Tags: circumcisionDespite a worldwide campaign for circumcision to slow the spread of AIDS, the rate of circumcision among American baby boys appears to be declining.
A little-noted presentation by a federal health researcher last month at the International AIDS Conference in Vienna suggested that the rate had fallen precipitously — to fewer than half of all boys born in conventional hospitals from 2006 to 2009, from about two-thirds through the 1980s and ’90s.
10 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
If I recall correctly, genital mutilation was suggested as a means of slowing the spread of AIDS in poorer countries where personal hygiene is limited (i.e. Africa) versus North America and Europe.
Comment by Dan — August 17, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
Dan – If circumcision reduces the risk of getting HIV, it reduces that risk regardless of national borders. The cost-benefit analysis might change based on different standards of living, sure, but it’s not as though this is some special African-only phenomenon.
Comment by NFQ — August 17, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
What does this all mean? This is what all this means.
Comment by Evan Hurst — August 17, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
Good. It is mutilation, and shouldn’t be done.
Comment by Ian Charles — August 17, 2010 @ 5:48 pm
MMM. I love my circumcised penis!
Comment by RKO — August 17, 2010 @ 6:06 pm
Circumcision remains a valid option with several health benefits and has always been optional in the U.S. Nobody forces parents to choose it and parents have every right to choose it.
Comment by Bob — August 17, 2010 @ 6:08 pm
Uncircumcised penises are gross. A huge reason for the decline is that we have a larger Hispanic population.
Comment by MB — August 17, 2010 @ 6:16 pm
It is up to parents…babies have no choice!!! I didn’t have a choice. I found out as an adult, that when I was an infant, in order to pay for the surgery to repair the damage done to me during a badly botched circumcision, My father sold our home and we moved into an apartment above a crazy great aunt. That initial procedure affected the lives of my entire family into adulthood. It could have been worse…there might have been nothing to repair… So think about it before you do it to your boys. I have three boys and would never put their manhood at risk…how about you???
Comment by kay jay — August 17, 2010 @ 10:59 pm
If I had sons, I wouldn’t do it. It’s no longer “necessary,” if it ever really was in the first place.
Comment by Evan Hurst — August 17, 2010 @ 11:05 pm
It may not be medically necessary but it still has benefits and complications are very rare. One can choose to not have one’s children circumcized and the proceedure is still available to them when they grow up if they so choose. You don’t have to be an infant to be circumcized.
Comment by Bob — August 18, 2010 @ 4:22 pm