My two sons were circumcised at birth. They tolerated the procedure extremely well and we are pleased with the result for the improved hygiene. I think circumcised penises are more attractive and would never accept an uncircumcised male for intimate relations. (I know that sounds shallow to some, but it is my personal preference, full stop.) Baby boys are very resilient and they have no memory of the pain of their circumcisions.
One of the main benefits is the permanent exposure of the glans. This reduces the over-sensitivity of the glans and enables the man to control the sensations when the glans is stimulated during intercourse or masturbation. This means that the sexual experience of the circumsied man is more intense and pleasurable than that of the uncircumcised.
You can look at the pros and cons of circumcising a boy, and can actually justify that circumcising an infant boy is good, while also justifying that circumcising an infant boy is bad. Only the parents know if this is something that is right for them, and the parents should have the right to decide on this.
Research has shown that circumcision allows boys to be cleaner, without as much upkeep. As a woman, I would rather be with a man who is circumcised than uncircumcised. The penis isn't a very attractive organ to begin with and uncircumcised penises are frankly a little disgusting. If I were to have a son, I would have him circumcised.
Personal experience leads to conclusion that circumcised men are more desired and men uncut lack the advantage of the cut and regret that they were left off the circ list in the newborn nursery. My sons are unanimous in being gratefull that they have been circumcised. All my grandsons have been cut.
If you want to see actual data & studies, as opposed to just opinions. I've done 2 debates on the matter. . This one is shorter: I just put out my arguments & my opponent gave up : http://www.debate. org/debates/To-circumcise-or-not/1/
This one is longer, I presented my arguments, there was a bit of back & forth, untill my opponent Forfited. http://www.debate.org/debates/Parent-elective-circumcision-of-offspring-is-ethically-unacceptable/2/
As far as waiting until the child can make their own decisions, there are 2 problems, there are 2 issues: a) under-age sex is very common. It is precisely at this age when circumcision is most vital as they are more pron to having careless unprotected sex.
they are sexually active and risk-taking is part of their psyche. Also with regard cancer, children are susceptible to cancer as well, waiting until they are old enough may be too late.
b) Circumcisions performed later in life have a higher risk of complication and are more painful; dangerous, more uncomfortable, inconvenient and painful, etc. .
The benefits a male receive for circumcision is medically supported by years of research. Not only does circumcision reduce the risk of multiple bacteria colonization but decrease the risk of his future partner's risk of HPV. Since the head of the penis contains the nerves in which acts as sexual sensors than the sexual pleasure is not significantly affected. However, the parents should be informed of the pros and cons. Nonetheless, the procedure is medically practical for males.
In infancy, yes and it's really up to the parents what they want for their child. I think it's a parent's right to decide on a child's well-being at this early age. In older males, that's up to them.
It's like deciding whether to get your child immunization or a vaccine for a disease. Because circumcision does help prevent infections and sexually transmitted diseases. Vaccines are not foolproof (we need booster shots sometimes), but we still get them for children. So why not circumcise to take an extra step toward protecting your son from getting sick?
If you get a child circumcised in infancy, not only do you make good hygiene practices easier to carryout, but you also protect the child from easily contracting non-STD infections easily. Hygiene isn't a big motivating factor, because you can teach your child hygiene, but it's a plus. The foreskin can sometimes cause difficulty in cleaning or holds in more organisms. It is also more difficult to spot cuts or a break in skin if there is one.
In terms of prevention, circumcision has been found to reduce incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among males. I read somewhere that a study revealed decreased incidence of AIDS/HIV in circumcised males. HPV the cervical cancer virus has decreased numbers, too. That means they are less likely to transmit the virus to their partners & that will protect their female partner from cervical caner. So if it's an added preventive measure from debilitating or serious diseases, I think it's a good choice to make.
This second reason was what clinched for me. As a nurse, preventing diseases is the better option, as opposed to having to treat them.
I think that infant boys should be circumcised, because of the problems that it can encourage in their adult life if it isn't done. Non-circumcised men have a higher rate of carrying and transferring sexually transmitted diseases and infections under their foreskin.
It is clearly a healthy practice to circumcise males and if done in infancy there is no trauma and healing is very quick.
Cervical cancer and HIV prevention are high on the agenda these days and circumcision is a good way in reduction of these serious conditions.
A study in Uganda and East Africa found that male circumcision had a stronger protective effect from AIDS than regular condom use and even early vaccines. It also reduced the spread of other sexually transmitted diseases. This meant that circumcision had a stronger health benefit than any drugs yet on the market for any STD except antibiotics.
When my son was born, my husband and I didn't hesitate to have our son circumcised. We understood the cultural beliefs but we also knew that we didn't want to have problems with the foreskin later and have our son suffer a dysfunction. Little boys are not known to be the cleanest and if you don't clean under the foreskin everyday, there can be infections. As they get older, there are more negatives than positives.
Studies have shown that foreskin becomes problematic later in life as dirt and water can accumulate under the folds. If the skin is removed when the child is an infant, he will not remember the incident, and it will allow for a clean private area later in life. Should he decide that he want to be circumcised later, the pain will be excruciating. It is best to do when the child is young.
Circumcision is not a bad idea. It makes life easier for the man who receives one. It's easier for him to properly clean his male part, which reduces the possibility of infections. And, it may help reduce the incidence of penis cancer - although, this is a rare occurrence. Also, circumcision might have a small reducing effect on the male's contraction of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Circumcision has been shown to reduce both HIV and HPV transmission. OK, HPV/AIDS isn't really a mainstream disease, but ervical cancer is - which is a product of the HPV virus. So infant circumcision makes a lot of sense as a contribution to reducing the incidence of this disease.
It has been confirmed scientifically that a circumcised penis is far less likely to succumb to urinary tract infections and other ailments. This has been known for centuries, and was probably implemented in the Jewish tradition due to its obvious benefits. I have a son that was born with a penis that was naturally circumcised in make up. I assume this is how they were able to come to this conclusion centuries ago.
Cervical cancer alone is enough reason to have all boys circumcised, as neonatal circumcision is far easier than circumcision in adulthood. My mother understood the danger of cervical cancer, but didn't have me circumcised. This was a mistake, as getting cut requires both money, time, and courage. No sex for some time is also daunting.
If the father is present, than the decision should ultimately be up to the father. A man should be able to have his son look the same as him if he chooses. If the father is not present, than the mother should be given the choice to have her son circumcised or remain intact. She may choose to have him circumcised for health, hygiene, religious, or aesthetic purposes. For whatever reason, it should be her choice.
As a teen boy, it can be very embarrassing changing in the locker room with other boys. It is even more embarrassing if you do not look like the other boys. In America, most boys are circumcised. I would imagine in countries where it is less common for boys to circumcised, that the parent would choose for their son to remain intact.
I can care less about all of the medical research out there. Like the religious debate, you are going to find "facts" to argue both sides of the debate. To me, it all comes down to whether the parent prefers the looks of a circumcised or intact penis, and which they prefer for their son. Everyone else should just leave them alone about their decision.
I believe all baby boys should be circumcised because it is cleaner, looks better and I just feel it is a good tradition. For a father, it is kinda cool to have your son be the same as you. Kind of like how a mother has her daughter's ears pierced.
Why put your son through the pain? "Because he wont remember", that's not a good enough reason. have you seen the videos?! They give them sugar to "calm them down" but they are in so much pain they can't even eat the sugar, and after when they bring them back and they show you how to change them and they are still screaming in pain. I don't understand how adults can watch the videos of it happening and still say they will do it. You say it's cleaner to get circumcised but even if you cut off the whole penis men still have the risk of infections down there. A lot of women say they get it done for their sons because it looks better, why do you care what your son's penis looks like? That's disturbing and sick! You can stay clean without being circumcised.
Perhaps the only exemption to circumcision is for religious reasons, and every parent must do what they think is best. However, there is no medical basis for circumcision that is not anecdotal. Circumcision is genital mutilation and is considered horrific when it happens to girls and women. So, why would one condone it for infant boys?
Infant circumcision does NOT prevent UTI or any other infections. It's quite opposite, circumcised penis is more prone to infections and this is a studied fact.
Circumcision increases a risk for erectile dysfunction at older age.
Penis needs to cleaned properly everyday regardless if you are intact or cut. Cleaning an intact penis is not any harder than cleaning a cut penis.
There is NO reason to automatically circumcise all boys.
It is a cosmetic procedure, not something that benefits the infant or is proved to prevent disease. A long time ago when we didn't have running water circumcision may have been useful. Today we understand the importance of meticulous hygiene and practice it with the aid of indoor plumbing. If a woman can keep her genitals clean with all the nooks and crannies she has, not to mention secretions and blood, then a man can certainly pull back a foreskin and wash his penis.
The most popular argument I see from ignorant parents is that they believe in circumcision for "hygienic" reasons. This is a ludicrous and invalid argument as hygiene is the act of cleanliness. Once the foreskin releases from the glans penis (head), the foreskin can easily be retracted and cleaned thoroughly to prevent any bacteria from entering the urethra. It has also been scientifically proven that newly produced smegma acts as an anti-bacterial substance. It is only when the smegma has become old and laden with bacteria that complications may arise. Women are also subjected to the same substance and we seem to handle cleaning our parts just fine. Why don't we trust our males to do the same? Teach them to clean their parts and there will be as much a chance of infection as any other penis, circumcised or not.
In most countries it is not a routine procedure to circumcise all baby boys. I find the idea of cutting parts off people for cosmetic reasons or dubious theories about hygiene unpleasant. Especially if the parents are not given any choice in the matter.
Nobody morally has the right to circumcise a child. It is a practice, that in this day and age is disgraceful. It serves no purpose unless it is a medical requirement to improve the child's health. Any type of circumcision in the name of religion, is indoctrination and serves the parent's religious face, more than it ever does, the child. If someone chooses to be circumcised, that is a different matter; let them be of sound enough mind and a mature enough age to make such a decision. Circumcising a baby is taking away that child right to choose whether to have it done or not.
Since the origins of the custom are mostly cultural and religious, without sound scientific or health basis, this custom should not be the social norm. Yes, there are some health benefits (less infection) but that benefit is offset by loss of sensitivity. If it were possible to delay the procedure until the young man could choose for himself, that might be the best choice.
Circumcising infant boys may have religious ties, however if it is not required by one's religion I think that it is unnecessary to put an infant through the unnecessary pain and expose the child to potential risks for no reason at all. Unnecessary surgical procedures should be avoided.
There is always a possibility that too much of the foreskin may be cut along with some erogenous tissue. Studies have shown circumcised males are more likely to indulge in various sexual practices. Circumcision can result in thickening and desensitization of the glans. Women having intercourse with circumcised men were also shown to have greater incidence of vaginal dryness.
There can be even death if it is not done properly. It's not humane to make children undergo this. It's better to ask them to do it when they are at least 10 years old. In my point of view, it is the intrusion into the personal freedom of one when they are unable to make a decision.
Many expert doctors on different medical review boards around the world, who are able to look at the health effects in much greater detail than the average public, have decided that circumcision carries too much risk to be recommended for newborns. It's really that simple. Medical science has better ways to treat penile problems in infants which are less invasive than circumcision. As for std's and sex, condoms have such a high protective effect that the protective effect of circumcision is negligible. A huge source of transmission of std's is though oral sex which is commonly practiced with out protection barriers. Std risk is great if proper safe sex practices is not used. Circumcision doesn't have a beneficial affect on safe sex practices. Circumcision should be left up for the individual to decide. You're not saving your son much pain by doing it at birth. Rather you are ensuring they receive pain while if you do not circumcise there is a high probability that there will be no problems and no pain at all. Think about it.
They proved circumcising an awake infant irreversibly traumatizes him and causes his blood pressure to skyrocket. it's abnormal, and in light of the fact complications including who knows how many deaths it has caused. Calling it healthcare is just a lie in the face of people. Intelligence prevents hiv- parental instincts, compassion and common sense prevents circumcision. It is too big of a money maker to ban, but spreading the word of the destruction it perpetuates will have to decrease the incidence. You can't prove what doesn't happen but you can easily prove what does. No one can prove that mangling a baby's penis prevents anything at all, except his chances of enjoying natural heterosexual contact when he matures. Culling healthy infant males by crushing and cutting off their genital skin (awake) in the name of healthcare is diabolical. The us allows thousands to die from this so how is that different from countries that allow harm to their baby girls? I have heard a few people blow about how the us "protect?" It's baby girls, but artificially exterminates and mangles girls future husbands, their fathers brothers and uncles, and does anything but protect them. It directly puts them in harms way by having their protectors traumatically victimized or culled out and these who were abused as infants will come back on them. It is how it works. Girls in the us are far from protected. They are in grave danger of backwoods illogical thinking that harming infants is acceptable. what hypocrisy. The video of the child getting his routine cruel masturbation punishment should tell anyone mentally aware that such treatment of a newborn child is a terrible thing, and dangerous to survival of all affected .
It is not the parents' penis, so therefore it should not be their decision of what to do with it. It doesn't necessarily prevent health problems, which is a common reason ignorant parents cut. Condoms prevent STDs, not circumcision. If you think they look better, that's your opinion, not necessarily that of your son. And if its for religious reasons, your child will not necessarily keep the same religion as you so that's not okay either, your freedom ends where another's begins. Circumcision is dangerous and it curbs sexual pleasure, and its disgusting people are still doing it. If an adult wanted to get himself circumcised, that would be perfectly fine though.
A foreskin is a normal part of the male anatomy and should be left unaltered unless there is acute medical need. I really wonder at the psychology of people who feel a compulsion to cut off part of the body of a perfectly healthy baby. This is worst sort of entrenched cultural and religious tradition.
38 leaders of European Pediatrics state that there is no medical justification for circumcision.
Google: Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision
Genital mutilation = genital mutilation, regardless of gender.
Google: A rose by any other name? Rethinking the similarities and differences between male and female genital cutting.
Some people here that are for circumcision say that it makes cleaner and less disease prone genitalia. This is completely ridiculous. It has been proven by official scientific studies that circumcision does not reduce the risk of STD's. Also, the argument that circumcision makes penises cleaner is only valid if a guy can't or doesn't touch his penis during his lifetime. Any uncircumcised guy will tell you that it takes about 20 seconds to pull back the foreskin and clean the penis. Only complete slobs with no sense of personal hygiene wouldn't clean their penis if it was uncircumcised. Another completely dumb argument is that it looks better. IT LOOKS BETTER? Really? If we follow that logic, then if the majority of doctors suddenly thought that people without eyelids look better, then everyone should have their eyelids removed? This makes absolutely no sense. Any woman that has seen both circumcised and uncircumcised penises will tell you that the uncircumcised penis will look almost exactly like a circumcised penis if you just pull back the foreskin. And if you believe that the foreskin is so long that it gets in the way, then you probably also believe that aliens have giant flying saucers that can levitate humans and cows. The foreskin is only long enough to cover the head of the penis and it does not get in the way. In addition to being completely unnecessary, circumcision actually damages the head of the penis when it rubs on clothing. The head of the penis is an INTERNAL ORGAN. The constant rubbing of clothing on the head causes it to lose sensitivity, which leads to higher risk of erectile dysfunction and makes companies like Viagra flourish. For some reason, female genital mutilation is thought of as unthinkable, but male genital mutilation is commonly practiced in the most developed countries in the world? I genuinely feel sorry for the men whose parents decided to take their foreskin, and really wish that this male genital mutilation is halted.
The arguments about circumcision being "more hygienic" is completely bogus, I mean whats more sanitary than a bleeding wound in a diaper, right. The decision should be left up to the child unless there is a serious medical condition, many of which can be treated without circumcision. Like other debaters have said, it can be done but it can't be undone.
Absolutely not. The only motivation for circumcision is religion or some other societal conformity / group thinking. If your religion requires you to cut off pieces of penises then your religion is immoral. If on the other hand you just want him to "look like daddy", well then you yourself are immoral. If you cite medical reasons well then you're just flat out wrong (and are most likely either an idiot or you're most likely manufacturing rationalizations to excuse your religious/group-thinking immorality).
Circumcision of boys in America began in the Victorian era as a means to "cure" masturbation. When this didn't work, doctors started advertising that it was "cleaner" and the boy wouldn't remember. So how is it that the majority of the word does not slice off parts of their son's genitals and have hardly any men die or live in excruciating pain because their penises were left alone? Out of all industrialized nations, the United States has the highest circumcision rates as well as the highest HIV/STD transmission rates. If circumcision was truly effective, shouldn't we have the lowest STD transmission rates instead? Teaching your child about safe sex will do far more good than amputating a part of his penis. In addition, circumcision interrupts the bond between mother and child, greatly increases the chance of him developing erectile dysfunction (trust me, I personally know several circumcised men in their 20s who are already showing signs of ER), and less pleasure for BOTH sexes. The rates of circumcision are dropping, so your son being picked on won't be likely. As for the "looking-like-Daddy" argument, would you have your sons legs cut off if Daddy was a double amputee? Circumcision should be treated like tattoos and piercings: something to be performed when the child is old enough to consent. P.S.- As a woman, I prefer the look of uncircumcised penises. This doesn't stop me from dating circumcised men, (like the one I'm with right now) but your potential daughter-in-law won't thank you for it. And if any chick dumps your son for being uncircumcised, she isn't good enough for your son anyway.
"Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually." - Ayn Rand......The right of men and women to be the masters of their own sexuality is as precious, if not as publicly espoused, as the other unalienable rights. Consenting adults have the right to modify any part of their body as they please. However, when an adult takes a knife to a child's genitals and alters said genitals when there is no existing malady that calls for such action, that adult is committing a profound violation of another human being's body; they take away that future man's or woman's choice. Worst of all, that future man or woman may not exactly be thrilled about was done to them when they were too young to realize what was happening (though the "too young to remember" line is often used as a reason for the circumcision of infants, it actually makes the act that much more heinous because absolutely no consideration is given to what this human being, however tiny and helpless, might want in the future). Consider also that circumcision is irreversible. Once it's done, it can't be undone (though restoration methods exist, the end result is not the same as the original version). This is precisely the reason why it must stop. True, some men are perfectly happy with their circumcisions and have no beef about it. But that really doesn't matter, because their satisfaction with their irreversible alteration does not trump another's dissatisfaction with theirs. Again, it's all about personal choice. An uncircumcised man who hates being uncircumcised has the choice to get circumcised. He can look at his OPTIONS and decide if the intended outcome is worth any risks. In the end, he either enjoys the outcome, or lives with the consequences of HIS decision (true, with an adult circumcision one remembers clearly the pain and discomfort, but this is a fact of life that one deals with, just as the many women who chose to subject themselves to the excruciating pain of breast implant surgery do). Whereas, a man circumcised at birth or early childhood can do absolutely nothing about it. He has to live his whole life with the consequences of someone else's stupid stupid decision. Thus, the dissatisfaction of a circumcised man is a stronger reason for abandoning the practice of infant cutting than a circumcised man's satisfaction is for continuing it. The non-therapeutic surgical modification of the genitals of male, female and intersex infants/children is a crime against humanity. One day it's practitioners will do penance with their own pound of flesh, or at the very least all their liquid assets.
Why change what was meant to be. It is a shame to do this to young boy for no reason except for religious beliefs or traditional practices. I grew up in a home where there was no hot running water so showers and baths were a rare thing. I've never had any issues and glad that I was never circumcised.
The male foreskin contains tens of thousands of nerve endings; it is as essential to the male genitalia as the clitoral hood is to female genitalia. Some studies even argue that it is the most sensitive part of male genitalia.
Why make the decision to amputate a part of an infants genitalia when he can decide to do it at any point during his life? As a victim of this procedure, not a day goes by that I don't think about what was done to my genitalia. Honestly. It's a shame I can't turn back time.
There is no medical reason to do it. If a medical reason does come up later in life (which is rare) it can all be done then. Why cause your baby all that pain when you don't know 100% if it is necessary? Plus, the head of the penis is especially sensitive and you are actually doing your baby a disservice later in life by decreasing sexual pleasure. Whatever you believe about creation (nature or God), males have foreskin for a reason so don't chop it off!
There are no good reasons behind circumcising a child. Cleanliness is a non-issue if you know how to clean your baby and teach him how to clean himself later. In fact, circumcision causes unnecessary pain to an infant.