Welcome to Gaia! ::

I agree with Kitten West, comparing whether or not I let my child eat only chips and soda (Proven to be non-beneficial or even technically BAD for a child or adult for that matter) or get vaccinations (Proven to be beneficial, if you want to get into it with the assinine long since disproven assertion that vaccines cause autism we can) to whether or not a get my child circumcised (not conclusively proven to be either Beneficial or Harmful to a child just ask the Associate Academy of Pediatrics) is completely off base.

I have done the research too, and plainly NEITHER arguement is sound enough to persuede me either way. And I'm sorry but an arguement that argues to ACT, PERFORM, DO something needs to be stronger than: sometimes, some men who are uncircumcised get more urinary tract infections (pregnant women/women in general get more UTIs than men so what?) than men who aren't, and some men sometimes who are uncircumcised can contract HPV easier and pass it along to their mates causing cervical cancer. It doesn't wash with me, it's simply not a strong enough arguement, and if you expect me to act, it needs to be a STRONG arguement.

Both sides have a level of fanaticisim that is plain stupid, no your p***s is not going to rot off your body simply because you are uncirced, and no you are not NEVER going to have a decent sexual experience EVER if you are circed, that's plain lunacy.

Woo, thank god I'm not circumsized ^^

May I ask though, why for a religion they may not follow?

Yes, for God covenant, but what does it mean if they choose to forsake him? Then you have done nothing but lop off a peice of a p***s for no reason.

That's like asking why Baptise a child?

People do it, get over it. You can't change people's decisions for their children.

This thread is full of so much crap it makes my head SPIN!
First off, circumcision CAN be undone. There's rings you can apply to stretch out the foreskin to redo it. Just as how a circ can ALSO be done later in life. Both are painful (the second one moreso), but both are also a personal choice. So that arguement is out as if a guy cares enough, he can change himself EITHER way.
Now, as far as cleanliness goes... it HAS been proven (this is NOT a myth) that being circed lowers the chances of HIV. Want to know why? It's very simple. Less cells to be exposed (ie: less skin), less chance of catching it! It's not debatable, it's pure fact and common sense, folks.
Uncircumcised penises do require a little more care. You can get waxy buildup, and do have to pull back the skin to clean it. Uncirced, a quick soapy hand run over it does the job. The p***s is NOT self-cleaning, and neither are your armpits. That's also plain ol' common sense, yet AGAIN. If you're unclean, whether it's germs, or HIV, having more surface area and crevices makes it that much more likely to receive and therefore transmit diseases and infections.
Now, the sensitivity part. People claim either way on this... that more skin (uncirced) means more sensitive, or that more exposed head (circed) means more sensitive. So who cares. There's nothing proven EITHER way.
In family with histories of UTIs, it's worth it to circ just to help prevent that, as excessive and constant UTIs are not only painful, but can lead to VERY painful and more severe kidney infections.
Now, as far as a botched circ changing the gender? I'm sorry, but this is INSANELY stupid. They're cutting off skin. The WORST that usually happens is they can cut the head, which leaves a scar, or they cut off too much skin, which then has to be stretched. Even IF the head of the p***s is cut off (all of it would NEVER be as they don't even got NEAR the base), you're STILL a man. You STILL have testosterone, testicles, and no breasts. This arguement is moronic.
In the United States, the numbers of infant circs ARE going down, but the only reason they were so high is because doctors were recommending them. Now they leave it up to the parents, who may or may not ask for it to be done. That's all, and that's it. Yukito Yu got it right on with world statistics... those are completely worthless in this debate.
As far as the risks involved, there's ALWAYS risks in ANY medical procedure, including vaccinations, because there's unknown allergies, and it's just plain unclear as to how a child's system works at that age. If proper care is taken of a circumcision, the risk of infection is VERY low. Just about as much as ANY risk with any open wound. You wash it, clean it, and take care of it, you'll most likely be FINE. Apply the petroleum jelly at every diaper change, and that helps keep out bacteria, keep the wound from sticking to the diaper, and also keeps the incision soft so it heals well with minimal to no scarring. Proper care is just the key there.
Angel Fangs, I don't know where you had yours done, but they should have been allowed to eat near the time of the surgery. That's NOT common practice, just so you know. Generally, eating restrictions are only put in place for patients going under HEAVY anethestia or sedatives, and in infant circ, it's usually a numbing cream and a local injection... in other words, they're awake and would be perfectly capable of spitting out or swallowing spit-up (rather than inhaling it, which is why there's the rule with anethesia). If you have more boys, I'd try a different hospital, because that's not actually normal procedule.
As far as female circ goes, there's removal of the labia, which is similar to male circ... it's just removal of extra skin, which provides more direct access to the sensitive parts, and also deals with cleanliness. Then there's the female circ/mutilation that is STILL done in some countries, but is totally barbaric where they have a woman stand in a river to numb herself, and then cut off the CLITORIS to "control" the woman's sexual urges.... practically done in bushes with a dirty knife. There's a HUGE difference there.
Anyway, I'm done. Congratulations if you read this all, and if you didn't, don't comment until you do.
Oh, and for the record, my husband is circed, his father was, my father is, and my 19 month old son IS.

Parents piercing their children's ears at a young age makes me want to throw up. When I was getting my ears pierced for the first time, there was a couple ahead of me who were piercing the ears of their young daughter - she couldn't have been older than a year, maybe a year and a half. They did it with the gun, and she screamed her head off. I had to leave the store and walk down to another store a few feet away because I couldn't watch her getting her ears pierced.

Ever hear a baby boy getting circumsized?

I don't know. I just feel that as a parent, your child is meant to think the world of you and trust you. If you hurt them for a reason that is not "it's better for them," I feel that you are breaking that trust. Even if the kid doesn't remember it or it doesn't permanently scar them or anything, you are still doing something that I feel makes you a bad parent -- harming your child to make him/her look better.

The religious thing... that's borderline. Personally, I think it's just as bad as doing it to make your kid look better. You are permanently branding your child so that he/she fits into YOUR community. But that's extremely difficult to argue because the opposing argument is 100% based on faith, not rhetoric/logic. To a Jew, for example, the parent is doing a good thing by bringing the child into the eyes of God. So hypothetically assuming that's the truth (I'm not going to argue whether it is or not), the parent is doing something for the health of the child. But, as I said, I would call that borderline.

I just think that most of the "benefits" can be counteracted by good parenting. For example, teaching your son good hygene habits will probably do a lot more to prevent him from getting infections than will simply cutting off a part of him. If, for some reason, he is pre-disposed to getting infections, then circumcision is an option for him when he is older and capable of making these choices (or, if it's a serious health risk, then the parent can make it).

I'm not really saying that you are a "bad" parent. I don't know how to explain. In my opinion, circumcision is either "beautifying" or it's the easier way out (snip-snip rather than teaching your child to take care of himself). BUT, I do know that others think differently.

Ok, this is extremely hard to explain. I guess it's like I blame and condemn the proceedure, but not so much the people who do it. I wouldn't, for example, go up to you, wag my finger around, and lecture you about being a bad parent. I will, however, proclaim until my face turns blue that circumcision is wrong as something "people" do. (to use a pop-culture reference, it's a bit like hating the game, rather than the player)

I just think that the benefits of circumcision can, for the most part, be equally gained through other, less invasive means. Whereas the negative effects have no real equivalent in not having the proceedure.