Help-unsure of what to do...

[lovingthis]

hello Mamas,
I am currently pregnant with my third child; I am waiting to find out baby's gender until he or she gets here in late spring.
My problem is, my oldest a 5 year old boy is circumcised. At the time, the research that I could find seemed indifferent and the family/communty was def. pro-circ. In the end , I left it to my husband, as I told him " I don't have one of those, and you do- so you make the final call." That was his decision based on some of the bad expereinces he has witnessed with grown men in the military.
By the time we had the second, I was beginning to question the validity of the original arguments I was given. But she turned out to be a little girl, so the issue was put aside for the time being.
This time, however, I am very torn.
I don't neccessarily feel like his looking different is reason enough to circ- though Dad and brother both would be. I came from all girls- but none of my cousins were, so it wasn't neccessarily something that I grew up with. But my husband came from a very male centrc family- and they are very pro-circ....
Basically, while I realize that no one here is ging to give me any kind of info to suggest that circ is okay in anyway- I just wonde if anyone can point me to something that seems truly unbiased. So far teh arguments I am hearing seem much more based on personal feeling than actual evidence- since I mentioned that unfortunately, my and my husband's only experience with non-circ has been negative, while we never personally experienced complications with our circ'd son. I just want to make the right decision, because I know that if I don't do it this time ( if it is even a boy)this kid is going to hear about it from his Dad's family for the rest of his life...and no, there is no way they wouldn't find out. I need reasons that will make that worth putting up with.
Thank you so much

[Fellow Traveler]

Well, I guess the first question is how do you mean unbiased. That is to say, what are your specific concerns? You have mentioned some first hand experiences with the military. I might then ask how do you think things are in the military of other western countries like Britain, Germany [well all of Europe], Japan[most of Asia] , ect, ect.

I know that the military question focuses a lot around the sand myth, which was discussed here: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/118-1218/1564/

I am sure I can do better but are there more specific issues like a 1, 2, 3 list?

[lovingthis]

well, the specific experences that my husband has dealt wih is having soldiers that have had to be circ'd later in life, because of problems. The number of guys who have dealt with this seems pretty big to him, but who knows what percentage is actually non-circ anyway - the assumption is that most of them are circ, so the handful that have had tobe circ'd because of issues as adults seems to represent a large percentile of that population. Does that make sense?
Granted, and this may seem TMI, it is ot uncommon for military guys to find themselves in some less than savory positions- so they may also just have increased risks of certain kinds of infections and things that would make them have to deal with the procedure later.
Anyhow, based on the issues he has witnessed ( in addition to the whole "looking like Dad" issue) he doesn't think that the possibility of having to have it done later is worth the trauma. I can only think of 5-6 instances with adults that he has known, and a couple with children.
I guess I am just confused because everything I read that seems like it would be unbiased ( not coming from an organization that particularly promotes one or the other, or is tied to a movement that supports one or another) gives conflicting info. One health agency says one thing, while another says another. Basically, where it seems to stand, in our immediate family right now, is weighing the possibility of future complications( like having to have it doe later, when my husband deems it more traumatic) against the possibility of immediate trauma. I don't want to do it just because it is what the family expects, but I also don't want to open this child up for the issues that this particular extended family would hoist on him.
I want to just find statistical information, but i can't seem to find numbers without opinions attached to them.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by lovingthis

well, the specific experences that my husband has dealt wih is having soldiers that have had to be circ'd later in life, because of problems. The number of guys who have dealt with this seems pretty big to him, but who knows what percentage is actually non-circ anyway - the assumption is that most of them are circ, so the handful that have had tobe circ'd because of issues as adults seems to represent a large percentile of that population. Does that make sense?

Well, I don't have specific numbers except I might point out that there doesn't seem to be a problem of such a great magnitude that other countries find circumcision necessary. Think about most other countries, all of Europe, Russia, China, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Latin America, Canada, ect. I wish I had firm numbers but circumcision is really a US cultural problem that is has been fading. And again, I think the New Zealand paper is an interesting read. I hope that helps

Originally Posted by lovingthis

Granted, and this may seem TMI, it is ot uncommon for military guys to find themselves in some less than savory positions- so they may also just have increased risks of certain kinds of infections and things that would make them have to deal with the procedure later.
Anyhow, based on the issues he has witnessed ( in addition to the whole "looking like Dad" issue) he doesn't think that the possibility of having to have it done later is worth the trauma. I can only think of 5-6 instances with adults that he has known, and a couple with children.

Well, I don't look like Dad and the only time I think about it is when someone brings it up in this context. It has never been an issue just my experience and I think that is the consensus for those in my positions. To be honest, my guess is that it is the dad who thinks about it more, like every time he changes his son. Kind of a projection thing.

One thing I would add, and this fits both the military experience as well as what you mentioned in this paragraph, I think the odds of a boy needing a circumcision are very low. 1 in 15,000 - 20,000 or less in most intact countries. But in the US due to the fact that we've been circumcising most boys for more than 60 years, proper conservative care is lost. I don't think that is a good reason. If you were to leave your boys intact, and ran into a question, you could just ask us.

Originally Posted by lovingthis

I guess I am just confused because everything I read that seems like it would be unbiased ( not coming from an organization that particularly promotes one or the other, or is tied to a movement that supports one or another) gives conflicting info. One health agency says one thing, while another says another. Basically, where it seems to stand, in our immediate family right now, is weighing the possibility of future complications( like having to have it doe later, when my husband deems it more traumatic) against the possibility of immediate trauma. I don't want to do it just because it is what the family expects, but I also don't want to open this child up for the issues that this particular extended family would hoist on him.
I want to just find statistical information, but i can't seem to find numbers without opinions attached to them.

That's because if you read something from the US or sometimes Canada it will usually be neutral or slightly in favor. Most other first world countries will solidly tell you it's not necessary in their publications. On this issue there will be little raw data without commentary. Perhaps it's best to say what I've already said, no other Western country circumcises infant boys, most find the thought horrific. And there aren't a large number of men needing circumcision. It's not even a thought that enters their minds. Might I ask what would be hoist on him by the family?

[Quirky]

I am here to tell you that the main reason military men get circed is peer pressure. Being in the military doesn't subject you to conditions that are likely to cause huge penis problems. Going without baths may make you stinky and smelly, but it doesn't cause foreskin infections.

My father, born in 1936, made it all the way through college and OCS and fighter pilot school and went to Viet Nam in 1967, and ended up getting circed there.

My whole life, I thought it was because of "jungle rot" or some such nonsense. But although he certainly wasn't living in the lap of luxury, he was living in a barracks with showers. My mom told me years and years after the fact that he got circed because everyone else was, basically, and he succumbed to peer pressure. The military places a very high premium on conformity in many circumstances, after all. So I don't think you can discount the social pressures that may have led these men to consent to circumcision.

Also, any intact men of your dh's generation came of age in a time when it was thought that to maintain proper penile hygiene, babies had to be retracted from birth and scrubbed clean. This led to much scarring and infections, as this is similar to scrubbing out a girl's vagina with soap (and breaking her hymen in the process). It simply is unnecessary and is downright harmful, and the repeated infections and trauma caused by premature retraction have led to many a circumcision in later life.

Even so, though, all these guys who "had" to be circed as adults got to make their own choices, about their own bodies, for good or for bad reasons. Why cut your son's foreskin off because someone else had a problem with theirs? That would be like saying, we have so many friends with breast cancer, so let's cut off our daughter's breasts so she never has to go through that.

But be that as it may, all of the "evidence" you have from your dh is anecdotal. Based on the scientific research on circumcision, not a single medical organization in the world recommends that all baby boys be circumcised at birth for medical or hygienic reasons.

Which is pretty amazing, given all the work that scientists have done to try to prove that circumcision prevents SOMETHING -- it used to be epilepsy and tuberculosis that circ prevented, then cervical cancer and syphilis, and now UTIs and HIV. Yet even with all this work, in the most circ-happy country in the world (ours), the AAP does not condone circumcision for all babies for medical reasons.

So the real question here is not what happened to your husband's acquaintances, but what is the right decision for your son, and that should be to leave him with his whole penis, because he's the only one who has the right to decide to cut part of it off.

[Night_Nurse]

Originally Posted by lovingthis

Basically, while I realize that no one here is ging to give me any kind of info to suggest that circ is okay in anyway- I just wonde if anyone can point me to something that seems truly unbiased. So far teh arguments I am hearing seem much more based on personal feeling than actual evidence- since I mentioned that unfortunately, my and my husband's only experience with non-circ has been negative, while we never personally experienced complications with our circ'd son. I just want to make the right decision, because I know that if I don't do it this time ( if it is even a boy)this kid is going to hear about it from his Dad's family for the rest of his life...and no, there is no way they wouldn't find out. I need reasons that will make that worth putting up with.
Thank you so much

(Bolding mine)...

Congratulations on your pregnancy and for taking the time to look into keeping your son intact.
I'm going to suggest that the most unbiased comments you might receive will hopefully be from the parents here who have both circumcised and intact sons. I hope they will chime in and let you know what it's been like taking care of both kinds of newborns and parenting older children with differences. There are plenty of those parents here. I hope they will post to address your concerns.
What about the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics does not endorse infant circumcision?
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...rics;103/3/686

Also, here are some links from physicians that might help you:

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/9985.html

http://www.askdrsears.com/html/1/t012000.asp (you may have to click "skip the newsletter offer" to get to the article)

If you want to search google for the Penn and Teller circumcision episode, I think it might give your husband something to think about. I'll go ahead and tell you P&T think circumcision is "Bullsh!t" but they interview doctors and regular people both for and against circumcision so the view can make up his or her own mind (there is a bit of language and nudity in the episode though).

Now, what exactly do you mean by the Dad and family letting the kid hear about it? Do you mean your husband and family would tease the child about his foreskin? I hope not. If so, that speaks volumes about your family's character. I just don't even know how to address that other than to say a foreskin is a natural body part. It seems silly to make fun of it. I can't guarantee that your son will never get teased in school for being intact, but chances are much higher he'd get teased for wearing glasses, being too tall or too short, being chubby, having braces, a speech impediment, etc, etc. Kids get teased sometimes. It's a hard fact of life. But something we all survive. I would hope the teasing wouldn't come from his own family though.
And so what if your extended family and in-laws disagree? they don't get to have the say in how you raise your child. What if you want to breastfeed and they have issues with that? Would you give up breast feeding if they object? They are free to have an opinion, but that doesn't mean you have to answer to them. It's your call. And if it boils down to it, you can tell your dh that they first son was circed like he wanted but this next one you get to leave intact since it's your turn to decide on how the genitals will look. It's childish, yes, but it doesn't sound like his argument is based on educated logic either. Besides, we all know intact genitals are the default, the way God/mother nature designed them.

BTW-my dh is circumcised but my son isn't. My son has never had any cleanliness issues, infections, problems, or identity issues due to his foreskin. If he's ever noticed that his penis looks different, he's never mentioned it.

[Lula's Mom]

This from the Canadian Children's Rights Council gives you a concrete number:

If "medical necessity" is claimed, we suggest that such a claim is invariably fraudulent. Since in Finland, and in other countries, which have a zero rate of male circumcision at birth, and the risk of needing one later is one in sixteen thousand, six hundred and sixty-seven (1/16,667), every claim for "medical necessity" should fully investigated.

That is the evidence to support what jwhispers told you above. Other countries, where circumcision is simply not done, know that if a problem arises (as it will in some babies, male or female), there are treatments to fix it instead of surgery. They know how to care for intact infants, so they do not experience the problems that some US boys do.

The United States has lost the knowledge of how to properly take care of intact boys. So in addition to just hastily recommending circumcision for everything from a 'tight foreskin' (normal in childhood) to a yeast infection (how do you treat that in girls? not by cutting off her labia...), doctors actually cause infection and other problems in intact boys. They tell parents that the foreskin must be pulled back and scrubbed under at every diaper change. No one is surprised that these boys "need" to be circumcised later for infections and phimosis ("see, we told you this would happen if you didn't circumcise him!"), but they never realize that improper care is the culprit.

All you have to do is know how to take care of an intact boy (and that is SO EASY!) He likely will never have any issues. But if he does, there are treatments, exactly the same ones you use for little girls. He'll never NEED to be circumcised, just like Finnish boys don't!

[Night_Nurse]

http://www.infocirc.org/uti2.htm

[Bm31]

Originally Posted by lovingthis

Anyhow, based on the issues he has witnessed ( in addition to the whole "looking like Dad" issue) he doesn't think that the possibility of having to have it done later is worth the trauma.

If this is what he's worried about, here's the dirty little secret about circ. as far as saving later trauma. It's just as likely (10 in 1,000) that a circ. child will have to have a re-circ later (just as traumatic) as it is an intact child will ever need a circ. And I'm not even sure if that includes other corrective surgeries caused by circ...lysing adhesions, fixing buried penis, meatal stenosis, etc. The source on this is pretty credible and neutral http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/preg...rcumcision.htm.

[jessjgh1]

yeah, take note on stats about 'risks' the caring for kids site still doesn't mention meatal stenosis, which is almost always associated with circumcision (rarely seen in intact boys unless the boy was forcibly retracted/dealing with adhesions). The 'risks' of intactness are always reported including lifelong risks while the risks of circumcision only include those seen IMMEDIATELY after the procedure (the first months of life where as intact 'risks' include those that might occur in the geriatric years).

Trading the risks for circumcision because it might spare a child or adult the 'trauma' of going through the surgery later in life really never made sense to me. IF a child needed to be circumcised, or an adult, they should be given the FULL benefit of pain relief and also given information about the procedure. So unlike an infant, who has no idea why this is happening, they would be prepared for the procedure and receive adequate and total pain relief. There would be a REASON for it.

I hear people post about their traumatic circumcisions during childhood sometimes.... MOST of them were caused by poor medical advice and improper care (forced retraction) and most were not really told about the procedure. No wonder they were traumatized.

Anyways, sorry I rambled, I really shouldn't be here this late at night. I hope you have some luck with your decision and continue to come forward with questions.

Jessica

[MamaGlow]

Hi,
I have one ds who is, and one who is not (dh is)... it is by far easier to 'care for' and intact penis than to deal with the red, raw skin of a circ wound... had either dh or I done *any* research (or seen one performed!) we never would have consented to the first...

but anyway... the boys (now 11 and 13) noticed long ago that they looked diff from one another, and we explained why, and now it's a non-issue... maybe it will be once they are in sports and seeing others? i don't know...

my feeling is, (including all the other valid points listed above) why put your child through that as a newborn... if for some rare reason he might need one later, then he's an adult, can have it explained to him, and make his own choice (and get significant pain relief during and after)...

anyway, that's my .02

[2xy]

Everybody has already covered so much good stuff.

I just want to add that I have two intact teenagers. Their dad is circed. My boys have never commented on their dad's genitals....adult genitalia look so much different from a child's, that I doubt the foreskin (or lack thereof) would be the thing a boy would notice.

My older son DID notice his friend's circed penis when they were about six years old, and changing at the pool. He asked me about it later. I briefly explained what a circumcision is, and my son was horrified. He wisely said, "It's too bad the baby doesn't have a say in it."

I served in the military, and the topic of circumcision came up on a 24-hour watch. There was a Latino guy there who said he was not circumcised, and a bunch of people were questioning his hygiene when "in the field." He smiled and said "Every MRE has a baby-wipe in it." I was a Navy Corpsman and worked in family medicine, military sick call, and recruit processing at different times during my service. I can honestly not recall one instance of anyone having a foreskin issue while working with male military patients.

Anyway, looking like a family member is not a good reason to have surgery. If your DH or other child had to have a toe amputated, would that mean the baby should have a toe amputated? My body looks nothing like my mother's....she is apple-shaped and large-breasted. I'm pear-shaped and small-breasted. Nobody ever suggested that I get implants so that I can look like my mom. KWIM?

[Nandi]

Many mommas on this board circed a first child before they had further information, and when they learned more about it, decided to leave their next children intact.
To me what it really comes down to, is "would I want part of my body cut off without my permission or knowledge, or would I want to be given a choice?"

[lovingthis]

Thanks for the info.
I spent several years living in Europe- so I have first hand exerienced their attitude about circumcision. They do still do it- just not as rountinly as we do. And as a point to support the peer pressure thing, I did notice that every Fogin national woman I knew that was married to an American man DID have her son circumcised. Not all of the women I knew that were married to men of their own nationality did...so there is that. But basically, the doctors there told us the same thing I hear here _ here's the evidence ( and they placed differeing amounts of significance on said evidence, depending upon their standpoint) and then they would say that it is a personal choice ( which of course, it should be).
Thanks for pointing out that the cic in miltary thing is most likely peer pressure. It would make sense even for the guys to SAY that it was because of some problem, because that would be less embarrassing than just saying that they were embarrassed of their foreskin.
I hope this didn't make it sound like my husband is close minded- he really isn't. It isn't even his families opinions that play the big part in how he has atood on this. BUT his family is overly gung-ho....to give you an idea, my father-in-law actually said " why would you want to cover up something so beautiful....." so...yeah....at the time, I didn't have the nerve to ask what was so wrong with something that God put there in the first place- let alone the fact that as far as he is concerned Old testament rules were made obsoleteby Christ ( DH family is major evangelical Christian) but for some reason, h doesn't think this applies to circ...
I think some of his comes from the fact that his mother was a doctor- during the 60's and 70's when circ was just wht you did. Granted, I ave a feeling that if I were to talk to her about this right now, she might actually gve me a less biased opinion-medically. very cool, very analytical lady.
Also, Ireally appreciate the point that the problems that non-circ guys in my generation have had is most likely due to improper cleaning techniques dictated while we were babies. Never thought of that.
I also really appreciate the poster who referred me to the board of parents who have both intact and circ'd sons.
I particularly appreciate everyone that refrained from preparing to jump down my throat. There were acouple of posts that made me feel like everyone here just thinks I'm some baby-harming ignoramus. Honestly, I have done all of the research I can, and have yet to find a truly inbiased answer- because even those European statistics are not as unbiased as some may think ( most of those cuntries never traditionally circ'd...so their bias goes one direction, not the other...)
so thank you- thats all I needed some resources so I an make the best decision here.
Granted, this little one may end up being a little girl anyway, and teh whole debate can be put aside yet again ( for our family at least)
Heather

[Claire and Boys]

Originally Posted by lovingthis

Thanks for the info.
I spent several years living in Europe- so I have first hand exerienced their attitude about circumcision. They do still do it- just not as rountinly as we do. And as a point to support the peer pressure thing, I did notice that every Fogin national woman I knew that was married to an American man DID have her son circumcised. Not all of the women I knew that were married to men of their own nationality did...so there is that. But basically, the doctors there told us the same thing I hear here _ here's the evidence ( and they placed differeing amounts of significance on said evidence, depending upon their standpoint) and then they would say that it is a personal choice ( which of course, it should be).

I live in the UK. I had NEVER heard of routine circumcision until I started frequenting American message boards online. I was vaguely aware of it as a religious rite. I have only known one man living here who is circumcised (and that was the one I ended up marrying) He is only circed because there was a medical indication - he developed a problem. All other partners I have had were intact. I have never met anyone who circumcised their sons IRL. There is no pressure from doctors, from family, you don't get asked in the hospital "do you want to circ?" It's not a case of it's not done as routinely - routine infant circ just does not exist here, period.

The only people who it would even occur to are those who maybe are of American origin and would therefore seek out a doctor to perform it based on their own cultural bias and awareness of the procedure - and those who have it done for religious reasons (Jews and Muslims, I'm not referring to Christians.) It is also not covered by our National Health Service, so anyone wanting it done would have to pay out of pocket.

[tennisdude23]

I concur with Claire and Boys. They don't circumcise in Europe, aside from religious reasons or pertinent medical reasons (as in there is something wrong with the foreskin in the first place). I believe that the circumcision rate in England, for example, is 3% for children between 0-15 years of age. Virtually everywhere else circumcision is unheard off, unless you go to Bosnia, for instance, where there is a large Muslim population. The rates there are probably a little higher than in the rest of Europe. By the way, my father is American while my mother is Polish, and I'm intact. So, when it comes to inter-marriages between peoples of different nationalities, I would say that the default for most people would be to leave their kids intact, especially if they are living in Europe. I think that my Polish grandparents would have each gotten heart attacks if any part of me would have been cut off for no reason. With that said I have lived in Poland and Germany for many years, and I am pretty sure that I have yet to meet somebody over there who was cut. Interestingly enough, because of their terrible World War II experiences, many Jews in Poland, Germany, France, and the former Soviet Union stopped circumcising post 1945.

When it comes to the military, there are plenty of posters on this board who have served who can tell you that there was never any pressure to circumcise, whether that be peer, medical administration, or otherwise. There are plenty of uncut people in the U.S. military, and I doubt that the vast majority of them have any problems related to their circumcision status. Obviously, in most militaries around the world, intact is the default, and nobody has any medical, hygiene or whatever other issues that people have come up with.

When it comes to personal choices, the key question you have to consider is a personal choice for whom? In my opinion, the personal choice should be the one made by your son because after all he is the consumer of surgery. In the absence of a problem, I think it's extremely difficult to justify ethically an unnecessary surgery on a non-consenting individual when the benefits of the surgery can be achieved through less intrusive means. Whenever people say that its a personal choice of the family, I have to ask what in the world does someone's family have to do with their genitals. What exactly is the connection here? In addition, when you consider, for example, a possible but unproven 1% better protection against UTIs for circumcised boys in the first year of life and then weigh that against a possible 2-5% complication rate, circumcision does not look so good anymore. I am only bringing this up to show you how hallow the medical arguments for the procedure really are.

Lastly, it's difficult to find non-biased sources on this issue. It's like trying to find non-biased sources on abortion. It's virtually impossible to do, aside from acquiring perhaps neutral medical descriptions of abortion procedures. All sources will either lean one way or the other. What you have to do is go through all the information carefully to make an informed decision. But I think the sole fact that no medical organization in the world promotes this surgery says volumes about circumcision.

[Quirky]

Originally Posted by tennisdude23

Lastly, it's difficult to find non-biased sources on this issue. It's like trying to find non-biased sources on abortion. It's virtually impossible to do, aside from acquiring perhaps neutral medical descriptions of abortion procedures. All sources will either lean one way or the other. What you have to do is go through all the information carefully to make an informed decision. But I think the sole fact that no medical organization in the world promotes this surgery says volumes about circumcision.

I would actually stay away from this analogy 1) because it opens up the abortion discussion which we are not allowed to have on this board and 2) because IMO there truly are legitimate arguments on both sides.

I would analogize male circumcision to female circumcision, for a more apples to apples approach. Both are genital cuttings of minors, without their informed consent and agreement. Both remove functional and valuable tissues and structures. Both are harmful. Both are done for cultural and religious reasons, and yes, even health reasons. The proponents of both believe that these are harmless and necessary procedures that will ensure health, good sexual conduct or behavior (as culturally defined), etc.

This is a very eye-opening comparison of the attitudes in cutting cultures about male and female circumcision:

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html

And you should really learn more about the structure and function of the foreskin, because it's a hugely important part of the body:

http://research.cirp.org

[tennisdude23]

Thanks for the info. I have a foreskin, and I know quite a bit about it's structure. I was also not comparing circumcision to abortion. I was only saying that when it comes to controversial issues, it's very difficult to find a non-biased source. I was also not trying to start a discussion about abortion; so I hope nobody locks this thread. There are also people who believe that there are very valid arguments for male and female circumcision; so we can't be dismissive of those but engage them in a provocative and educational manner.

[Fellow Traveler]

I have to wonder, in situations like you describe doesn't the look like peers argument come into play. That sure is a favorite here, I wonder why it doesn't work the other way?

Originally Posted by lovingthis

Thanks for the info.

Thanks for pointing out that the cic in miltary thing is most likely peer pressure. It would make sense even for the guys to SAY that it was because of some problem, because that would be less embarrassing than just saying that they were embarrassed of their foreskin.
I hope this didn't make it sound like my husband is close minded- he really isn't. It isn't even his families opinions that play the big part in how he has atood on this. BUT his family is overly gung-ho....to give you an idea, my father-in-law actually said " why would you want to cover up something so beautiful....." so...yeah....at the time, I didn't have the nerve to ask what was so wrong with something that God put there in the first place- let alone the fact that as far as he is concerned Old testament rules were made obsoleteby Christ ( DH family is major evangelical Christian) but for some reason, h doesn't think this applies to circ...

You're welcome. I think in response to your FIL, I might ask why would you want to cut something up that is so beautiful, didn't his maker do it right? I can't remember where I saw it, probably in a sig or something, which said: "My boy was tailor made by God, no alterations required." I would ask him but I would be it's just a in his head cultural thing. Circumcision is a pernicious practice that simply defies logical thinking. That's why he has those opinions.

Originally Posted by lovingthis

I think some of his comes from the fact that his mother was a doctor- during the 60's and 70's when circ was just wht you did. Granted, I ave a feeling that if I were to talk to her about this right now, she might actually gve me a less biased opinion-medically. very cool, very analytical lady.

Perhaps, you should ask. I think thought that when you are going through these things analytically, you should ask yourself these three questions:

Given this purported benefit:

1. Is this the only reasonable way to obtain this benefit? Meaning is this the least invasive option?
2. Do the overall purported benefit out weight the risks and harms of the procedure? Keep in mind that complications from circumcision aren't all just post operative. Things like stenosis, painful erections, skin bridges, and others do happen.
3. Is this benefit necessary for the immediate wellbeing of the child?

For example, someone will mention UTIs. That is in fact the only immediate possible benefit to an infant. But UTIs are easily treatable with antibiotics and are rare in boys anyway. So that doesn't really meet the criteria. Others might say STDs however there is not clear indication that there is an STD benefit and further there are more effective, safer, and less invasive means to protect oneself. That is just a brief but you get the idea.

Originally Posted by lovingthis

Also, Ireally appreciate the point that the problems that non-circ guys in my generation have had is most likely due to improper cleaning techniques dictated while we were babies. Never thought of that.

I think that is a big problem and it continues to be. Fortunately, boards like this now exist and better information is available.

Originally Posted by lovingthis

I also really appreciate the poster who referred me to the board of parents who have both intact and circ'd sons.
I particularly appreciate everyone that refrained from preparing to jump down my throat. There were acouple of posts that made me feel like everyone here just thinks I'm some baby-harming ignoramus. Honestly, I have done all of the research I can, and have yet to find a truly inbiased answer- because even those European statistics are not as unbiased as some may think ( most of those cuntries never traditionally circ'd...so their bias goes one direction, not the other...)

I think this is where we have a disconnect. I am not sure there can be a biased when one doesn't do something, at least in this case. For a long time there wasn't a lot of literature on why not to circumcise even today there isn't too much and here is the reason. Countries that don't do it just don't even think about it. It would be like if I came to you and said, "Let do a research project to determine why we shouldn't cut off our earlobes." To many in Europe a paper about why you shouldn't circumcise sounds just as absurd. Of course you wouldn't cut off your earlobes the same way they would say of course you wouldn't circumcise. On the flip side though there has been an attempt to justify circumcision, medically, for well over 100 years. One would think that if there was a slam dunk they would have found it by now. I think what fuels this research is the need to justify what was done to or by the researcher. That's why you find more pro and most of the con comes from researchers in circumcising countries trying to get us back to the 'that's absurd' mentality. It's a lot like Aesop's, The fox without a tail. So I don't think the biased is really a two way street.

Originally Posted by lovingthis

so thank you- thats all I needed some resources so I an make the best decision here.
Granted, this little one may end up being a little girl anyway, and teh whole debate can be put aside yet again ( for our family at least)
Heather

Please keep asking us questions when it comes up, though I'll tell you up front we want you to leave this potential boy whole and intact. We also want to make sure you know why that's important. It may seem like we are jumping down your throat a bit but it's only because we care.

[Claire and Boys]

Originally Posted by jwhispers

I think this is where we have a disconnect. I am not sure there can be a biased when one doesn't do something, at least in this case. For a long time there wasn't a lot of literature on why not to circumcise even today there isn't too much and here is the reason. Countries that don't do it just don't even think about it. It would be like if I came to you and said, "Let do a research project to determine why we shouldn't cut off our earlobes." To many in Europe a paper about why you shouldn't circumcise sounds just as absurd. Of course you wouldn't cut off your earlobes the same way they would say of course you wouldn't circumcise. On the flip side though there has been an attempt to justify circumcision, medically, for well over 100 years. One would think that if there was a slam dunk they would have found it by now. I think what fuels this research is the need to justify what was done to or by the researcher. That's why you find more pro and most of the con comes from researchers in circumcising countries trying to get us back to the 'that's absurd' mentality. It's a lot like Aesop's, The fox without a tail. So I don't think the biased is really a two way street..

Thanks for this, I wrote and rewrote a reply but it didn't make sense...you said exactly what I wanted to say

I think that, when you think about it, circumcision is just a bizarre rite. It IS absurd. It only has cultural acceptance in America because it's what everyone does and people perceive it as the norm. There is a $$ interest as well of course in perpetuating it, that and the fact that so many American researchers are trying so hard to justify it by doing studies to find even the tiniest benefit, then overblow it by stating relative risks (eg. the 60% risk reduction in HIV, the 10 fold reduction in UTI, both are actually very small risks, they just skew the statistics to make them look bigger so that they make circ look more beneficial than it is)

I was looking recently for some studies on UTI from non circing countries. Do you know, I could not even find ONE. Yet, I found NINE studies from the USA. What does that tell you?