is there really a need to circumcise a newborn baby boy?

Answer 1

Unnecessary Circumcision
By George C. Denniston, M.D., M.P.H.

In recent years, the debate on circumcision has been conducted on a relatively low plane, with proponents arguing that circumcision may prevent some rare conditions. Opponents of circumcision argue that it simply has no medical benefits, and is a violation of a man's right to grow up with an intact body. Perhaps the subject can be simplified and raised to a higher plane by focusing on the positive value of the foreskin.
Before birth, the glans penis is covered with skin. This skin is not loosely attached. Indeed it is as tightly attached to the glans as is the skin on the hand.
At approximately 17 weeks of intrauterine life, cells in the area of separation between the future foreskin and the glans initiate the process of creating the preputial space (the space between the glans penis and the intact foreskin). This process is completed by the age of 3 years in 90% of boys, but it may take as long as 17 years (sic) for some boys to have a fully retractable foreskin.

At birth, the separation of the foreskin from the glans has just begun. The newborn's penis is, of course, not yet fully developed. Not only does circumcision interfere with its development, but it requires that the surgeon tear the skin from the sensitive glans to permit removal. As a result, scarring occurs, the surface of the glans thickens, and the urinary opening often gets smaller.

If physicians would simply leave the newborn's penis alone, as Dr. Benjamin Spock recommends in the latest edition of Baby and Child Care, the foreskin would be left to fulfill its several functions. In infancy, the foreskin protects the glans from irritation and from fecal material. In adulthood, the function of the foreskin may at first seem obscure. The shaft and the glans of an intact (uncircumcised) man's penis are covered by skin. Retracting the foreskin reveals the glans and makes the skin on the shaft somewhat loose. Of what use is this redundant skin? During erection, the penile shaft elongates, becoming about 50% longer. The foreskin covers this lengthened shaft. It is designed to accommodate an organ that is capable of a marked increase in diameter, as well as length.

In addition, the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis and can enhance the quality of sexual intercourse. Anatomical studies demonstrate that the foreskin has a greater concentration of complex nerve endings than the glans. If there were any possibility that the foreskin could contribute significantly to sexual enjoyment, is that not a cogent reason for rethinking our motives for this ritual procedure?

History shows that the arguments in favor of circumcison are questionable. At the beginning of this century, one of the reasons given for circumcision was to decrease masturbation, which was thought to lead to insanity and other "morbid" conditions. We now know that circumcision does not prevent masturbation, nor does masturbation lead to insanity.

More recently, circumcision was promoted as a means of preventing cervical cancer in the man's sexual partners; this notion has been proved incorrect.

The current excuses are that failure to remove the foreskin may contribute to urinary tract infections and penile cancer, but neither of these contentions has been proved. Even if either were correct, the risk of urinary tract infection in an uncircumcised infant is only one in one hundred. Performing 100 mutilative surgeries to possibly prevent one treatable urinary tract infection is not valid preventive medicine - it is just another excuse.

Penile cancer occurs in older men at the rate of approximately 1 in 100,000. The idea of performing 100,000 mutilating (by definition) procedures on newborns to possibly prevent cancer in one elderly man is absurd. Applying this type of reasoning to women would lead to the conclusion that removing all breasts at puberty should be done to prevent breast cancer.

One thousand years ago, the Jewish sage Maimonides said that the effect of circumcision was "to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate... for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when... deprived of its covering from the beginning."

Who has the right to order or perform such surgery on a newborn infant? I contend that no one does - certainly not the physician who should know better - since there is no proven medical reason to do so, and the procedure is known by many to be harmful. Circumcision can always be performed in adulthood for men who desire it, with fully informed consent.

Physicians who continue to perform routine circumcision are not only harming infants but are also harming the integrity of the medical profession. It is hard to accept that these physicians - many of whom have been circumcised themselves - are using their medical licenses to continue this contraindicated practice. This is tragedy perpetuating itself.

Answer 2

It at times becomes a personal preferrence, some say yes, some say no.. I am one that says it's a good idea because of cleanliness matters a mother can only watch over her boy for so long and then they want you to go away and you can't be sure that he is keeping himself clean, in order to keep it clean the forskin needs to be pulled back and that area under the skin needs to be cleaned. If this does not take place an infection can result and sometimes it can get to the point that a circumcision is needed anyway, why put your older now son through that it's very hard to tell a 10 year old that he needs part of his "manhood" taken off; boys are very sensitive in this area.. I feel it's better to just get it done and over with while he is an infant, it's not that bad both of my boys were cicumsized, there are several different procedures. My first son had the V-clamp, my second had the plasti-bell, the 2nd proved to be much easier to care for becasue the raw flesh of the wound was not exposed and it made for easier less painful diapering.. They both healed very quickly and there was only about 2 days of discomfort for the baby and it was minimal. Again it is your own personal preference.

Answer 3

No, of course not! There's no need for baby formula either, or for the epidural, or to put cereal in bottles, or to have babies on a schedule, or to pierce girl baby's ears. But people do it anyway. You can tell yourself it's for "health reasons" but it's really not, that's just to make yourself feel better for giving a baby cosmetic surgery. There is nothing wrong with the foreskin it is the way men are supposed to look, and have looked, for millions of years. All the women who think it's "disgusting" and "ugly" need to squat naked over a hand mirror and take a good look. If men adore that messy looking thing that bleeds 25% of the time, then we've got no room to criticize.

Answer 4

Circumcision is male genital mutilation. God put the skin there, why would you remove it? Circumcision is also performed because the doctors get paid to do so. It is totally unnecessary and barbaric.

As for those who think they want their son to look like their uncircumcised father, all you gotta tell them is that you did not choose to cut part of their body off because, it is not necessary and that if later in life, he wants to do it on his own, he can do so.

Would you cut off your baby girl's labia if it meant she would have less chance of infection?

Just look at the video and listen to the child scream. Barbarism.

Answer 5

20,000 superb touch AND STRETCH nerve endings must be amputated from toddler boys without asking the owner? you opt to take their considerable exhilaration zones and reveal them to srtaph an infection. it relatively is such crap. there's an better hazard of the toddler boy getting MRSA staph from this in a US scientific institution than the comparable youngster getting HIV via his existence. it relatively is this style of unusual theory that one wonders why the US Meds have this obsession. we've greater HIV and extremely severe Circ cost while in comparison with organic uncut ecu and JP. would desire to or no longer that's decrease male Drs and lady MDs that are from decrease custom are looking for the thank you to maintain this barbaric practice going interior the US? No different stepped forward u . s . a . is saying this! they think of we are smitten via choping off toddler boy genitals. The alleged danger substitute (no longer seen in non african analyze) is from 3.2% danger to three million.seventy 8 % danger. Oh and BTW, circumcision will develop (makes transmission greater possibly) the HIV for women persons. look it up the comparable africa analyze got here across decrease transfered HIV at a plenty greater cost. the guy does not get plenty from this. One needs to ward off danger and use a condom. this would be a fraud pushed via those that have not got it or do no longer understand the considerable male exhilaration zones are interior the aspects decrease off via circumcision. one element is definite, no one ought to have exhilaration zones amputated without being asked. provide up doing this to little ones. BTW, the stuff above approximately HPV being plenty decrease with circumcision is incorrect. look on the u . s . learn that concluded the sole factor that grow to be on the subject count number of HPV wass style of companions and that circumcision status did no longer impact HIV. you will locate that there is a few thing driving those analyze -- the circumcision obsessed.

Answer 6

Totally unnecessary. I've been told that it's socially acceptable and "the norm" for Americans, though. I'm from Canada, and no Canadian boys I knew had it done. Probably a culture thing. But it's just preference, I'd say.

Answer 7

Oh dear, here we go again!...

Absolutely Not. It's an optional cosmetic surgery, nothing more.
It's gonna be hard for you to make your choice, especially here on the Yahoo Boards. There are alot of brainwashed/mainstream people here so your replies will be very mixed.

I commend you for searching out info. Good Luck and I hope you learn to appreciate the foreskin and all it's worth :)

Answer 8

Well it is not "medically necessary" but after working in a Urology clinic.. I have seen way to many older men coming in to have it done. From the ages of 18 to 75. And in my opinion it is alot easier on an infant to have it done than with an older man. It heals quicker and there is less pain in infants. The men coming in to have this done were having problems with infections and cleanliness issues and the younger of the group said he was having it done because he said his gf did not like it. Some religions it is traditional.. like the Jewish give a brisk for the baby. I do recommend if you have it done on the infant.. do not be afraid to pull it back and clean it well, I was scared to do so and the skin healed forward on my son and I had to have it redone on him at age 2. I am currently pregnant with another boy and I will also have him circ'd.

Answer 9

Not needed no, but it may be advisable if you live somewhere that gets very hot. 'Stuff' gets trapped under a foreskin and if the temperature is hot enough, infection can occur if it is not kept clean. Circumcision is really just an alternative to hygiene.

Answer 10

no no reason you dont have to clean under the for skin and when they have to start they are old enough to do it themselves. its not mandatory. i was going to get my son circumsized because his daddy is but then after why would i want to look at my son look like hes being tied to a crossed with his legs held down by straps to hearing him scream as the doctor is cutting skin off his penis. sorry i cant take him getting a needle i amglad i didnt do it. also they loose 30% of their desire during sex