What are the pros and cons of circumcision? (for a newborn)?

Question

Why would you get it done, and why wouldn't you get it done?

Answer 1

It is interesting coming to this question after so many have already contributed of their opinions and, in some cases, knowledge. To me the interesting thing is the amount of misinformation that seems to continually be spewed out by those who have been circumcised.



There is nothing "normal" about being circumcised. It is a deliberate procedure that amputates an important part of the male (in your case at least) body. It is not widely practiced and the incidence of it is reducing even further as people learn the truth of the natural penis.



What you need to know about circumcision is that is it a terrible mutilation of the human body. No civilised person could ever allow this to happen to someone they claim to love. Circumcision is the removal of the (male) foreskin. Uncut or uncircumcised refer to the natural state of the penis where the whole of the sexual organs are intact. About 90% of the males on Earth are not circumcised, but it is still practiced as a routine in Israel and in the USA.



Circumcision of a boy if as painful as circumcision of a girl - that means cutting of the clitoris and labia of a girl! I cannot imagine why anyone would want to inflict significant injury and permanent damage on a child or any other human. It is as good to be circumcised as it is to cut off your eyelid so your eye no longer has the protection and lubrication it was designed to have. A male was born with a foreskin for a reason, and it was not so it could be cut off!



Circumcised penises are no cleaner than a natural one - any one who says so obviously has no idea what they are talking about. It is said "World Health Organization and the Center [American spelling] of Disease Control want all males circumcised", but that is not true. The benefits of a foreskin far outweigh the benefits of circumcision. Only a fool would want to inflict such terrible carnage on another human. WHO and CDC do support circumcision, but only because American doctors and pharmaceutical companies make huge dollars out of the cruel process. They are willing to sacrifice human health and wellbeing on the altar of monetary greed.



Circumcision of the male is just as barbaric and cruel as circumcision of the female. Most people would not even consider inflicting such damage on a girl, yet some still consider it an acceptable practice to perform on a boy.

Answer 2

Your older family members think it should be done because they are ignorant of the advances in medical knowledge that have occurred during the last 50 years - they believe all the old wives' tales - that it's cleaner, prevents disease, is painless for a baby and looks better. None of these notions are true. In fact, the opposite is usually the case. Circumcision is less clean, more prone to infection, a baby feels pain far more acutely than an older child or adult, a circumcised man spreads STDs more easily and a circumcised penis is deformed and dysfunctional.



Just tell your family that you're not going to have a doctor take a knife to your baby's genitals unless there's a REALLY good medical reason for him to do so. Circumcision is a cosmetic surgery with no medical benefit whatsoever.



Also, be wary of some answers here. An intact boy MUST NOT have his foreskin pulled back to clean under it. Many doctors in the US (because they have only been taught to care for circumcised penises) get this wrong and damage a baby's penis by pulling it back, so be ready to stop this if it ever happens, because the result can be phimosis that only shows up when the kid is a teenager. A baby's foreskin is fused to the glans and needs to be left alone. If it gets dirty you rinse it like you rinse a finger.

Answer 3

Top 10 Ways Infant Male Circumcision Harms Women



http://top10wayscircumcisedsexharmswomen.com

Answer 4

I'm an American and I left my son intact.



He was born perfect, and I intend to keep him that way.



There are no 'benefits' to being circumcised - especially the HIV 'statistics' which people love to tout, but never IN CONTEXT. Yes, in Africa, where the AIDS prevalence is 13+%, people can benefit from it. Here in the US, where the AIDS prevalence is 0.55%, not so much. I can't justify removing a functioning part of my son's body when teaching him to not be a manwhore will do the same job.



It doesn't prevent penile cancer - the rates of penile cancer in the US and Denmark (where less than 5% of the population is cut) are nearly identical.



My first husband was cut - and was cut too tight. Erections were extremely painful for him and he lost much of his enjoyment from sex.



My second husband wasn't cut and the sensations on my end are much more intense and I find I enjoy sex much more.



Lastly, if some girl is so shallow that she doesn't want to be intimate with my son because he has a foreskin, then she wasn't good enough for him anyway.



If he wants to get it cut after he turns 18, that's his choice. It's a choice I feel he MUST have, and I have no right to take it away from him.

Answer 5

Overall it is undoubtedly worse to be circumcised. Here is some good information as to why.



A 20 minute video by the nocirc organisation. It is very informative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHVvB1oHAgg



In regards to care. Care is a lot easier with intact, non-circumcised boys as there is nothing to do. The foreskin is unretractable in infancy so it should be left alone. No cleaning under it or pulling it back is required. This medical page explains further:

http://www.kidshealth.org.nz/index.php/ps_pagename/contentpage/pi_id/266



Circumcised boys actually require a lot more care.

Firstly, all newly circumcised boys are in discomfort because there is an open wound. The wound is susceptible to infection. It can also become irritated by ammonia in the urine - which provides more discomfort for the baby.

One common problem is a skin-bridge. The skin left over after the foreskin is severed can re-attach to another part of the penis resulting in an adhesion (see link below for picturesof this and other complications). Very little of this is told to you. Do you really want all this hassle when there is no need for it?

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

(Look around the circumstitions site - it has a wealth of information.)



The psychological effects of circumcision are open to dispute, but I cannot imagine them being anything other than negative. It certainly won't help you bond with your child - especially in those crucial early months:

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/

(Look around the cirp site- it has a wealth of information.)



The foreskin serves a sexual purpose. The negative sexual effects are rarely mentioned or worse, denied. Circumcision removes a functioning part of the penis. Many circumcised men do not even know what they have lost - especially in the USA where it can be a taboo topic - what with men having fragile egos and all.



As someone with a foreskin, I value it. It contains many specialized nerves on it's underside. When the foreskin is moved up and down it is very pleasurable and prompts the release of all sorts of feel-good hormones. Circumcised men cannot masturbate as easily as there is no gliding effect. If they try it without an artificial lubricant then it may chafe , become red and sore. I think this is terrible - to worsen the sexual lives of someone without their consent. This site shows the movement of the foreskin in masturbation (graphic). It also contains a 20 minute video on the function of the foreskin:

http://www.circumstitions.com/completeman/



Without the foreskin protecting the glans, circumcised men lose further sensitivity. The glans (head of the penis) dries out. It also brushes on underwear which causes the skin to toughen -sort of like when you walk bear feet - the skin hardens. This page shows pictures (graphic):

http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm



There are good reasons to believe that sex is better for the woman as well, if the man has his foreskin intact: This site is an educational one on why it is better for both partners to be intact (graphic):

http://xrl.us/foreskinfunctions



Men in Britain, Ireland, France, Germany and Italy, along with the rest of Europe don't get circumcised and they all do as good if not better than countries where circumcision is more common. So all in all it is best to be as nature intended. No medical association actually recommends non-therapeutic infant circumcision. Check out this site for frequently asked questions:

http://www.circinfo.org/parents.html



Here is some other information you might find useful:



History: Non-religious circumcision only started in English-speaking countries in the late 1800's. The main reason was to prevent masturbation. More info can be found at this at this site:

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/



Rates of circumcision:

Circumcision rates have dropped in the USA to 60%.

http://www.circumstitions.com/USA.html

In Canada and Australia the rate has dropped to less than 10%. In Britain the rate is less than 1%. Only 20-25% of the world are circumcised, 2/3 of these are Muslim.

Answer 6

Most adults who have lost their left arm when they were just a little kid would probably get by quite well. I'm not questioning that fact.

However, those people are simply not in a position to claim that life is so MUCH BETTER with only one arm.

Statements such as, "It has cut down the chances of getting infections on the side of the finger nails by fifty percent" may be could for a laugh, but that's exactly that... a JOKE with a little truth in it -- NOT an excuse for amputating left arms.



Similarly, adults who have lost their foreskin when they were just babies simply won't know what they are missing and are NOT in a position to claim that it so much BETTER without their natural 'protective cover'.

They have merely learned to ADAPT to living their lives without it, most likely without even realizing it, which is why some make those silly claims.



On the other hand (no pun intended), people who only have one arm are more aware of their handicap. Or rather, they are more aware that having TWO arms would be even better, but alas they don't have that 'luxury'. Because of that awareness, they don't make silly claims based on what is essentially garbage.

Answer 7

There are no pros and cons for a newborn circumcision. The reason being is a new born doesn't have sex or use his penis in any way so there is nothing in the circumcision or foreskin for him at the moment.

It's when he becomes and adult that it has pros and cons.



The pros and cons of circumcision are oppinion only, not a fact. It will vary from man to man, which is why it's so important that each man gets to make the choice for himself at a later date. What might be seen as a pro for you might be a con for him and since it's his body his oppinion matters way more than anyone elses.

Circumcision has no medical benifits what so ever. We have running water and soap in this country, no need for the surgery at all. In fact to say circumcision is cleaner had always been offensive to me as a man because basically those people are saying men have to have their body surgically altered because we are too stupid to take a simple shower. It's offensive. Esspecially when circumcision takes away so much sensitivity and sexual function from a man. People are syaing we should lose out sexually and give that up for what we could have cleaned in 10 seconds.



I will always resent my parents for circumcising me. They really had no right to alter my body without my consent, regardless if they felt it was best for me or not. (Only I know what's best for my penis)



50% is the current infant circumcision rate, many parents are opting out of it once learning the damage the procedure does without any medical benifit. Your family members are most likely relying on old and outdated information, not anything up to date and recent.



-Connor

Answer 8

It's not unusual for older generations to balk slightly at the idea of leaving your son intact. My parents were a little surprised when I told them I was planning on leaving our sons intact, but they eventually left it alone and respected our decision to leave my sons whole. You'll probably find that a lot of parenting decisions you make will be questioned by other people, especially those that are of a different generation. It's best to simply say "Thanks for the advice, but we've made a decision that we're comfortable with", and then move on. If you like, you can use it as an opportunity to educate them with the information that you have, but sometimes, it's a lost cause. You'll have to decide whether or not that's worth it. Generally, with my younger friends, I'll get into my reasons for leaving my sons intact. With people who are older, I don't usually bother so much. They tend to be set in their ways.



I think you're making a good decision by leaving your son whole. Circumcision really is not necessary, and it should be his choice, since it's his penis. Roughly 80% of men in the world are intact. It's the norm - circumcision is the exception.



The following is directed at SteveX and NOT the asker of this question:



"Take a look at this video, where the very hot Olivia Munn talks about how gross

uncircumcised penises are:"



What the? Why should someone cut off a part of their child's body because that woman finds intact (uncircumcised is not the proper term) penises gross? Should I pierce my daughter's clitoris because some guy makes a video saying how hot they are? Should I have her labia trimmed down or altered if someone else says that labia of a certain size are nasty? No. That's disgusting and disturbing. I'm not going to alter my child's body because of what some people find sexually unattractive. My child can make that choice for themselves later in life, and I truly hope that they and their partners base their relationships - sexual and otherwise - on far more than such shallow standards.



If you want a good read, check out this page full of men - some famous - who resent being circumcised as infants: http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html It's a long page.



Seriously, SteveX - I've had it with your ridiculous rants. They make no sense. I was seriously relieved when someone pretending to be you posted that you regretted being circumcised and having your sons circumcised. I'm disgusted and disappointed that you're still your old self.



Wow, I didn't realize there was another one - PeterH.



"Most of these anti circ rants come from Europeans who are mostly anti circ to begin with."



Um, actually, no they're not. A few are. I'm from the US. Even if they are European, so what? The majority of the world is intact, and they have fewer infections than we have in the US. What does that tell you?



The American Cancer Society does NOT recommend routine circumcision as an effective means of preventing penile cancer, and I quote:



"The current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer."



From this link: http://www.circinfosite.com/7.html



I think people (mainly in the US) just completely miss the point that intactivists are trying to make. It's about human rights and bodily integrity. No one should the right to remove a healthy, fully functioning organ from another person's body without their consent. The risks of circumcision far outweigh the benefits, and this has been proven by multiple studies. The risks of hemorrhage, infection, shock, and death far outweigh any benefits of cleanliness (we have soap and water, people), reduced risk of UTIs (there's a 2% risk of surgical complications and only a 1% chance of a UTI, even less if the foreskin is not retracted), reduced rate of STDs (condoms and safe sex - ever heard of them? They're WAY less risky than surgery), or penile cancer (it's extremely rare, and like I said above, the American Cancer Society doesn't recommend circ'ing to prevent it), among other things.



Any reason having anything to do with sexual preferences or appearances are just plain shallow and ridiculous. No one should have their body altered per their parents' request purely for those reasons. I wouldn't have my daughter's labia altered because "men like small, dainty labia", or some stupid reason like that. The whole "women prefer circumcised penises" thing is stupid, shallow, and ridiculous. 85% of the developed world is intact. You'd think there would be a serious population problem if women really and truly didn't like them, don't you think? Besides - I hope my sons find women (or men) that care for them as people and partners - not their penises. Their love should transcend the state of one another's genitals, I should hope. I know I certainly don't love my husband purely because of the condition of his penis.



The reason we have a very satisfying sex life has little to do with his foreskin (or lack thereof), either. It has everything to do with our love for each other, our deep, wonderful sexual chemistry, the intimacy we share, the bond between us that only grows stronger with time, and respect for each other's feelings and desires.



"You dont just 'wash away' STDs"



Duh. Of course you don't. You can, however, practice smart, safe sexual decisions. C'mon. Is it really that hard to wrap it?

Answer 9

There are no pros (glad you see that!), but there are endless myths out there about it. "It's cleaner/easier to take care of/reduces risk of HIV and UTIs..." *sigh*

Boys have a foreskin for a reason; it's functional tissue. Removing it is mutilation, since it's HEALTHY flesh. Cleaning it is actually far easier when they are infants, since you don't have to worry about wound adhesions or anything; you simply wipe the penis like you would a finger. As for infections, girls get far more UTIs than boys...I don't hear an outcry for us to start cutting THEM up at birth! And anyone who thinks you can protect from HIV through circumcision is simply on glue. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of! LOL :D Try using condoms and not being a whore! Oy.

As for the cons, there are MANY. It is extremely painful, and mostly done without pain relief (even worse, the pain relief used is not enough to MAKE it a painless procedure!). A baby boy heads into a critical state from simply one ounce of blood loss, and if it's done in a hospital his risk of MRSA shoots up as well. :( Some circumcisions are botched; the boy loses his entire penis in some cases. Others grow up with skin tags, bridges, and painful erections that tear the penile skin since the circ was done too tightly. It's horrific. Many men experience loss of sensations, since the exposed glans keratinizes over time from being exposed to underwear, air, clothes, etc. The glans was meant to be an INTERNAL organ like the clitoris, only emerging for sex. It's quite tragic to see how accepted RIC is in the US. We are the only nation that routinely cuts infant boys for non-religious reasons, but thankfully only about 50% of boys born now in the US are cut, and the number keeps dropping!

Good for you for leaving your precious son whole and intact. :)

Answer 10

I didn't get my sons circumcised because:



Its very painful for an infant- anyone who says it isnt is a complete idiot.



I don't think it looks better- in my opinion a circumcised penis looks like its been cut off and sewn back on.



Circumcised males feel less sensitivity- Yes it does, i know a guy who cannot feel alot in the head of his penis and gets most pleasure from the base of it, however his penis is quite large so he cannot get the pleasure he needs because it causes discomfort for the girl.



Its my son's body- Circumcision can NEVER be reversed, whats taken can never be replaced. What would you do if your son grew up hating you for circumcising him? And yes most boys do hate that their parents did that to them. If my son wants to do it when hes older, thats his choice. At least he knows i have respected him.



An uncircumcised penis is not hard to clean- For everyone saying it is difficult to clean this is totally untrue. From birth up until around 5-10 years old you just wipe the penis like you would a finger. Do not pull on the foreskin at all. When the foreskin NATURALLY retracts you just gently pull it back and rinse. Takes 3 seconds, no big deal!



There is NO BENEFITS to being circumcised.



80% of the world is uncircumcised, so it must be goood.

Answer 11

My son was not circumcised. Firstly, the hospital he was born in doesn't even perform them anymore, it would have to be later scheduled at a clinic. Since we were not in our home state when my son was born I wouldn't have been able to schedule it until much later. I really didn't want to put my baby through that. I have heard screaming babies when it's performed and it's a terrible thing to hear. They don't use anesthesia and in my own opinion it's just cruel. Yes, it looks better, might be easier to clean (although I have never heard from anyone that is uncircumcised that it's hard to clean themselves), my husband is circumcised.. but we just didn't feel it was really necessary to put him (and us!) through that. We didn't see the need for it to be a "look like daddy" situation. Our son will know that each person is unique and each person's body is different. MANY people in our families were upset at our decision, but it was OUR decision to make, not theirs. I believe that it's just been a trend for so long that people are having a hard time letting it go. The numbers are dropping, only 50% of boys are circumcized now compared to 80% in 1980. Even if it were for religious reasons, it's not like we continue to practice EVERYTHING that was practiced in the bible. It should be personal choice, not based on something like 'cleanliness' and risk of disease, when that really plays only less than a 5% difference. Is a SURGERY really worth the 5% difference it MIGHT make when it comes to diseases? I didn't think so.

Answer 12

I say do what you feel is the best choice in your opinion, and it is your life. The one pro I can think of is that all of my dads brothers were not, and they were fine, but he had to be circumcised in his 40's because the skin started to grow over the top. He had it done as an outpatient procedure (he said recovery was very painful) and is fine now, but he had to do it or have constant pain during urination and in other situations. But once again that was a 1 out of 4 outcome, so I guess you could look at it as doing it is preventative for later problems or as if he has problems, deal with it if and when it happens.

Answer 13

No pros whatsoever. If there WERE pros, surely at least one medical society in the world would recommend it. But none do.



Cons...

-The boy is robbed of bodily integrity and choice.

-The very sensitive penile head is exposed, and subjected to constant rubbing against clothing, bed sheets etc. As a result, the head quickly becomes dried out and keratinized, and over time it becomes more and more desensitized, until the guy has to practically beat the crap out of his penile head to get any feeling out of it (in an intact guy, the gentlest touch sends him wild).

-The urinary tract is exposed to germs, urine, and environmental dirt and other particles.

-Circumcision is very painful, cruel and completely unnecessary.

-Only one third of American babies experience low-pain circumcisions. They are the lucky ones. Some doctors still use no pain meds whatsoever, but parents would never know because no matter what the baby pretty much always comes back "asleep"- either because he actually received adequate pain meds and fell asleep from grogginess, or he suffered so much pain that he became exhausted and passed out. Doctors *always* tell parents that the baby "slept right through it," but that's usually a lie. (Who is going to tell a woman who just gave birth and is very emotional that her baby was just screaming his lungs out in pain)?



Parents are often afraid of caring for an intact penis but it is sooooo easy. The #1 rule is to "leave it alone." Just look it up and you'll see. =)

Answer 14

Here are the cons.



There is NO medical benefit to circumcising and normal, healthy penis.

It reduces sexual pleasure by causing loss of sensitivity.

It does NOT make the penis cleaner.

It can cause painful erections for life when cut incorrectly.

It breaches human rights. It’s unethical to remove a part of a person’s body without their consent.

There is a loss of protection to the tip of the penis, against frostbite for example, and can cause more pain as the tip of the penis is forced to rub on underwear, the foreskin is there to protect the tip of the penis.

Newborn circumcision leads to risk of infection and urinary blockage.

For women, the lack of a foreskin can make sex more painful and there is no gliding action occurring on the penis, this calls for more need to lubricate. This includes lubrication for male masturbation. Circumcision is permanent, there are a lot of men who resent the fact they were circumcised, there is no way to get the foreskin back.

The foreskin is like a fingernail before the age of around 8, when is detaches and can be pulled back. During circumcision the foreskin is literally ripped from the penis before being cut off. This agonising pain causes many boys to go into shock.

Around 500 boys die every year as a direct result of being circumcised, they either die from the shock or from infections and blood loss.

None of the guys I have been intimate with have been circumcised. They have had NO problems with cleanliness, they clean their penis' and have no problems with infections. Just like a women, they take care and wash their genitals.

Teach your sons who to wash their penis' properly and there will NOT be a problem. And teach yourself how to care for a newborns penis, it’s very simple, it just needs washing like you would wash a finger!



The human body has developed the foreskin for a lot of reasons, it boggles my mind as to why people think the foreskin should be removed.





:-)

Answer 15

There are 2 main reasons to circumcise, looks and chance of infection. My pediatrician told me there is a 1 in 8000 chance of penis infection not circumcised and 1 in 10,000 chance circumcised. To me the reason most people do it is looks.

There is no medically necessary reason to do it. It is personal preference. Uncircumcised boys can get yeast infections though. But, circumcised boys can get infection after the surgery and it is painful for them.

I did not circumcise my son. When I told my nurse and Dr in the hospital that I wasn't both separately said good and there is no reason for it! Then my Dr said she hates doing them!

I do have to say though, my son is about 11 months and he did get a yeast infection. I guess it is pretty common. Especially since you are not supposed to pull the foreskin to clean it until it completely drops itself (around age 5) But, it was a little topical cream for a few days and all gone. It didn't even bother him.

For me, it was unnecessary surgery. The US is the only country (maybe besides Israel!) that routinely does it.

But, it is up to you and your partner to decide this!

Answer 16

You are opening a can of worms....just FYI.



Reasons to do it: Cosmetic appearances, different (although not really less) cleaning needs, possible lower incidence of infection later in life, could be religiously associated



Reasons not to do it: Painful procedure and for the first week, considered unnecessary, reduced sensations later in life, risk of infection or skin re-growth for the first two years



Having a non-cut son means you will have to teach them the proper cleaning procedure, which is not that unlike the procedure for cleaning a cut penis. They both have to lift the skin or lip and clean under it, so they don't get infections and possible issues down there. Circumcision was originally used wide-spread in the war when men did not have access to clean water (or any water) and were getting infections in their regions. In current society, we have plenty of resources to make circumcision a cosmetic decision. That is the primary difference these days. Some people want the boy to "look like daddy". Others don't care. We fall into the latter camp and did not cut either of our sons.

Answer 17

Pros: There are none.



Cons: Loss of sensation, the karitinization of the glans, emotional damage, stripping away his rights to an intact body because of your own personal opinion, infection from the wound, hemorrhaging from the wound, possible death.

Answer 18

Here in Australia most doctors and hospitals refuse to circumcise anymore.

Using surgery to mutilate the genitals instead of washing in a modern western society makes no sense. Normal intact male genitals are even easier to wash than female ones and the same substance, smegma collects in the genital folds of both sexes. A few intact males have problems with tight foreskin but this is only a tiny proportion of intact males. The condition can now be almost always treated with simple stretching exercises, sometimes in combination with a steroid cream that speeds up the process.

I wish I'd been given the chance to choose for myself. Intact men can choose to get cut at any time. I grew up in Australia when most boys were cut but happened to have a few intact friends. I saw one of them masturbating when I was about 12 and realised that I was missing out big time. I deeply resent what my parents had done to me. There is no worse feeling in the world than knowing you've been mutilated for no good reason and that you will never feel the full sexual sensations that should be your birth right.

Most circumcised males have no idea what they have lost and are not good sources of information about which is better. They don't know how a foreskin works and mistakenly think it would get in the way.

Circumcision is the amputation of the foreskin, not extra skin but an integral part of the penis; measuring 15 square inches in an adult, over half the penile skin, including the most sensitive parts of the penis. The foreskin is packed with nerve endings, special anatomical features like the ridged band and has a unique elastic gliding action, allowing it to slide on itself and act like lube. This action is what most males use to masturbate with. Circumcised males use what skin they have left, except those who are cut so tightly that they have to use lube or just rub it dry. The intact male can stroke the entire length of his penis using his foreskin and also has the option to use lube too, if he wants to. During intercourse the foreskin acts like lube on entry and may act as a dam, preventing lubricating secretions escaping from the vagina. In one study women reported that sex with an intact partner was gentler and more satisfying since he doesn't have to thrust as hard to feel enough stimulation. Removing the foreskin turns the surface of the glans from an inner mucous membrane to outside skin. Newly circumcised adults usually go through some weeks of intense discomfort as the glans is constantly exposed to rubbing on clothing, until it develops a thicker keratin layer and becomes less sensitive.

The penis forms as one organ and at birth the foreskin is usually fused to the glans like a fingernail to its finger. So there is no cavity for germs and dirt to collect in until it separates naturally later, at an average age of 10. Only the boy himself should retract it and then he can be taught to skin back and rinse with plain water regularly.

Misguided attempts to retract too early, often by doctors and nurses, are the main cause of damage to boys’ foreskins and the real main reason for childhood circumcisions.

To perform a neonatal circumcision the circumciser has to rip the foreskin away from the glans with forceps. Then the foreskin is either cut away or clamped until it falls off. Both methods cause the baby extreme pain and his raw glans and wound sting every time he urinates. It's quite common for the raw edges of the cut foreskin to fuse to the raw glans during the healing process, forming skin bridges or tags. These complications and other more serious ones are often not found till puberty and do not show up in complication statistics.

More serious complications, though not common are immediate. Some babies lose their penis to infection, bleed profusely (often because they are hemophiliac) or even die each year.

The claimed benefits of circumcision are a beat up but medical authorities have worked out that the overall complication rate is higher than all the benefits claimed by the pro-cutting advocates. One by one the claims are disproved but the pro-cutting zealots come up with more and keep quoting the old ones despite the evidence against them. For example you have more chance of dying from a circumcision or losing your penis from wound infection than from penile cancer. The rate of penile cancer is higher in the largely-circumcised USA than in European countries where less than 1% of males are circumcised. The US Cancer Society does NOT recommend routine circumcision.

A study in New Zealand followed a cohort of boys through life from birth to age 32. About 40% were circumcised. The intact males had a slightly lower rate of sexually transmitted infections than the circumcised but there was no significant difference.

Geoff

Answer 19

Would you get your ***** lips cut off without aneesthetic, I dont think you would, so why would you contemplate butchering your babys penis? Are you insane. That practice is from the dark ages and so is your line of thinking

Answer 20

WTG not having it done. Here is the most convincing argument and so easy too. Just download The Royal Dutch Medical Association 's (KNMG- consisting of 46,000 doctors and med. students) Non-therapeutic circumcision of minors. Found embedded at: http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/2010/05/royal-dutch-medical-association-issues-statement-on-male-circumcision-of-infants-and-children-aap-no.html

The statement starts with a very useful summary of the longer discussion that follows. This summary is provided in bullet points and is reproduced below.



* There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives.

* Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the circumcision.

* Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations.

* Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.

* The KNMG calls on (referring) doctors to explicitly inform parents/carers who are considering non-therapeutic circumcision for male minors of the risk of complications and the lack of convincing medical benefits. The fact that this is a medically non-essential intervention with a real risk of complications makes the quality of this advice particularly important. The doctor must then record the informed consent in the medical file.

* The KNMG respects the deep religious, symbolic and cultural feelings that surround the practice of nontherapeutic circumcision. The KNMG calls for a dialogue between doctors’ organisations, experts and the religious groups concerned in order to put the issue of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors on the agenda and ultimately restrict it as much as possible.

* There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by non-medically qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious complications than is currently the case.



How's that? Just print and give out copies (17 pages long)



No I would not do it. I chose circumcision very young becuase I liked the look of the exposed glans better, it being more interesting then the foreskin. I already had natural foreskin glans separation. Still remember I think all of it. I was happy nice job not tight some frenulum. Puberty taught me differently as I lost sensation due to keratinization (callousing) year after year. This very noticeable loss happens at about 5-7 years post circ. (my experience and others I've talked to on a restore list. Reading The Joy Sex realy got to me because I would never be able to do many foreplay described. I would never have chose circ. if my doctor had said I would loose sensation. Biggest mistake of my life!



I believe circumcision is a human rights violation. Everyone is entitled to self autonomy, to bodily integrity.

No cutting genitals of girls or boys, intersexed children too for that matter.



PAIN; most circ. is not done with anesthetics (ACOG conference in SF) It is thought infants feel more pain being preverbal. Then consider: Nelson Mandela says his circumcision was blinding white light of electrical fire that burned throughout all his veins. And here are two firsthand experiences:

http://bit.ly/mMoZR 3,928 island villagers males&females all ages forced circ'd into Islam by Muslim clerics.

COMPLICATIONS: Pain may be blunted but not eliminated by local anaesthesia. Pain causes irreversible changes in the developing brain, heightening pain perception. Atrophy of non-stimulated neurons in the brain’s pleasure centre follows severed erogenous sensory nerve endings. Circumcised boys react with greater pain intensity to immunisations six months after circumcision. In a relatively rare joint stat

Answer 21

I was circumcised at 18 and can assure you being circumcised is far superior to be uncut! There is no loss of sensitivity and it is not mutilation. Circumcision actually improves sexual function. An uncut guy is basically just masturbating inside his partner, while a circumcised guy gives and receives direct pleasure from his partner.



Being circumcised is also much cleaner, I could careless what the antis say, but uncut guys can wash 3x a day and still have an odor. It is also much healthier to be circumcised, uncircumcised males have a 60% higher chance of acquiring HIV and STDs through heterosexual intercourse. It also looks much better, an anteater is not pleasant to the eye!



Being circumcised is so far superior that I had no hesitation to have my 3 boys (5,3,1) circumcised, as I know that there is no downside, only a lifetime of benefits.



I was with all three of my sons when they were done. They all were done in the docs office with a local (after discharge) and no tears, no drama and not a big deal!



A foreskin is just nasty and disgusting!





Take a look at this video, where the very hot Olivia Munn talks about how gross

uncircumcised penises are:



http://g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/inyourpa…

Answer 22

This is not really a statement but a Troll question put out by the foreskin brigade since you have already stated what you plan to do.



Actually, We had our son circumcised at birth because we believe there are no downsides, just benefits to having boys circumcised. I had myself circumcised last year to join my son. Im in my late fifties. No regrets, no more rashes, no more infections. No more irritated foreskin. I wish my parents had me circumcised at birth.





The pain is minimal at best since they use local and topical anesthetic to numb the area.

Infancy is the best time for circumcision. It give the boy a lifetime of protection from Cancer of the penis, Hiv,Hpv, Std's, Uri's and Balanitis and phimosis. This also extends to the boy's future sexual partners.



http://newborns.stanford.edu/MogenIntro.html

http://newborns.stanford.edu/PlastibellIntro.html

http://newborns.stanford.edu/GomcoIntro.html

http://www.circumcisionvancouver.com/



Another note is that baby circumcisions are done with a clamp such as the gomco, mogen and plastibell not with a scalpel.



You can get most of the information at these sites



http://www.aboutcirc.com/

http://www.medicirc.org/

http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/index_home_new.html

http://www.circinfo.net/

http://www.circinfo.com/

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2754/wiswell.html





peter



Circumcision is a gift that keeps on giving



Be wise, Circumcise

Answer 23

I didn't have my son done because I didn't feel there was any medical reason to do it. I refused to put my son through a painful cosmetic procedure without his consent. If he chooses to have it done when he is a adult that is HIS business.

Answer 24

Because when the babies father was young there wasnt many people opting out of circumcision. So its very safe to say that his father is circumcised. Because of that, many fathers (and mothers ect) fear that their son will feel weird because he looks different from him father, and also because he is going to look different to most, if not all, of his friends.

There is also an upped chance of infection, although if you teach him young how to clean himself properly it is rarely a problem.

There is also less sensation for him during sex. Some woman claim that it feels less pleasant for them too, but I cant speak for that myself.

There is also more of a chance of passing on STDs, even if he is properly cleaning himself. You dont just 'wash away' STDs, and if he has them his g/f, significant other, whatever, has a much better chance of getting it too.

These are serious decisions to consider. Its hard to do when our child is young and we dont know what they would have decided if they were able to make the decision for themselves. I would let the father make the decision if he is in both of your lives. He will be able to much more accurately know how a young boy would feel if left uncircumcised, and if that is a strong enough feeling to get it done.

Answer 25

There are not really any CONS to getting it done.

It's painful, it's not necessary and your opening your son to a can of worms.



You don't have to "teach" your son anything, as he grows he will naturally learn how to do it own his own.



My husband is Uncut and was raised by a Single mother, My husband turned out fine, his penis is fine and everything is fine and dandy.

Answer 26

In Asia, a surgeon cut off a toddler's penis in a fit of rage. Just a con :p

Answer 27

we did it for our son mostly for religious reasons, but as a side note, i dated a guy who wasnt, and he wished that he was for many reasons...sex was uncomfortable for awhile, and other small things like that. its still ur choice.

Answer 28

?????????