (and even some earlier statements) was that some insurance companies stopped covering newborn circumcision.

The 2012 statement specifies that insurance companies should still cover it.

4 Answers

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    The AAP isn't recommending circumcision. Rather, its previous position was that circumcision was a bad idea because the risks outweighed any benefits and hence, it shouldn't be considered a medical procedure and not be covered by insurers and the like. Now it's saying that it's an acceptable medical procedure and that if parents want it, it should be covered.

    I think that's a reasonable position, though personally I'd say that the ethical problems with circumcision make it a bad idea.

  • 8 years ago

    Circumcision should only be done for religious or medical reasons.

    There are no benefits to circumcision on females or males. We all know what circumcision is and how it started. Circumcision is nothing more than the continuation of traditional practices that early cultures practiced. It is a body modification just like foot binding was in China, or neck rings are in parts of Thailand. Like tattoos and piercings. The ancient Egyptians were famous for practicing circumcisions. At the time, it was a bloody, painful ritual that was understood to be a sacrifice.

    Circumcision cuts away very erogenous parts of the body and changes the sensitivity and the entire function of the penis. Sexual pleasure is lessened and the sexual pleasures that come from the movement of the penis skin (which is what the foreskin is a part of) is completely eliminated, since the skin doesn't move. It dries out the penis head and makes the penis head rougher because it is constantly rubbing against the underpants. It's like sticking your tongue out the whole time and rubbing a T-shirt all over it, all day.

    The AAP decided to make this statement based on African studies that came out and said that there is "lessened" chance that a circumcised man can get STD' (sexually transmitted diseases). No explanation is offered as to why this is the case. Anybody who knows about statistics can see how easy it is to play with the wording.

    A circumcised penis can get any and all STD's. Some STD's are transmitted through skin-to-skin contact (like Herpes or HPV) and these can be transmitted when a circumcised penis makes contact with an infected vagina. Other STD's are transmitted through bodily fluid contact (like HIV) and again the circumcised penis can come into contact with this and still get the STD.

    A circumcised penis can still get infections. I don't understand why this is an issue. If a penis gets a yeast infection (from another female, for example) then you can just use the same medicine that women do. Women have all kinds of treatments and none of them involve cutting away parts of the vagina.

    The science behind circumcision is that both the man and woman evolved over millions of years to have the genital organs just as they are now, and they are designed for maximum sexual pleasure. Both the natural penis and natural vagina share the same smegma-filled, floppy, stretchy, moist, sexual apparatuses. A natural penis can allow a man to experience the same joys that a woman experiences with her natural vagina.

    Caring for a natural penis is exactly like caring for the natural vagina. You just leave the baby girls' vagina alone, just like the baby boy's foreskin should be left alone. Just wash it from the outside. With a natural penis all a man has to do is leave the penis alone also, until the body sexually matures and then the foreskin can be pulled back and washed like every other part of the body.

    Circumcision should only be done for religious reasons (in which case it is a sacrifice, and can be an honorable and spiritual thing) or for medical reasons.

  • Waltz
    Lv 4
    8 years ago

    Type 1 Genital mutilation:

    The cutting off of the clitoral hood or its male equivalent, the foreskin.

    How would women in America feel if their clitoral hood were cut and their clitoris was exposed and left to dry out and their vagina was made stiff, dry and unmovable?

    I still respect traditional cultures in Africa and religious groups that wish to carry out both male and female circumcisions, but let's be fair the American male circumcisers and the African female circumcisers are in the same category.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    It's not his dick until he's 18. Until then, do what you want with it.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.