Circumcision question

It is highly unlikely that any internationally adopted child will be circumcised. Circumcision is not a routine procedure in the countries from which most Americans adopt. In fact, the U.S. probably has the highest rate of circumcision in the world. The American Academy of Pediatrics has indicated its belief that circumcision is unnecessary for most boys, and should generally be performed only if deemed necessary for religious reasons or for specific medical indications. There is no evidence that, generally speaking, circumcision improves health, and hygiene is really no more difficult for the uncircumcised male than for the circumcised one. A study in Africa, undertaken among adult heterosexual men who routinely have unprotected sex with multiple partners, including prostitutes, does show that circumcision can reduce the likelihood that a man will acquire HIV in this situation. However, there is no evidence at this time that the conclusions will be valid for American men who do not frequent prostitutes or have unprotected sex with multiple partners. I have a daughter and no sons, but if I had a son, I would circumcise him; however, the reason is purely religious. I am Jewish, and male circumcision is an important part of Jewish tradition. Jews believe that the Biblical Abraham, who is often considered the first Jew, circumcised himself and the males in his household as a sign that he entered into a covenant with God to accept monotheism and other signficant beliefs and practices. If I were not Jewish, I probably would not circumcise. I'm a single woman, so there would be no concern, in our household, about having a boy who "resembled Daddy" in this regard. And nowadays, it is becoming less of an issue for uncircumcised boys in locker room situations, since there are likely to be other boys present, who are also uncircumcised. Although I have my own feelings on this subject, I would never question someone else's right to circumcise or not circumcise his/her son. And I certainly do not think that legislation prohibiting male circumcision is appropriate; the decision to circumcise or not circumcise is a highly personal one, and each family should weigh the pros and cons. Sharon

Probably not. In Central and South America little boys are left intact.

Thank you for the responses. I had a feeling boys were not circumcised. My husband is Jewish, but he does not practice. It will be something we need to really consider. Thank you for the input.

That's actually very outdated information. They're now on the fence with a list of medical benefits and also some cons and only conclude parents should make their own informed choice on the matter. They are leaning towards recommending, last I read, but have not actually taken that step yet. I chose not to circumcize and then stopped following so as not to second guess my decision. My understanding is that most Columbian males are not circumcised.

The last part is not true. I got this information from the AAP website: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision

Honestly, I think it is just a personal choice, what your family wants and what the child wants (if they are old enough to have an opinion) Our son was two when we brought him home. No way was I going to risk that he would REMEMBER having this done to him, so we left him as he was. If our surprise bio is a boy, we will probably leave him uncirc'd too, just because that's the choice we made with his brother. There is lots of data out there supporting both sides... I think it just comes down to a personal choice.

Shonda, when we adopted Jackson last year he was NOT circumcised. It is not routinely done in Colombia like it is in the U.S. He was just over a year old when we brought him home and we consulted with our pediatrician about it. What we found out was that our insurance company (and most others) at this point consider the procedure to be "cosmetic" and thus will not cover it. So we would have to pay out of pocket for the whole thing, including anesthesia, because at his age they would put him to sleep for the operation. Our pediatrician assured us that circumcision is not truly medically necessary unless the child begins to have problems, such as frequent urinary tract infections or something. I'd that were the case, our insurance would probably cover the procedure if it was considered medically necessary. I'm happy to say Jackson has had not problems whatsoever. I clean him extra well after he has a bowel movement, and when he is older I will teach him how to properly care for and clean himself. I think a law banning circumcision is a little extreme; it should be a private decision made by the family. But we have had no problems or issues with the fact that our son is not circumcised.

Thank you for the replies. I know this is a very personnel subject and I appreciate your sharing. I agree that a law banning circumcision is a bit extreme, but it did make me think about the subject. If we are referred a little boy, I think we will keep him intact. I can not imagine putting a little boy through a surgery that is not medically necessary.