Pregnancy Info HOME

i would also like to know the answer to this question

i would simply because of hygiene, and the way it " looks " to others.

I like the feeling of the foreskin of my hubby. Why put my hand on gads creation? Are we taling out our eyelid? May be that there for some use. Else evolution will take care of it.

Circumcision is meant to be healthier for the man and the women, as bacteria/organisms that can spread disease or infection are not trapped under the forskin. Circumcised men can clean better and not have trapped bacteria/organisms as stated prior. But I personally have never been with someone who was circumcised. I like my partners forskin. :) Each to their own.

If we end up having a baby boy we will definatly be getting the baby circumcized. My husband wasn't done as a baby and around the age of 15-22 he had a hard time pulling the skin back to clean it properly...eventally at the age of 25 he couldn't at all! So needless to say, he had the circumcizion done at the age of 25 - we were together at this point and he went through ALOT of pain after the operation. There's no way he said that he would put his own son through that (if it's heretitary).

Hi JB I am in the medical profession, I must confesses that I have only dealt with a few case of circumcision (not as common in Australia as in some others parts of the world). Every time I have seen a small innocent baby boy who has been circumcised , he as cried and screamed from pain (To administer a penile dorsal nerve block for circumcision, injections must be made at the base of the penis. When the effect wears off, if the block was effective at all, the baby will feel pain at the site of the wound. The pain will intensify every time he urinates, it may take over two weeks to heal). I always think "how could any loving parent put any child through that". In the past day or two (because of your question here) I have done some research on the net and from the library at the place I work. What I found enforced my earlier medical training that is there is NO SOUND MEDICAL REASON FOR CIRCUMCISION. This web site will not allow hot links so I can not include my source of information (both pro and con) Please do the a Goolge for your own education. Consider this Routine circumcision as a preventative or cure for masturbation was proposed in Victorian times in America. Masturbation was thought to be the cause of a number of diseases. The procedure of routine circumcision became commonplace between 1870 and 1920, and it consequently spread to all the English-speaking countries (England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). None of these countries now circumcise the majority of their male children, a distinction reserved today for the United States (in the UK, in fact, nonreligious circumcision has virtually ceased). Yet, there are still those who promote this social surgery, long after the masturbation hysteria of the past century has subsided.
To overcome the double standard of the acceptance of circumcision for men but not for women, consider this: If it could be unequivocally proven that women had a decreased incidence of UTIs, sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, vulvitis, vulvar cancer, and/or increased sexual staying power as a result of performing neonatal labiectomy, would the medical and nurse-midwifery communities approve routine, unanesthetized neonatal labial amputation as a prophylactic measure? Of course not! If we wouldn't do this to our newborn females, we must take a hard look at why we condone and perform "prophylactic" foreskin amputations upon our newborn males. Women have struggled to achieve rights to body ownership for themselves. It is imperative that mutual respect for these inalienable human rights be extended, not only to the women in Africa with whom we can identify, but also to men, male children, and male newborns. Consider further: The foreskin is normal, healthy, functioning tissue. Circumcision has inherent risks, including hemorrhage, infection, mutilation, and death. Circumcision is painful, even when an anesthetic is used. Circumcision causes both physical and psychological scars. Most importantly, every human being has an inherent, inalienable right to his own body. Also consider Doctors who practice routine circumcisions are violating the first maxim of medical practice, Primum non nocere, "First, Do No Harm", and anyone practicing genital mutilation is violating Article V of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”
(source Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, Volume 37, Number 2 (Suppl.): Pages 87S-96S,
March/April 1992.) Regards Keith Dad of two (Un-circumcised boys)

Excellent post, Keith, thank you!!! There is not a single medical organization IN THE WORLD that recommends routine infant circumcision. Routine infant circumcision without religious conviction is a vile, disgusting practice that should be outlawed as a violation of human rights.

il'd never do it to my boy and its a dead trend. i only no one guy whos had it done. and apr - ani ment removeing your eyelid is like removeing the skin off the top of the penis. I wouldnt like it if someone cut off my "Folds" to make me cleaner. If someone wants to be circumsised let them decide for them self. i personaly dont think it is anybodys right to change another person body.

I have 3 sons they have all been done and I resent being told how vile I am for doing that Jamie you can kiss my butt your the one that is vile and disgusting for being such a B**** I mean why do you have to put a parent down for doing it why can't you simply not have your son done and leave everyone that wants to alone....really it is posts like yours that start fights I really think your a pig!!

I just have to add that I have known two boys that had to have it done due to infection that was really bad one was about two years old he swelled so bad he could not pee....and was in alot of pain and the other boy was around 10 and his was bad too not to mention the pain he felt after and if he would have had it done well both of them if they would have been done at birth then they would not have had to face what they went thru....

can someone also explain to me what the EXACT function of a foreskin is, by the way? Jamieand kyes, theres quite a big difference between tits and an apendix. For one thing, an apendix serves absolutely no function, and you know, maybe it would be best to remove it so you won't have the risk of appendicitis. My cousin nearly died when his appendix ruptured in school. Now, boobs serve an important function- to provide a newborn with the perfect nutrition, and you do not remove an organ that actually has a function unless there is an absolute necessity for it. Not out of preventitive measures. An apendix and a foreskin only serve to cause potentional danger- ruptures and infections, and therefore, there should be no issue with wanting to remove them to avoid this potential problem, as your body has absolutely no need for it.

rl- my husband had his circumsition right after birth and he likes to joke to people who say that circumsision emotionally scars a baby, that it hurt so bad he couldn't walk for a year afterwards! obviously, he doesn't remember a thing, so we don't see all the emotional scars people talk about.

Actually- here is the article: FOR ALL YOU WHO SAY THERE IS NO MEDICAL REASON FOR CIRCUMCISION READ THIS!!!!

Circumcising adult men may cut in half their risk of getting the AIDS virus through heterosexual intercourse, the U.S. government announced Wednesday, as it shut down two studies in Africa testing the link.

The National Institutes of Health closed the studies in Kenya and Uganda early, when safety monitors took a look at initial results this week and spotted the protection. The studies' uncircumcised men are being offered the chance to undergo the procedure.

The link between male circumcision and HIV prevention was noted as long ago as the late 1980s. The first major clinical trial, of 3,000 men in South Africa, found last year that circumcision cut the HIV risk by 60 percent.

Still, many AIDS specialists had been awaiting the NIH's results as a final confirmation.

"Male circumcision can lower both an individual's risk of infection, and hopefully the rate of HIV spread through the community," said AIDS expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

But it's not perfect protection, Fauci stressed. Men who become circumcised must not quit using condoms nor take other risks -- and circumcision offers no protection from HIV acquired through anal sex or injection drug use, he noted.

"It's not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention," agreed Dr. Kevin De Cock of the World Health Organization.

Male circumcision is common at birth in the United States. But in sub-Saharan Africa, home to more than half of the world's almost 40 million HIV-infected people, there are large swaths of populations where male circumcision is rare.

The WHO plans an international meeting early next year to discuss the studies' results and how to translate them into policies that promote safe male circumcision -- done by trained health workers with sterile equipment -- while teaching men that it won't make them invulnerable.

Why would male circumcision play a role? Cells in the foreskin of the penis are particularly susceptible to the HIV virus, Fauci explained. Also, the foreskin is more fragile than the tougher skin surrounding it, providing a surface that the virus could penetrate more easily.

Researchers enrolled 2,784 HIV-negative men in Kisumu, Kenya, and 4,996 HIV-negative men in Rakai, Uganda, into the studies. Some were circumcised; others were just monitored.

Over two years, 22 of the circumcised Kenyans became infected with HIV compared with 47 uncircumcised men, a 53 percent reduction. In Uganda, 22 circumcised men became infected vs. 43 of the uncircumcised, a 48 percent reduction.

The researchers are offering all of the studies' uncircumcised men the chance to undergo the procedure, and 80 percent of the uncircumcised Ugandans already have agreed, said lead researcher Ronald Gray of Johns Hopkins University.

Side effects were rare, including some mostly mild infections that were easily treated. The rate of side effects was comparable to those seen in circumcised U.S. infants, said Robert Bailey of the University of Illinois at Chicago, who led the Kenyan trial.

THANK YOU JENNY!!

I had my son circumsized when he was born because I thought I was suppose to! He did cry so I know he felt some pain, he cried for the next week everytime he peed, he cried when I had to take the bandage off. It was heartbreaking to me because he was so tiny and I felt like his pain was my fault. He's 13 now, never had any sort of infections down there, but I know of little boys who have who werent circumsized. To be honest reading all of your post has made me feel bad again after 13 years, I'm pregnant with #4 and if its a boy, I'm lost on doing it or not. I have known of 2 adult men who HAD to be circumsized for health reasons and both suffered terribly having to go through that as an adult.

I will have my son done, b/c not only do I think it is healthier. Also I think that it is what he would want as an adult and teen. I dont want to put im through pain, but sometimes pain is good.... I mean all women go through mindblowing pain to have a child?? Right?? Some pain is worth it....I wouldnt want my son to remember what he had to go through if i came down to an infection later on that warrented removal. Why is everyone so negative about the subject, it is a personal decision and should be respected either way!