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.

If the health care worker was in the US, you would hear 'And....?' as a response. It is a non-issue there.

Quietlyafraid People DO do things that they would otherwise see as irrational or unacceptable because of the 'God factor'. You can't argue directly with the word of God and frankly I think its pointless to try to. its a different kind of rational.

I don't think that the different kind of rational you suggest exists. I think you mean irrational. Religion can't be explained as rational.

As far as I'm aware it would also be a non issue in this country, as it isn't illegall.

It's utterly irrelevent how HCPs would react.

Scarlett, at the risk of being flamed, many people feel that mothers who allow their children to be vaccinated are going against every maternal instinct. Many more children die of complications from the MMR jab than from the measles disease itself every year after all.

Same goes for mothers having babies' or young children's ears pierced (and in that case it is also a class marker so maybe even worse).

The MMR isn't only for Measles. The Vaccination debate is irrelevant.

If it was against the law then I would definitely have reported them

Good for you math!

MrBloomsNursery I think that HCP would remain calm and professional as they do with the many people they meet who have made decisions in their lives that they don't personally agree with. For example they often deal with the impact of smoking, drug addition, alcohol abuse etc and have to remain professional.

I would wonder how they would feel if they were required to treat a baby with complications arising from a ritual circumcision. I am sure that they would still react professionally.

math people vaccinate their children because the balance of evidence suggests that there are significant health benefits to do so [as you were advised re your son's circumcision]. The vaccination programme wouldn't be available on the NHS if that wasn't the case. It's not based on religious/ cultural choices. Of course people are free to ignore medical advice ,at least in the UK.

How did it end up being about vaccines.... (prob because it's 37 pages!)

About OP's original post......circumcisions of the sons always brings about varied reactions in Gentile inlaws. Our family has had this - in this case our poor Jewish inlaw is outnumbered by us Gentiles. A mixture of curiosity, a mix of horror (quietly hidden from the boy's Jewish mum!) and a smattering of "I didn't know - really? So soon?". The male relatives who agreed to go were the most shocked "I was okay at first, but when I saw it - eek! Imagine if that were me! Ouch!", the female ones were not bothered and said it was actually much better than they expected it to be. The Jewish relatives tried to keep the Gentiles out of it by saying it wasn't compulsory for the others to attend. And they wanted a respectful attitude, not people who were going to treat it as a curiosity to gawp at. I think it worked out okay in the end. But some relatives still did say (well away from baby's mum and Jewish relatives), "eek, I find it horrid and scary".

It's a pity she described it as "disgusts me" to her Jewish in laws. But I guess she was trying to be honest, and her description pertains more to how she feels than how the ceremony is. But what will happen if she gives birth to a son??!

PS It's different doing it as an infant (for the Bris) than as a small child or adult for foreskin problems. It's definitely less traumatic having it done within the first weeks of baby's life - and the number of complications (including psychological ones) seems extremely low compared to the medical ones. The man who performs the Bris is experienced and well trained, so no worries about competence. And actually, medically, the circumcised male has lower risks of some diseases, so there's definitely a plus in having it done. Could well be one of those processes that upsets the adult more than the child!

Kipper, can please refer back to the source where you get your information from how/why it is different doing it as an infant?

Please quote the source of reputable medical research that states that a circumcised male in the Western world has lower risk of some diseases.

The only difference for doing it sas a baby is that that cannot verbalise the pain they are in.

It is horrifically cruel to ciccumcise a newborn who's life should be about love, comfort and warmth, not abuse, pain and a god they have no idea about.

Also if the SIL gives birth to a son then the baby won't be Jewish, as she isn't herself. What grounds would there be for circumcising him then?

kipper - whatever helps you justify it to yourself.....

I have read this thread now for a couple of days and must say it horrifies me that people can have this procedure done outside a hospital. Regardless of how you view circumcision the fact that it is done without access to emergancy medical care if the need arrises worries me. These instances may be rare but rare does meen they do sometimes happen. In a first world country i dont know of any other surgery that is done at a persons home and lets face it thats what it is a sugical procedure.

Back to the original question i would have probarbly had the same response as the SIL, I think it's wrong regardless of wether it's for religious or cultural reasons and the only way i agree to it being done is if there is a medical need like phimosis. I wouldnt go as far as some and label parents who choose to have it done child abusers but to say it's done as it's traditional is a cop out in my eyes. Like someone else said this is not a debate about vaccines or heal prick test this is about an unneccersary operation.

The fact the WHO studies were done in a country rife with aids and where safe sex is almost unheard of kinda make me not believe a word the report says.

For the record i have 4 DS's and none of them have had any infections or problems with being intact and if anyone had said to me whilst pregnant "when your baby is 8 days old we are going to cut off his foreskin" i would have packed my bags and left rather than put my newborn through that. I dont believe that they feel no pain and i dont believe that a few minuites later they forget about it, they will know everytime they go for a wee that it stings and hurts (how many of you who are mothers and grazed or tore while giving birth can say going for a wee afterwards wasn't bloody painfull) regardless of wether urine is a natural cleanser.

Some of you may call me ignorant due to my lack of understanding of the jewish faith and to be honest i dont mind you would be right 100% i know diddly about it but i do know having this done with no anesthetic and in someones back room is like something out the dark ages celebration or not.

"PS It's different doing it as an infant (for the Bris) than as a small child or adult"

And you know this how kipper? Did you read Annie's horrific story from the mother of a circumcised newborn.

Vaccines are not culturally recommended,no cultural/peer pressure to do so incomparable comparison

over 100 babies (under 28 days) die every year of circumcision in the US.

It's a disgusting and cruel practice performed by uncaring deluded people.

I cared, stressfulday . But I was so out of it and the doctor insisted it was for the best. :(

im sorry but i dont understand how people can do this to a baby in the name of religion

its sick

Posies as I explained and referenced about 20 pages ago the 116 deaths per year is NOT TRUE, but please keep posting it every page.

There are also lots of people who believe the earth is flat, they must have websites so it must be true.

Dutchgirly and twofalls, will try to get you the links to your queries. They're quite well-established medical and surgical facts. Still, will get you the actual link if I can find it online, without requiring you to buy/borrow a heavy medical textbook.
Annie Lobeseder - I hear what you're saying; I'm not Jewish, not even from a culture that does circumcision at all, and must admit that I wouldn't put any infant son of mine through it.

That's not to say I would feel negatively enough against it to attempt to dissuade any friends or relations from doing it. I would just urge them to make sure the practitioner is well qualified - and have to admit that hospital surgeons aren't always as experienced or skilled as the Jewish practitioners - if your child/male relative needs it doing, you might want to consider going private if you are concerned about complications. The procedure itself is not complicated in theory, but any difficulties that ensue from it being performed on an older patient (esp with existing phimosis) requires a lot of skill to sort out without detriment to the patient. I'd like to say the NHS is perfect and no operation goes ahead without 100% safety backup procedures in place, but the fact is that no two operations are equal. That's another thing to consider.
Haven't seen Annie's story yet (37 pages to go through) but will look for it.

Still working my way through all 37 pages.........just to say am somewhat incredulous about the comparisons of circumcision with female genital mutilation and child sacrifice!
Firstly, child sacrifice is murder, circumcision isn't - the individual is alive at the end of the procedure (provided of course you haven't done anything else in addition to the circumcision itself).
Secondly, FGM is not a therapeutic procedure and does not serve to cure or relieve anything that circumcision can - yes, a male infant may not have phimosis at 7 or 8 days old, but the fact is that the procedure is a treatment that relieves phimosis, whereas FGM is a mutilation, does not improve any physiological function and may sometimes be carried out to the extent that urination is impaired.

Will keep going through the 37 pages.....