about SIL and DS1's Bris (circumcision) ?

[imlikeaironingboard]

I'm Jewish (Liberal) and DH counts himself as secular Jewish (as does all of his family).
His DBro (my BIL) married out - not a 'big' thing with them due to the whole non practicing/secular thing.

I'm due to give birth to DS1 (DC2) in a week.

They do not have children and it is only DH and BIL as siblings. our DC1 is a DD.

Both DH and BIL are circumcised.

She told us tonight that she would not be coming to DS1 Bris. The idea of doing that 'disgusts' her.

AIBU to be really upset and to think that she should have realised that marrying into a jewish family secular or not would mean that these sort of things would happen?

This has really really upset me - I have never got a hint of her feeling like this before.

Kritiq's post wasn't reasoned and insightful at all . Anyone who objects to circumcision may be antisemitic and why don't we petition the US if we object so much? Well, the antisemitism argument doesn't even deserve a response and we're not petitioning Jewish groups either, we are discussing it on a thread on the internet, started by someone who voluntarily asked for opinions. And I don't see anyone hurling abuse now, I see people disagreeing with you and the OP, which you seem to think we have no right to do. Well as you are not Jewish and are, presumably a woman, you have as little right to your opinion as we apparently do to ours.

And Galaxy has a good point, Abraham or not, the simplest way would be to raise the age so it's done as part of the bar mitzvah, thus giving the lad in question a choice and a say. Except that won't happen because you all know that numbers of circumcisions would drop like a stone.

Isn't there a vaccine available to prevent infection of HPV? Surely that will lower the rate of cervical cancer , without the need for modifying the penis's of baby boys.
In regard to anti semetism [and Islam] religious practices should never be above examination.

breadandbutterfly Wed 26-Oct-11 01:27:55
I also assume that as these practices continue, that dads who were themselves circumcised, far from resenting this deeply, as would be natural if it was as awful as suggested by some above, feel positive enough about the experience to choose to give the same experience to their own sons.

So who do we believe? Women who've never experienced it, or men who have? I'm happy to listen to the men here...

Even in America

The reason the death stats are so shocking is because it is not true. That study is utterly flawed and meaningless - a classic example of bad science, if you can even call it that. Bollinger has zero credibility as a scientist, he is a lobbyist commissioned by activists to spout his nonsense.

But don't let that get in the way of the screaming match against OP.

Oops, bad grammar, sorry

Please can someone tell me why some religions say that men should be circumcised?

No one who is pro circumcison has answered the question 'Why cant it wait til the boy is old enough to choose himself?'

primafacie even one death [or complication] would be one too many, if there was no medical requirement in the 1st place.

Different name for this -

1. none of them seem to be my extended family. I don't think it invalidates what I said.

2. most aren't Jewish

3. In general, looks like a sad set of people trying to work out why their lives are miserable, and coming to a half-baked conclusion. Because most men in the US are apparently circ'ed, it's a useful way to blame one's parents for one's life being , without taking any personal responsibility.

samG76 in answer to your point 3) really? you think you are entitled to decide why some people are unhappy about having their genitals altered without their consent?

Seeker - answer on page 2 of thread iirc

Pompoko - see the WHO manual I posted the link to. Recovery is quicker and there are less complications if performed in infancy. It also gives more protection against certain diseases.

Fatlazy - but circumcision is proven to significantly reduce the risk of HIV, herpes, penile cancer etc, and therefore saves millions of lives. How is that different from vaccines, which the child also cannot consent to?

Please could somebody answer these two questions?

"No one who is pro circumcison has answered the question 'Why cant it wait til the boy is old enough to choose himself?'

"Please can someone tell me why some religions say that men should be circumcised?"

primafacie, Why cant you leave it for the child to choose to have this. Even with befits to cir'c, why cant the child deside?
Right or wrong aside, circumcision permently alters the boys body. Shouldnt it be left to each male to choose to have this done?

"Fatlazy - but circumcision is proven to significantly reduce the risk of HIV, herpes, penile cancer etc, and therefore saves millions of lives. How is that different from vaccines, which the child also cannot consent to?"

I don't think the word "significantly" appear anywhere! and where do you get the saves millions of lives stat?

And are you saying that people circumcise their baby boys to stop them getting AIDS? It doesn't seem to work too well in sub Saharan Africa.......

It's not millions of lives, it's generally lives (and even then not conclusive) where hygiene is poor. And it's not even definite so what's the point? It's less likely I'll get breast cancer if I have my breasts removed, but I've still got my breasts. To prevent stds the only way is to use condoms, relying upon circumcision has lead to increased rates of STDs in some studies, certainly in the West. It gives people complacency where they should have none.

The studies are flawed as the sample groups are much larger for non circumcised and are reliant upon groups in Africa for these studies is crazy, surely many social groups cut or don't cut dependent upon group and not individual.

primafacie it hasn't been proven to save millions of lives. that has already been disputed earlier in the thread. And if you really can't see the difference between vaccination and irreversible genital modification on a [obviously non consenting]newborn , well, there's not really much point in actually discussing anything with you.

Why will no-one who is on this thread in support of circumcision step out and say why this cannot wait until the child is old enough to give their own INFORMED CONSENT to having a part of their body chopped off? What possible reason can there be for refusing to allow the child to make their OWN decision on this? Not one person in support of chopping a random part of their child's body off on the say-so of a book thousands of years old has bothered to explain this.

We used to routinely dock dogs ears and tails - we no longer do so (in fact it is illegal) BECAUSE IT IS CRUEL. This is no different - you are docking your son's penis. If you wouldn't dock a dog's tail, you shoulodn't be docking your son's penis - otherwise you are a HYPOCRITE. If one is cruel then so is the other. If one is illegal, then the other should be too!

Of those trying to say circumcision decreases the chance of getting HIV etc. Would you then say that if it increased the chances you would support a blanket ban?

If not then you are being hypocritical to use it as an excuse.

Also some people are saying that they don't use a knife any more. It almost doesn't matter, but does anyone have reliable information on that because each time I check it seems that Jews and Muslims are still doing it the old way. Maybe they haven't read the thread.

NHS Website

During the 19th century, many medical practitioners believed that being circumcised was more hygienic than not being circumcised.

As a result, the routine medical circumcision of all boys, regardless of religious faith, became a widespread practice in England. However, routine male circumcision gradually became less common as many members of the medical community began to argue that it had no real medical benefit in the vast majority of cases.

Routine circumcision may offer a number of potential benefits, such as reducing the risk of some types of infections. However, the majority of healthcare professionals now agree that the risks associated with routine circumcision, such as infection and excessive bleeding, far outweigh any potential benefits.

Err, seeker, yes it works. Will try and post a link in a minute.

And yes the WHO says the health benefits are significant, even more so when performed in infancy. WHO position that no one wants to read

YABU to be really upset and to think that she should have realised that marrying into a jewish family secular or not would mean that these sort of things would happen.

I married a Jew and circumcision of a possible future male child was never ever discussion or even thought about (as children weren't on the radar for either of us when we met!). I married him because i loved him and wanted to spend the rest of my life with him!!!

It would likely have been an issue if we'd have had a DS son of our own but as we can't have children of our own and have adopted a DS, luckily we have never had to deal with the issue. I absolutely would have never agreed to it though.

We have debated it at times. DH is not only Jewish but also American and it seems that most boys are circumcised in the US so he finds my strong opinion on it rather strange.

My DP is Jewish (non-believing) and from time to time, for all sorts of social reasons, must attend synagogue and other Jewish festivals and rituals.

I very rarely attend any of them; the greatest concession to non-attendance so far was when I attended DP's mother's funeral.

OP - you should respect your SIL's feelings.

Circumcision may reduce the risk of acquiring some infections and related complications but does not guarantee complete protection. Some of these conditions are not as common as others, and the degree of risk may depend on the behaviours of the individual and the community to which he belongs.

That's from Primafacie's link and it refers to the situation in some third world countries where huge numbers of people are already infected and they can't use condoms because they've been told god wouldn't like it.

The NHS says don't do it just for the fun of it.

None of the religious people using infection as an excuse have come forward to say they's agree with a ban if the figures were reversed so it is JUST an excuse to do something to a baby that they wanted desperately to do anyway.

This is just one of several studies, all drawing similar conclusions. study

"MC could avert 2.0 (1.1−3.8) million new HIV infections and 0.3 (0.1−0.5) million deaths over the next ten years in sub-Saharan Africa. In the ten years after that, it could avert a further 3.7 (1.9−7.5) million new HIV infections and 2.7 (1.5−5.3) million deaths, with about one quarter of all the incident cases prevented and the deaths averted occurring in South Africa. We show that a) MC will increase the proportion of infected people who are women from about 52% to 58%; b) where there is homogenous mixing but not all men are circumcised, the prevalence of infection in circumcised men is likely to be about 80% of that in uncircumcised men; c) MC is equivalent to an intervention, such as a vaccine or increased condom use, that reduces transmission in both directions by 37%."