Feeling forced to chose a circumcision...is it my husband,is the religion,is it really necessary?

[efy]

I have read some messages related to this tread by some of you and I understand when you guys call people like us....crazy etc.
I come from a non-circumcised family, my three brothers have never done or need it.
After I have changed my religion I wanted to follow the requirements of being from this religion. I like to believe that I have personally done some changes which were related to my self.
Now that I have an almost 12 months son, it looks that I have to fill up another requirement, which is circumcision, because I am from the religion that requires circumcision but the difference is....the change I need to do does not envolve me directly...is actually my little baby boy.
How do I feel about this?? Well I feel is unnecessary, I already feel guilty for planning to handle my little precious boy in someone's else hands to just harm him...yeah that is exactly how I feel...me and his father taking him with his little smile to a place that God knows what may happen.
And you know what, it was actually planned for tomorrow but I feel relief for now because we have discovered the person who was suppose to do it has had an unfortunate case where the little boy had to be taken to hospital for more operations in order to be 'fixed'.
My husband was circumcised when he was 5 and he believes in it, I don't believe and I think is more cultural than religious, I just do not understand why God will leave this for us humans to do it? Why did he leave that thing there if it need to be removed and why on such as small baby? Why??
My husband speaks about it as being just a simple procedure because he is a doctor but this is not the point, what about the baby? how is he going to feel?
I am relief for now but I am not convinced that this is in anyway necessary if at all...
I rather feel pushed to do it along with my baby.

[theyoniwayisnorthwards]

My DP is circumcised and feels it HAS desensitised his penis, Baggins your personal experience is not enough to justify a sweeping generalisation. My sons are not circumcised and I think the OPs instincts are right. Urine is sterile.

[BreakingDad77]

What I was going to add is covered in www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx

Though the part on "consent to treatment" is a new one to me.

[BreakingDad77]

To add urine is sterile, people have survived natural disasters drinking it lol

[baggins101]

Yes they do. The figures are readily available.
In the UK it is approx 1.4 per 100,000 per year. This only includes uncircumcised men since it is virtually unheard of in men circumcised as children.
1.4 x 78 years = 109 per 100,000 life chance.
As 60+ uk circumcision rate is approx 1/3 = 109 per 66,000.
66,000 / 109 = 605.
Therefore 1 in 605 uncircumcised men develop penile cancer.
And the rate has increased by 20 percent over the last decades, reflecting the post war drop in circumcision rate in the UK. Check BBC news for confirmation of this.

[baggins101]

Urine is sterile, eh? Not after a few hours festering under a nice warm foreskin mixed with dead skin cells it isn't!

[BreakingDad77]

The US cancer site has some interesting information re penile cancer www.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-prevention

Can penile cancer be prevented?
The large variations in penile cancer rates throughout the world strongly suggest that penile cancer is a preventable disease. One way to reduce the risk of penile cancer is to avoid known risk factors whenever possible (see the section "What are the risk factors for penile cancer?").

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in some studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

In the United States, the risk of penile cancer is low even among uncircumcised men. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding human papilloma virus (HPV) infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Although infant circumcision can lower the risk of penile cancer, based on the risk of this cancer in the US, it would take over 900 circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer in this country.

[baggins101]

I have a suspicion that many men blame their age related impotence on circumcision. The brain is the biggest sex organ but leaky valves make erections weaker with age. Orgasms are more intense with a longer build up... and condoms do far more to reduce sensitivity yet guys have no problem getting erections when using a condom.
It is all just anti circumcision propaganda.

[baggins101]

Sorry, I missed tgat. How many men circumcised as children did you say suffered from invasive penile cancer?

[BreakingDad77]

Its all choice and you have to weigh it all up, Baggins I think you are being unfair to completely ignore the desensitizing issue as there are several people who posted on the NHS pros cons website saying they have suffered it.

[baggins101]

"So what do you plan to do to ensure that your daughter's vulva and vagina are not "soaked in stale urine most of the day?"

Not much we can do, is there. But we can do something simple to stop the penis being soaked in stale urine all day.

[baggins101]

Firstly you are absolutely right, BreakingDad77. It is a choice, and choosing circumcision is a valid choice for parents to make.
Secondly I really don't think I am wrong to dismiss the sensitivity issue. For the reasons already stated I think it is a bogus argument.

[BreakingDad77]

Your getting sidetracked baggins the dead skin cells are the problem.

Obviously this is the states and not the uk but (Proper scientific journal)

www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=488e687276f346699601a0275fc5827b&pi=2

The study found that approximately 117 neonatal (first 28 days after birth) circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States, one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. The study also identified
reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

To put this in perspective, about 44 neonatal boys die each year from suffocation, and 8 from auto accidents. About 115 neonatal boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision.

[NurseyWursey]

There is absolutely no reason why you should mutilate your baby. I am sorry to use that word, but that is exactly what it is.

Trust your instincts. If it is that important, your dear boy can chose to do it when he is older.

Well done for questioning it and thinking about it beforehand.

[NurseyWursey]

baggins what a load of rubbish. Cleanliness is much better than the surgical removal of a body part.

[baggins101]

There is no excuse for circumcision related death. None. Any such incident is the result of criminal negligence as done properly there is ni more chance of death from circumcision than a cut finger.

[NurseyWursey]

And OP your baby will feel pain. People dismiss it because 'they forget about it'. It doesn't matter, they still feel it. Many say 'oh my baby didn't even move/was very quiet' yes that's because babies go into shock. Studies have shown this. There's a reason adults have it under general anesthetic.

[NurseyWursey]

baggins there are risks with any surgical procedure, it doesn't have to be negligence. It can be a number of things that can't be foreseen. Which is why we do not put our children through unneeded procedures that have very dodgy ethical grounds.

[baggins101]

NurseyWorsey: please feel free to actually read my post and comment on what I wrote rather than using your imagination.

[NurseyWursey]

I have. You claim circumcision is cleaner. Should we remove body parts just because it's 'cleaner'? Should we remove inner labia? Cliterol folds?

[baggins101]

NurseyWorsey: we are talking about circumcision, not mutilation. I quite agree that there is no excuse to mutilate your baby.

AND babies do not feel pain when treated with local anaesthetic, just like adults don't.

[NurseyWursey]

Baggins you obviously don't know the meaning of mutilation. The removal of a body part for no medical reason is mutilation. It is barbaric.

[baggins101]

NurseyWorsey: I am guessing you also protest against dentists who remove children's teeth and fit braces? Or is it just foreskins you you have a fetish over?

[NurseyWursey]

You can try and condone it all you like. How dare you remove a part if a boys penis for no reason. How dare you take that decision when there is no medical reason for it. It is causing no harm. No pain. But you willingly inflict the removal. It's disgusting.

[NurseyWursey]

Hahahah

baggins do children have braces fitted before a problem is identified? No. So why should a child have a foreskin removal before a medical reason is identified?

[YNK]

It IS mutilation if not a medical necessity!
I would kill anyone who tried to take a knife to my baby!