See, I'm a mom of daughters. I never had to argue about circumcision. I did, though... just in case. I couldn't face finding out the gender of my children (specifically the second and third - with the first I would have gone with the flow, and to this day I'm so thankful that she was a girl) without this decision, or rather, NONdecision, being made. It's a nondecision because the default is to leave our child alone, as he was when he entered this world, intact.
My biggest arguement against circumcision, as a nurse, is the pain aspect. Why on earth would a parent choose to subject their child to medically unnecessary surgery and inherent pain? It's a question that baffles my mind, frankly. It's not broken, so don't "fix" it. I also believe that it's not my body, therefore permanent cosmetic alterations are not my choice to make.
Further, I've never seen any good arguements FOR circumcising. All the typical ones I've heard don't hold water with me. Fitting in, and to look like Dad, just don't make any sense, and it is NOT easier to care for the circumcised penis. The pseudo-medical rationale of preventing UTI's, cancer and HIV are all flawed as well.
To "fit in"? My mother had this done to my brother to "fit in", yet she wouldn't buy me Calvin Kleins... which do YOU think was actually relevent to "fitting in"? The pants, or what's IN the pants? For what it's worth, I don't think either of us fit in particularly well - we were both geeks.
To look like Dad? I'd prefer that Dad shave off all his body hair, change his eye colour, hair colour, shape of his nose and whatever else to look like son. Makes sense now, no? I've never heard of penis-comparing-parties within families... and differences are easily explained.
Because it's easier to care for? Wow... where to begin.
How hard is wiping gently? The intact penis takes no more care than (the typical comparison, I guess because of the shape?!?) a finger. Except on the finger you WILL have to do some snipping at some point, so it's actually even LESS work than caring for a finger. You wipe. That's it. The foreskin is there to protect the penis from dirt. Smegma is a good thing. It oozes out to excrete urine and any stool that might, strangely, get under there. However, it won't if not retracted because the unretracted foreskin of an infant is fused to the glans of the penis, specifically to keep stool out. Do not retract, just wipe and go.
Whereas with the circumcised penis, you do have to do wound care for a week or so. Then as the penis tries to heal itself and the foreskin readheres to the head of the penis, you'll have to force retraction and apply vaseline or neosporin to keep it from adhering again at every diaper change. Which sounds easier?
To protect against UTIs? The incidence of any male getting a UTI is less than 1%. Significantly less than for a female. The majority of infants getting UTI's have structural abnormalities as it is, and circumcision will not in any way prevent a UTI when there is kidney reflux. The incidence per the AAP, last I saw, was 0.1-0.2% of circumcised males will get a UTI in their first year, versus 0.7-1.4% of intact males (not very exact, considering the rates of UTI in males are so low). Scary numbers? I think not... but when it's sold as "ten times as likely", then yeah, it sounds scary. Bottom line, your infant is unlikely to get a UTI, and if they DO, you treat the infection, it's not hard. If they have repeated infections, then a VCUG is warranted to rule out structural anomalies.
As a matter of fact, the foreskin plays a role in the immune system of the body. The foreskin serves as a physical barrier to infectious agents, and smegma has antibacterial lysozomes. Drs. Paul Fleiss, MD and Frederick Hodges, D.Phil. stated in their book "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision"
Apart from its lubricating function, smegma has antibacterial effects, most especially during infancy. Antibacterial substances are passed from mother to child during breast-feeding and are secreted in the baby's urine. Breast-fed babies receive substantial amounts of beneficial compounds called oligosaccharides. When ingested, these compounds are secreted in the urine where they prevent certain types of bacteria from adhering to the urinary tract and the inner lining of the foreskin. Animal experiments have found that special cells called plasma cells in the inner fold of the foreskin secrete a compound called immunoglobulin. These secretions protect the penis against harmful bacteria. It is interesting to note that these antibacterial secretions increase in response to bacterial invasion. (http://www.twbookmark.com/books/70/0446678805/chapter_excerpt15690.html)
Penile cancer? HIV? Okay, penile cancer rates are tiny... (American Cancer Society states 1 in 200,000 men will get penile cancer) but yes, it makes sense that if something isn't there, you won't get cancer in it. So you've decreased the existing penile tissue, however the penis still exists, the risk of cancer still exists. Oh, but I could go have a double mastectomy once my kids are done breastfeeding! I won't need those suckers anymore and the incidence of breast cancer are astronomical by comparison! But I won't, of course, it's a fairly absurd notion... so why isn't circumcising an equally absurd idea?
As for HIV, the studies conducted in Africa are not generalizable to our population, and from what I can see are inherently flawed. To say that circumcision protects agains HIV is misleading and irresponsible. What protects against HIV is safe sex and universal precautions when dealing with body fluid.
Okay, deep breath... and now with my soapbox firmly stuck to my feet, I'll wrap up.
Should I have had a son there is no way I would have inflicted the pain of medically unnecessary, permanent cosmetic surgery on him. It's his body, it's his choice.