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.

Have you considered waiting, OP, until your DS is older and can consent to the procedure himself?

What right do parents have to permatly alter their babys body?

Did you breastfeed your child for two years Prima?

Prima. And the risk in men that wash? Have access to better hygiene?

What's more upsetting and hurtful, being told that a part of your religion is disgusting, or having a bit of your genitalia lopped off without your consent?

This study you link to uses no new research, and as one study I looked at took a sample of 137 intact and 50 circumcised, I would need to see a lot more data to be convinced.

I do instinctively feel that non medical circumcision is cruel, unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

The question is, why do so many people around the world, of many faiths and none, overcome this natural urge to protect their much loved babies from pain? I think that the answer lies in the alternative as viewed by the people in communities where this is seen as the norm. The human need to be accepted in a family and wider community is strong. The parents of these babies are at a vulnerable point in their lives, needing support from their extended family and friends. For them to reject this practice which is billed as the way of being brought into the faith, would cause offense to the family (as demonstrated by OPs extreme upset at SILs comments) and they would risk losing support and acceptance for their stand. I would imagine that the other parent might also feel strongly that it should be done, which would also cause trouble for the baby's family.

So although I agree that the practice is barbaric, I think for a parent to take a stand against something which is expected and which has been seen as sacred for countless generations, risking a major rejection or family rift when you have just had a baby is a brave decision, and I'm not surprised that many choose to toe the line.

OP to help you see it from the outsider's point of view, if your dd married into a culture where female genital mutilation was the norm, would you attend the party to celebrate your granddaughter's 'ceremony?' Or would you speak out, or just not go? I am honestly not trying to be nasty, but I think it is difficult for a person who has been brought up in a culture to see things from outside, (like explaining to a fish what water is.)

Primafacie Wed 26-Oct-11 09:39:58
"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"

I wonder why you allege that no-one wants to read it?

I was particularly interested by the box at the foot of page 4 which says:

"Programmes that promote male circumcision in early infancy are likely to have lower morbidity rates and lower costs than programmes targeting adolescent boys and men. However these considerations must be balanced by concerns about consent"

What weight, if any, do you attach to consent?

Prima, I hate to be the one to break it to you but I don't think the OP lives in sub-Saharan Africa.

After all, in many parts of the world it's extremely prudent to boil tap water before drinking it but we don't need to do it in the UK so such advice is meaningless.

I noted the rate of prenile cancer. 'In some populations it is 1 in 100,000'. So lets remove 99,999 other foreskins [of newborn babies] as well, just to be on the safe side.
Interesting how our own NHS service doesn't seem to find this report particularly relevant though, as this procedure isn't offered.

The WHO study- which i have read and commented on earlier- uses the word "significantly" in relation to the benefits of infant circumcision as opposed to circumcision later in life. NOT in relation to health benefits generally.

And anyway the health benefits are a complete red herring. Removing a baby girl's ovaries would provide 100% protection against ovarian cancer. Removing all babies' appendixes would save them from the risk of peritonitis. Nobody would seriously suggest doing either of those things.

The studies are not reflected in studies in the Western world, because we have access to hygiene.

The rate of appendicitis is higher than penile cancer. So in theory we could remove the appendix at birth as it has no essential function. In fact, there are quite a few 'non essential' parts of the body which could develop disease at some point...

X post Seeker

I didn't think you'd answer the breastfeeding question.

i find it a very strange world where someone criticises people for 'hurling abuse' at someone whilst at the exact same time is supporting that person in their intent to commit child abuse. how is verbally inulting an adult worse than cutting a newborn baby without anaesthetic to conform to peer pressure? this is one fucked up world. do children's rights mean nothing? does the protective instinct of a parent not exist in some people? how do these sort of people balance their conscience?

Primaface: "The reason the death stats are so shocking is because it is not true."

Well the study was published in a peer reviewed, academic journal so are you saying that not only the author was partisan, the reviewing panel were too?

"Circumcision at puberty, as practised by many Muslim communities, would be the most immediately effective intervention for reducing HIV transmission since it would be done before young men are likely to become sexually active." This is the conclusion of the study you keep referring to by the way. So even the study that you use to support your argument says puberty not newborn.

To be fair they have to do it because god requires it. Depending on which particular religion they may endanger their own chances of salvation if they don't abuse the child.

The story of Abraham from the bible ((Genesis 22:5) is important to many religions. In that story god tells Abraham to kill his son. Abraham agrees and is hugely rewarded because god wants people he can rely on to do what he says without question or moral scruple.

Sharrie. What because you're thinking of moving to Africa? Or because some people have posted that it's okay you're going to do it? How strange.

My sons are circumcised. It is a bit different to OP as as I undesrand (please correct me if I am wrong) the circumcision ceremony is performed with an audience in the Jewish Faith whilst for my sons, although religious, it was performed by a doctor with fjust DH and myself attending.

If I put myself in your shoes OP I do not honestly think it would have upset me that my family (different religion to mine) had refused to come because it made them really uneasy. As a matter of fact, even though to us it is the right thing to do, it does remain a very controversial issue to a lot of people and I understand they can have reservations regarding circumcision. I would have been hurt if they had told me I was disgusting them though.

God's nice like that! Other Gods require their women to rip babies from their wombs on judgement day. I'm so pleased to a realist atheist.