I've got 2 sons that are circumsized, one that is not. My insurance wouldn't cover the cost of the procedure for the youngest. If it had, he would have been. Simply so that he would be more like his brothers an it wouldn't make him feel weird amongst other boys.

Infection tends to happen when it's not properly taken care of. If kept clean an dry infection shouldn't happen. There's also the risk of infection if not circumsized. I've seen that happen with young boys quite often. I'd rather have a boy circumsized as an infant, then have to have it done at the age of 2 or 3 yrs old. Alot more painful an skeery to them then.

Bottom line, Millions of jews, over hundreds of years can't be wrong.

But those who misinterpret the procedure can be. I once read a piece by a rabbi which described the jewish version as being merely the removal of a tiny piece of flesh, not the whole foreskin. Paul(the apostle of Chirst) later says in his writings that the Christian is circumcised in the spirit when he accepts the holy spirit (thus non-jews need not be cut), while the jew is circumcised in the flesh. (I don't recall the exact passage)

I didn't have my sons done for religious reasons. I had it done for what I felt were medical an personal reasons.

I didn't have my sons done for religious reasons. I had it done for what I felt were medical an personal reasons.

If you have time and patience, perhaps you could elaborate on how you reconciled the inherent ethical problems with this? (i.e. performing an unnecessary procedure on someone without their permission that has known potential for harm, altering another person's body unnecessarily without their consent, etc). Please stick to rational ethics and reasoning, if you can. Thanx.