Don't do it until you're out of medical school.
You already know why.

Nope. As more people learn about circumcision, they are learning that the harms and risk of complications outweigh any benefits. Many young men are questioning their parents why they were circumcised when there was so little, if any, true benefit to the surgery. They are questioning why their parents consented to the surgery when there was all sorts of information available about how circumcision is primarily a cosmetic surgery performed for the benefit of the parents.

As you noted, the CDC recently announced that the male infant circumcision rate is down to 33%. That means that intact boys will be in the majority and circumcised boys will be the ones that are different.

Bottom line, the baby is healthy and so is his sex organ. He is the one who will be using that sex organ, not his parents. Let your son keep his whole sex organ. He will appreciate that when he gets older.

Well, of course, she sees the older kids as higher in the social hierarchy and the younger ones as subhumans with no rights. She wants to please and get in with the older kids. But why is she so emotional about it?
A three year old can't understand the concept of treating everyone fairly but they can understand the concept of rules which apply to everyone. No hitting, no pushing, no grabbing, etc.
It sounds like you have been consistent with this but the behavior continues. I want to know why she is so emotional about it?
Perhaps getting her to talk about her ideas about little kids would help you understand. Get out some baby dolls, some play dough, some dress ups, doll houses and play with the idea of little kids. Take turns pretending to be a littler kid. She should give you some suggestions about her concepts.
Then after you get a clear idea you could begin to plan ways to teach her healthier ways to feel about and relate to these younger people.
Does that help?

no, you are not a bad parent and healthy children born during medical school will be fine. I suggest that you and your husband focus on doing what you can to support the marriage through stressful times.

For most people in their late 20's, I would tell them that there was no rush, and they had plenty of years of fertility left, so it would make sense to finish school first. (In addition to your worries about whether it would be fair to baby, I would also add in the fact that newborn babies take far more of the parents' energy and attention than any parent was prepared for... most new parents find it difficult to juggle baby and work; or baby and school. So, would make school that much more challenging for you)

But, the fact that you have PCOS, and have already had fertility issues makes you a more complicated case... I would recommend that you consult with an allopathic fertility specialist, and also consider meeting with an acupuncturist and/or a naturopath who specializes in fertility to get their thoughts on the matter.

For more general thoughts about ways to enhance fertility whatever your age of health status, see http://www.transitiontoparenthood.com/ttp/parented/pregnancy/preconception.htm

I'm against infant circumcision. Janelle has provided a good outline, so I'll explain why in more detail.

I never really gave this subject much thought until, like Cagey, I spent time as a counselor on a Health & Wellness board and decided to go into pediatrics. I totally disagree with his observations, though. Hygiene shouldn't relate to circumcision. The penis should be washed once daily. That should be taught regardless of circumcision status; it's basic hygiene. As for the sensitivity arguments, I think the evidence is mixed, but I'd just warn against trusting anecdotal arguments either way.

The STI arguments are not especially more compelling either. In a developed country, you would have to perform something like 2,000 circumcisions to prevent one case of sexually-transmitted HIV. That's insanely inefficient from a public health standpoint. Imagine if we put that money into public health education instead of circumcision. Even from a cold, utilitarian standpoint, infant circumcision is bad public health policy.

The thing that pushes me to being completely opposed is a little less utilitarian: The informal polls on the health sites I've been on show that 15-30% of cut guys wish they weren't. There are reasonable arguments for and against circumcision. Most guys will be content either way. But individual choice is important on something this personal, and unless the justification against it is really compelling and urgent, it should be respected. Here, the argument against individual choice is just not strong enough.

There's two cents from a pre-med with too much free time over summer break. Happy to take any questions/comments.

Kids need time to just be kids, too, to just kick back and not have to think for awhile. If screentime is their downtime, let them have a little, so long as it isn't preventing them from getting their homework done. Don't let it become the only kind of downtime they have, but a total prohibition isn't realistic.

We all need some time to be non-productive, some unscheduled time. Just don't let them use the screens right before bed, put reasonable limits on types of games and programs, and reserve the right to further limit or prohibit screen use if it becomes an issue.

I see a lot of people who seem to think kids need to have a sanctioned activity for every second. I'd have gone crazy with that kind of overscheduling, and I think most kids would.

So what you're saying is that even if "none" is best, you're going to let them play anyway because of the money? Or because it was a gift? What happens when granny shows up with lawn darts?

And another factor here is how much time their peers spend playing games? Why does that matter?

See where I'm going with this is that the real issue here seems to be how much influence the grandparents and the kids' friends have. Is it really up to them?

The grandparents are always buying our kid things we don't want or need. We say "no". Or we sell the stuff on Craigslist or eBay, or give it to thrift stores, or throw it away. I think -- I hope -- eventually grandparents can be trained to stop buying things without discussing it first. But if not, well, too bad.

And what other kids are allowed to do is utterly, utterly irrelevant. Of course my kid learned long ago that if he doesn't like being different from other kids, he picked the wrong dad. He has his whole life to act like other people, but as long as he's under my care he's going to have to enjoy being something other than normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics basically concludes that although there are potential medical benefits, the evidence for them is not strong enough to recommend routine circumcision, given that circumcision, like all medical procedures, carries potential risks.

More from the AAP:
http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/prenatal/decisions-to-make/pages/Should-the-Baby-be-Circumcised.aspx

http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/prenatal/decisions-to-make/Pages/Circumcision.aspx

So, they say that it's up to the parents to decide, based on factors like religion and personal preference.

Those who choose to circumcise generally do it for religious reasons, or so baby will "look like dad" (presumably some years down the road, since he certainly won't right after birth....)

Those who choose not to circumcise are generally those who think if baby is healthy and does not need a medical intervention to stay healthy, then it does not make sense to have a medical intervention.

BTW, most insurance doesn't cover circ, and it can cost $250 - 500. Apparently it's worth calling around to different doctors who perform it to get the best deal.

When my husband (who's straight) had to take our daughters' female friends into a bathroom with him, he would have them use the stalls, and he would use the urinal or another stall while they were in there, behind closed doors. I don't think any of their parents were ever troubled by this.
I suppose if there were no stall doors, then whether he kept them in there with him, or had them wait outside would depend on how safe an environment he believed they were in... if it felt unsafe to leave them outside, I think safety wins out over propriety.

Set your own family limits and stick to them. It doesn't matter what other families are doing. It's your family, your rules. Period.

If your friends are asking you to take the kid to the bathroom, you are in charge of his safety. Keep the kid with you at all time, or at least in your sight.

So the kid stands to one side while you use the urinal. Big deal.

Your friends trust you. So don't worry about appearances. You are supervision a young child in their use of the bathroom. Period.

Circumcision has been practiced for health reasons for many decades.

Recently, some men have been suing their parents and medical authorities for cutting them as infants and removing some of their sexual sensitivity.

As a cut man, I can say I have never missed any lack of sensation due to a circumcision.

I think that most circumcised men who have spent part of their life un-cut, find that the ease of cleaning oneself far outweighs any loss of sensation.

As a counselor on another website, I frequently run into uninformed teen who don't understand that they must clean under the foreskin, or are complaining because their foreskin is too tight, or because there are attatchments that tug and are painful.

All arguements for early circumcision, in my book.

Perhaps others will differ...

At 7 years old, he should be able to handle his clothes and use the urinal/toilet without assistance. Obviously your friends trust you to accompany their kid to the bathroom, so I don't think you need to worry about the appearance of impropiety.

Just walk him to the bathroom, point him to a stall, and make sure he washes his hands after he is done. He's safer with you than without you, so don't get all weird and make him wait outside or something.

Seems like unless you are dressed like this guy while you use the bathroom, it should be fine for you to keep the kid in view.

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/8/4/f/84fe49e0050b7e8ef04e0045ebc3c650.gif

I heartily agree with the advice in the previous answers- balance with a breadth of other activities, no interference with morning and bedtime routines or meals, a reign on violence.

We have a "no screens day" each week during the school year. It's been Wednesdays the last couple of years. This applies to the adults as well. It creates an oasis of calm in the middle of the week.

Finally, there's a great parenting book by the child psychologist Anthony Wolf titled "It's not fair, Jeremy Spencer's parents let him stay up all night!". Every child knows a Jeremy Spencer whose parents let him do anything he wants. Stand firm.

If you were asking about children under the age of two, then I would say no screen time is best.
But, for older kids, I think it's a question of striking a reasonable balance in life. They should spend part of each day doing physical activity, part of each day being social with human beings, part of each day reading books, etc.
During the school year, my kids (13 and 17) don't have a lot of time left over after homework and extracurriculars, so screen time is their down time in the day - it's limited to less than an hour probably, and screens need to go off by 9:30 pm (they can then read for 30 minutes before bed, but going straight from screen to bed seems to make it hard to sleep.)
During the summer, the balance works out a little different. My oldest spent the entire month of July as a counselor-in-training at a theater camp, with no screen time, and LOTS of social time. So, when she came home from that, and bascially wanted to spend one entire day reading email / Facebook / web comics, and spend the next entire day playing video games, that seemed like a reasonable thing to me.
We do have rules about no screen time before school in the morning, and no screens at dinner time (for any of us... ) so that can be family connection time.
You have to find the balance that feels right for your family.

I don't think there is a rule for the number of minutes/hours kids that it is ok for kids to be on screens. Like so many things, it's about balance.

What are they doing on the screens?
Is screen time taking away from other healthy/important activities? (reading, homework, sleep, chores, family interaction) If so, that is too much screen time.
Is it enhancing healthy or important activities?

I am on the side that says "none" is the right amount of time to play violent video games.

As parents we don't want to control them but help them understand the healthy balance and make these decisions on their own.

Having the second child was one of the hardest decisions my husband and I made. Our first was super easy, very portable, and didn't actually make much of a dent in our lifestyle. But having 2 is HARD WORK, at least while they are little. My mother always said that one is easy, and having another is like having 5 more, and she was right. They are 3 years apart, and I can't imagine having them closer together - I can't take my eyes off the little one as he is pretty effing fearless. But from what I hear, it gets a lot easier as they get older.

Sooo - if health and finances are your biggest concerns: The first years of your second's life is an enormous energy drain, so I guess you have to factor that in to your overall health picture. Financially, the second is not a huge outlay of money provided you kept all the clothes and other crap from your first. If you're breastfeeding the first year, that saves a lot of money too. We don't pay for childcare though and don't really believe in paying for our kids college, so that saves us money.

But yeah, I would recommend 2. They are both so ready to be able to play with each other in a more interactive way - the little one's only 15 months, so he can't play legos with my 4 year old and my 4 year old can't do the piledrivers on the baby with full force quite yet, but in two years they should be playing together quite nicely and staying out of my hair.

I'm a younger sister too, and I can't imagine my life without my older sister.

I, personally, think it's best for children not to use pacifiers, but they are lifesavers for some families. Some of it depends on your daughter's temperament-- is she a fussy, easily disturbed child who cries a lot and often needs to be soothed (difficult temperament), or a generally relaxed and happy baby (easy temperament)? If she has a difficult temperament, a pacifier might be a great tool for calming her down and saving your sanity. Otherwise, why stick something in her mouth that she doesn't really need? The reason I don't like pacifiers is because I think children often end up with one stuck in their mouths all the time, restricting their ability to babble and experiment with early speech.

Embarrassing confession: I sucked my thumb until I was old enough to drive. For reals. (My sister did, too, now that I think about it.) I finally stopped in college, but it was a little weird at 21 to still occasionally wake up with a thumb in my mouth.

My parents never made a big deal about it, and I eventually outgrew it. And, it hasn't seemed to stunt my maturity in any real way. My guess is that if I had a pacifier, I would have stopped much, much earlier.

Have you talked to your sister at length about the HPV vaccine? I had a coworker who was extremely reticent to let her 17 and 18 year old daughters get it, but when I explained that it was a gift to their future selves, she changed her mind. She honestly didn't know that almost half the population carries HPV, that many of those people are asymptomatic, and that it can cause cervical cancer.

I presented it to her like this: of course you don't want your daughters having sex right now, and they know that, right? You've made that really clear, right? But you also know that at some point they're going to meet someone, fall in love with him, and get sexual with him, right? It might still be a few years from now, I told her (knowing full well it won't), but by making sure they're vaccinated now you're ensuring their future health and well-being.

I wound up the pitch by telling her about a woman I interpreted for, a woman who'd had one sexual partner in her whole life who was also the father of her two children, ages 7 and 11. This woman had stage 4 cancer that started out as cervical cancer, and she was dying. The father of her kids had bailed, she was an illegal immigrant here and had no family support at all, and she was beside herself wondering what was going to happen to her children when she died. Had the HPV vaccine been available when she was younger, this tragedy could have been avoided. "She's had one sexual partner her whole life," I told my conservative friend, "Do you want this to happen to your daughters?"

I've hesitated to answer this because I don't have all the answers. I do like the complete answers that Chris, Janelle and the other writers give below.
My addition is to work with her teachers, schools, parent groups, teams, neighborhood etc. to develop a culture that discourages bullying, put downs, and in groups.

I'd like to know WHY your neice is confiding these things in you. Have you encouraged it? Are you a "co-plotter" with her? Does she feel safe that you won't rat her out? Or is she testing you?

Why in the world would she tell you if a GUY was asking HER to buy a dildo for him? To shock you? To see how it's done? To groan with her? There must be some precident that makes her think this is an OK topic with you.

I agree that you need to level with her that you're uncomfortable being given dynomite and not being able to share it with her parental unit. Make sure she understands what kind of position this is putting you in. Then the two of you will have to come to a decision about "secrets" in the future... will she share with you, or does she want to keep her own counsel?

I'm betting that she wants to confide in someone, and will guard what she shares, if only to keep you in her inner circle.

No thanks, I gave them up YEARS ago...

Our son is over 2 and relies on the pacifier to sleep and sometimes when he needs to calm down, but he doesn't have it all day long any more.

Our doctor pointed out that even if a pacifier (or thumb) distorts their palette, the very flexibility of that area which let it get deformed in the first place means that it will pop back into shape once they quit. But she also said dentists are more militant about the evils of sucking than MDs. So it depends on whom you consult for advice.

I'm rather sick of having to continually search for clean pacifiers around the house and having to have one ready when he is sleeping or about to sleep. But at the same time, it's nice to have one in my pocket when we go somewhere as a secret weapon in case of a tantrum. And we really relied on them to get him to sleep when he was 3 to 9 months old.

I don't understand why there might be any...
After all, we don't brand them with a scarlet "A" for adultry...

Nor do we know who was adopted (except for Dave Thomas, of course)...

Nor do we know who is still a virgin (unless they tell us)....

Why would we know someone was conceived from a sperm donor?

Many factors go into a good bedtime experience. As others have pointed out the top three are; routine, routine, and routine.

One thing to consider. Children can actually get more energetic and wound up the more tired they are. So, if your daughter is not getting her regular nap, or simply as the evening wears on, you can expect it will be harder for her to settle down.

One biological signal that prepares the body for sleep is a dip in body temperature that is part of the daily circadian rhythm. We can trick the body with a warm bath or shower about a half hour before bedtime. Your child steps from the bath, the body starts cooling off, and it can mimick the cooling that signals the brain that it's time to sleep.