Is it better to have a male baby circumcised or not ?

Answer 1

That is a personal decision that many parents from the US walk into with little to no factual information.

The facts:

Circumcision is not medically necessary at birth. That means, you're going to have to pay for it because it is considered an elective surgery.

Not a single medical association supports infant circumcision.

Circumcision is really only popular in the US. Many countries have it outlawed, and it is simply not popular in others. And no, we're not talking about 3rd world countries. Circumcision is not popular in any industralized nation.

It is permanent. Circumcision removes 1000's of nerve endings which cannot be regained later in life if the son decides he wants his foreskin back, whereas if a man decides later in life that he'd like to be circumcised, he can do so at any time.

Some pro-circumcision arguments are that it is easier to keep clean (since many people in the US are circumcised, they do not understand how to teach their son how to properly clean the area) it can lead to infections and poor hygiene if a parent is not dedicated to teaching how to properly clean the area. Also, some parents(fathers) want their sons to look like them. I've never really understood that argument, but whatever floats their boat. Circumcision HAS been proven to lower the instances of sexually transmitted diseases. However, given the high rates of STDs in the US who circumcises most men, it's not a greatly lowered instance. There really is never going to be a replacement for safe sex.

I personally advocate that a parent should not circumcise her son at birth and then research proper cleaning techniques, then allow her son to make the decision later in life whether he wants to be circumcised or not.

I have nothing against circumcision in and of itself, but I believe it is a personal decision that should be made by the individual themselves, not by their parents.

Answer 2

This is a very loaded question, and personally I'm not sure it's not like asking "is it better to have apples or oranges?" Okay, bad analogy, but at this point from the data I've seen, there just isn't a single "right" or "wrong" answer. You'll often hear the argument that "uncircumcised males are prone to infection." From what I've read, that argument carries weight pretty much only if you add the words "if they don't practice proper hygiene." But, the answer to your question depends on data that is itself conflicting. If you want to find studies that conclude that circumcision is best/healthiest, they are certainly out there. Ditto if you want to find studies that conclude the opposite.

More and more Americans are choosing not to circumcise. In other cultures it isn't so prevalent to begin with. If you have a baby and decide not to circumcise, be sure to find out from the pediatrician how the penis and foreskin should be cared for, and as your child grows up be sure to teach him to maintain those good cleaning habits for his own health.

Answer 3

Well personally I feel it's necessary to circumcise the baby for many reasons. I had my two month old son circumcised immediately. I don't recall a doctor telling me not to.. but its true this is a strong topic. I knew without a doubt that I was going to circumcise my son through. It just seem so much cleaner and easier to deal with.. I mean the thought of having to pull the skin back every time to wash it and to teach my child to do so after going to the restroom just wasn't an option for me. I mean all I could think about was how difficult it would be to not circumcise my son and deal with all the infections that could happen down there which is for one embarrassing especially if he is a young growing boy and two painful. But it just made more sense to me to circumcise my son for many reasons other than medical reasons. But of course its all on you and its important to know that the doctor that does the procedure on your son knows what he was doing. Because there's nothing worse than a bad surgical procedure done in a very sensitive area gone bad... so make sure they know what they are doing and get it done asap so your boy wont have to be traumatized by the experience. That's my opinion~ hope it helped!

Answer 4

I strongly believe that there is no reason to cut off a part of a babys genitals. It is not healthier, cleaner, better sexually, etc. than an uncircumcized penis. Some boys, circumcized or not, will get urinary tract infections. So do little girls but we don't go around cutting off their labia. I feel that my son was born fine just the way he is and there is no reason to alter that with a serious medical procedure that could go terribly wrong. He is now 7 months old and we don't do anything special to clean it- you absolutely should NOT pull back a babies foreskin. It will retract when he is older. Just like you would talk with a girl about keeping things clean (wiping front to back, etc. ) you would talk with your son about keeping clean. No biggie.

Often I hear comments like "We wanted him to be just like his dad..." People who choose to mutilate their baby boys just because their fathers are... well it's just plain silly! Who cares if your son and husband have similar penises? What a perfect opportunity to talk with your child about people being unique and different. I mean, if your son was born with a big nose and your husband has a small one, would you rush him off for rhinoplasty? Or dye his red hair brown so he could look like dad? Just silly,

And in the US 50 percent of all boy babies are uncircumcized. This means that the arguement that "Most people are..." doesn't hold. By the time these babies grow up and notice each others' penises there will be a good chance that others are like them, uncircumcized. Also, as my husband points out, nobody will tease the kid because really who wants to admit that they are looking at another guys' penis? If anything the lookee will get harassed, not the uncircumcized kid. Oh, and for what it's worth, foreskin actually enhances the sexual experience for men because it constantly moves over the head of the penis causing more friction and pleasure.

Bottom line- just because "everyone else is" isn't a good reason to follow suit. And in this case, more people are not curcumcizing these days because it is completely unnecissary.

Answer 5

I'm hearing a lot of old wive's tales here.

Circumcision is purely a cultural and cosmetic thing. It is completely un-true that an uncircumcised male is more prone to infections. Circumcised or not, you've got to keep yourself clean down there. It's not a problem that way.

More and more parents are leaving their sons in tact, and those sons will thank them later on for a lot of reasons. Check out what happens to a baby boy when a circumcision goes bad. And yes, they do. It's a low percentage, but how would you like to answer to your son for that one?

Answer 6

I am circumcised, so I wanted my son to be circumcised as well. Two doctors advised against it. They said that it is a myth that it is more sanitary to be circumcised and that it will only cause the baby pain for nothing.

Answer 7

CIRCUMCISION IS VERY BENEFICIAL, its cleaner and several research bodies have concluded that circumcised men have less risk of contracting STD's such as AIDS-HIV or herpes.

Uncircumcised penises are difficult to keep clean, and more prone to infections and penile cancer, studies have shown.
A circumcised penis is naturally clean and virtually free from urinary infection. You will not have to worry again with careful washing of your penis.

Is it NOT true that the AAP (American Academy of Paediatrics) does not recommend circumcision. They simply say they leave the decision to parents. But recently, and specially after the New Zealand study, the AAP has been discussing if it may be necessary to change their policy and recommend circumcision to all newborns as they used to do, so in the future we may see that the AAP advocates again circumcision.
Have a look at: http://www.baby-health.net/articles/381.html

About STD's:

As I said, several studies carried out by prestigious research bodies have concluded that uncircumcised penises are more prone to infections and contraction of STD's, including AIDS-HIV. Circumcised men have been proved to be up to seven times less likely to be infected than those who are uncircumcised. Have a look at this site: http://icuxbridge.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14095142&method=full&siteid=53340&headline=-circumcision-protects-against-aids--name_page.html

As for women, studies also show that circumcision also protects female partners from AIDS-HIV and other STD's. Browse this article: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/02_08_06.html

About sensitivity of a circumcised penis:

No medical or physiological study has proved that circumcision reduces sensitivity, opposed to common belief. It is completely FALSE that circumcision reduces penis sensitivity. The American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) confirms this on their web site; have a look at: http://www.aap.org/pubed/zzzjzmemh4c.htm

Circumcision is an easy and nowadays *painless* procedure, which has many benefits, and virtually no risks.
Circumcision is NOT an amputation. Circumcision is NOT comparable at all to female circumcision, which is something completely different.

Circumcision rates are INCREASING nowadays, both in the United States and overseas. Many African and South American countries with little circumcision tradition are starting to promote the procedure to help to reduce the AIDS-HIV infection rates.

Finally, this site has a lot of useful and *unbiased* information. Make sure you have a good look: http://www.circlist.com

Answer 8

no don't do it, every male is born with it just like girls are born with vaginas, it's suppose to be there. The tighter the cut then the more errogoneous skin you cut off and the problems that can occur are rare, and when they do, in the US, which is quite uneducated about peniss unfortunaley they usually cut it off, but it can be treated with a cream. the rest of the world pretty well doesn't do it unless it's a jewish or muslim country. STD/aids, is not from penis but lack of sex education/sleeping around makes it easier and the risk for uncut is not that much more then ones who's not.
since everypart of your body has feeling, it would b ridiculous to think that the most sensitve part of a males body has no feeling and makes no difference, and since the penis is still attatched to the forskin and does'nt separate till 5 or even teen years it has not develped properly.
it's not your body therefore you don't have a right to cut off healthy parts of it especcialy not his privates, take care of it like you would a vagina to keep it clean etc, it's not hard to do at all.

Answer 9

Yes it is. Not having it done can lead to complications later in life if they dont care of it and clean it properly. The circumcision can be done later in life, but the pain is harder to deal with and healing can take much longer. Some cultures do not allow circumcision in infants, so it all depends.

Answer 10

I'm all for circumcision and I wish more parents would be too.

Boys/Men who aren't circumcised tend to get infections frequently and also they have a higher risk of STDs.

Some boys have to get circumcised later on anyway which isn't good. You might as well do it now and get it over with then have them get it done later when it's embarrassing and even more painful.

Some would argue that it's nothing but a "cosmetic procedure", but I bet they won't feel that way when their son is getting circumcised as a child or teen because of infections.