To cut or not to cut: May not be a question

Public health officials are considering whether to implement a campaign promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States, in an effort to prevent spreading H.I.V.

Circumcision is controversial -- to say the least -- historically, religiously, passionately debated by mothers and experts across the spectrum. While foreskin has become unfashionable in the U.S., widely considered to be unhygienic and weird, The American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't believe the medical benefits are sufficient enough to warrant a recommendation. I repeat: The American Academy of Pediatrics does NOT recommend circumcision. Not to mention 4 out of 5 men worldwide aren't circumcised. What's up, America?

Yet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are expected to push circumcision for not only babies, but adult heterosexual men who are at high risk for sexually transmitted diseases.

According to the New York Times, this is based on studies showing that in AIDS-riddled African countries, circumcision reduced infection risk by half. However, the trials focused on heterosexual men at risk of getting infected from female partners. This doesn't account for the largest group of at-risk Americans: homosexual men. In fact, circumcision does not seem to protect homosexuals in the first place.



Where do you stand on the circumcision debate? How do you feel about the government stepping in on this one?