Did you get your son circumcised?

[Anonymous]

The anti circs have taken over the thread... It's officially hijacked so anyone with common sense leave now! There is no point in arguing with these looney tunes bc you will forever be wrong. They are 100% judgemental asses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The anti circs have taken over the thread... It's officially hijacked so anyone with common sense leave now! There is no point in arguing with these looney tunes bc you will forever be wrong. They are 100% judgemental asses.

I don't mind being judgemental when it comes to a baby's well-being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, all four of our boys. A mohel came to our house on the 8th day. The boys did not cry, and they healed quickly and beautifully. We are Catholic.

My mother's best friend is a nurse in a urology practice. It was her strenuous recommendation that we do it that tipped the scales, because I was open to either way. My MIL is a pediatrician who goes by the book, and she trends towards circumcising.

I can see each side. My suggestion if you do it? Have a mohel, and do it when your baby is a week old. I can recommend ours if you like.

As Catholics, we are required to have the utmost respect for the human body. To disfigure it or mutilate it in any way is strictly forbidden -- thus the prohibitions against tubals or vasectomies. Many Catholics now realize that circumcision is a mutilation of the natural body that God has blessed us with. You say that all of your boys healed "beautifully", but do you really believe that God would create us with such a significant design flaw, that we would need to surgically alter our boys to make them look more beautiful? Before you have your next boy, spend some time reading www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org and see if it might not change your mind on this topic.

Medical practioners of the past few decades have not learned how to properly take care of intact penises, and they have done great damage by instructing parents to forcibly retract and clean, which is why so many intact men have had "problems." It is no surprise that an old-fashioned pediatrician, or a urology nurse, have only had experience with problems and do not have any idea how to fix those problems other than surgery. If you do some research, you will see that most boys, if cared for properly, will have absolutely no problem with their intact penises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The anti circs have taken over the thread... It's officially hijacked so anyone with common sense leave now! There is no point in arguing with these looney tunes bc you will forever be wrong. They are 100% judgemental asses.

Um. Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? Grouping everyone who takes the same action together as "100% judgmental asses"? But of course not being judgmental yourself, right? OP and those who are really struggling to decide, despite the argumentative nature of the thread, it does give you all the arguments for and against, and you can make your own decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those who are against circling, just be honest- there's never going to be an answer from a circ'er that will satisfy you. even people who do it for religious reasons will be questioned by you.

I posted on the first page that I don't feel that differently about those who do it for religious reason. Throughout history, religion has been used as a rationalization for all manner of horrifying things. If I were having a conversation with a deeply religious person who felt strongly about circumcision because of it, I'd ask them how they feel about polygamy or the taliban's rules against women giong to school, showing their face, driving, etc? Do you think it is okay that women are beheaded or tortured or killed because their family's religion demands that it is so? What about religions or cultures that require female circumcision? Is that okay with you?

Religion should be respected as much as possible. However, when religious rules are harmful to those upon whom they're applied or against whom they are enforced, that begins to usurp the individual rights of others.

i believe people should be allowed to circumcise males in two instances: 1. they are over the age of 18 and doing so without outside duress 2. they are truly medically necessary.

Sadly, many doctors are ignorant of the second. On another listserv I'm on, the topic of circumcision came up and a woman gave a warning story about her boy having to be circ'ed at 7 because his foreskin had not yet retracted on its own. YIKES. It is completely within the range of normal for a child's foreskin to remain attached or semi attached at that age, though many will be retractable.

Ignorance and cultural / religious tradition do NOT make it okay in my book for these reasons. And I don't need to just "admit" it. It's an integral part of my beliefs on the subject.

If baptism required harming or hurting my child with no real benefits aside from religious tradition, I would have skipped it.

So, for those of you who say that your religion demands it, please tell me your response to the polygamy / banning driving / education for women, etc. What's the difference? And please don't say it doesn't hurt the kid, because that is false and in your heart, I bet you know it even if you want to tell yourself otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, all four of our boys. A mohel came to our house on the 8th day. The boys did not cry, and they healed quickly and beautifully. We are Catholic.

My mother's best friend is a nurse in a urology practice. It was her strenuous recommendation that we do it that tipped the scales, because I was open to either way. My MIL is a pediatrician who goes by the book, and she trends towards circumcising.

I can see each side. My suggestion if you do it? Have a mohel, and do it when your baby is a week old. I can recommend ours if you like.

As Catholics, we are required to have the utmost respect for the human body. To disfigure it or mutilate it in any way is strictly forbidden -- thus the prohibitions against tubals or vasectomies. Many Catholics now realize that circumcision is a mutilation of the natural body that God has blessed us with. You say that all of your boys healed "beautifully", but do you really believe that God would create us with such a significant design flaw, that we would need to surgically alter our boys to make them look more beautiful? Before you have your next boy, spend some time reading www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org and see if it might not change your mind on this topic.

I am the PP you referenced. I will gladly check out that site.

I did not circumcise to make my boys "beautiful," but because of specific medical recommendations. However, I am happy to view a new source of information to check out. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

^^^sorry about typos...iPhone errors!

[Anonymous]

My daughter had large labia when she was born, I decided to make them prettier more to my liking and didn't want her to be called names like meat curtains when she was changing with other girls. I strapped her to a board and a doctor cut them down, so they were smaller and more petite, more appealing. She healed beautifully and hasn't complained at all. She's 8 yrs old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those who are against circling, just be honest- there's never going to be an answer from a circ'er that will satisfy you. even people who do it for religious reasons will be questioned by you.

I posted on the first page that I don't feel that differently about those who do it for religious reason. Throughout history, religion has been used as a rationalization for all manner of horrifying things. If I were having a conversation with a deeply religious person who felt strongly about circumcision because of it, I'd ask them how they feel about polygamy or the taliban's rules against women giong to school, showing their face, driving, etc? Do you think it is okay that women are beheaded or tortured or killed because their family's religion demands that it is so? What about religions or cultures that require female circumcision? Is that okay with you?

Religion should be respected as much as possible. However, when religious rules are harmful to those upon whom they're applied or against whom they are enforced, that begins to usurp the individual rights of others.

i believe people should be allowed to circumcise males in two instances: 1. they are over the age of 18 and doing so without outside duress 2. they are truly medically necessary.

Sadly, many doctors are ignorant of the second. On another listserv I'm on, the topic of circumcision came up and a woman gave a warning story about her boy having to be circ'ed at 7 because his foreskin had not yet retracted on its own. YIKES. It is completely within the range of normal for a child's foreskin to remain attached or semi attached at that age, though many will be retractable.

Ignorance and cultural / religious tradition do NOT make it okay in my book for these reasons. And I don't need to just "admit" it. It's an integral part of my beliefs on the subject.

If baptism required harming or hurting my child with no real benefits aside from religious tradition, I would have skipped it.

So, for those of you who say that your religion demands it, please tell me your response to the polygamy / banning driving / education for women, etc. What's the difference? And please don't say it doesn't hurt the kid, because that is false and in your heart, I bet you know it even if you want to tell yourself otherwise.

I'm the poster you're responding to. Interesting that you think I'm pro-circ. My point was that people who hold strong beliefs re: circumcision, breastfeeding, ERF, sleep training, etc. don't genuinely want to hear from the "other" side b/c they will never change their minds. There are things I believe that I will never, ever change my mind on (and I'm not referencing circ'ing) so it's pointless to ask others to "name one valid reason" for the other side b/c I will never believe there is a valid reason for that other side.

[Anonymous]

I started out anti-circ, but we ended up having our son circed at 2 months, mostly for special medical considerations, and the experience has made me pro-circ generally.

Before he was born my DH and I argued about it a lot--I'd read all the literature and thought the benefits just didn't outweigh the risks. Although I did feel it was a close call, I had a pretty visceral reaction to the *idea* of having it done. My DH on the other had had also read all the literature and still felt pretty strongly about having it done. For him it came down to "the risks are minor and the benefits are minor, but I'm very happy with mine [circed] and don't know anyone who isn't, so I'd rather have it done now."

We still hadn't decided when DS was born and agreed to wait a few days. Then my newborn DS spiked a fever had to go to the ER--scariest experience of my life. Turns out he had a particularly bad strain of UTI that had spread into the blood. After some consultation with our regular ped, a ped infectious disease specialist, and a ped urologist, they all thought it was likely he had vesicoureteral reflux (urine backing up toward the kidneys) and wanted further testing done.

At that point we asked about the circumcision, and while my ped didn't have a strong opinion, the infectious disease specialist and urologist both recommended it, because it would help prevent future UTIs and because it would make catheters easier (and he would need a lot of them in the coming months). I still didn't feel good about it but I agreed to go ahead with it.

All the docs agreed that we needed to wait until DS was recovered from the first UTI (so I can't imagine doing it to a baby who was STILL in the NICU, yikes!). Once he was, we picked a ped. surgeon (who also practices as a mohel). He had an anesthetic injection, but still cried HARD when we got him back in the recovery room and refused to nurse for several hours--that was very hard for me. But he was back to his usual self within a day.

After the circ, we had a VCUG and a DMSA done, and the diagnosis was grade 4+ reflux (almost the worst possible) and one kidney that was practically non-functioning. We were told to be extra vigilant in preventing another UTI because if he had another one, they'd almost certainly have to do surgery, and the one kidney is so bad that rather than correcting the reflux, they would just remove the kidney. And then our urologist told us it was good we had him circed, because repeat UTIs are common in high-grade reflux, and very new, very good studies have shown that circumcision is highly effective in preventing UTIs in boys with high-grade reflux.

So the way I see it, he lost his foreskin, but it probably saved his kidney.

Now I recognize that this is a unique medical circumstance, and I hope only the most hard-core anti-circ folks would fault us for going ahead with it under these conditions. But two things have now made me generally pro-circ (that is, barring medical issues like ours, I still see no problem with doing it or not doing as you please; I don't believe it should be required either way):

1) Our experience was really not that bad. Yes, it clearly hurt. But it seemed about the same as when his very severe tongue tie was clipped or when he had a spinal tap, and he was acting like his normal self in a day, and healed in <1 week. Now it is a non-issue. I expect we'll have any future sons done, even if they don't have medical issues, because DH wants it done and now I have no problem with it.

2) There are hundreds of thousands, even millions, of infant-circed men that have no problems with it, most of whom are even glad it's done and that happened when they were an infant and can't remember--including my husband. As far as I can tell, the cases of grown men who are unhappy with their circ are few and far between. I think if it were really the problem the anti-circers make it out to be, this would not be the case.

So I just don't get what all the hubbub is about. I do think its better to wait a week or so after birth;to only do it on healthy babies (not NICU babies!!); and to have it done by a good surgeon, with good anesthetic, and with followup checks (most hospital newborn circs don't get a followup). But given those things, I think its fine to do it. I also think its fine if you don't want to do it too. It should be the parents' choice, and everyone else should butt out.

I know it is not the same as infant ear piercing, but it is somewhat similar. I think babies look weird with any kind of jewelry, so I would never do it, but if you want to, whatever. The risks are minimal, and the vast majority of girls eventually wear pierced ears anyway. Now as an adult, I rarely wear earrings, and never in my second holes since high school, but I don't regret having it done then. If some cultures tattooed infants, I'd probably feel the same. Not for me, but you can if you want to.

(Lets all be clear--female genital mutilation has been banned because it is completely different. The type that got people up in arms to ban it involves the removal of a LOT more that the foreskin-equivalent, and is usually forced on a much-older girl under unsanitary conditions without any worthwhile anesthetic at all. It also doesn't appear to carry any medical benefit--UTIs apparently increase after FGM--so people need to stop suggesting that "circing" females to prevent UTIs is an equivalent excuse to circing males for the same reason.)

So seriously people, what's the big deal? I don't get it. Do it or don't but please leave others alone.

[Anonymous]

Last PP/20:13 again, wow sorry that was long. I thought I'd add that the reason I put so much time into my post was that there is so much guilt going on here, and motherhood is hard enough. If my post makes one mom feel less guilty, or makes a decision easier--either way!--then it was worth my time. I think we all need to be a little nicer.

[Anonymous]

20:13 you wrote a great post! Thank you for sharing and you are right... The judgement needs to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, all four of our boys. A mohel came to our house on the 8th day. The boys did not cry, and they healed quickly and beautifully. We are Catholic.

My mother's best friend is a nurse in a urology practice. It was her strenuous recommendation that we do it that tipped the scales, because I was open to either way. My MIL is a pediatrician who goes by the book, and she trends towards circumcising.

I can see each side. My suggestion if you do it? Have a mohel, and do it when your baby is a week old. I can recommend ours if you like.

As Catholics, we are required to have the utmost respect for the human body. To disfigure it or mutilate it in any way is strictly forbidden -- thus the prohibitions against tubals or vasectomies. Many Catholics now realize that circumcision is a mutilation of the natural body that God has blessed us with. You say that all of your boys healed "beautifully", but do you really believe that God would create us with such a significant design flaw, that we would need to surgically alter our boys to make them look more beautiful? Before you have your next boy, spend some time reading www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org and see if it might not change your mind on this topic.

I am the PP you referenced. I will gladly check out that site.

I did not circumcise to make my boys "beautiful," but because of specific medical recommendations. However, I am happy to view a new source of information to check out. Thank you.

You yourself said that they healed "quickly and beautifully" which led me to believe that there was an element of aesthetics involved with the decision to circ; sorry if I read that wrong. Besides that, I am curious to know what specific medical recommendations you based your decision on -- the same myths that are easily refuted (ie, "he'll have fewer infections") or if there was some specific condition that you were trying to fix. There are not any medical reasons which justify routine infant circumcision -- even the American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes this, even though they do not come right out and denounce the procedure as do many other international pediatric organizations world-wide. It is good that you are willing to review more information; hopefully any of your future blessings will benefit!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

cuzimawesome wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those who are against circling, just be honest- there's never going to be an answer from a circ'er that will satisfy you. even people who do it for religious reasons will be questioned by you.

Anti-circ person here. And I agree with you. I really will never be satisfied with any excuse to circ a child. However, I understand that the religious tradition of circumcision is strong, and I can understand why people circumcise for religious reasons... even if I don't agree with it. But those who claim to do it for medical reasons are misinformed or choose to be misinformed. Anybody who actually researches this procedure (and I'm not talking about reading an article or two, I'm talking about looking into the history of it and reading all the studies) will come to the conclusion that it is an inhumane and unnecessary procedure.

Another anti-circ person and I agree. I believe that any intelligent person, if they really are honest, look at all the available information, and are strong enough to set aside their cultural bias; will come to the conclusion that circumcision is unnecessary and damaging. I also believe that it should be made illegal to circumcise any newborn baby in our hospitals, and I fully support those places in our country and worldwide that are working to outlaw it. However, I also understand the power of religious tradition and I do support religious freedom, so I am comfortable with allowing Orthodox Jews the right to proceed with their out-of-hospital ceremonies.

Oh you do, do you. That is ever so generous. The collective folk of Orthodox Jewry has breathed a sign of relief and fell on its collective knees to give thanks.

So Muslims are out of luck, then, if you ruled the world? What, are we just not pretty enough?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I started out anti-circ, but we ended up having our son circed at 2 months, mostly for special medical considerations, and the experience has made me pro-circ generally.

Before he was born my DH and I argued about it a lot--I'd read all the literature and thought the benefits just didn't outweigh the risks. Although I did feel it was a close call, I had a pretty visceral reaction to the *idea* of having it done. My DH on the other had had also read all the literature and still felt pretty strongly about having it done. For him it came down to "the risks are minor and the benefits are minor, but I'm very happy with mine [circed] and don't know anyone who isn't, so I'd rather have it done now."

We still hadn't decided when DS was born and agreed to wait a few days. Then my newborn DS spiked a fever had to go to the ER--scariest experience of my life. Turns out he had a particularly bad strain of UTI that had spread into the blood. After some consultation with our regular ped, a ped infectious disease specialist, and a ped urologist, they all thought it was likely he had vesicoureteral reflux (urine backing up toward the kidneys) and wanted further testing done.

At that point we asked about the circumcision, and while my ped didn't have a strong opinion, the infectious disease specialist and urologist both recommended it, because it would help prevent future UTIs and because it would make catheters easier (and he would need a lot of them in the coming months). I still didn't feel good about it but I agreed to go ahead with it.

All the docs agreed that we needed to wait until DS was recovered from the first UTI (so I can't imagine doing it to a baby who was STILL in the NICU, yikes!). Once he was, we picked a ped. surgeon (who also practices as a mohel). He had an anesthetic injection, but still cried HARD when we got him back in the recovery room and refused to nurse for several hours--that was very hard for me. But he was back to his usual self within a day.

After the circ, we had a VCUG and a DMSA done, and the diagnosis was grade 4+ reflux (almost the worst possible) and one kidney that was practically non-functioning. We were told to be extra vigilant in preventing another UTI because if he had another one, they'd almost certainly have to do surgery, and the one kidney is so bad that rather than correcting the reflux, they would just remove the kidney. And then our urologist told us it was good we had him circed, because repeat UTIs are common in high-grade reflux, and very new, very good studies have shown that circumcision is highly effective in preventing UTIs in boys with high-grade reflux.

So the way I see it, he lost his foreskin, but it probably saved his kidney.

Now I recognize that this is a unique medical circumstance, and I hope only the most hard-core anti-circ folks would fault us for going ahead with it under these conditions. But two things have now made me generally pro-circ (that is, barring medical issues like ours, I still see no problem with doing it or not doing as you please; I don't believe it should be required either way):

1) Our experience was really not that bad. Yes, it clearly hurt. But it seemed about the same as when his very severe tongue tie was clipped or when he had a spinal tap, and he was acting like his normal self in a day, and healed in <1 week. Now it is a non-issue. I expect we'll have any future sons done, even if they don't have medical issues, because DH wants it done and now I have no problem with it.

2) There are hundreds of thousands, even millions, of infant-circed men that have no problems with it, most of whom are even glad it's done and that happened when they were an infant and can't remember--including my husband. As far as I can tell, the cases of grown men who are unhappy with their circ are few and far between. I think if it were really the problem the anti-circers make it out to be, this would not be the case.

So I just don't get what all the hubbub is about. I do think its better to wait a week or so after birth;to only do it on healthy babies (not NICU babies!!); and to have it done by a good surgeon, with good anesthetic, and with followup checks (most hospital newborn circs don't get a followup). But given those things, I think its fine to do it. I also think its fine if you don't want to do it too. It should be the parents' choice, and everyone else should butt out.

I know it is not the same as infant ear piercing, but it is somewhat similar. I think babies look weird with any kind of jewelry, so I would never do it, but if you want to, whatever. The risks are minimal, and the vast majority of girls eventually wear pierced ears anyway. Now as an adult, I rarely wear earrings, and never in my second holes since high school, but I don't regret having it done then. If some cultures tattooed infants, I'd probably feel the same. Not for me, but you can if you want to.

(Lets all be clear--female genital mutilation has been banned because it is completely different. The type that got people up in arms to ban it involves the removal of a LOT more that the foreskin-equivalent, and is usually forced on a much-older girl under unsanitary conditions without any worthwhile anesthetic at all. It also doesn't appear to carry any medical benefit--UTIs apparently increase after FGM--so people need to stop suggesting that "circing" females to prevent UTIs is an equivalent excuse to circing males for the same reason.)

So seriously people, what's the big deal? I don't get it. Do it or don't but please leave others alone.

You have an interesting perspective in that you chose not to do it, but wound up having a reasonable medical reason to do so. You also sound relatively open-minded and genuinely curious about this debate. So, I'll give you my answer to your question. The big deal is that you are slicing into a newborn baby's penis with no dire need to do so (not you personally of course, as you had a very unique situation. Heck, there are numerous unique medical situations which could justify the amputation of any number of otherwise useful body parts). Also in my opinion it is not simply about the pain or the recovery, which usually goes fine (but of course in a small percentage of cases can go horribly wrong) but the fact that no person should have part of their genitals sliced and amputated without their consent, period. You reference female circumcision, and I agree that female circumcision can be far more serious and debilitating than what we see with routine infant circ in this country. However, there is a type of female circumcision practiced which involves only a small ritual "nick" (ie, a cut, but nothing is removed) in the baby girls clitoris. To answer your question with a question: would you consider this type of female circumcision to be acceptable? Why or why not? Yet regardless of anyone's personal opinion, even this very "minor" type of female circ is still illegal in this country. Why do we provide this protection to baby girls (most of immigrant parents), while we allow a procedure on our own baby boys which is FAR more invasive?