Circumcision at birth?

Circumcision is customary in the United States, for whatever
reason. In Europe it certainly is not; European men don't see the necessity of it (they're probably crossing their legs while reading this thread)

There is no such thing as female circumcision. Sadly enough
female mutilation is still prevalent in many 3rd world countries.

You missed my point. Despite the difference between author's intent and reader's perception, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked the question as per your perception, not author's intent. That is all.

Then what exactly is circumcision, if it isn't mutilation?

Penile exfoliation

I thought I answered it pretty clearly.

The answer to the question was not the now-seriously-dead-horse I was referring to. It was a good answer and you are a good duck.

Quack.

My neighbors had a pet duck named Gabby.

It's like cosmetic surgery. There is no medical reason to remove it. It's done purely because someone wants it done or it's always been done (religous).

Circumcision is cruel, IMO, and unnecessary. But it's done to nearly every baby boy born in a US hospital, unless requested other wise by parents. Why?

If someone can give me one valid medical reason why it should be done, I might reconsider. But considering that when properly cared for (you wash your dick and balls), there is no evidence that there is a higher incident of disease than for that of a circumcized man.

It's good for business.

According to a survey conducted by OBG Management, October 1994, CIRCUMCISION: A SURVEY OF FEES AND PRACTICES,

Ob-Gyns' fees for circumcision range from $0 to $400, averaging $137 nationwide, according to an OBG Management survey of more than 200 physicians. The survey found that fees are highest in New Jersey ($237.50, on average), New York, Maryland and other Atlantic seaboard states. By contrast, several physicians in the Midwest, Deep South and Southwest changed $50 to 75.

http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/garry/

I was under the impression that people no longer did this very often at birth. Those who do it for religious purposes wait until at least the 8th day of life, some much longer than that. When my son was born, there was no assumption that he would be circumcised. I don't even remember if they asked.

So your son is NOT circumcised? Hm. Maybe its different in different parts of the US.

He was not circumcised at birth. His father made the decision to have him circumcised according to his country's customs, but it was done when he was older and with anesthesia, which they don't give newborns. The lack of anesthesia for newborns is just barbaric, IMO. I myself am ambivalent about circumcision. If it wasn't important to my husband, I wouldn't have had it done as I just don't see any good reason to do it.

Giving anaesthesia to newborns is very dangerous. The dose must be smaller and there is a danger you could be being detrimental to his health with it.

Drugs, after all, do have side-effects.

Right, all the more reason not to do surgery on them at birth.

As much as I appreciate the female input on the negative aspect of circumcision, woman can't really know what it's like to not have that protective foreskin.

It would perhaps be the equivalent to having your clitoral hood removed, and then having the clitoris exposed and rubbing against your panties…..all the time (I just know someone will plant a joke after this but them's the facts ma'am).

I actually agree with that. Which is why I let my husband make that decision for our son.

<biting my tongue re: exposed clitoris>