[pattiewrites]

Hi All,
I write the Pregnancy Blog for families.com. I plan to write a pro/con article on the subject of circumcision. This is an issue being debated in my own household right now. We are expecting our first son, after 3 daughters. This has never been an issue for us before. So, will you do it, or if you have a son, did you circumcise him? If so or if not, what were your reasons?

[MJ7]

Our son was circ'd at 18 mo due to phimosis and balanitis (hope I spelled those right). I wish it were done at birth so he wouldn't have had to undergo surgery how he did. My friend was against circumsisions until her son too had problems with an infection due to tight foreskin. She wishes she would have had him circ'd at birth. One little foster boy had to go for an emergency one due to a similar problem. There was no feaver or anything, but his urine was not all coming out and his kidneys were effected. His only symptom seemed to be vomiting. I am told these cases are rare, but they have seemed all too common to me. Though I have been told to the contrary, I imaging a circ'd one is cleaner than non-circ'd. I was so glad my youngest came to us circ'd so we didn't have to go through that ordeal with him. I personally don't believe there is a right or a wrong answer here unless you're talking about medical issues.

[babydawn]

There isn't a right or wrong answer, it all depends on personal beliefs and feelings. My younger brother also went through medical problems and had to be circumcised at the age of 3. It is supposed to be more painful when done later in life. My two boys I had circumcised at the hospital when they were born, and we had no problems. I know that there are other problems that can occur when a child grows up if they aren't. My husband has a friend who wants to get circumcised because of the sexual problems he is having as an adult. I have also heard that boys who aren't circumcised get made fun of in the locker room when they get older. Personally, I say, avoid all of the possible future hassle and have them circumcised at birth.

[MJ7]

On the West coast, less boys are circ'd than on elsewhere in the US (I've heard). So, nowdays, over here, I don't think the appearance will be anything odd if not done. But still, I would have circ'd at birth to avoid later complications even as there are small risks to having it done.

I had an uncle who decades back went into the service and wasn't circ'd. They required him to be because of infections that could arrise while in battle. I am not sure if they do this anymore, but wow! what an ordeal.

[pattiewrites]

That's right, MJ. Only about 30% are circd on the West Coast. The figures are about 55% in the Northeast, 65% in the Midwest and somewhere around 45% in the South. Also, I learned that in England, only 1% are circd. Many countries have long stopped doing it. It's only really common in North America now. I think the locker room issue will be a moot point by the time our boys are grown, since the numbers continue to drop.

It's a tough decision for me. My husband is leaning towards wanting to do it. I've been reading for months and it just confuses the issue even more. For every story I read about a boy having problems as a result of not being circd, I read another about a grown man with sexual dysfunction as a result of a "too tight" circ. This apparently causes problems with pain during intercourse later in life. Also, I keep reading that infections are a result of retracting the foreskin (which should never be done) or not cleaning properly.

It's the thought of hurting the baby that really gets to me. Personally, I don't think it hurts more as an adult, so much as you just remember the pain more. I'm sure it hurts like heck for the baby at the time.

[MJ7]

I hear you Patti and now that you've stated the percentages, I believe that is too what I've heard.

I think it does probably hurt less as a baby as I'm not sure if all the nerves are produced as they are in an older baby or child. I can tell you that if you have your little boy circ'd as a baby, they do numb the area (I've been told) and accidents are rare. When my boy was 18 mo, they had to put him under. He had to have stitiches...oh, it was horribly swollen and sad looking. He was so resiliant though. It didn't seem to bother him after a day or so.

I would say your dh would be a good person to voice his opinion because he'll understand more. My dh says he's glad he was done, but he really doesn't know the difference. I have a friend who's dh is regretful his parents didn't do it when he was born.

I think too for every story you hear like this, you'll hear a different perspective too so I'm sorry it's not an easier decision.

[hennypenny]

We're planning not to unless he has a medical reason for it.

[pattiewrites]

Originally Posted by hennypenny

We're planning not to unless he has a medical reason for it.

This is interesting. Hennypenny, you're from Australia, right? I've heard that circumcision is very rare in that country as well as in most that aren't the US.

[Merrymom4]

This is a topic of discussion in my family right now as well. We just adopted our our 2 year old son. (He was our foster son for 1 1/2 years). He was born at 28 weeks and was not circumcised. Our doctor suggests that since the other males in our house are, we should get him circumcized as well. Apparently being different from the other boys could cause him some upset. I keep wondering, "More upset than being circumcized at this age?" I'd rather leave well enough alone. We haven't decided but I think we are leaning towards doing it. (But I don't want to!)

[hennypenny]

Yes, I am Australian. Growing up in the 70's, I know circumcision was the norm. Now it gets lots of debate in our country, there are still plenty of parents getting their kids circumcised, but a lot more nowadays who aren't. There's also some doctors I'm told who won't perform it for no reason, not sure how common that is.