MotherNurture
18-12-2006, 08:39
I've read many suggestions that the earlier circumcision is done, the better...primarily based on the acknowledgment that yes, it's painful and an infant is unlikely to form a conscious memory of the traumatic event.
What this argument doesn't take into consideration is that babies are not routinely tested for bleeding disorders prior to newborn circumcision, and even a completely healthy baby can hemorrhage during the surgery. The entire blood volume of the average newborn could be contained in a soda-pop can.
Another issue parents should think about when considering circumcising an infant or young child is the very real risk of meatal stenosis. Meatal stenosis happens because the glans (head) and urinary meatus (pee-hole) are meant to be protected, and circumcision permanently exposes these structures that are designed by nature to be internal. Because of this, urine can ulcerate the tip of the penis, resulting in scar tissue that begins to block the flow ofurine. It generally requires corrective surgery, sometimes under general anesthesia. Meatal stenosis is the most common complication of circumcision, affecting 10% of boys.
http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2356.htm
It would seem like the earlier a circumcision is performed, the greater amount of exposure between the meatus and the diaper environment.
When babies are born, their arms and legs are naturally flexed from being snug inside the uterus. It takes some time-usually weeks-months-for babies to 'unfold'. For newborns, being unwrapped, spread-eagle, outstretched, and strapped to a rigid, molded plastic restraint board is obviously uncomfortable and distressing.
While infants may not form conscious memories of the circumcision experience, it's wise to be aware that circumcision is indeed for many children where sexuality and violence first meet. Babies are growing and developing rapidly, brains rapidly forming connections, every experience is a lesson about our world, trust, safety, relationships...
I once heard/read that (male) alcoholism is rare in Jewish populations, attributed by many to babies being given wine for their ritual circumcisions (typically at 8 days old), and forming an early connection between alcohol and the painful experience. There could certainly be something to that...
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/
http://www.birthpsychology.com/birthscene/circ.html
Circumcision is unnecessary; many of us make great efforts to usher our children into existance as gently and naturally as possible. We trust that our own bodies are powerful and capable; nature knows best. I think it's thought-provoking to consider circumcision of infants in this light and to remember that only 1% of males will ever need to be circumcised for medical reasons.
Truthfully, rather than being an issue of 'now or later', circumcision is now or never. Few adult men would willingly part with their foreskins without a pressing medical indication. Thus, it's probably reasonable to assume that if given a choice our sons would appreciate intact, whole, fully-functional genitals.
Jen
What this argument doesn't take into consideration is that babies are not routinely tested for bleeding disorders prior to newborn circumcision, and even a completely healthy baby can hemorrhage during the surgery. The entire blood volume of the average newborn could be contained in a soda-pop can.
Another issue parents should think about when considering circumcising an infant or young child is the very real risk of meatal stenosis. Meatal stenosis happens because the glans (head) and urinary meatus (pee-hole) are meant to be protected, and circumcision permanently exposes these structures that are designed by nature to be internal. Because of this, urine can ulcerate the tip of the penis, resulting in scar tissue that begins to block the flow ofurine. It generally requires corrective surgery, sometimes under general anesthesia. Meatal stenosis is the most common complication of circumcision, affecting 10% of boys.
http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2356.htm
It would seem like the earlier a circumcision is performed, the greater amount of exposure between the meatus and the diaper environment.
When babies are born, their arms and legs are naturally flexed from being snug inside the uterus. It takes some time-usually weeks-months-for babies to 'unfold'. For newborns, being unwrapped, spread-eagle, outstretched, and strapped to a rigid, molded plastic restraint board is obviously uncomfortable and distressing.
While infants may not form conscious memories of the circumcision experience, it's wise to be aware that circumcision is indeed for many children where sexuality and violence first meet. Babies are growing and developing rapidly, brains rapidly forming connections, every experience is a lesson about our world, trust, safety, relationships...
I once heard/read that (male) alcoholism is rare in Jewish populations, attributed by many to babies being given wine for their ritual circumcisions (typically at 8 days old), and forming an early connection between alcohol and the painful experience. There could certainly be something to that...
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/
http://www.birthpsychology.com/birthscene/circ.html
Circumcision is unnecessary; many of us make great efforts to usher our children into existance as gently and naturally as possible. We trust that our own bodies are powerful and capable; nature knows best. I think it's thought-provoking to consider circumcision of infants in this light and to remember that only 1% of males will ever need to be circumcised for medical reasons.
Truthfully, rather than being an issue of 'now or later', circumcision is now or never. Few adult men would willingly part with their foreskins without a pressing medical indication. Thus, it's probably reasonable to assume that if given a choice our sons would appreciate intact, whole, fully-functional genitals.
Jen