Reply
Subtle As A Hurricane 2 kids; Texas 4126 posts
19th Sep '13
Quoting Squid Kid:" Death rates are higher from circumcision than they are from SIDS. That alone is a dealbreaker for me- ... [snip!] ... boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision during the same neonatal period (first 28 days from birth).""


I was super paranoid about SIDS with DD, so knowing more boys die from circumcision than SIDS is just going to bring out the crazy paranoia again.

Squid Kid Unavailable, NA, United States 32180 posts
19th Sep '13
Quoting Subtle As A Hurricane:" I was super paranoid about SIDS with DD, so knowing more boys die from circumcision than SIDS is just going to bring out the crazy paranoia again. "


People argue boys might get a UTI if they're intact. But Chances of dying from a UTI are way lower. I mean.. 1 in 77 deaths.. that's a pretty high percentage. And you can treat a UTI.



I just don't see any logical reason to risk something like death over cosmetics.

user banned 4 kids; Mueang Phuket, Thailand 30487 posts
19th Sep '13

<blockquote><b>Quoting Squid Kid:</b>" People argue boys might get a UTI if they're intact. But Chances of dying from a UTI are way lower. ... [snip!] ... high percentage. And you can treat a UTI. I just don't see any logical reason to risk something like death over cosmetics. "</blockquote>




Not mention girls get more UTIs in general and we don't cut them. They also get more infections in general. Yet it's Wrong to cut girls. I'm not sure why it's okay for boys. It makes no sense to me.

Subtle As A Hurricane 2 kids; Texas 4126 posts
19th Sep '13
Quoting Squid Kid:" People argue boys might get a UTI if they're intact. But Chances of dying from a UTI are way lower. ... [snip!] ... high percentage. And you can treat a UTI. I just don't see any logical reason to risk something like death over cosmetics. "


UTIs are a pain in the ass, but not that big of a deal.

MotherFalcon+2 2 kids; Fólkvangr, Asgard, YD, Sweden 3566 posts
19th Sep '13

go to drmomma.org



and foreskin isnt a birth defect, it serves its purpose just like the heart does.



what most dont think about is that it causes problems in both the man and his partners sexual health and enjoyment.



circing is a bigger deal than ppl want to believe. its a huge human rights/genital autonomy issue. there is no reason to be circd unless a rare medical reason.

((-We Did It!-)) 1 child; 1 angel baby; Iowa 659 posts
19th Sep '13

I don't have anything reliable for you to read, sorry about that. But I do want to share my experience.



In a nutshell, I was going to have my son circumcised.. until the nurse & doctor walked in, gave him Tylenol, and said they'd be back in 20 minutes to get him for the procedure.
Only Tylenol was what would be used for his circumcision. At that very moment I refused it.
My nurse told me later that circumcision isn't really serving a medical purpose anymore. Hence the reason a lot of insurance won't cover it, it's becoming more of a cosmetic procedure.

Allissa Specht 35 kids; Essexville, Michigan 5426 posts
19th Sep '13

I have been with many men who are circ'd and NEVER had a sexual problem. I have been with men who weren't, and had MORE problems with them than those who were circ'd. Just saying.



However, I am against it simply because it can cause some problems. However, I had no choice in the matter with my two boys. They were both born with too much foreskin that was too tight over the tip of their penises. This caused them to be unable to urinate after birth. They had to have medical circumcisions done, so I can't hoenstly say one way or the other if I would have went through with a circumcision in normal circumstances. It is a personal decision. One that you and your husband need to make TOGETHER. Don't worry about anyone else. It's not their child.

user banned 4 kids; Mueang Phuket, Thailand 30487 posts
19th Sep '13

<blockquote><b>Quoting Allissa Specht:</b>" I have been with many men who are circ'd and NEVER had a sexual problem. I have been with men who weren't, ... [snip!] ... a personal decision. One that you and your husband need to make TOGETHER. Don't worry about anyone else. It's not their child."</blockquote>



I'm confused because if your babies weren't urinating after birth, then how we're they urinating in utero? They do that from early on, that's what amniotic fluid is. Just curious I have never heard of this before.

Allissa Specht 35 kids; Essexville, Michigan 5426 posts
19th Sep '13
Quoting ☮ Phuket:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Allissa Specht:</b>" I have been with many men who are circ'd ... [snip!] ... urinating in utero? They do that from early on, that's what amniotic fluid is. Just curious I have never heard of this before."


They swelled after birth. I had low levels in the end of my pregnancies with my boys, and they believe that was the problem. After 24 hours of them not urinating , we began to look into causes and it was determined the foreskin was blocked off at the end. It happens occasionally. Sometimes the swelling recedes and the issue corrects itself. Sometimes it doesn't.

user banned 4 kids; Mueang Phuket, Thailand 30487 posts
19th Sep '13

<blockquote><b>Quoting Allissa Specht:</b>" They swelled after birth. I had low levels in the end of my pregnancies with my boys, and they believe ... [snip!] ... off at the end. It happens occasionally. Sometimes the swelling recedes and the issue corrects itself. Sometimes it doesn't."</blockquote>




Oh okay. Thanks for answering!

Allissa Specht 35 kids; Essexville, Michigan 5426 posts
19th Sep '13

I honestly don't know the details. I know that my OB is against circumcising, but felt that it was the only option at that point. About five minutes following the procedure the swelling began to go down a little. Within 30 minutes they were able to urinate. My baby still has quite a bit of foreskin but it isn't closed off. I don't know that I would have had them circumcised otherwise. We had to do what was recommended to get them urinating. That did it for them. :)

user banned 4 kids; Mueang Phuket, Thailand 30487 posts
19th Sep '13

<blockquote><b>Quoting Allissa Specht:</b>" I honestly don't know the details. I know that my OB is against circumcising, but felt that it was the ... [snip!] ... I would have had them circumcised otherwise. We had to do what was recommended to get them urinating. That did it for them. :)"</blockquote>




If I were in that position I can't say I wouldnt have done the same

Subtle As A Hurricane 2 kids; Texas 4126 posts
19th Sep '13
Quoting MotherFalcon~24weeks!:" go to drmomma.org and foreskin isnt a birth defect, it serves its purpose just like the heart does. ... [snip!] ... want to believe. its a huge human rights/genital autonomy issue. there is no reason to be circd unless a rare medical reason."


Thank you for the link. I think some of those facts might sway DH a bit.

Subtle As A Hurricane 2 kids; Texas 4126 posts
19th Sep '13
Quoting ((-We Did It!-)):" I don't have anything reliable for you to read, sorry about that. But I do want to share my experience. ... [snip!] ... a medical purpose anymore. Hence the reason a lot of insurance won't cover it, it's becoming more of a cosmetic procedure."


I've heard they don't get anything to numb the area during the procedure. Knowing that it's actually true makes me feel sick. :?

Subtle As A Hurricane 2 kids; Texas 4126 posts
19th Sep '13
Quoting Allissa Specht:" I have been with many men who are circ'd and NEVER had a sexual problem. I have been with men who weren't, ... [snip!] ... a personal decision. One that you and your husband need to make TOGETHER. Don't worry about anyone else. It's not their child."


That's my goal, but he seems to have made up his mind to circumcise based on "medical information" that is at least 30 years old. :? He needs to realize what his parents were supposedly told is no longer accurate, so I need as much information as possible to combat this. DH is also incredibly stubborn. :x