Tomorrow I am 32 weeks. And as you can see on the picture, that's how baby looks now. When I had an ultrasound, I was told that baby lays down in this exact position, which is very good.:)Since we are having a boy, we decided to circumcise him. It is not that we are religious about this, but simply because of the hygiene, and as well because it has health advantages. I read in my book that some medical evidence suggests that circumcision lowers the risk of sexually transmitted infections, urinary tract infections and penile cancer. We didn't discuss this yet with our doctor though. I want to do it from one side and from another side I don't want our baby boy to be in pain. Though the baby can be given pain relief. So this is what we have decided so far. It would be nice to hear people's opinions about this... Well, Sandon has not been done any circumcision, cause I just didn't allow. I cannot bear that Sandon will be in pain. Kill me now! So.... we discussed and decided that when he grows up he will decide himself what he wants to do.
2 comments:
The hygiene issue is simply not true. When a boy is born, his foreskin adheres to his glans. The only cleaning you need to do is to wash the outside like you would his fingers and toes. Over many years, the foreskin will slowly detach. Simple washing will take care of any hygiene issues. The AAP's pamphlet on care for the intact penis can be found here.
With a circumcised penis, the same sort of basic hygiene applies. However, care for the surgical wound must occur until it heals. That will include pain, as the inner foreskin and glans aren't meant to encounter waste products. Circumcision exposes the sensitive parts of the penis to them, assuming the boy will be diapered.
The other potential benefits you list can either be achieved through less invasive methods or the risk is so small as to be almost trivial. With sexually transmitted infections, condoms are much more effective, and don't require surgery.
UTIs are more frequent in the first year of life in intact boys, but the overall risk is still minor. Girls have a greater risk than even intact boys, but we understand that it only makes sense to treat them if a UTI occurs, without surgery. It doesn't make sense to treat boys differently just because it's easier to cut their genitals.
With penile cancer, it occurs primarily in older men, so your son will have decades before this is a (minor) concern. And the primary risk factors are poor hygiene (see above), promiscuity, and smoking, not the mere presence of the foreskin. European countries where males remain intact have similar rates of penile cancer.
Maybe most important, allow me to second Anonymous' comment. I was circumcised as a newborn, but I wish I hadn't been. I wouldn't have chosen it for myself. Parents can't know in advance if their son would want his foreskin removed. Most males don't, since the overwhelming majority of intact adult males never needs or chooses circumcision for himself. The intact friends I have certainly concur.
I would like to marry circumcised guy!
I agree with u.
Post a Comment