Is circumcision necessary?

My sister is going to have her first baby in a few weeks, and now a big argument is in discusion: does the new baby boy need to be circumcised?

My sister doesn't support the idea, but my brother in law (american) insists, now they are aking my opinion.

I did a little research and I understand in the states is normal, and the procedure is also done for religious purposes, but does my nephew need to have an innecesary medical procedure? isn't it going against human rights with such mutilation? Is there any benefit?

What do you do you think? is it better to have it or not?

Well I know that if your not cercumsized, it's harder to keep clean down there, and also, I guess people prefer it that way. Thats all I know. But in the end its up to the baby's parents. Good Luck.

By the way, I only know this because I have 6 little nephews. Im not weird or anything. Lol. But yes, Good Luck and I hope my little bit of info helped.

usually its a religious reason for circumcision or because the foreskin doesn't pull back or because of being in a very hot country and its easier to keep clean... not being circumcised does not mean its harder to keep the pen*s clean, keeping clean is down to the individual.

no you do not need to circumcise even in the us the rates of circumcision are dropping and in some part it is below 50%

It is not necessary.

At birth the foreskin adheres to the glans. It will naturally separate over time during the boy's childhood. This generally occurs by age 5, but it can last until his teens. This is normal. Circumcision requires this bond to be forcibly (painfully) broken.

Because the foreskin adheres, it is as easy to keep an intact pen*s clean as it is to clean a circumcised pen*s. Gentle washing similar to every other body part is fine. Just do not pull the foreskin back further than it will go without pressure. It adheres partially to keep harmful stuff out. (Urine, feces, etc.)

With circumcision, the pen*s is still equally easy to clean, but there is the healing period where the boy will have an open wound. This will come into contact with feces and urine, if he's diapered. Imagine what it would feel like to have an open wound contact urine.

The potential benefits are also worthless. European countries do not circumcise and their rates of disease involving the pen*s are equal or better than the United States. Personal behavior matters, not the foreskin. Wash regularly and practice safe sex. That's the solution.

Infant circumcision is a human rights violation, as you mention. The surgery, when it is performed, is unnecessary. There is no health problem. It is cosmetic. It is forced on the child, even though adult men who are not circumcised almost never choose (or need) circumcision. If given his choice, he would say no. It is a violation.

Also, since the boy isn't fully grown yet from puberty, the doctor must guess how much skin to remove. He may guess and remove too little. This will cause the remaining foreskin to adhere to the glans, which may require additional surgery. If he guesses and removes too much skin, the boy will likely have painful erections since there isn't enough skin remaining.

Finally, complications do occur. Whether it's bleeding, infection, damaged glans, or worse, they do occur. Is it worth the risk to the healthy child for a surgery that is not necessary?

It's not 'necessary,' but it certainly has its benefits. The foreskin creates a moist, warm environment where bacteria can easily grow, and smegma, a white cheesy substance, grows under the foreskin. This is why uncircumcised guys have to pull their foreskins back and wash under it with soap and water at least once a day, and even then it's not quite as clean as if they were circumcised. There are also some complications, like foreskins that won't retract (causing infections), foreskins that won't go forward again after being retracted (constricting the blood flow to the head), and yeast infections under the foreskin, that simply don't happen if the guy is circumcised.
Then there are also issues with the opposite sex. I know some women who would not date or perform oral sex on a guy who wasn't circumcised-- one even told her high school girlfriends it was the reason she broke up with a guy, and they made fun of him for it. Harsh, but maybe related to the cleanliness issue.
So a little bit of pain as an infant would seem to be worth it-- the procedure becomes a lot more complicated if it's performed later in life, requiring stiches.

I read in an article that circumcision affects the sensibility, and also, I don't beleave it's a good excuse to have it done just because the boy might meet a weirdo that would think he is not clean enough to date!! about cleaning under the hood, it is not a problem when you have good hygiene habits when showering, after reviewing some scientific facts and articles I think the cons are bigger.

Besides I am not ok with getting an innocent baby through a so painfull procedure for not realistic reason. I want to thank everybody for the advise though!!

it actually helps with infections later on in life . plus as a baby they won't remember it .its when they are an adult and have to go though it thats when it remembered.plus its really not a bad procedure.it looks worse then it actually is .

See circumstitions dot com. Cutting part of a baby's genitals off because he might get 'an infection' years later is preposterous. Infections can be treated.

How does ang73 claim to know how bad it is to be a newborn baby and have your first experience with your genitals (after the doctor has fluffed it up - it only takes a moment in babies) to be excruciating pain that you can't possibly deal with or understand?

The foreskin is not just the most sensitive part, it has a different kind of sensitivity - it's been compared with the front of your hand vs the back, and losing it as and adult has been compared to going colourblind.

Alain, women make much more (and more pungent) smegma than men, yet any surgery (no matter how sterile or token) on them is illegal. As for the social effects, looks like in the US having intact genitals also protects you against involvement with airheaded women!

Penile cancer is a rare cancer of old men, rarer than breast cancer in men, but do we think about cutting off baby boys' breasts? Circumcised men do get penile cancer - on the scar line. Doesn't that tell you something?

The local anaesthetic is an injection - why inject a perfect newborn baby when you don't have to? - and it wears off in an hour or two. Then the baby gets urine in his open wound every little while for a week or two.

Mr Smedheader may say 'bullsh!t' if he likes: 'What's all this nonsense about 3D vision and stereophonic sound? I see and hear with my eye and my ear as well as you young whippersnappers do with two!'

Cleaning your foreskin is fun (of course! - that's one reason they started cutting them off!). STDs are caused by unprotected sex with the wrong people, not having a foreskin. The most recent study found it'd take more than 20 circumcisions to prevent one minor STD. That's pretty cold comfort to the other 19, isn't it?

^^ isn't it going against human rights with such mutilation? ^^

Precisely. Since no medical association on earth recommends it, infant circumcision is a cosmetic - not therapeutic - amputation. As such, only the ONE person who will live with the result morally has a the right to make that choice. Let him decide after puberty.

^^ Is there any benefit? ^^

Only to feel normal in an insane culture. But abot half of infants are being left intact in the US now. Worldwide it's more like 85% that don't get cut.

Whatever one perceives as the possible benefits, they are far outweighed by the certain drawbacks - loss of sensation, loss of normal function, risk of serious unexpected outcomes, even risk of death.

HIS body, HIS decision.

Its NOT nessecary. You DONT have to do it. But help from getting infections if the foreskin is not pulled back all the way. I know rom experience. Its a Jewish thing all boys 8 days old to be circumsized. One of my sons is circumsized and other one is not.

Do NOT 'pull the foreskin back all the way' until it is good and ready. The best person to know when that is, is its owner, the person wearing it. If you do, you will tear it from its attachment to the glans leaving a wound, which CAN get infected, and the only thing US doctors know to do then is circumcise. More than 97% of circumcising in the US is not Jewish. Most circumcising in the world is Muslim, then US ('medical'), then the Philippines, then South Koreans, tribal Africans, Jews, Eastern Polynesians and Australian Aboriginals. About 3/4 of the men in the world are NOT circumcised. The rest of the English-speaking world tried it and has pretty much given it up. In New Zealand it went from nearly universal in the 1950s to nearly zero among non-Polynesians, and there hasn't been any outbreak of foreskin-related diseases.

As a pediatric nurse in the US, I can tell you infant circumcision is both painful and medically unnecessary. The majority of informed parents of boys no longer circumcise, although some states (usually southern and midwest) have higher circumcision rates. I believe the rate of non-religious circumcision of boys on the west coast (California, Oregon, Washington) is only around 35%. Thankfully, this US custom is dwindling away.
Most boys left uncircumcised (intact) never have problems with infections. Girls are more likely than a boy circumcised or uncircumcised to have a urinary infection or a yeast infection. Some circumcised babies do get post-surgical infections though. It is a surgery and like all surgeries, it carries risk.
Babies do feel the pain they just aren't able to vocalize it. Because of that, people assume it's less painful for infants than grown men. It is not. The only difference is that a grown man would have a choice in having the procedure and would be given adequate pain relief - the infant is afforded neither.

I believe it is an infant rights issue and I hope your sister will stand her ground and refuse to allow such a traumatic thing to happen to her newborn.
Thanks for your question.
Holly

I myself was not circumcized, but my question to myself is, was my adoption and/or birth without my birthfather the answer? I know some other non-adopted guy friends who's birthfathers were not around at birth, leaving them uncircumcized. For myself personally, the foreskin should remain as part of a boy's pen*s and educating him later on during his childhood of how to keep it clean/maintain good hygiene.

There are a lot of good health reasons to consider circumcision. It is over before the little guy even knows it.

'It is over before the little guy even knows it.' It is not over. The effects are life-long. (And the health reasons are all bogus)

I PREFER circumsized penises.
call it a vanity thing if you will for my guys. hahah

What does YOUR preference have to do with someone else's pen*s - unless you marry a masochist, who'll cut part off his own body to suit your preference?

In Africa there are men who PREFER women with circumcised clitoral hoods. If it's done under sterile conditions, with anaesthetic, and the clitoris itself isn't touched, is it OK for baby girls to have that done to suit those men's preference?

And I won't call it a vanity thing - vanity is about a person's own appearance, not someone else's.

Actually at first I thought yes,...but after reading your answer I think it is not nessasary I am pregnant and it is a boy I have to make that same decision but what mine is,is that I am going to wait for him to grow up and make his own decision.

if you are Jewish, then it's necessary to uphold the covenant between YHWH and Moses. Otherwise, you might as well do it. Foreskin would be an unnecessary obstacle of life, lol.

Many Jews question the necessity, for reasons set out at http : / / www . circumstitions . com / Jewish . html and hold surgery-free naming ceremonies instead. 'You might as well do it'? 'unnecessary obstacle'? What nonsense! 3/4 of the world's men find it a pleasure, not an obstacle.