A Delicate Issue Regarding Delicate Tissue

OK, so as you know I now no I'm the father of a boy and--per the ultrasound--he's got boy parts. So, now I have to make a decision: cut or no-cut.

Here's my opening gambit.
-------
Sarah got a pamphlet on circumcision today at here appt. Based on it and a bit of a web search it seems like the mainline medical community has adopted a “stop the circumcisions now” policy. This bugs me since the ideology seems to have moiled the arguments (I ought to receive some kind of prize for that pun). For I lean about 65% against, but I don’t want to be associated with the kind of nonsense in this pamphlet.

My reasoning is basically this:

1. Medical procedures shouldn’t be done unless there is some compelling reason to do so.
2. There’s no compelling reason to do circumcision (in normal cases).
3. So the circumcision shouldn’t be done.

I don’t remember if we talked about this or not so I don’t know if the boys are au naturale or what. My brief success with Isaiah peeing (now surely to be judged a coincidence) did not give me any evidence one way or the other, since, at least from my small sample of evidence, little kids have yet to inherit their endowment and it’s all mush and skin anyway.

So on behalf of 2:

The reasons to do so would surely be either religious, medical, or cultural, but:
*The Council of Jerusalem specifically says we goyim don’t need to be circumcised.
*Official “Big Medicine” says it’s not medically necessary.

So that leaves cultural reasons. Interestingly circumcision is quite varied by region, but on overall decline to barely over half in the US highest in the Midwest and very low in the West—less than 1 in 3. Since I don’t know where we’ll end up, it doesn’t seem that the cultural reasons can be much of a factor. STATS

Here's what a good friend of mine had to say:
----------------
We decided for it. Our reasons were,1. Social disutility associated with uncircumcision.2. Health issues associated with uncircumcision.a. An uncircumcised person needs to pull back the foreskin and make sure it’s clean. Not doing this can lead to bad infections. Problems of this sort occur primarily in the early years up to the teen years and in old age when the man can no longer clean himself. b. A related issue here is the parent having to remind the child to “pull back the foreskin”. This can create odd situations, as you can imagine.c. There’s a slightly greater risk of cancer for an uncircumcised person.3. Sexual disutility, at least for the wife. Problems relating to premature ejaculation are very high among uncircumcised males. Also it can be “unsightly” for the wife.All in all we judged that the benefits didn’t outweigh the costs.------------
Here's my reply:

Interesting. Anti-Circs argue that sex is better for the man if the glans is kept soft by the foreskin, but let’s face it, it’s *always* better for the man! I think when guys get too old to clean themselves people have to clean there anyway and if someone’s already willing to do that then… I suppose the kid case is a bit more delicate but no more so than what Sarah has to do with the girls—lots of folds of skin you know.The social disutility is very hard to weigh. There wouldn’t be much worse than being teased by peers about that, but circumcision rates vary by region.I was really surprised to see that it was so low in the South. Studies which break regions up to include the Midwest by itself show that it’s the highest by far. It’s clearly declining and I can’t think of any good reason why this wouldn’t continue.Since there seems to be a prima facie reason to keep it we probably wont do it unless there’s a compelling reason not to and all the arguments pro and con seem to be a draw to me. What’s funny is how mad some people get about it. The #1 reason I’d go ahead and do it now is the whacko mentality of most of the anti-circ crowd.---------

This is an interesting case-study in decision making. There'll be more about this.