According to the CDC rates of circumcision performed on newborn males in the U.S. declined sharply from 56 percent in 2006 to just 33 percent in 2009. The decision to circumcise a newborn so that he will fit in with peers in the locker room is no longer valid.
Circumcision in the U.S. has been a controversial and hot button topic for years. Circumcision rates in 1970 were almost 90 percent. The credit for this incredible decline might be due to the ever increasing number of parents who are educating themselves about this unnecessary cosmetic procedure before making a choice.
No national health organization in the world recommends circumcision for healthy male infants, not the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the American Medical Association. Nearly all European males are intact, with no epidemic of penile health problems, thus discrediting the American held belief that circumcision is healthy.
Another myth is that circumcision removes just a little flap of skin. The truth is that roughly 15 square inches of tissue is removed, amounting to anywhere from one-third to one-half of the skin covering a normal penis. Removed with this tissue are 240 feet of nerves and up to 20,000 nerve endings.
Activists spreading the word about circumcision call themselves intactivists. Their argument is that an intact penis is the default and natural condition. Don’t fix it if it ain’t broken. Risks and side effects can include hemorrhage and even death. The foreskin that is removed actually has a function. In fact, it has many functions. Read about them here.
Another argument against routine newborn circumcision is consent. An infant can’t give it. It’s his body; he should make the decision when he’s older. Some circumcised men have even opted for foreskin restoration.
Added on 1/2/14: As it seems I have stirred up a bit of a controversy, are circumcision rates actually falling? I have added a follow up to this post here and are there any benefits to it? Here’s the answer to that.