| Name: jamcarant | Date: Oct 14th, 2006 4:27 AM |
My son Anthony has a circumsision ring on his thing tat he got on there when he was 2 days old. they said it will come off in a week or 2. my son Jamie was a premie and they wouldn't do it at birth. he is going to columbus in a couple of weeks to talk about doing it now (he's 3). he only had half of his foreskin anyway, so i don't think it will be that bad.
if you do it at birth, they won't remember it so it shouldn't be that bad. ↑ |
| Name: EthansMom0213 | Date: Oct 14th, 2006 4:46 AM |
Here is an article that I found....After reading some of the other post I became curious...
Since 1999, when the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Task Force on Circumcision published its report,1 new data have accumulated that reinforce the preventive health advantages of newborn circumcision: protection against severe infant urinary tract infection (UTI),2 against penile cancer,3,4 against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection,5 against penile dermatoses (eg, lichen planus and eczema)6—including the mechanism by which the foreskin predisposes to HIV infection7—and against balanoposthitis and phimosis. Observations from Sweden8,9 and from the United States10 indicate a higher prevalence of UTI in uncircumcised male infants than previously reported. Circumcision also improves genital hygiene throughout life, particularly during infancy and old age.
Powerful new data indicate that circumcision protects against penile acquisition of human papilloma virus (HPV) and that this protection reduces prevalence of cervical cancer in female partners of circumcised men.11 Uncircumcised men were about 3 times as likely to have penile HPV, and female partners of promiscuous uncircumcised men with HPV had a statistically significantly increased risk for cervical cancer.11,12
Findings linking the uncircumcised state to cervical cancer11,12 and recent data on multiple medical benefits of newborn circumcision2–6,8–10,13–17 make untenable the AAP position opposing routine circumcision.1 That 1999 statement has been criticized as both misleading and internally inconsistent.18 One inconsistent aspect of the AAP report is that it opposed routine circumcision despite listing 6 evidence-based benefits of newborn circumcision (protection against UTI, penile cancer, HIV infection, balanoposthitis, and phimosis; and ease of genital hygiene) and only 1 documented disadvantage (possibility of rare minor surgical complications).1
Social and sexual advantages of circumcision also have been shown. In a survey of California parents,19 those who chose not to have their newborn boys circumcised were later more likely to be dissatisfied than those who chose circumcision, and parents who decided against the procedure believed that they had been inadequately informed about it. In Texas, 85% of parents chose newborn circumcision20; having a circumcised father and highly educated parents were strong factors in this choice.
On the subject of adult circumcision, 1 study showed no adverse effects on sexual function,21 and another study reported that 50% of men circumcised as adults believed that they had benefited from circumcision and that 62% were satisfied with the results.22 These findings support earlier reports of improved sexual function in circumcised men23 and more sexual satisfaction in female partners of circumcised men,24 mainly because of improved genital hygiene.
Analysis of lifetime effects of newborn circumcision has been hampered by compartmentalization into specialized research interests: internists and others concerned with infectious disease focus on studying sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in young men; pediatricians focus on severe UTI in infants and on phimosis, balanoposthitis, and genital hygiene in children; penile cancer and hygiene problems occurring more commonly during old age are thus considered mainly in that context. These age-specific advantages of circumcision are rarely consolidated into a comprehensive picture of disease prevention from birth through old age.
Parents of newborn boys should be aware of the lifelong health implications of circumcision status. To properly counsel these parents, pediatricians should be aware of the increasing documented medical evidence favoring newborn circumcision. On the basis of this evidence—much of it published since the 1999 AAP report—the AAP should reassess its position of not routinely recommending circumcision for male newborns. ↑ |
| Name: atomic snowflake | Date: Oct 14th, 2006 6:27 PM |
| If boys weren't meant to have foreskins then they wouldn't be there in the first place. ↑ |
| Name: Lynne n | Date: Oct 14th, 2006 6:39 PM |
Here Here!
Atomic snowflake i agree with you! ↑ |
| Name: momo | Date: Oct 14th, 2006 7:35 PM |
My son got circumsized when he was 2 because of heart problems...That sucked dong it that late...cuz he remembers the pain a bit....When babies are newborn...they arn't able to understand what is goin on....They feel pain..but then it is gone and they forget they were ever in pain...Plus little ones are more resiliant to pain than adults...We understand it..there fore our tolerance is less...My son had open heart surgery just 2 months ago..and was walking less than 2 days later..he was trying his hardest to run around 3 days after that...Adults they kinda bitch and moan..
Off track...but circumcision depends on your culture...and it is also for health reasons...In America theres more of a social stigma on it... ↑ |
| Name: atomic snowflake | Date: Oct 14th, 2006 9:38 PM |
Yeah, medical reasons - fair enough - if the foreskin is too tight, but you wouldn't go around cutting babies ears off would you? So why does the foreskin come in for such treatment? Perhaps it's there for a reason - every boy is born with one so why remove it. Does millions of years of evolution count for nothing?
If boys are taught to keep themselves clean then infection needn't be a problem. They needn't infect their wives with papilloma virus when they get older if they've developed the lifetime habit of retracting the foreskin and cleaning it. It's up to mothers to teach them how to do this and to impress upon them the importance of doing so.
If you're going to start lobbing things off people then why not remove the breasts of women so that they don't get breast cancer in later life? There's no difference really.
Leave foreskins alone!!!! Boys might just be attached to them after all!!!!!! ↑ |
| Name: l3itchyl3unny | Date: Oct 14th, 2006 10:04 PM |
| atomic snowflake, no need to be a smart ass about it. Most guys ive talked to HATE it and want it removed later on in life. Just because your born with something and your evolution idea, dont mean its right. Every opion is wanted you just didnt need to post on and on about it. ↑ |
| Name: atomic snowflake | Date: Oct 14th, 2006 10:16 PM |
| Well do whatever you want to do - follow the crowd - most other people do. I would have thought that a bit of critical analysis would be a useful thing - after all, it's going to effect him for the rest of his life. ↑ |
| Name: LuckyMom | Date: Oct 15th, 2006 2:12 AM |
| All I can say is this....my husband is not circumsised. He does however take good care of hygiene so it has never been a problem. The people for whom it is a problem are the nasty skanks who don't pull the skin back and keep it clean. ↑ |
| Name: julie23 | Date: Oct 25th, 2006 1:49 PM |
| I never circumsized my son, My husband is circumsized, and says with out a doubt he wants this baby boy to be snipped when he's born.. i don't want to have him circumsized... so I have no idea what we will do, maybe get a devorce over it...lol.....JUST KIDDING! ↑ |
|
|
