OK question...

mummy2girls wrote: dont make it a debate i just want to know to see if this is common. Marcus is not circumsized and he does not want our son( if we have a boy) to be circumsized. I told him that decsion is his to make. I dont have one so i dint know whats better or not...LOL. But i told him he is responsible for teaching him how to keep himself clean as he gets older... So how many of your sons are not circumsized or are they circumsized? I have had 10 boys come through my dayhome and 5 were not cirumsized....

CantWait replied: Both Robbie and Anthony are not (Ron wishes they were, even though he himself is not. He says it's cleaner, less smelly). Anyway, I'm the one that has taught them how to keep it clean.

kimberley replied: both my boys are. their dad is. really, it's a personal choice.

Cece00 replied: my boys are not circumcised. my ex is not, my DH is. I made my opinion (circumcision is completely unneccessary) known to DH and told him it was his choice to make, HOPING he would choose to skip it. For awhile he was going to have it done but changed his mind. I am SO glad he did. Its really a non-issue in life IMO, so I see no reason to have done it.

moped replied:
I agree, it is just a choice.

Jack is and Tom and I wanted it that way - we thought they should match

mummy2girls replied: oh i get it that its a personal choice.. i was just curious to see if this is common now...

moped replied:
When Jack was born I think they said it was 50/50......and now I think is more common NOT to......if I remember correctly

My3LilMonkeys replied: Bobby is. I was completely against it but left the decision up to DH and he thought it was better to have it done.

MyBabeMaddie replied: I had a rotation in the postpartum unit over the summer... It seemed like 75% were circumsized.

ZandersMama replied: neither of my boys are done. i didnt think it was necessary, and with zavier they wouldnt have done him anyway. too much other stuff going on

Swood75 replied: My DS is and so is DH..

HuskerMom replied: Dh isn't and Keith is. My MIL told me that the only reason that Dh isn't is because they didn't think he was going to survive when he was born. I told Dh it was his decision if Keith was curcumsized or not. I figured since he knew more about that than me than he could decide, I trusted his decision.

Crystalina replied: Mine are. I knew of an elderly man who got an infection and had to get circumcised and he was in so much pain and eventually died d/t the infection getting into his blood stream.

I just always knew I'd do it. IMO it just looks cleaner. <-- for lack of a better term.

Jamison'smama replied: Jack is but according to his doctor and what I have seen with other children, his was a very generous circ. He has a lot of skin left.

MoonMama replied: Braedin is NOT, DH is. The reason Braedin isn't however is because when he was born his ped said his was to small for her to feel safe using even the smallest ring they had for it, and that we would do it at 6 months old. Well after a mix up with the insurance company and the dr who was going to do it supposedly never getting the referral, he had turned 1 by this time. At this point DH and I talked and decided you know unless there was a reason to (infection, etc) then at this point why out him through it, KWIM? Plus he would have had to be put completely under and we were SOOO not comfortable with that unless it was for something totally necessary.

boyohboyohboy replied: I find it really interesting those of you that left the decision to your dh's...

My boys all had it done. It was just something I felt more comfortable with, as well as religious reasons.
I also have seen some elderly men that had issues and some where serious.

I think the ring seems less painful, although I cant say since I have never had it done. I wonder if its more painful though then those baby girls that get their ears pierced?

My3LilMonkeys replied:
In our case I was very strongly against it, DH was very strongly for it, so I allowed him to make the decision because he has more experience with the male anatomy, he had done just as much research as I had and neither of us was going to convince the other that our way was right.

Obviously I can't say for sure since I've never been through it but IMO it is WAY more painful than having ears pierced. Brooke had her ears pierced when she was 3 and it hurt for just 2-3 minutes and after that she had no problems until they got infected due to a reaction to the type of earrings we used. When Bobby was circumsized it was red and swollen and he screamed every time it was touched for 2 or 3 days.

Crystalina replied:
I would think ear piercing is far less painful. The recovery time on the circ. is longer and looks uncomfortable.

I did not leave the decision up to DH. DH is circ. but that has nothing to do with my decision. It would have been mine and not his. The old man I mentioned in my earlier post made up my mind for me if I ever had a son. That happened way before I had kids but I remember what that poor man went through and for him to die d/t the infection. How sad. And then to circ him at his age! Heck no! I never wanted my son to go through that. And it was one of those things that he didn't realize he had an infection until it was too late.

Plus I've never been with a guy who was not so to me it just looks odd. I know it is NOT odd but when your not used to it your just not. Everyone has their reason for why they do or do not do it. My reasons are not religious or complicated at all but rather shallow really.

A&A'smommy replied: I don't have any boys BUT if we do have one he will be circ. dh is and I have also heard about infections while they aren't that common they CAN happen and HAVE to be circ. so that is my reason.

punkeemunkee'smom replied: Bill and I had this convo right before our sono (now we know we don't need to worry...this time ) Bill said that if we were having a boy he would want him circ. I think it has to do with them 'matching' more than religious reasons or anything like that....

luvbug00 replied: No boys yet but mine will be.

mckayleesmom replied: Russell is....and actually Russell's is the first I had ever seen not circumsized. I made it a point to look before they did it because I had never seen one before. In my family it has just always been a given to get boys circumsized...so I never knew any different.

AlexsPajamaMama replied: Alex is not and like what was said before it is a non-issue

Brias3 replied: DH is circumcized and so are both our boys. This one will be too, if its a boy.

I didn't give it much thought really- I just kind of went with what I am used to and what I thought was best, hygiene-wise. DH was pretty set on getting them circumcized too. TBH, minus a little boy I used to sit for as a teen, I have never seen an un-circumcized one

Danalana replied: Dh is circumsized and really wanted Kade circumsized too...he said it was just the best thing to do. I didn't know if that was 100% true, but I had a long convo with my doctor. He said he did a circumcision that was a little looser--that he would grow into. Kade did GREAT with it and never seemed uncomfortable with it at all. it looks great too, and it is kinda loose. I am happy that we did it, but I'm sure it's not necessary.

cameragirl21 replied: I meant to stay out of this one but since today is World AIDS Day, I thought I'd just throw this out there for information. Circumcision greatly reduces the risk of contracting HIV and AIDS and for that reason alone, I'd say it's crucial in our society, given scientists are nowhere near a cure or preventative treatment for AIDS and the virus itself mutates so much that there are so many strains that it would be very hard to cure and/or prevent each one. Just some info for your perusal:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/he...ds-1042368.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8473838/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16184582/
http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/article...kills_20081126/
For me as a Jew, obviously circumcision is a must and I have to say as a photographer I've witnessed quite a few as I've been hired to document them and got up very close, which women are usually not supposed to do, not even the mother but as a photog, I got the best seat in the house, so to speak. Some of the babies cry, some don't, I suspect that more than anything else they are uncomfortable being held down in that position with people all around them. I realize at 8 days of age (which is when we do it) they don't have good vision but I think they can sense all the people around them and all the energy in the roomful of other people. I can say that as soon as they are wrapped up and done, they always stop crying, the procedure itself is very quick and easy, anyone could do it. In Judaism we do it without any anesthetic, we just give the baby some wine on his pacifier or a cottonball. To me, the alcohol would be of more concern but I figure Einstein had it done and he turned out just fine, better than fine, really. I don't see why an OB doesn't use anesthetic when doing it, though, like a local or something but I guess it's over so fast it's unnecessary.
I'm wondering though--some of you mentioned that you did it partly for religious reasons and I know I'm the only Jew here so if you don't mind my asking--what do you mean by this? As far as I know, there is nothing in Christianity that calls for circumcision...am I wrong? Just curious.

A&A'smommy replied:
I think for a lot of christians it just holds true to our hearts to do something like this (not everyone though its not a must) I personally feel like God calls christians to be more like him if you get what I'm saying!

cameragirl21 replied:
you mean to circ your boys because Jesus was circ'd? Well, but Jesus was circ'd in a full Jewish ceremony, so why wouldn't you do it that way? Not saying you should and tbh, some Christians do, rumor has it that Prince Charles and William were circ'd in a Jewish ceremony but just wondering where the line is drawn or rather, where one decides to draw it and on what grounds.
Not knocking it, just curious.

CantWait replied:
I can understand getting it done for religious reasons, and for cleanliness, but for the risk in AIDS to go down. Do we really hold that light for our children? These men that are getting it done in their adulthood in these countries are getting it done so it reduces their risk. Why so they can go around continuing to rape women, or live primiscously. How about not using AIDS as an excuse and teaching safe sex. Where does our foreign aid money go to?

cameragirl21 replied: I see what you mean, Marie, but the truth is that even safe sex can lead to trouble as many people with HIV may not know they have it and also we can't know what our kids will do once they leave our care. The way I see it, it's like an innoculation to lower the risk of a deadly disease for which there is no cure. If you can offer them that protection then to me it makes sense to do so. This is of course, jmo, but in spite of my religious reasons, I am quite certain that I would do this regardless because I figure that if I can give my son that simple thing to reduce his risk of contracting AIDS by as much as 70% and it's something that he will never remember getting, nor will it harm him in any way then for me I would do it.
I realize it's a personal choice but I do think that where disease is concerned, it should be taken into consideration. I have spent a lot of time with the terminally ill and I can say for certain that if it were as simple as circumcision to undo their illness they would all do it, at least for the men, I can't speak for the women in that regard, lol.

lovemy2 replied: Both my "boys" are - and Dylan never appeared to be any worse for the wear for/from it

jcc64 replied: A little late to the party, as usual. None of the males in my house, dh or the boys are circ'd. If someone gave me a sound medical reason at the time, I was willing to do it, and no one could. I know the recent study to which you refer about disease prevention, Jen, but that has recently been discredited. I don't believe there is conclusive evidence that medically speaking, circumcision is substantially healthier. It really is just a personal decision.
Having said that, I can't for the life of me understand how anyone could claim that it isn't painful to the baby- you are cutting off a body part. This is not an argument for or against, but it seems a little weird to assume that it wouldn't hurt. I think if someone took a knife to your skin, it would hurt.

AlexsPajamaMama replied: I know it is an "elective surgery" now and some insurance companies have stopped covering it. So the cost is all out of pocket and its a couple hundred dollars that must be paid before the baby is born.

redchief replied: I am and my boys are. I don't remember mine and neither do the boys, for what that's worth. I know Lisa wanted the boys to "be like their dad."

I know that for some their religious beliefs drive the circumcision of boys, but that's not the case for us. I believe that culture has even more to do with the decision than religion nowadays. In Europe circumcisions are only done for medical necessity and for religious reasons. Depending on where the information comes from, 30-40% of the world's males are cut.

Despite some being totally against the procedure, there is absolute and substantial evidence that suggests that circumcision protects against many diseases, including UTI's, syphilis, penile cancer and chancroids. There is also strong evidence which says that HIV doesn't pass nearly as easily to circumcised males, in fact, as part of the World Health Organization's push to control the spread of AIDS in Africa, they are offering low or no cost circumcisions. Further, many feminine diseases pass easier to women from uncut men, including and especially Human papilloma virus (HPV), the most significant cause of cervical cancer. It's almost impossible for a cut male to transfer this virus to a woman.

Crystalina replied:
Good to know! I had no clue.