Circumcision?

[discoclare]

Also wanted to add, that for the stats for prevention of HIV, this was a study, first of all conducted in Africa, Zimbabwe, where the occurence of HIV/AIDS is extrememly high, so with this knowledge, I think one can extrapolate, that these men would most likely would have been infected regardless of whether they have a foreskin or not. Here is a better article.
https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

First off before I respond I want to say that if I have a boy I will not be circumcising him unless medically needed. However.....

The above article is not a "better article". It is an opinion. There was not just "a study" there have been three major, very large, trials on HIV and circumcision and also numerous other smaller studies on other aspects of HIV transmissions which have also noted a reduced transmission amongst those who have been circumcised. The circumcision trials were performed in Africa partly on purpose to perform them in an area of high incidence of HIV. You wouldn't have been able to show a difference between the two groups if they were performed in an area of low incidence!!! I don't understand what you have extrapolated at all. The trials showed that the men who had been circumcised were much less likely to be infected with HIV (though circumcision was not preventative) and this was the reason two of the trials had to halted early, it was considered unethical to continue blind in the face of quite different numbers of new infections. These studies have been some of the most exciting developments in the field of HIV in the last 10 years. Having said that you are correct that you cannot just extrapolate these results to either homosexual men (the studies were conducted with heterosexual men) or heterosexuals in other parts of the world such as the USA, where sexual practices may be different and the dominant subtype (strain) of HIV circulating is different to the dominant subtype in southern Africa.
Sorry if that all sounds like a bit of a rant! I just didn't want the study the other lady linked to to be dismissed so easily when it is important scientific research.

Having said all that I am still anti-circumcision for any baby boy I have! Condoms are the correct way to prevent spread of HIV (or abstinence!). Circumcision cannot be relied on, the data are not yet conclusive enough (though exciting) and even the data we have only shows a reduction, there is still significant risk of infection even when circumcised.

 

[luckyno.3]

No way! My first two boys haven't been and I won't ever. There's no reason and it's mutilation.

 

[Unbridled]

If we have a boy, he won't be circumcised. My hubby is circumcised, but he said if he'd had a choice, he wouldn't have wanted it done. Unfortunately, he was an infant and no one asked his opinion. His own father wasn't circumcised because the family couldn't afford it. He's in his 60's now and has never had a problem from it. It didn't bother hubby that he and his father looked different. In fact, he didn't know until recently that they were different. He said he'd never looked at his father's penis, so he just assumed he'd been circumcised.

Since there has been fear mongering on the other side, here's a bit of my own. My mother used to be an OB nurse, and she once saw a doctor botch a circumcision badly. She said the baby was sent to larger hospital shortly afterward, so she didn't know how things turned out. However, from the looks of it, that poor boy would be disfigured for the rest of his life.

I'm not telling this story because I'm judging people who have it done. Obviously, this kind of thing doesn't happen often--my mother only saw it once in her entire career. I'm just pointing out that circumcision is a surgery, and like with any surgery things can go wrong. I'd rather take that risk only if it's medically necessary.

 

[jennijunni]

Also wanted to add, that for the stats for prevention of HIV, this was a study, first of all conducted in Africa, Zimbabwe, where the occurence of HIV/AIDS is extrememly high, so with this knowledge, I think one can extrapolate, that these men would most likely would have been infected regardless of whether they have a foreskin or not. Here is a better article.
https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

First off before I respond I want to say that if I have a boy I will not be circumcising him unless medically needed. However.....

The above article is not a "better article". It is an opinion. There was not just "a study" there have been three major, very large, trials on HIV and circumcision and also numerous other smaller studies on other aspects of HIV transmissions which have also noted a reduced transmission amongst those who have been circumcised. The circumcision trials were performed in Africa partly on purpose to perform them in an area of high incidence of HIV. You wouldn't have been able to show a difference between the two groups if they were performed in an area of low incidence!!! I don't understand what you have extrapolated at all. The trials showed that the men who had been circumcised were much less likely to be infected with HIV (though circumcision was not preventative) and this was the reason two of the trials had to halted early, it was considered unethical to continue blind in the face of quite different numbers of new infections. These studies have been some of the most exciting developments in the field of HIV in the last 10 years. Having said that you are correct that you cannot just extrapolate these results to either homosexual men (the studies were conducted with heterosexual men) or heterosexuals in other parts of the world such as the USA, where sexual practices may be different and the dominant subtype (strain) of HIV circulating is different to the dominant subtype in southern Africa.
Sorry if that all sounds like a bit of a rant! I just didn't want the study the other lady linked to to be dismissed so easily when it is important scientific research.

Having said all that I am still anti-circumcision for any baby boy I have! Condoms are the correct way to prevent spread of HIV (or abstinence!). Circumcision cannot be relied on, the data are not yet conclusive enough (though exciting) and even the data we have only shows a reduction, there is still significant risk of infection even when circumcised.

My point being, that had these studies been done in an area where the prevelance of HIV/AIDS was NOT so high, and the chance of those same men contracting the virus was still astronimically high, and in most cases they would have contracted the virus regardless. The fact that some were circumcised before they did contract the virus, is frankly not good science. if we were to use the same study in a larger population where the viral occurence is not so high, and within normal variations, I would venture to guess that uncircumcised men would not have a 60% higher of contracting the virus. KWIM?? So while that article is a different POV, it also states why as a PP stated an uncirumcised man has a higher incidence, by 60% of contracting HIV. that was my point.

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

I already have a little boy and he isn't circumcisied neither will this baby be if they are a boy. I see no real medical benefit and if the 'health benefits' were so great then the NHS would offer circumcision as a rountine procedure when a baby is born. As a student nurse I have seen this procedure done and I have seen little boys come into have it done when they are older due to medical reasons. But the percentage of young boys coming in is so tiny that I feel it does not warrant a surgical procedure to be performed on a young baby with a immature immune system. x

 

[Justagirlxx]

I already have a little boy and he isn't circumcisied neither will this baby be if they are a boy. I see no real medical benefit and if the 'health benefits' were so great then the NHS would offer circumcision as a rountine procedure when a baby is born. As a student nurse I have seen this procedure done and I have seen little boys come into have it done when they are older due to medical reasons. But the percentage of young boys coming in is so tiny that I feel it does not warrant a surgical procedure to be performed on a young baby with a immature immune system. x

Hey hun!! I see you are pregnant again. Congrats!!! I just found out I'm pregnant with number 2 also!! Haven't been on in awhile but its nice to see familiar faces, even if the topics are all still the same. Haha. x

 

[omgamandaa]

We will not be circumcising if it is a boy. OH's decision since he has the penis. Also, he says it's a religious thing, which we are against.

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

I already have a little boy and he isn't circumcisied neither will this baby be if they are a boy. I see no real medical benefit and if the 'health benefits' were so great then the NHS would offer circumcision as a rountine procedure when a baby is born. As a student nurse I have seen this procedure done and I have seen little boys come into have it done when they are older due to medical reasons. But the percentage of young boys coming in is so tiny that I feel it does not warrant a surgical procedure to be performed on a young baby with a immature immune system. x

Hey hun!! I see you are pregnant again. Congrats!!! I just found out I'm pregnant with number 2 also!! Haven't been on in awhile but its nice to see familiar faces, even if the topics are all still the same. Haha. x

Congrats to you too hunni. I know its weird being in the tri forums again and previous topics popping up x

 

[Impatientfor2]

We have a boy and he's circumsized. I let it be my husbands decision because he has the penis. He is circumsized as well he grew up around where we live now in the US and said the boys who weren't circumsized were always picked on in the locker room and so on. He said he is so glad ge is circumsized and wants any of our boys to be the same. It's everyones choice and each person should do their own research and go with what they feel is best.

 

[Vickie]

nope we won't be doing a circumcision if we have one (or two) boys

I left it up to the husband to decide (he's not done)

 

[sunshineray7]

I'm quite surprised that in this day and age that circumcision is still quite popular. Why should it be our choice for an unnecessary elective surgical procedure to be performed. If my son decides to have it done when he's an adult,that's his right. In the Uk it is now illegal to dock tails of dogs so why can't we give our children the same respect.

 

[discoclare]

My point being, that had these studies been done in an area where the prevelance of HIV/AIDS was NOT so high, and the chance of those same men contracting the virus was still astronimically high, and in most cases they would have contracted the virus regardless. The fact that some were circumcised before they did contract the virus, is frankly not good science. if we were to use the same study in a larger population where the viral occurence is not so high, and within normal variations, I would venture to guess that uncircumcised men would not have a 60% higher of contracting the virus. KWIM?? So while that article is a different POV, it also states why as a PP stated an uncirumcised man has a higher incidence, by 60% of contracting HIV. that was my point.

Right, I think I see your point now! So for example, if you did the same study in heterosexual men in the USA, there be nowhere near a 60% reduction in the circumsised arm. I do completely agree with you there, and certainly I think ladies outside of Africa should not read too much into these findings when deciding whether or not to circumcise their sons. Still exciting data in relation to the African HIV epidemic, if a little off-track considering most of the ladies on here are from the USA and the UK!

 

[Torontogal]

I respect every parents right to choose what they want here but I do want to share a story.

I work in nursing, specifically with alzheimers patients. I had one gentleman who had to have the majority of his penis removed because he wasn't circumcised. He had been cared for by family before I met him and when they took him to wash they assumed he cleaned everywhere. It didn't occur to them that he simply no longer knew that he was supposed to clean down there or even how to. So he got a very serious infection.

So while I hope no one ever has to deal with this I just like to remind people that just because a boy properly cleans doesn't mean there aren't situations where a circumcision would prevent a lot of pain.

I see this story differently. I see an elderly man have his penis removed because he had alzheimers and didn't get the personal care he needed. Sorry, but my Grandma died of this awful disease so it's a bit of a sore spot.

On the circumcision thing I am against it for many of the arguments already mentioned in this thread, but if we have a boy my husband will get to make the decision in the end (he was circumcised). If we have a girl we won't have to decide which will be a relief.

 

[jennijunni]

My point being, that had these studies been done in an area where the prevelance of HIV/AIDS was NOT so high, and the chance of those same men contracting the virus was still astronimically high, and in most cases they would have contracted the virus regardless. The fact that some were circumcised before they did contract the virus, is frankly not good science. if we were to use the same study in a larger population where the viral occurence is not so high, and within normal variations, I would venture to guess that uncircumcised men would not have a 60% higher of contracting the virus. KWIM?? So while that article is a different POV, it also states why as a PP stated an uncirumcised man has a higher incidence, by 60% of contracting HIV. that was my point.

Right, I think I see your point now! So for example, if you did the same study in heterosexual men in the USA, there be nowhere near a 60% reduction in the circumsised arm. I do completely agree with you there, and certainly I think ladies outside of Africa should not read too much into these findings when deciding whether or not to circumcise their sons. Still exciting data in relation to the African HIV epidemic, if a little off-track considering most of the ladies on here are from the USA and the UK!

I think we are saying the same thing, just lost in translation!! LOL! I think in Africa it most certainly does have benefits that far outweigh risks. I was merely pointing out the flaw of a PP stats saying that being uncirced means you have a 60% chance higher of contracting HIV, which she is right, in Africa, Zimbabwe, but most certainly not in Western Europe, or the US. LOL!! We agree!! LOL!! Oh, and BTw your last post was outstanding! Just wanted to give you props!

 

[sunbaby777]

I have mixed feelings about it. I hate the idea of cutting my baby down there. But it IS the norm here in the U.S., and girls are generally grossed out by boys who aren't circumsized (sorry if that offends anyone), not to mention the teasing he might get in the locker room from other boys. My hubby is adamant about having it done. I wish it was more healthy and socially acceptable to just leave it alone.

 

[jo14]

I have mixed feelings about it. I hate the idea of cutting my baby down there. But it IS the norm here in the U.S., and girls are generally grossed out by boys who aren't circumsized (sorry if that offends anyone), not to mention the teasing he might get in the locker room from other boys. My hubby is adamant about having it done. I wish it was more healthy and socially acceptable to just leave it alone.

its amazing how its so different in two different countries and like I said I have never seen an uncircumsised willie in real life, (not that I have seen a lot anyway being with the same guy from 16 to 33 lol) but would have had a shock if my now OH had been circumsised I am not sure I would know how to handle it if you know what I mean LOL that sounds bad but I am sure you get me!!!

 

[Olivermsmummy]

Not a chance!!!
I wouldn't even have the thought cross my mind, newborn children have been through a traumatic enough time without being put through a completely unnecessary procedure IMO

 

[jennijunni]

I have mixed feelings about it. I hate the idea of cutting my baby down there. But it IS the norm here in the U.S., and girls are generally grossed out by boys who aren't circumsized (sorry if that offends anyone), not to mention the teasing he might get in the locker room from other boys. My hubby is adamant about having it done. I wish it was more healthy and socially acceptable to just leave it alone.

Actually in the US it is NOT the norm anymore. Only about 30% roughly are Circed in the US. And the woman of their generation will not find it disgusting, because it will be the norm. And really the locker room debate is just silly. When you were in highschool, and changed for gym did you all walk around naked pointing and looking at each other gentils?? Nope, and neither do men. And it is more healthy. Baby boys actually die of getting circed. I think I will take the chance of my son being laughed at then at him bleeding to death, which is a very rare occurence, but still not one I am willing to take. As far as your DH of course he is adamant, his generation it was the norm, but your DS will be the odd man out in the locker room in his generation.

 

[Tisiphonie]

Absolutely not. Why would I hack off a part of my baby that I am lucky enough to be blessed with?

DH is British and uncircumcized and I never once thought it was odd. I'd like to tell some of these women who are uncomfortable to GROW UP!

I thought briefly about the locker rooms but to be honest, kids are going to find things to pick on with other kids no matter what. I'm going to tell my son to ask those boys who do pick on them why their parents wanted to hack off a part of their penis?

 

[Justagirlxx]

I already have a little boy and he isn't circumcisied neither will this baby be if they are a boy. I see no real medical benefit and if the 'health benefits' were so great then the NHS would offer circumcision as a rountine procedure when a baby is born. As a student nurse I have seen this procedure done and I have seen little boys come into have it done when they are older due to medical reasons. But the percentage of young boys coming in is so tiny that I feel it does not warrant a surgical procedure to be performed on a young baby with a immature immune system. x

Hey hun!! I see you are pregnant again. Congrats!!! I just found out I'm pregnant with number 2 also!! Haven't been on in awhile but its nice to see familiar faces, even if the topics are all still the same. Haha. x

Congrats to you too hunni. I know its weird being in the tri forums again and previous topics popping up x

It definitely is lol expecially the circumsion debate, it never goes away I guess!! Ah well. x