I am the mom of 2 boys.
One circumcised. one intact.
My oldest is circumcised. My youngest is not.
I realized I made a mistake.
I fought my husband nearly the whole pregnancy. I tried countless times to talk him into not getting our youngest circumcised. He was very adament that he would be circumcised, even threatening divorce and legal action to have it done! Finally-after showing him the following info and pix from these websites-he decided that it was in our childs best intrust to stay intact.
There is not a day that goes by that I don't regret my desicion to have my eldest son circumcised!
All websites listed in my answer are graphic and not for the faint of heart. I've been in many an operating room and seen many gross, weird things in my past, I have seen plenty of blood and gore. These photos however, nearly made me vomit--seriously.
Now--to answer the question:
Parents are no longer having their son circumcised because they have researched circumcision and have learned that IT IS A MATTER OF CHOICE THERE IS NO PROVEN MEDICAL BENEFIT FOR EITHER CHOICE.
The foreskin is normally attached to the glans by a membrane called the synechia.
The glans and inner lining of the foreskin are still developing in the young child.
During circumcision, the synechia must be TORN APART!!!!!!! YIKES!!!
Caution-contains graphic drawings that may disturb some people http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/gomco/
This website contains very graphic real life pix of an infant circumcision. http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/
Another point to think about--how come when my dad had to be circumcised at the age of 65 he was put to sleep for the procedure and sent home with narcotic pain meds but my 3 day old son got nothing more than a shot of lidocaine in the base of his penis????
2006-12-23 13:04:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
2⤋
I don't get it either. I heard the other day, that 2 brothers at the school where I work are getting circumcized as TEENAGERS! How cruel is that? Its only being done because they hadn't gotten around to it earlier. Um, Hello?! ?! Not really a good reason. I did TONS of research while I was PG with my son 9 years ago, and he is intact. We tell him that him and his wife will be happy that we left his penis as God intended it to be.
2006-12-23 19:12:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by hiya071 2
·
5⤊
1⤋
I agree, there's absolutely no medical reason to have your boys circumsized. I did it with my boys, just because I think it's easier for THEM to learn how to clean. I have four kids, and I don't really want to be running in and out of the bathroom, asking did you pull back and wash your foreskin. I know a lady, who's got a little boy that wasn't circumsized, because he was too sick when he was born. She got the run around about it when he got out of the hospital. Apparently the doctor she saw was against it. She's freaking out now, because it's not done, and they can't do it until he' a year old. I don't really think it's that big of a deal. If that were to happen to one of my babies I would just let it go. It is, afterall, a cosmetic procedure. There's nothing gross about it, nothing unnatural. I know lots of people that would refute my opinion, but that's what it is, an opinion. I think it's easier to take care of, and may prevent UTI's, but other than that, there's not really any reason for them, to be honest.
2006-12-23 19:13:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Patty O' Green 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
i can't speak for the rest of the parents in the world, but most people i know have their sons circumcised (yes that's how it's really spelled) for religious reasons, and it just seems cleaner that way. after all, i believe that g-d gave us the laws that He did for our own good. oh and while we're on that subject, let's get one thing straight (this is for St. Helena Woman): jewish law dictates that boys get circumcised at EIGHT days old-NOT before that, and only after that if there's some sort of medical condition that would make the procedure dangerous to the baby.
2006-12-24 09:48:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by missizzy 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
It isn't necessary unless your religion calls for it. Not circumcizing your son doesn't make you a bad parent. But if you don't circumcize him, just make sure to teach him proper hygiene to avoid infections or any other problems.
2006-12-23 19:18:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by lj1 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
I didn't circumsize my son because it's not medically necessary. There's nothing wrong with not circumsizing. In fact, the majority of men in this world *are not* circumsized.
2006-12-23 23:25:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by alimagmel 5
·
6⤊
1⤋
My father in law made me promise to not circumsize my son when i ever had one.... thank the good lord i had a girl. I feel that it is a more sanitary thing to have your penis circumsized. My husband swears he is not but it looks exactly like a penis that is. I think hes a little confused, lol.
2006-12-23 19:22:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by scottliz2005 4
·
1⤊
4⤋
Can't we just be adults about this? Can't we just agree to disagree? There are pros and cons to this procedure. Nobody is going to change their minds because some strangers on the internet told them to. I don't think anyone needs to justify their reasons for circumcision to you or anyone else.
2006-12-23 21:54:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by TRUE PATRIOT 6
·
2⤊
5⤋
I have cirumcized my 3 year old son when he was 3 days old. And I will have my other son cirumcized when he is born in about 5 weeks when he is no older then 5 days old. My kids are Jewish and by Jewish law males must be cirumcized by the time they are 5 days old. It is cleaner anyway.
2006-12-23 19:11:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by LITTLE 1 :o) 6
·
1⤊
7⤋
I got my son circumsized...it's cleaner and healthier.
But why be judgemental to anyone's else's decision? My kid=my choice.
2006-12-23 19:18:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by Kiss My Shaz 7
·
1⤊
5⤋