Anonymous wrote:I really don't get this "reduce infections/stds" thing. The easiest way to avoid getting an STD is to not have sex with people that have STDs. Teach your sons to respect themselves (and their future partners) enough to be selective in who they have sex with.

We don't do this with other medical issues! "oh there's a chance my child might have an eye injury one day, so we're just going to go ahead and have her eyes gouged out at birth."
"We're very concerned about cavities and dental health, so we'll remove all his teeth now as a newborn."

Hormonal teens do what they want/lack judgement, you can't teach them anything.

Circumcising a new born is totally different then waiting until they are old enough to decide. If they decide later, that they want it, its not a simple procedure its a surgery requiring General anesthesia in a hospital or surgery center with healing time. Sometimes older men get circumcised due to skin conditions, infection, etc. later in life. However, I do agree its barbaric. I don't know where I stand because if I were a boy, and I wanted to be circumcised I would want it as an infant. It's just embarrassing and painful later on.

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. If you didn't for your sons, why are you unsure now?

Not the OP but as you can see from above, people are equating being anti-vaccination (also known as anti-science) with having a child who is uncircumcised.Not exactly parallels IMO but to each their own.

I'm confused. If you didn't for your sons, why are you unsure now?

Anonymous wrote:If you are keeping up with medicine and science since 2012, yes circumcised.

Don't be all antivac ignorant and risk cancer, utis and stink cheeses

And HIV

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

but more than a 100 will experience phimosis and need to be circumcised, bet those more than a 100 parents really wish they circumcised in infancy. Actually, it’s about 0.6% of all uncircumcised males that will require surgery in later life.

Phimosis hardly compares to a risk of death or genital loss.

Risk of death from bleeding only happens in babies with underlying blood clotting conditions.How many cases of genital loss have you heard of in this century in the US?

The risk of infant death from circumcision is about the same as from SIDS. We do all sorts of inconvenient things to prevent SIDS death. But yet so many choose voluntary surgery on their child’s genitals for minor/questionable health benefits while downplaying the risks.

Bananas , hahahahaha made up stats. No you are more likely to die of uncirc diseases moron because the risks for circs are so low it's not measurable

PP here who thinks they’re somewhat comparable.

This suggests maybe 1 death in every 49,166 circumcisions. https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/1_MeetingAbstract/224
Pretty low risk. Not sure causation is proved, but seems like some type of estimate to go by. Healthy infants probably have much less risk, but you don’t always know what issues your newborn has 24 hours after he’s born.

NPR estimated risk of SIDS death for a healthy infant at 1 in 46,000. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/05/21/601289695/is-sleeping-with-your-baby-as-dangerous-as-doctors-say.

I would guess risk of death from rock and play, which was recalled as unsafe with 4.7 million sold and around 30 deaths. Rough estimate would be maybe 1 death per every 150,000 rock n plays, probably less if kid is buckled in and not rolling yet). https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-life-and-death-of-a-wildly-popular-baby-sleeper. Seems pretty low risk comparatively.

How many other things do we work hard to avoid because of low risks to our babies? And yet circumcision presents a low risk with questionable benefits and we don’t avoid that.

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get this "reduce infections/stds" thing. The easiest way to avoid getting an STD is to not have sex with people that have STDs. Teach your sons to respect themselves (and their future partners) enough to be selective in who they have sex with.

We don't do this with other medical issues! "oh there's a chance my child might have an eye injury one day, so we're just going to go ahead and have her eyes gouged out at birth."
"We're very concerned about cavities and dental health, so we'll remove all his teeth now as a newborn."

+1. Or teach your sons to use a condom to prevent STDS, which they should do whether they’re circumcised or not.

As a woman, it seems to me like it’s comparable to removing a girl infant’s labia or clitoral hood because those are extra skin down there that could get irritated during sex and so present extra vulnerable areas for an STD to transfer. Sure, she could still climax without those parts later on, but it’s going to reduce sensitivity in that whole area be different. And it’s a really weird calculus to make for someone else. I don’t think parents should be weighing the benefits of bodily integrity against the possibility that their child may be having a lot of risky sex later in life. Kid should decide later in life if the like 20% reduced chance of contracting HIV when having unprotected sex with an HIV+ person is worth cutting of their foreskin, or if maybe they should just wear a condom and have a much lower chance of contracting HIV. And this is all supposing we haven’t cured HIV by then or developed really effective pre-exposure drugs to prevent transmission if kid really wants to have unprotected sex with HIV+ people. Even supposing there are medical benefits, it’s a super weird and personal decision to make about someone else’s body and future sex life.

My son has hemophilia, while we didn’t know it at birth, we chose not to circ and I’m so thankful that we made that choice.