Should I circumcise my baby?
Summary of the whole site. Here's what actually gets cited on each side, in plain terms; one sentence each, with a link to the full page and its sources if you want more than that.
We highly encourage parents to consider what would the child statisitically choose, if the choice is up to them they generally choose to keep it whole.
- A lower chance of infant UTI; about one prevented case per 111 circumcisions.
See the numbers → - Avoids a small chance (about 1 in 167) that an intact boy later needs treatment for phimosis.
See the numbers → - A modest, contested link to lower penile cancer risk in one meta-analysis: the effect didn't hold up once phimosis history was accounted for.
See the caveat → - Religious or cultural practice, for many families.
Read this site's view on that → - “Easier hygiene” is the most repeated reason although intact care turns out to be almost nothing.
See what it actually involves →
- It's a permanent decision about someone else's body, made before he can weigh in.
Read the argument → - A real surgical complication rate (roughly 3.3%), plus one that rarely makes the list: meatal stenosis, found in 7-18% of circumcised boys when anyone checks for it.
See the numbers → - It removes tissue with important and measurable functions, including the mechanism that lets the foreskin glide over the shaft. Plus it has some of the most nerve-dense sites on the penis.
See the diagram → - The two largest Western studies on HIV/STI risk found no benefit; one found no association, the other a real increase in risk.
Read the studies → - In countries where the choice is actually left to the adult, most men choose to stay intact.
See the comparison →
What the two largest western STI studies found
Some studies in Africa found a protective effect for adult circumcision against HIV in high-prevalence settings. Quoted directly from each paper's own abstract, here's what the two largest studies actually done in a Western context found instead:
Denmark · national cohort
…non-therapeutic circumcision in infancy or childhood did not appear to provide protection against HIV or other STIs in males up to the age of 36 years. Rather, non-therapeutic circumcision was associated with higher STI rates overall, particularly for anogenital warts and syphilis.
Canada · Ontario population cohort
We found that circumcision was not independently associated with the risk of acquiring HIV among males from Ontario, Canada. Our results are consistent with clinical guidelines that emphasize safe-sex practices and counseling over circumcision as an intervention to reduce the risk of HIV.
Full sourcing and every number on the Data, Visualized page →
If you want a bit more info
Why this matters Has links to the rest of the case. If you're curious about what the care is if intact: Care & Hygiene . It's less than you'd think.