Essay On Male Circumcision

Many are unaware of the origin and reality of male circumcision and are under the impression that it is a painless and necessary procedure. While providing an explanation of a routine circumcision, being performed on an infant, Dr. Paul M. Fleiss reveals the gruesome truth that “…his foreskin must be torn from his glans, literally skinning it alive.” Most people do not imagine this is the way that a circumcision is performed, nor are they are aware of how the procedure originated. Male circumcision began in the US during the Victorian Era, as a punishment for masturbation, since the practice desensitizes the penis. As time and society progress, more medically relevant reasons are provided for this unnecessary, and barbaric surgery. The routine circumcision of infants should be discontinued, considering the possible health benefits have been greatly exaggerated and do not warrant abolishing a male’s right to control his own body. A lack of education coupled

This is an irrational argument, as most vaccines protect against horrible diseases that have killed hundreds of thousands of people, and for which there are no other preventative measures. This is not the case with the diseases that circumcision is said to assist in preventing. Consequently, parents choosing to circumcise their child, are robbing him of his fundamental rights as a human being.

Routine infant circumcision is often thought of as prophylactic, and is said to be able to prevent a whole host of problems from poor hygiene to diseases, but these claims have been made without adequate evidence. Furthermore, these claims ignore the various protective functions the foreskin has in its intact state, which are removed when it is amputated. The foreskin acts much like the lips and eyelids, protecting the interior, more sensitive parts from being exposed to outside contaminants. Fleiss confirms, “just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its