Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Marduk wrote:Now I want to ask about circumcision after birth, but I'm worried it might blow up the internet.

Bahaha. Ironically, I'm facing that decision right now. I'm... not looking forward to it. I'll be honest.

I want birth to be institutionalized! I like modern medicine and premature babies not dying, thanks! I see no evidence that a birth not attended by a physician is NOT more dangerous than the alternative -- seems selfish.

Also, a friend of some of best friends does midwifery for "orgasmic childbirths." So there's that.

Portia, I'd argue with you on this, but I see no point. You're firm in your belief, which is slightly humorous to me as you don't want children and seem highly opinionated about something that may or may not ever apply to you. I don't think anything I say would change your mind. I don't see a debate with you about it serving any purpose. I'll just state my opinion that, depending on the OB and the hospital, birth can definitely have more risks when attended by a physician. Not that it *does* ... just that it *can.*

Do you have data?

Also, I said I might not want children, not that I am 100% certain I never will.

An attitude of distrusting the medical establishment can have real, bad consequences. Look at the hysteria over vaccinations because a "mother's intuition" was deemed more reliable than, say, not reintroducing measles and mumps and killing children.

I think I'm the only one with (young) boys, Marduk. I'll tell you what we did if you're curious, but there wasn't a lot of philosophy behind it. I've had friends and family on both sides of the issue who feel much more passionately about it than I do.

Portia wrote:Do you have data?

I could find some. But I'm not going to. Because I have no desire to debate this.

I will tell a story, though. Now up front I'm going to point out that this is my uncle's birth story and birth procedures have changed a billion times for the better since he was born in 1921. Leaps and bounds. But you claimed that no birth not attended by a physician could be safer than one with. I would posit that almost any birth would be safer than one attended by this physician.

This was back in the day when women were completely put under anesthesia when in labor. My grandmother had 7 children and never was conscious for a birth. The contractions of the woman and the pulling of the doctor were the only thing that got a baby out at that time. Grandma has no memory of her oldest son's birth, but some time after he was born, the nurse confided to her how her oldest son was born. The doctor had other things to do and didn't want to wait for her body to push out the baby to the point that he could use forceps or a vacuum to pull him out the rest of the way. So he had the nurse climb on top of my grandmother and push the baby down from the outside. As soon as he saw the baby, he forcibly removed him, not waiting for contractions to help with the removal.

Grandma later found out that the same doctor, in his impatience to get a baby out, grabbed the baby by the head and yanked and ripped off the baby's head.

Today that doctor would lose his license in a heartbeat. Then he did not and continued to practice for years.

I repeat: I am not comparing that doctor to today's practices. But I am going to continue to believe that a doctor can be stupid and certain practices can be more damaging for a woman and her baby than not having a physician. Most are not. And to be fair, a midwife can be equally as stupid and dangerous. Perhaps more so in some situations. But I'm not going to buy into the belief that all OBs are saints and perfect and always act in the best interest of the mother and baby instead of in best interest of time, money, and convenience.

Hey everyone on this thread: I've read with interest. Thanks for your informed opinions. I read Dragon Lady's blog regarding her second birth (hi, DL!) and that was the first time I even considered that home birth or laboring with few interventions was not completely insane. I actually watched The Business of Being Born just a few weeks ago, and so the different and pretty balanced opinions have been interesting for me. I'm nowhere near having to make decisions for myself, but I just appreciate knowing that I Have Choices, which I honestly never really considered before.

I had one more thought on circumcision: not all insurances cover it, so that's always something to check on if a person is considering it.

TheBlackSheep wrote:Hey everyone on this thread: I've read with interest. Thanks for your informed opinions. I read Dragon Lady's blog regarding her second birth (hi, DL!) and that was the first time I even considered that home birth or laboring with few interventions was not completely insane. I actually watched The Business of Being Born just a few weeks ago, and so the different and pretty balanced opinions have been interesting for me. I'm nowhere near having to make decisions for myself, but I just appreciate knowing that I Have Choices, which I honestly never really considered before.

[hug] Thanks! Hearing that gave me some much-needed warm fuzzies tonight.

thatonemom wrote:I think I'm the only one with (young) boys, Marduk. I'll tell you what we did if you're curious, but there wasn't a lot of philosophy behind it. I've had friends and family on both sides of the issue who feel much more passionately about it than I do.

I'm the same way (I have friends/family with more passionate opinions on both sides.)

It just... it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. I don't get it. Right now I'm leaning towards not, simply because if you're not that sold on something, it seems like the way to go is to not opt in, instead of opting in.

I think you should circumcise. I'm not going to get into all the personal details about why this is good for your future son's future sexual partners, but, suffice to say, it's just a really, really, REALLY good idea. (And the details have nothing to do with looks, just FYI)

Hrmm, that's odd, because I've heard women say the exact opposite, for the same reason.

I've had a fairly solid number of sexual partners, and I've never encountered an uncut penis in the wild. My best friend is strongly against circumcision my boyfriend is strongly for -- I don't have a strong opinion, although botched circumcisions frighten me.

I have already decided I'm going to let my husband make this call. He has more insight into how this affects our sons' daily lives, and I don't really care. I have no moral objection to either option, so I'll let the most qualified of us choose. Of course, this is all hypothetical. Maybe the guy I end up with will also not care at all. Then I have no idea how I'll decide.

There have been some research studies that found circumcised men were less likely to get STI's or urinary tract infections. Also that their partners might have lower risks of cervical cancer. (source)

This is the American Academy of Pediatric's most recent statement on circumcision, if anyone was curious:

After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.

I have to say, I really like the idea of the penis being easier to clean while my son's in diapers. I was once interviewing for a nanny position for a little boy, and his mother had to give me specific instructions on changing his diaper.

The risks aren't nominal, either, but hard statistics are hard to come by. It can lead to loss of sexual function (well, future sexual function) and even death. I see it like any other cosmetic procedure, which is why I'm wary to choose it for someone else.

The only guy I've known who had sexual function problems was not circumcised, so my experience says "just do it." And my poor professor's son was uncircumcised, his foreskin got so infected it covered his urethra, and he had to get it done when he was 5. He was old enough to remember the fear and pain. I'd rather have it down when he won't remember anything.