Okay, so I'm trying to get my thoughts and feelings on this down. Dave and I just had a discussion on the topic last night. And a friend sent me an email regarding this topic this morning. Over the past 3 years, my views on routine infant circumcision (RIC) have changed dramatically. When our oldest son was born almost 6 years ago, I didn't think twice about having him circumcised. I did wonder for a little while about why RIC wasn't performed in Germany (where I'm from), but I figured people in the US must know what they're doing. And all my nephews were circumcised, so I just never questioned the practice. All was fine and dandy, and then Bryan came along. Like his brother, he was circ'ed when he was just a day old. After the surgery, the dr. came in and told me that his glans was unusually big, and she had had a hard time fitting the clamp. So his glans was bruised. Meaning half of it looked totally butchered. I felt so bad for the little guy. It took about two months to heal completely, and there were several times where it looked like it was getting infected. Red, inflamed, oozing. That experience led me to question RIC. Why were we doing this to our sons? What was the benefit of having it done? I soon came to the realization that there are no benefits to RIC. It's cosmetic surgery, that's all. It's cutting off a perfectly normal part of a little boy's body. A part, I might add, that has a purpose. That's not just a piece of skin. Quite honestly, I feel that agreeing to have my sons circ'ed was probably the worst mistake I've ever made. I don't dwell on it, as what's done is done, and there's nothing I can do to change it now. I will, however, be an advocate for any future sons we may have. I don't want them to be mutilated, for the sake of "tradition" or "cleanliness".
The Case Against Circumcision explains in more detail why I feel the way I do. :o)