Circumcised vs. Uncircumcised

There has been much debate throughout the last century, and probably even longer, about whether circumcision is the best, and more importantly, the healthiest decision to make for your newborn baby boy. Most Christians, I believe, will tell you that in Genesis 17:11, God said to Abraham "You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you." Genesis 17:12 goes on to say "For the generations to come, every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household...." However, this article is not intended to be about religious beliefs of any religion, but simply the pros and cons of circumcision, and which decision is best for newborn baby boys.

Let us first begin with the definition of circumcision. According to the WebMD, "circumcision is an elective surgery to remove the foreskin, a fold of skin that covers and protects the rounded tip of the penis."� Is this surgery necessary to live a normal life as a male human being? No, in fact, according to the University of Michigan Health System, only 60% of American males are circumcised now compared to 90% in 1979.� It is just a matter of the different pros and cons that go with being circumcised or uncircumcised that make people choose one procedure over the other.

One of the first reasons that circumcisions were performed was for religious reasons. After that, it was at first believed that circumcision helped prevent sexually transmitted diseases. This belief was extremely popular in English-speaking nations. It has been disproved, of course, and research shows us that there is no difference in being uncircumcised and circumcised when it comes to sexually transmitted diseases.

Once again, University of Michigan's Health System tells us that there are at least three purposes of the foreskin.

Number one is that it protects the head of the penis from urine, feces, and other irritation. Those that are circumcised simply wash off any irritants with soap and water. However, uncircumcised males are still required to wash to maintain healthy personal hygiene. When considering circumcision for this reason, ask yourself "Is it easier to have to pull the foreskin back and wash, or to just wash without having any foreskin there?"

Up next, it protects against infection or scarring of the urinary opening. While this may sound like a good reason to keep your child uncircumcised at the surface, it is extremely unlikely that either of these are going to happen to your little boy. An infection or scarring of the urinary opening is extremely rare, and is hardly heard of in the medical community.

Finally, the third purpose of the foreskin is to protect the sensitivity of the top of the penis. Most males know that the top of the penis is extremely sensitive, and the foreskin is there to protect that sensitivity. I cannot find a disadvantage of having the sensitivity protected, however, as circumcised men know, this is not absolutely necessary, if you follow general precautions.

The only pro of being circumcised that University of Michigan's Health System (UMHS) doesn't discount as rare is the effect of harassment of uncircumcised males by circumcised peers when they are in the shower or in locker rooms. Most young children and adolescents do not like being made fun of, and this can cause sometimes-extreme emotional distress in young boys taking their first steps into adulthood.

UMHS also states that being circumcised also prevents urinary tract infections (UTIs) during the first year of life for male children. They discount this pro by saying that UTIs are rare in the first year of life. While this occurrence may be rare, if a male has ever had a UTI, he knows it is painful. I can imagine if it's painful for an adult male, just how painful it must be for an infant to have one. When considering the pro, ask yourself "Can I prevent it from even happening?" Yes, you can, with a circumcision. This will turn a rare occurrence into a no-occurrence.

Let's turn to the cons of circumcision. UMHS lists the first con as problems during surgery. However, this is extremely rare and in most cases, it is caused by less-than-sanitary hospital and treatment conditions. Next, UMHS lists the pain that the surgical procedure causes the child. I will agree that the procedure causes pain, however most doctors will use an anesthetic to ease the pain. Also, I believe that the pain incurred here is less painful to a little child than a pain from a Urinary Tract Infection would be.

The third thing we're told is the issue of the cost and who will pay for it. UMHS tells us that many insurance companies won't pay for the circumcision. This is and isn't true. If your child's doctor deems a circumcision medically necessary (as they do, in certain cases), then more than likely, your insurance carrier will pay for the cost of the surgery. Also, TriCare and Public Employees Insurance Association (PEIA), and several other companies still pay for the surgery, even if it's not medically necessary. If you find that you're company won't pay for it, talk to your doctor and see if he or she can explain to the insurance company about the preventative benefits of circumcision. More than likely, your insurance company will see that this simple procedure could save them money down the road, if any problems should happen to occur if the baby is left uncircumcised.

Finally, UMHS states that a decision must be made quickly about a circumcision. They come to this conclusion because if you leave your child uncircumcised, and then decide to have it done later on, general anesthesia must be used if the child is older than two months. However, parents have at least nine months to make the decision, and if the pregnancy is a planned one, they have even longer. I know that parents don't find out whether it's a boy or girl until the ultrasound, or they may choose not to find out until birth. However, discussing whether your baby should be circumcised or not should begin as soon as you begin planning a pregnancy, and this will save the stress of a last minute decision. If you happen to have a girl, then of course, you don't have to worry about the circumcision. At least you were prepared if it were a boy.

In conclusion, it would seem to me that having a circumcision would be best, because I believe the pros outweigh the cons. However, this is not a decision for me to make for someone else. You must sit down yourself, talk the issue over with your significant other or any family members involved, and make the decision for yourself. No article, University scholar, or any person associated with the medical community should make the decision for you. Keep in mind the pros and cons, do some research yourself, and make an informed decision about your child.