Circumcision was originally a religious practice, it was used to desensitize the penis from sexual pleasure. The procedure was thought to have many health benefits, but has recently been found to be almost completely useless. The invasive surgery is nothing more than what it was originally used for, depriving a man of the full pleasure of sexual intercourse.


Male- A surgical procedure that cuts the foreskin of the genitals off, questioned by many first-world countries, however continues to be legal in most of the world.

Female-A surgical procedure that cuts off the head of the clitoris and foreskin, illegal in almost all first-world countries.


There are alleged medical benefits, however, most benefits are outweighed by extreme negatives. Many believe that the reason for these medical allegations is justification; as its’ initial religious purposes are rejected when they stand alone. The initial purpose was to cause less sensation for the circumcised during intercourse.


When looking over the data, it reveals that the assumption of medical benefits is nothing more than an excuse to justify male circumcision. In the end, there is no benefit to circumcision besides that of religious belief. Even when looking over supported medical benefits the costs outweigh the benefits. A baby boy has a higher chance of dieing from circumcision (117 per year) than a grown man has from developing penile cancer (1 in 600 a lifetime). Even if the suspicions that the fatality rate is too high are correct, the cancer it claims to reduce is so scarce it’s not worth putting the infant through pain. Anesthesia takes at least 30minutes to circulate before it can accurately prevent pain, most doctors do not wait. Even when correctly administered, it does not fully block the pain of having sensitive areas cut off. Even the person who benefits from male circumcision the most don’t even have penises. Women have less chances of getting hpv and developing cervical cancer if a man is circumcised, but even that rate is so low it has no real impact. The rate of prevention is higher than males, but still low enough to where it is insignificant. Men have a benefit against HIV of less than 1% and women don’t benefit at all.

For comparative ethical purposes, a baby girl at birth has around a 12% chance that she will develop breast cancer in her life time. That’s around one in eight women over a course of at least 60 years. A baby boy has less than a 1% chance of developing penile cancer, at one in every six-hundred men. There are places in America, like in Quincy, Illinois, that will recommend circumcision and list this EXACT reason. The number of baby girls that are recommended, on medical terms that she may develop breast cancer, have her avoli removed? None.

With this, why are people circumcising their boys when he has a higher chance of dieing from the procedure than developing the cancer the procedure supposedly helps prevent? One, ignorance and two, money.

Many doctors in Quincy either, prey on their patient’s ignorance, or are ignorant themselves. I like to provide my doctors to test questions that I’ve already verified online. For example:

Is circumcision the best answer for an infant with phimosis?

My son’s doctor answered ‘yes’ to this, I switched doctors. An infant boy’s foreskin is fused to the head of the penis making it impossible to be diagnosed with phimosis (non-retracting foreskin) in the first place. Even at an age where the foreskin is supposed to retract there are other, less painful ways of dealing with the situation.