After much discussion and research my hubby and I chose to have our son circumcised when he was born. My husband did not feel comfortable teaching him how to clean in a way he didn't have a clue about and it is true that circumcised boys have a less chance of infection both bacterial and sexually transmitted. HOWEVER, we had to wait until he was 3 weeks old because of his extended stay in the NICU and it was TERRIBLE. I didn't go--hubby took him and then I took care of him by myself the rest of the day and there was a LOT of swelling. Two bloody diapers and the worst screaming I'd ever heard a baby do. I cried several times that day and am now wondering...was it worth it?

This is a really tough decision for us moms of boys -- one that's often very personal, mostly because religion still plays a big part in it. And although most boys in the U.S. are still circumsized, a growing number aren't.

What I found is that it's very important to be comfortable with whatever you decide for your son, and it's also important to have a pediatrician who'll back you up with your decision. With my first son, our doc made us feel that we were doing the right thing by our son whichever way we went on this issue (I won't say what we did, not that my 3-year-old could read this and be embarrassed, but still ).

I think so, Mary, all three of mine (and my stepson and grandsons) all had it done...but I do have a funny story to share about Big A's circumcision, hope it brings a smile to you.

After IT was done and we brought Big A home, a few hours later I checked his diaper. They did not spell out to me (probably because I should have known or guessed) that they wrapped his penis in gauze, but hey! He was my first, and I was an emotional and physical, sleep-deprived wreck. So I pull off the diaper, and here is his...thing...it's thready-looking, sorta yellow-ish from the petroleum jelly the doctor put on it, and sorta pink-ish from the slight bleeding. In other words, the gauze had taken on a somewhat flesh coloring to it. AND, they had wrapped it heavily around the bottom of his penis, and tapered it off going towards the top, and then actually pinched it off very thinly at the very tip top of the wrapping, as it was very stuck together. So I (a tired, emotional, first time mom, remind you) am looking at this fiber-y, flesh-colored, and bulging towards the bottom/tapered towards the top THING on poor Big A, and I thought that was his penis. I'd seen his penis before the procedure, and I'd seen other baby boy's penises long after those procedures (my step-grandsons), but never had I seen THIS! I FREAKED! Let the drama begin: "What have they done to my baby? His penis! His poor penis! He's deformed! They messed up! He'll be a freak! AAAAAGGGGGHHHH!"

Luckily, my darling husband, the very experienced, hands-on dad, was home. He simply unwrapped the gauze and showed me my son's very normal, if a little swollen and bloody penis.

Me: "Oh, OK!"

It is not an easy decision, but one that is made by every mom and/or dad of every little boy.
My ex-h and I decided to have our son circumcised, and I still remember the day it was done.
My son now 8 years old doesn't remember, and to him it is normal. So I just leave it at that.

Mary,
I can't imagine hearing my baby cry of pain. Poor thing.

You and your husband made the best choice as parents.

Your comfort is little Jack won't remember the pain.

When I had my son, in Tampa, our pedi was a very highly regarded and well known European pedi and completely against circumcision. She said she would support our decision-whatever it was. My sister-in-law is French and was pregnant w/ a boy the same time that I was and was shocked when she was asked, by her American OBGYN, if she would have her son circumcised. This is rarely done in European countries and the rate of boys who are circumcised is declining in the US. There is much controversy about whether or not it is a necessary procedure.

Tim had his done the day he was born or the next day. Cuz he was still in the hospital and they were changing diapers, I reallly never saw it and didn't really freak about it when I got home.

I did freak out about the belly button thing though!

I only have daughters so far, so I can only speak as a man, not a parent... but there are slight health benefits to having it done (always a good thing) and it helps with cleanliness (also a good thing). I had it done, and if and when I do have a son, I will have it done on him.

So Mary, I would say you did the right thing. It was worth it.

TOO FUNNY TripleA! I had moments like that just because it was so swollen and scary but your story is better. Although, the pedi took off the cord stump since it was hanging on by a thread and when I cleaned it it opened up and I saw this white, fleshy thing pop out and exclaimed to hubby that I could see his insides and they were COMING OUT! Luckily dad is much calmer than I and took a look and declared it "fine."

I was looking for your comments Nate, as the resident male so thanks! I have 5 brothers so I know that boys aren't usually the cleanest, especially when they are young, so that influenced my decision heavily.

As parents we always have to make decisions that others may or may not agree on....We can only do what we feel is best for our children. My husband and I chose not to circ our 2 boys ages 2 1/2 and 2 weeks. No one on my side of the family is circ'd (dad, uncle, brother and brother in law). Being a nurse in an OB/GYN office a few years ago where we performed circumcisions without anesthesia it sealed the deal for me that none of ours would have the procedure done. Thankfully hubby was in agreement with me after some discussions

I refused to have my son circumcised. There was no way I would allow it to happen. My husband and I fought about it for weeks before he was born and weeks after he was born. To make "peace," we made the appointment, and I told my husband that he had to take him and be there when it was done. He said he couldn't get off work, so I canceled the appointment. At first everyone in my family thought I was insane. My mom was on my husband's side, and then she researched it and called me and apologized.

When my sister was pregnant with my nephew, she thought her husband would want it done. He had been cut as an adult based on bogus advice from a doctor that it would cure some problem he was having. It didn't and he regretted it big time. He had never voiced that to her. Before nephew was born, he did, and they did not have him cut. When my SIL had my other nephew, my brother argued for it not to be done, but she wanted it done because she thought uncut penises were ugly. She got her way. So, we have 2 intact boys out of 3. If this baby is a boy, there is no way he will be cut.

I have very strong views on this that border and slide to the controversial side of the fence, so I try to keep them to myself, but it has always bothered me that when another culture does the exact same procedure to girls (and it is the same thing in many instances), we call it mutilation but justify it being done to boys in our country.

To be fair, the so-called "female circumcision" is designed to deprive the female of sexual pleasure, thus making it less likely for her to stray from her future husband. It is used to make the women loyal breeders and not people with sexual desires. Male circumcision is NOT performed for these reasons; traditionally, it has been to lower the risk of infections, bacteria, and other nasty things that were much more common back before soap was so readily available.

Actually, male circumcision became more prevalent in the last century to deter masturbation in our suppressed sexual culture which is one of the reason that being circumcised is less prevalent in much older American men. The military pushed it as a way to avoid VD during the World Wars, Vietnam, and Korea, instead of encouraging safer sex practices and cleanliness.

As quoted from http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/publications/articles/journal_35_...yle_circumcision.pdf

"At the beginning of the twentieth century, one writer even went so far as to claim that circumcision could cure or prevent no fewer than 100 conditions including alcoholism, asthma, epilepsy, enuresis, hernia, gout, rectal prolapse, rheumatism and kidney disease!"

"Anthropologists agree that amongst the Polynesians, Aborigines and South American tribes, circumcision probably started as a test of bravery and endurance, a ritual mutilation, a sacrificial spilling of blood, rather than
the initiation rite it has become in recent centuries. Even today, elements of this persist in Australia and some Pacific Islands. It then changed from being a rite of passage, an initiation into manhood, to being, for some peoples such as the Jews and Muslims, a symbol of their faith and their relationship with God. Only in recent times has it been performed for ‘medical’ reasons – to discourage masturbation, reduce the risk of penile infection, carcinoma and more recently, HIV."

Additionally, the so-called medical evidence of cleanliness and reduction of disease is anecdotal evidence, not scientific evidence.

The idea that it was done to lower infections before soap was "readily available" is not substantiated by historical evidence. In fact, the surgery did not become as prevalent as it is until more sterile techniques could be used for the surgery itself. Traditionally, the surgery is 5000 years old and was done to nearly adult men to prove their manhood. There is no correlation between what we do today and the origins of the surgery which do in fact correlate with the idea of female circumcision and placing men and women in their respective boxes.

I don’t mean to offend anyone in anyway. But believing that this is something that was developed for the good of our health is not based in fact. It is the same thing that has been done in our country to childbirth. The idea that something more medical is somehow better when it really causes more problems than it solves.

Very interesting debate going on here and very well researched/informed responses. I thought I would add that I had a conversation with a friend/co worker whose husband is a pedi and he said that it is a purely cosmetic procedure at this point (old traditions aside). He said he does support what parents choose for their children as cosmetics is important and can impact self-esteem etc. However, he said we need to start calling it what it is, “cosmetic surgery for the infant penis”. He said 9/10 parents he talks to are mostly concerned about the appearance. My friend/co worker has two adult sons that are not circumcised. Just another opinion to add to the discussion!

All three of my boys were circumcised when they were in the hospital right after they were born. My husband wanted it done and was able to be there for the first two (our third son's hospital didn't allow for him to go with them). He said they gave them a local anesthesia and one of my sons sucked on his pacifier and didn't make a peep, and the other slept through it. And of course they don't remember it.

Despite what reasons people have done it for in the past, you have to decide what is best for you for your own personal reasons. But whether you circumsize or not, just like many other debatable topics (epidural vs. no epidural, formula vs. breastmilk, vaccinate vs. no vaccinating etc.), the important thing is to raise happy, loving, respectful, and healthy children.