h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I am told that I must make a decision regarding having my soon to be born child getting a circumcision or not. Being the devout athiest I am, I have no religious beliefs on which to deflect the responsibility onto. I really would like to make the decision based purely on reasons of health and well being. Problem is, it is difficult to research this topic without being overwhelmed by propaganda and pseudo-science from people with an agenda. So for all of you whom would like to offer your 2 pence, I loved to hear some opinions based purely on reason.

Firstly, who is telling you that you must make a decision, and what's their reasoning?

my red line would be it's a violation to take away parts of their body unnecessarily.

The key word there is "unnecessarily" - there are medical conditions where the foreskin is too tight and can cause bleeding (which is bad) - and circumcision is an absolutely sensible, medically necessary, solution.

Likewise, as a parent you are charged with the safety and welfare of children's well-being so this isn't counsel against surgeries either. I had my tonsils out when I was 7, my brother's wemt when he was 3. You can quiet legitimately cut of parts of children;s bodies when they are diseased or necrotic etc.

What I would consider bad reasons:

1.)Is anything to do with cosmetic appearance ('everyone else does it')

2.)spurious claims to hygiene (easier to clean, less chance of bacterial growth,) - a penis is easy enough to keep clean - it ain't rocket science. A person's mouth is prime site of bacteria growth - on this logic everyone we should sew their mouths shut.

3.)less risk of HIV - this one I think does have some empirical support mainly from the epidemic in Africa, but there's a much more elegant solution to this which is practising safer sex. But you've got a good decade maybe two before that becomes an issue.

4.)Any kind of religious ritual, whose reasons are all uniformly terrible.


If when your son is an adult amd can be informed of the risks and consequences for themselves and make their own decisions if they fancy an elective spot of body modification: circumcision, tattoo, that's whatever up to them. I think to assert it trespasses on an abuse when children are unnecessarily surgically altered and for no good reason.

Having just lain out why I am generally nor in favour - I do wonder about "I am told I must back a decision regarding my son having a circumcision" - told by whom? what is the context?

But I think if you are trying to persuade yourself into something you don't already feel is wise, that is folly and your better sense knows it.

I believe that circumcision is considered fairly normal in America and completely frowned upon by everybody in Europe except those who feel they are required to do so by God.

In the 50s and 60s, when myself and siblings and classmates were busy being born, the 'hygiene' notion was the one put forward mostly. No doubt much easier for new'ish mothers to apply care and what-not. I have no idea what hygiene would be like for a male for original issue-of-tissue.

Apparently, I am told if it is done, the earlier it is done the better.

And the hospital offers no reasoning for it. They simply want yes or no. In fact, when I questioned the lady whom asked us on it, she deflected my questions regarding the justification behind it.

Surely the answer, then, is that once he has been born and has been examined by a paediatrician, if the paed tells you there is a medical reason why he should have it done ONLY THEN do you decide yes. Otherwise the default position is no.

But I am a European with two sons who wouldn't have any surgery performed on them unless it was medically necessary, and certainly not for cosmetic reasons.

I have two brothers. The elder born in 1957 and despite some concerns from my mother didn't need circumsizing. The younger born in 1960 did require the operation. Both were treated by the same GP, and it was he who recommended seeing the consultant about the operation.

Having has it done to me as a newborn (probably in the name of hygiene), I have no personal means for comparison. The cons say that it may affect your feeling of pleasure, it is unneccessary surgical risk, may affect function in later years, and may create physchologial issues. The political side of it being that it is a vioation of the childs rights.

At least to date, I don't feel I suffer from any of these. Although I can never know if in some way my pleasure is what it should be.

The pros say that it is more hygienic, that leaving it on may also affect function in later years, may improve pleasure, and may also help make one less susceptible to disease. With the superficial caveat of apparently being more attractive to the ladies.

So I am hearing a few of the same things from both camps. From my perspective both seem to be way too emotionally charged and far too devoid of any concrete scientific data to back it up.

It is difficult to make an informed decision when you can't be certain your even properly informed. That is why I posted in here. The sciency types usually cut through the nonsense and don't bother with much that isn't established fact.

Not sure how objective this organisation is, but here's there circumcision FAQ:

http://www.notjustskin.org/node/7

"Most health professionals in England would argue that there are no medical reasons why an otherwise healthy baby boy should be circumcised. "

taken from the NHS UK website

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Never knowingly having had one, I was not at all aware of the mechanics or biology. That article is definitely weighted and biased against (post #10) but contains a lot of info that a parent today should be aware of. Specifically health over the years, and perhaps trauma that stays for long times. (Though that is, perhaps, a best guess)

I guess I must say that I am inclined to think, in matters like these, that there has to be some pretty convincing evidence to justify doing so. I just don't see convicing medical data or evidence for this to rationalize doing it. Aside from it being a horrible "welcome to the world" it seems like this became fad over here in the US for no better reason than people "thought" it would be more hygienic. There we go "thinking" again. You know what happens when we start doing that!

Unless someone can point out something heavily weighted in the other direction I think I will let mother nature decide.

Thanks everyone!