Circumcise tomorrow ....what to expect

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't mind having your son's pecker look like a dirty, wrinkled snail, by all mean skip the circumcision.

If you don't mind your child's penis looking like a deformed scarred stub, go ahead and mutilate him.

lol at least he'll look like everyone else in the locker room, bald and clean--while your poor boy with the dirty, painful, smelly snail, carries his books to school in a european man purse and eats sandwiches made of dry little Zwieback and stinky pickled
langschanken. "Now is de time vhen ve do ze Schprockets dance...."

If you think this is true, you are deluded. Look up the current circumcision rates published by the CDC. Your son will be in the minority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a guy. I'm circ'd. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Also, if you choose not to have the procedure done on your son, prepare for the day the other kids make fun of him in the locker room at school. I remember telling this to a mom, and she was stunned that adolescent boys would compare their genitals and make fun of each other. I told her she clearly had never spent much time around adolescent boys.

PP is an ACTUAL GUY, sheeple. Maybe you shrill anti-circ harpies should listen. This is really true. Ivy league big 3, Pac-10...Boys/men will never stop giving each other hell in the locker room. An uncut peen will make your kid a target. Deal with it.

anonymous wrote:
Sadly, it is probably true that many parents think like that. However, since fewer and fewer parents are circumcising, this problem, if it exists, is going to go away.

"FWIW, my husband, who is American but intact, was never made fun of in the locker room."...

next poster:

"DH is intact and he says about half of the guys he went to high school with were. No one made fun of anyone for it."

"Then again, we're educated and from the northeast, LOL and circumcision is on the decline amongst people like us. Probably circumcised boys will be the ones getting pointed out as unusual in 15 years."

LOLLLLLL. previous 2 PPs Dhs told them THEY were never teased in the locker room. Because, most men would freely admit to their wives that they were teased about their cock, right? No, they wouldn't. But it's nice that they could find women to marry them that believed them and didn't laugh a sad little *cough* laugh when told this sad lie.

[Anonymous]

If only I could be from the northeast and be educated, I could understand and have nice things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a guy. I'm circ'd. I wouldn't have it any other way.


Also, if you choose not to have the procedure done on your son, prepare for the day the other kids make fun of him in the locker room at school. I remember telling this to a mom, and she was stunned that adolescent boys would compare their genitals and make fun of each other. I told her she clearly had never spent much time around adolescent boys.

I take the view that it's up to the parent. Yes, there are health benefits. And yes, there are cultural biases. But the absolute vitriol with which people talk on here -- YOUR KID IS A SERIAL RAPIST! YOU SHOULD GO TO PRISON! -- is just, well, disappointing.

Sadly, it is probably true that many parents think like that. However, since fewer and fewer parents are circumcising, this problem, if it exists, is going to go away.

FWIW, my husband, who is American but intact, was never made fun of in the locker room.

DH is intact and he says about half of the guys he went to high school with were. No one made fun of anyone for it.

Then again, we're educated and from the northeast, and circumcision is on the decline amongst people like us. Probably circumcised boys will be the ones getting pointed out as unusual in 15 years.

I'm educated and also from the northeast and my sons are circumcised. I think a fair assessment of the situation would conclude that there are valid reasons/arguments on both sides and medical reports which can be used to validate each point of view.

Also well-educated and also from the northeast and plus one for circumcision. I'm still laughing at the sweeping notion that "educated and from the northeast" means that you don't circumcise. Someone earlier quoted a stat that suggests that the majority of male babies born in U.S. hospitals TODAY (not 20 years ago, TODAY) are still circumcised. Where is this disappearing phenomenon of which you speak? I suppose vaccinations are also on the decline because there are some crazy, uneducated parents out there who believe that vaccines are the equivalent of giving your kid Hostess twinkies (I believe this is an actual quote from that thread), but that doesn't speak to the intelligence or "rightness" of it. I'm not suggesting that people who don't circumcise are idiots; I'm simply saying that you all are WAY overstating your case and the support which your "army" has in the U.S. By the way, since all of us live here, I don't really care what they do in Australia.

Educated or not, I would bet that you are not educated about circumcision. Can you name (without googling) the various parts of the foreskin, as well as five functions of it? Can you name five complications of circumcision, along with about how often those things happen? People who have spent time researching elective, amputative, surgery on their newborn child's genitals should at least have a proper understanding of what it is they are planning to remove and what the real risks of doing so are. And yes, I would label those who don't ask these types of questions as "idiots" regardless of what type o fancy education they've gotten.

who are you people? I have friends both here and in the "northeast" who have chosen not to circumcise their sons but I've never been condemned by anyone for having made the opposite choice for my own children. The vitriol expressed in these posts is really odd and I can only imagine that it is because these are anonymous posts. While there are certainly individual Jewish/Muslim families who have chosen not to circumcise, the majority of those communities still believe it to be religiously sanctioned. Others circumcise for health reasons. We are loving parents who have made a different choice than you, get over it. You will never be able to outlaw the practice in the US-the religious component of it, plus the acceptance of the medical profession guarantees that. And no, I don't know the various parts of the foreskin as well as the five functions of it. But thanks for the morning laugh.

The irony is that you didn't make any choice at all. You blindly followed a cultural tradition, supported by extreme bias and lots of myth. This is why we who are against routine infant circumcision, would call you uneducated about this topic. (for what it's worth, I'm not the one who started the whole north-east part of the debate).

There are many functions of the foreskin, but for discussion sake, I always ask those who claim to have researched the issue to name just five. You say you cannot name five; can you name even one? Do you know anything at all about the intact anatomy of a boy? Are you aware of ANY of the risks associated with circumcision, and about how often they occur? Are you aware of any of the treatments for some typical problems that might occur with the intact penis? People who actually research the issue learn that there are valuable functions, that there is a complex anatomy (ie, it's not "just a flap of skin"), and that the risks can and do include death of the baby. And, the more common risks (ashesions, skin bridges, scarring, buried penis, revisions, etc.) will occur at a GREATER rate than all problems combined of intact penises. They also learn that the rare problems associated with the foreskin can almost always be avoided by proper care (no one should ever retract the foreskin) and simple medicines (ie, antibiotics if a bacterial infection occurs -- just like you would give a girl antibiotics for a genital infection).

Again, I ask you, why the foreskin? Can you answer why? Do you believe it is that much more likely to cause the boy trouble than any other body part? Do you believe it is just expendable? I would guess that your honest answer is more along the lines of "well, it's just what we do." Which, as time goes on and information is more readily available, is a completely unacceptable answer for amputating part of a newborn baby's healthy, functioning, genitalia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's all regional, y'all: http://forward.com/articles/161642/circumcision-rates-vary-widely-in-us/?p=all

In the US as a whole, it's roughly 54% : http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w

My son is not circ'ed and neither is my DH. DH said he preferred not to have it done when our son was born, and I couldn't find any reason to push for the circ, so we didn't do it. I think everyone will be okay.

This is such a huge issue to so many people, but really, anti-circ people need to calm down and speak rationally without attacking (and the same for pro-circ). Really, though, you make other parents who don't circ look like they're as crazy as you are.

There have been a few crazy sounding posts on the anti-circ side here, but most have actually been pretty well reasoned and calm, although passionate about the issue, which concerns the welfare of children. On the other hand, few good arguments have been made in favor of it, except for references to the questionable health benefits, but mostly it was along the lines of "what I do with my child's penis is none of your business and I don't want to hear anything you have to say". Finally, there were a fair number of posts on the pro-circ side who relied on attempts at derision and insult, but mostly sounded like they were drunk.

So, I guess there are crazies on either side, but the most vocal anti-circ posters came across as well-informed and reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Agree that few of the pro-circ posts actually contained any facts -- most relied on peer-pressure style insults.

I'm pro-vaccination and anti-circumcision because I read peer-reviewed research. Not peer-pressure posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all regional, y'all: http://forward.com/articles/161642/circumcision-rates-vary-widely-in-us/?p=all

In the US as a whole, it's roughly 54% : http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w

My son is not circ'ed and neither is my DH. DH said he preferred not to have it done when our son was born, and I couldn't find any reason to push for the circ, so we didn't do it. I think everyone will be okay.

This is such a huge issue to so many people, but really, anti-circ people need to calm down and speak rationally without attacking (and the same for pro-circ). Really, though, you make other parents who don't circ look like they're as crazy as you are.

There have been a few crazy sounding posts on the anti-circ side here, but most have actually been pretty well reasoned and calm, although passionate about the issue, which concerns the welfare of children. On the other hand, few good arguments have been made in favor of it, except for references to the questionable health benefits, but mostly it was along the lines of "what I do with my child's penis is none of your business and I don't want to hear anything you have to say". Finally, there were a fair number of posts on the pro-circ side who relied on attempts at derision and insult, but mostly sounded like they were drunk.

So, I guess there are crazies on either side, but the most vocal anti-circ posters came across as well-informed and reasonable.

If you think the anti-circ posts here have come across as "well-informed and reasonable" I shudder to think of the people you encounter on a day-to-day basis. You sound like a bunch of crazy people to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all regional, y'all: http://forward.com/articles/161642/circumcision-rates-vary-widely-in-us/?p=all

In the US as a whole, it's roughly 54% : http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w

My son is not circ'ed and neither is my DH. DH said he preferred not to have it done when our son was born, and I couldn't find any reason to push for the circ, so we didn't do it. I think everyone will be okay.

This is such a huge issue to so many people, but really, anti-circ people need to calm down and speak rationally without attacking (and the same for pro-circ). Really, though, you make other parents who don't circ look like they're as crazy as you are.

There have been a few crazy sounding posts on the anti-circ side here, but most have actually been pretty well reasoned and calm, although passionate about the issue, which concerns the welfare of children. On the other hand, few good arguments have been made in favor of it, except for references to the questionable health benefits, but mostly it was along the lines of "what I do with my child's penis is none of your business and I don't want to hear anything you have to say". Finally, there were a fair number of posts on the pro-circ side who relied on attempts at derision and insult, but mostly sounded like they were drunk.

So, I guess there are crazies on either side, but the most vocal anti-circ posters came across as well-informed and reasonable.

If you think the anti-circ posts here have come across as "well-informed and reasonable" I shudder to think of the people you encounter on a day-to-day basis. You sound like a bunch of crazy people to me.

And here goes another attempt at a peer-pressure style insult... Seriously, have you people no arguments? I mean, based on peer-reviewed research?

[Anonymous]

Good lord, PP at 10:47. Since you don't seem to understand the definition of "peer pressure," here's what it actually is: when a poster comes on a forum and asks the following question:

"My baby will be 14 days old. Will he be fussy the rest of the day, or days following? Could he catch a fever? What sort of post care did you take for your baby?"

- she is attacked by you and your fellow band of idiots decrying this perfectly acceptable (maybe not by you, but by American physicians) medical procedure. You don't like it? Don't do it. But it has literally NO EFFECT on your child or you. So shut it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all regional, y'all: http://forward.com/articles/161642/circumcision-rates-vary-widely-in-us/?p=all

In the US as a whole, it's roughly 54% : http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w

My son is not circ'ed and neither is my DH. DH said he preferred not to have it done when our son was born, and I couldn't find any reason to push for the circ, so we didn't do it. I think everyone will be okay.

This is such a huge issue to so many people, but really, anti-circ people need to calm down and speak rationally without attacking (and the same for pro-circ). Really, though, you make other parents who don't circ look like they're as crazy as you are.

There have been a few crazy sounding posts on the anti-circ side here, but most have actually been pretty well reasoned and calm, although passionate about the issue, which concerns the welfare of children. On the other hand, few good arguments have been made in favor of it, except for references to the questionable health benefits, but mostly it was along the lines of "what I do with my child's penis is none of your business and I don't want to hear anything you have to say". Finally, there were a fair number of posts on the pro-circ side who relied on attempts at derision and insult, but mostly sounded like they were drunk.

So, I guess there are crazies on either side, but the most vocal anti-circ posters came across as well-informed and reasonable.

Because you agree with them. As a pro-circ poster, I thought that anti-circ posters were nuts. They were throwing around words like "mutiliation" and "child abuse" and "ignorant." That's just insulting people for the sake of feeling smug. And the lady who was crying over the fate of some else's kid's dick? Not rational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all regional, y'all: http://forward.com/articles/161642/circumcision-rates-vary-widely-in-us/?p=all

In the US as a whole, it's roughly 54% : http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w

My son is not circ'ed and neither is my DH. DH said he preferred not to have it done when our son was born, and I couldn't find any reason to push for the circ, so we didn't do it. I think everyone will be okay.

This is such a huge issue to so many people, but really, anti-circ people need to calm down and speak rationally without attacking (and the same for pro-circ). Really, though, you make other parents who don't circ look like they're as crazy as you are.

There have been a few crazy sounding posts on the anti-circ side here, but most have actually been pretty well reasoned and calm, although passionate about the issue, which concerns the welfare of children. On the other hand, few good arguments have been made in favor of it, except for references to the questionable health benefits, but mostly it was along the lines of "what I do with my child's penis is none of your business and I don't want to hear anything you have to say". Finally, there were a fair number of posts on the pro-circ side who relied on attempts at derision and insult, but mostly sounded like they were drunk.

So, I guess there are crazies on either side, but the most vocal anti-circ posters came across as well-informed and reasonable.

If you think the anti-circ posts here have come across as "well-informed and reasonable" I shudder to think of the people you encounter on a day-to-day basis. You sound like a bunch of crazy people to me.

And here goes another attempt at a peer-pressure style insult... Seriously, have you people no arguments? I mean, based on peer-reviewed research?

You've repeatedly directed to peer reviewed research. You don't want to accept it, so you ignore it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are mild to moderate health benefits to circ of males:

It reduces UTIs, HPV, HIV, syph, and chancroids in boys. It also reduces penile cancer, which is admittedly. It also reduces HPV in girls. Complications are rare. Studies show no decrease in function and no psychological effects.

You can read the NIH report on circ and the need for Medicaid, Medicare and insurance coverage here:http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2008.134403

It's a moderately beneficial procedure with a low risk of complications which has little to no effect on function.

Get over it. This isn't mutilation or child abuse. It's a medical procedure that is supported by the data.

This has been posted before but it bears repeating: international medical scholars come to a different conclusion, and view the evidence for the medical benefits as tenuous:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract

The cultural bias also goes the other way. Europeans didn't embrace circ when Americans did because they were strongly anti-Semitic. Their strong tradition of not circing is also a cultural bias.

You are not seriously trying to argue that medical professionals from all other western countries (including Australia) assess the medical merits (or lack thereof) of circumcision the way they do because of all those countries' history of anti-Semitism, do you? This is just as ignorant an argument as saying that the practice is so widespread in the US because so many doctors are Jewish. The modern non-religious practice of circumcision originated in the late 19th century (at which time there was plenty of anti-Semitism in the US as well) when it was popularized by Lewis Sayre who made far reaching claims for its medical benefits, which have long been debunked. His book was simply not influential beyond the English-speaking world, and circumcision as a medical practice never caught on in continental Europe.

Don't be cute. I'm arguing that they are culturally biased against circing boys, even if it does have health benefits, because their culture has a long history of not circing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't mind having your son's pecker look like a dirty, wrinkled snail, by all mean skip the circumcision.

If you don't mind your child's penis looking like a deformed scarred stub, go ahead and mutilate him.

lol at least he'll look like everyone else in the locker room, bald and clean--while your poor boy with the dirty, painful, smelly snail, carries his books to school in a european man purse and eats sandwiches made of dry little Zwieback and stinky pickled
langschanken. "Now is de time vhen ve do ze Schprockets dance...."

You sound astonishing ignorant. The only thing more horrifying than knowing that you have children is that someone with your limited intellectual capacity has the power to make such an important and irreversible decision for another human being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a guy. I'm circ'd. I wouldn't have it any other way.


Also, if you choose not to have the procedure done on your son, prepare for the day the other kids make fun of him in the locker room at school. I remember telling this to a mom, and she was stunned that adolescent boys would compare their genitals and make fun of each other. I told her she clearly had never spent much time around adolescent boys.

I take the view that it's up to the parent. Yes, there are health benefits. And yes, there are cultural biases. But the absolute vitriol with which people talk on here -- YOUR KID IS A SERIAL RAPIST! YOU SHOULD GO TO PRISON! -- is just, well, disappointing.

Sadly, it is probably true that many parents think like that. However, since fewer and fewer parents are circumcising, this problem, if it exists, is going to go away.

FWIW, my husband, who is American but intact, was never made fun of in the locker room.

DH is intact and he says about half of the guys he went to high school with were. No one made fun of anyone for it.

Then again, we're educated and from the northeast, and circumcision is on the decline amongst people like us. Probably circumcised boys will be the ones getting pointed out as unusual in 15 years.

I'm educated and also from the northeast and my sons are circumcised. I think a fair assessment of the situation would conclude that there are valid reasons/arguments on both sides and medical reports which can be used to validate each point of view.

Also well-educated and also from the northeast and plus one for circumcision. I'm still laughing at the sweeping notion that "educated and from the northeast" means that you don't circumcise. Someone earlier quoted a stat that suggests that the majority of male babies born in U.S. hospitals TODAY (not 20 years ago, TODAY) are still circumcised. Where is this disappearing phenomenon of which you speak? I suppose vaccinations are also on the decline because there are some crazy, uneducated parents out there who believe that vaccines are the equivalent of giving your kid Hostess twinkies (I believe this is an actual quote from that thread), but that doesn't speak to the intelligence or "rightness" of it. I'm not suggesting that people who don't circumcise are idiots; I'm simply saying that you all are WAY overstating your case and the support which your "army" has in the U.S. By the way, since all of us live here, I don't really care what they do in Australia.

Educated or not, I would bet that you are not educated about circumcision. Can you name (without googling) the various parts of the foreskin, as well as five functions of it? Can you name five complications of circumcision, along with about how often those things happen? People who have spent time researching elective, amputative, surgery on their newborn child's genitals should at least have a proper understanding of what it is they are planning to remove and what the real risks of doing so are. And yes, I would label those who don't ask these types of questions as "idiots" regardless of what type o fancy education they've gotten.

who are you people? I have friends both here and in the "northeast" who have chosen not to circumcise their sons but I've never been condemned by anyone for having made the opposite choice for my own children. The vitriol expressed in these posts is really odd and I can only imagine that it is because these are anonymous posts. While there are certainly individual Jewish/Muslim families who have chosen not to circumcise, the majority of those communities still believe it to be religiously sanctioned. Others circumcise for health reasons. We are loving parents who have made a different choice than you, get over it. You will never be able to outlaw the practice in the US-the religious component of it, plus the acceptance of the medical profession guarantees that. And no, I don't know the various parts of the foreskin as well as the five functions of it. But thanks for the morning laugh.

The irony is that you didn't make any choice at all. You blindly followed a cultural tradition, supported by extreme bias and lots of myth. This is why we who are against routine infant circumcision, would call you uneducated about this topic. (for what it's worth, I'm not the one who started the whole north-east part of the debate).

There are many functions of the foreskin, but for discussion sake, I always ask those who claim to have researched the issue to name just five. You say you cannot name five; can you name even one? Do you know anything at all about the intact anatomy of a boy? Are you aware of ANY of the risks associated with circumcision, and about how often they occur? Are you aware of any of the treatments for some typical problems that might occur with the intact penis? People who actually research the issue learn that there are valuable functions, that there is a complex anatomy (ie, it's not "just a flap of skin"), and that the risks can and do include death of the baby. And, the more common risks (ashesions, skin bridges, scarring, buried penis, revisions, etc.) will occur at a GREATER rate than all problems combined of intact penises. They also learn that the rare problems associated with the foreskin can almost always be avoided by proper care (no one should ever retract the foreskin) and simple medicines (ie, antibiotics if a bacterial infection occurs -- just like you would give a girl antibiotics for a genital infection).

Again, I ask you, why the foreskin? Can you answer why? Do you believe it is that much more likely to cause the boy trouble than any other body part? Do you believe it is just expendable? I would guess that your honest answer is more along the lines of "well, it's just what we do." Which, as time goes on and information is more readily available, is a completely unacceptable answer for amputating part of a newborn baby's healthy, functioning, genitalia.

Excellent points made. Of course, it will be ignored by those who don't want to face the reality that they may have made the wrong choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a guy. I'm circ'd. I wouldn't have it any other way.


Also, if you choose not to have the procedure done on your son, prepare for the day the other kids make fun of him in the locker room at school. I remember telling this to a mom, and she was stunned that adolescent boys would compare their genitals and make fun of each other. I told her she clearly had never spent much time around adolescent boys.

I take the view that it's up to the parent. Yes, there are health benefits. And yes, there are cultural biases. But the absolute vitriol with which people talk on here -- YOUR KID IS A SERIAL RAPIST! YOU SHOULD GO TO PRISON! -- is just, well, disappointing.

Sadly, it is probably true that many parents think like that. However, since fewer and fewer parents are circumcising, this problem, if it exists, is going to go away.

FWIW, my husband, who is American but intact, was never made fun of in the locker room.

DH is intact and he says about half of the guys he went to high school with were. No one made fun of anyone for it.

Then again, we're educated and from the northeast, and circumcision is on the decline amongst people like us. Probably circumcised boys will be the ones getting pointed out as unusual in 15 years.

I'm educated and also from the northeast and my sons are circumcised. I think a fair assessment of the situation would conclude that there are valid reasons/arguments on both sides and medical reports which can be used to validate each point of view.

Also well-educated and also from the northeast and plus one for circumcision. I'm still laughing at the sweeping notion that "educated and from the northeast" means that you don't circumcise. Someone earlier quoted a stat that suggests that the majority of male babies born in U.S. hospitals TODAY (not 20 years ago, TODAY) are still circumcised. Where is this disappearing phenomenon of which you speak? I suppose vaccinations are also on the decline because there are some crazy, uneducated parents out there who believe that vaccines are the equivalent of giving your kid Hostess twinkies (I believe this is an actual quote from that thread), but that doesn't speak to the intelligence or "rightness" of it. I'm not suggesting that people who don't circumcise are idiots; I'm simply saying that you all are WAY overstating your case and the support which your "army" has in the U.S. By the way, since all of us live here, I don't really care what they do in Australia.

Educated or not, I would bet that you are not educated about circumcision. Can you name (without googling) the various parts of the foreskin, as well as five functions of it? Can you name five complications of circumcision, along with about how often those things happen? People who have spent time researching elective, amputative, surgery on their newborn child's genitals should at least have a proper understanding of what it is they are planning to remove and what the real risks of doing so are. And yes, I would label those who don't ask these types of questions as "idiots" regardless of what type o fancy education they've gotten.

who are you people? I have friends both here and in the "northeast" who have chosen not to circumcise their sons but I've never been condemned by anyone for having made the opposite choice for my own children. The vitriol expressed in these posts is really odd and I can only imagine that it is because these are anonymous posts. While there are certainly individual Jewish/Muslim families who have chosen not to circumcise, the majority of those communities still believe it to be religiously sanctioned. Others circumcise for health reasons. We are loving parents who have made a different choice than you, get over it. You will never be able to outlaw the practice in the US-the religious component of it, plus the acceptance of the medical profession guarantees that. And no, I don't know the various parts of the foreskin as well as the five functions of it. But thanks for the morning laugh.

The irony is that you didn't make any choice at all. You blindly followed a cultural tradition, supported by extreme bias and lots of myth. This is why we who are against routine infant circumcision, would call you uneducated about this topic. (for what it's worth, I'm not the one who started the whole north-east part of the debate).

There are many functions of the foreskin, but for discussion sake, I always ask those who claim to have researched the issue to name just five. You say you cannot name five; can you name even one? Do you know anything at all about the intact anatomy of a boy? Are you aware of ANY of the risks associated with circumcision, and about how often they occur? Are you aware of any of the treatments for some typical problems that might occur with the intact penis? People who actually research the issue learn that there are valuable functions, that there is a complex anatomy (ie, it's not "just a flap of skin"), and that the risks can and do include death of the baby. And, the more common risks (ashesions, skin bridges, scarring, buried penis, revisions, etc.) will occur at a GREATER rate than all problems combined of intact penises. They also learn that the rare problems associated with the foreskin can almost always be avoided by proper care (no one should ever retract the foreskin) and simple medicines (ie, antibiotics if a bacterial infection occurs -- just like you would give a girl antibiotics for a genital infection).

Again, I ask you, why the foreskin? Can you answer why? Do you believe it is that much more likely to cause the boy trouble than any other body part? Do you believe it is just expendable? I would guess that your honest answer is more along the lines of "well, it's just what we do." Which, as time goes on and information is more readily available, is a completely unacceptable answer for amputating part of a newborn baby's healthy, functioning, genitalia.

Excellent points made. Of course, it will be ignored by those who don't want to face the reality that they may have made the wrong choice.

I'm an earlier poster who hasn't yet made the "wrong choice" and I still think you're an idiot. So it's not just parents who are defending their past decisions that disagree with you here.