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.

Still no-one has said why Jews circumcise.

Jacobs I think started it....

Popbiscuit, I can find you 44 more links just like that if you want - mostly from Jewish sites, but if the truth is that upsetting feel free to put your fingers in your ears and say la la la loudly.

Porcamiseria- without wishing to diminish any death, the fact that violence and torture are utterly wrong does not make genital mutilation of newborns right.

Also, don't forget that those who speak out against mutilation of children may also be members of groups which campaign against violence and torture (eg Amnesty), or work in professions which act to remove people from danger such as the police or social workers.

So how many boys do you have Popbiscuit? And how many husbands? I'm assuming it's in single figures so you're not really in a position to claim to be an expert. Especially as you're claiming that everything written on the internet is wrong. That's a pretty big assumption even allowing for the usual margins of error.

I think that PopBiscuit means that the whole of the Internet is wrong and she is of course right. After all her sample size is...err...3

Looking at the Cochrane Collaboration's review of all the evidence for various forms of pain relief during newborn circumcision this conclusion stood out:

Adverse effects included gagging, choking, and emesis in placebo/untreated groups. Minor bleeding, swelling and hematoma were reported with DPNB. Erythema and mild skin pallor were observed with the use of EMLA. Methaemoglobin levels were evaluated in two trials of EMLA, and results were within normal limits.

Authors' conclusions
DPNB was the most frequently studied intervention and was the most effective for circumcision pain. Compared to placebo, EMLA was also effective, but was not as effective as DPNB. Both interventions appear to be safe for use in newborns. None of the studied interventions completely eliminated the pain response to circumcision.

I wonder how the parents of those poor babies who weren't given any pain relief felt at their gagging, choking, vomiting sons.

I get it inertia, but whether we like or not 1000s or muslim and jewish infants are regularly circumcised every day to very little effect. I dont like the idea but I find it odd that this stirs up such ire

low hanging fruit I think

porcamiseria I wish there was a term for your sort of comment, bit like Godwins law. Perhaps I should pootle onto the relationships board and tell the victims of child abuse that some children lived with monks who raped and beat them daily? Or go onto the feminist boards and remind everyone that lapdancing is nothing to fear because in the Congo women are raped and given HIV and have to watch their children raped and killed?

Where should it end?

It's perfectly fine to object to gential mutilation of babies because it's wrong, it's usually done without question under the guise of religion or cultural practice. The right of the infant is not considered and some religious people adhere to this but not to whole plethora of religious rules, same as the circumcision rate in countries (like USA) for health benefits is higher than breastfeeding rates.

The posters who site the WHO didn't answer the breastfeeding question did they?

porcamiseria you mean if a large number of people are harmed we should ignore it?

Your argument would have kept black people as slaves and women as 2nd class citizens not allowed to vote or own property.

Oh do calm down Posie!

I dont like circumcism, and FGM of young girls is beyong the pale

But I genuinely think people have this issue waaaaaay out of perspective

People that get tortured carry the mental and physical scars forever
But many many little boys get circumcised very day and are fine

so to compare circumcism to child abuse actually hinders your argument, as its patently on a different scale. It just makes you look hysterical and overdramatic

Ghuolionine, OP doesn't actually say her sister said she herself was disgusting. The original post says that SIL said circumcision is disgusting. There is quite a big difference.

I'll be interested to see if this is one of the posts OP responds to, so will add something else. OP and others have said they are against FGM, but support male circumcision, and cite the fact that many men are happy with and accept the procedure. Which is true.

However, lots of women are also happy with and accepting of FGM. It wouldn't keep getting practiced otherwise. The work of Fuambai Ahmadu is very interesting.

www.arts.uregina.ca/dbfm_send/637

zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/the-non-debate-on-fgc/

I don't agree with her- am not pro FGM- but the fact is that some of the millions of women who are cut actually support the practice.

So I have a question. OP and others, you don't support FGM even though some women who have had it support it. But you think that male circumcision is justified because of the number of men that support it. Therefore what's the difference? Is it because male circumcision is more common? If so, please give the exact number of acceptors that you feel the practice requires, in order to be legitimate.

or is it because they're male?

porca.... I'm perfectly calm, in between MNing I've cleaned my whole house and am bordering on happy.

I didn't realise child abuse had to be on going or could not be labelled so if it was one act of mutilation. Perhaps you could tell it to them men that do feel abused by this act.

1. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.

There was a TV programme recently about men who are desperate to restore their foreskins, they do feel mutilated and they can't forgive their parents for needlessly removing an important part of their sexual function.
It must be awful for a man to realise that he will never have the full sexual pleasure that a non-circumcised man gets.

PopBiscuit I have actually attended a Bris (I would never ever do it again) and there was plenty of blood involved as well as a hysterical infant and a very pale, upset mother. A lady actually fainted upon seeing the blood. I am Jewish but I was so upset by the whole ceremony that I vowed to never inflict this to my own children.

I was very surprised that these intelligent, educated friends actually inflicted this on their beloved son.

If you cut skin, there will be blood simple as that

Posie - lovin' it! Doing MN raging while cleaning house to achieve karma... so like me!! :O

Sounds hideous DutchGirly. I'm glad that some choose not to do it.

All the more Dutch to not support unessessary circumcision.

bullshit the baby does not feel pain, how would you know if you have never had it yourself!

Oh and BTW Posie, I agree with you.