HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED :

Routine Procedure or Child Abuse? (Wendy McElroy, August 06, 2002, FOX News)

Circumcision has been under attack for the last few years. In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics revised its guidelines to state, "the benefits are not significant enough for the AAP to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure." In 2000, the American Medical Association modified its policy to read, "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits ... however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

Yet most male babies in North America continue to be circumcised. Advocates loudly proclaim its advantages for men, including an HIV-protective effect for men, and its benefits for women those with circumcised partners are said to have a reduced risk of cervical cancer.

Yet the central question keeps returning: Is the removal of any part of a healthy sexual organ justified?

This is one of several of the areas surrounding childbirth that has become completely politicized. They were so persistent in trying to get us not to circumcise our first son that the wife finally reared back and yelled "I'm Jewish. It's a covenant with my God!" After five more minutes of trying to get us to change our minds they relented, but then the doctor intentionally did a bad job, a practice for which she's apparently notorious at the hospital. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 9, 2002 8:13 PM