And why?
2006-06-12 00:20:26 · 18 answers · asked by sunnyannie 5 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Newborn & Baby
im not sure if thats true but however my son wasnt and neither was his father
and if you teach them at a young age how to clean it then they can keep it clean it doesnt take much to clean them
also talking with my sons docter she said there is no need to really do it unless the child cant pee but she said thats rare
my son is doing fine and besides why would you want to have there little thing cut on that is mean
if it was meant to be done then it would of been done before comming out of tthe womb
2006-06-12 03:08:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes. It is so much cleaner and healthier for your baby. And has better health benefits for their partner in the future.
I have a three year old who was circumcised at birth and plan on having my second son done to. My husband is circumcised and he made the decision to have this done to our sons.
2006-06-12 01:30:25 · answer #2 · answered by I love my babies 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure of the exact split, but yes, I believe the majority do. As mentioned this is generally for health reasons. One of the major benefits of circumcision, other than it being cleaner, is that it leaves the person less susceptible to the contraction of STD's since it is less easy for the viruses to enter the body. However, that doesn't mean you take chances!
2006-06-12 00:32:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, I read an article regarding the pros and cons about it... since we were having a boy, and while religious reasons were a big part of them, now adays it was usually done if the father was when he was born... so they weren't "different". But while there are few medical reasons, it really comes down to preferance. Will you be able to teach your son how to clean it as he grows, if he is uncircumsised? And if Dad is snipped or not, is he willing to explain to his son, who might be different, why he is.
My husband was cool with it either way, and so was I. I think after having been there with our son, he would say differently just because he knew our little one was sad but he was also able to console him and help him feel better.
2006-06-13 05:59:02 · answer #4 · answered by gottaluvalaska 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some insurance companies no longer pay for circumcision, (like mine,) so even though we want to have our baby circumcised we won't be able to. It is too expensive.
2006-06-12 04:03:12 · answer #5 · answered by joleiey 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
about 50/50
not having boys circumcised is starting to be more popular
both of my sons are, because my husband is, and he made the decision
2006-06-12 00:24:18 · answer #6 · answered by paj 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
around 60 percent. some are not circumcised due to religion. Others are circumcised to prevent infection.
2006-06-12 03:46:06 · answer #7 · answered by angie_adie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am the proud mother of 4 circumsized sons. It is more for looks and cleanliness as most answerers already stated. My sister didnt circumsize my nephrew (against my pleads) and because of it he got an infection and had to be circumsized at 3. It is best to do it as a newborn "just in case"
2006-06-12 00:44:55 · answer #8 · answered by Mean Carleen 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, right after birth. They won't remember the pain and it's more sanitary and It symbolizes the pack made with God and Abram, who's name was changed after circumcision to Abraham.
2006-06-12 00:23:39 · answer #9 · answered by Stacy R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's true, but my two little ones are not circumcised, due to the fact their dad is from Bulgaria and found it totally unnecessary.
2006-06-12 00:41:06 · answer #10 · answered by winterwillow2000 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋