Circumcision is an extremely traumatic experience for newborns and questions its necessity. It frames the practice as being largely rooted in religious and cultural traditions rather than medical need, suggesting that it may be unnecessary. It also encourages parents to think critically about the decision and prioritize keeping their baby safe and protected.
2 Likes
It’s fair to question circumcision. It’s an irreversible procedure done without consent, and major groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics say the benefits aren’t strong enough to recommend it for all newborns.
While it’s rooted in cultural and religious tradition, that doesn’t mean it’s medically necessary. Parents should think critically and prioritize their child’s safety and long-term well-being.
1 Like
As a woman, I disagree. Hygiene matters, and circumcision can make it easier to maintain cleanliness and reduce certain health risks. While it may not be medically required, it does have practical benefits.
Organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics acknowledge health advantages, so for many parents, it’s a reasonable choice—not just a cultural one.
1 Like
I get the hygiene argument, but it’s not really accurate to say circumcision is necessary for cleanliness. The foreskin isn’t “unsanitary” by default—basic hygiene (just washing like any other body part) is enough to keep it clean. Most of the world remains uncircumcised without widespread hygiene issues.
Even the American Academy of Pediatrics makes it clear the health benefits are not strong enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborns. That means it’s not medically necessary—it’s optional.
Also, we don’t remove healthy body parts from someone who can’t consent just because they might make hygiene easier later. Teaching proper hygiene is a simpler, non-invasive solution. So the question isn’t “can it have benefits?”—it’s “are those benefits strong enough to justify an irreversible procedure on a newborn?” And according to the medical consensus, the answer is no.