To be dreadfully sad that in the 21st century child abuse seems to be part of the culture in a so-called modern, progressive and enlightened country like the USA

[Perriwinkle]

I've been watching a lot of American baby programmes on satellite TV lately and have been horrified and saddened to see how many parents, who appear to be loving, caring, very protective parents who are determined to everything right by their children, have their sons circumcised in hospital just before they bring them home.

These parents then get stressed and worried when these babies are what they describe as "fussy" (which I've gathered seems to mean a collection of things such as not feeding/sleeping/settling well and crying a lot). Clearly these poor babies are in huge discomfort, due to the barbaric and hugely invasive and unnecessary procedure that's been carried out on them.

When the parents are talking to camera about their early experiences of parenthood, how it has made them feel and what their hopes are for the future, they are all full of wanting to do the best for their child, to love, cherish and protect them and about being the best parents they possibly can for their child. This seems to be so at odds with giving consent for that child to have its genitals mutilated just a day or two earlier.

One woman I saw was talking about how she was in pieces when her son had to "get his first shots" as she called it (injections I assume?) yet she said nothing about his circumcision. I know that the vast majority have it done because when you see them changing nappies you know they have had it done because they have big wadge of gauze there to protect the wound site and you often hear them saying they have to be careful due to the circumcision. If only these parents could be educated to see that it is not in their child's best interests to have him circumcised, rather than thinking it is.

I really can't believe that this practice is still carried out as routinely and widely as it is in the USA even though there is no medical justification for it and no sound evidence to justify that it is in any way beneficial or more hygenic than leaving the baby intact.

What a shame that in many cases such clearly educated and rational people, who do not appear to have any religious imperative to carry out this barbaric practice are still doing this to their children in their droves. It means that millions of children are being subjected to this abusive practice on a daily basis in the USA.

Surely with proper education and information this could be turned around and this vile practive wiped out? I know having it done due to a religious imperative is a whole different argument but surely if non Jewish and Islamic people were properly informed and enlightened on the subject surely the incidence of this completely unneccessary abusive practice could be drastically reduced and in time eschewed by the overwhelming majority of parents?

I understand that routine non ritual circumcision was once a feature of many cultures but that it has successfully died out due to education and enlightenment. Wouldn't it be lovely to think the same could happen in the USA?

By small parts of Africa I assume you mean huge areas of a vast continent, right?
By no health benefits I assume you mean the difference between life and death for many African women, right?
Or are the health and welfare of African women of no account in your world?

'And tolerance and choice are fine when it's not parents choice inflicted upon a child.'

We may assume then that you are not in the pro-choice camp?

"people like you", "the likes of you"...There's no middle ground with you, is there? We either think exactly like you or we're scumbags....Sigh...this logic is really infantile. Here's a thought! Instead of trying to decimate the character of those who hold an opposing view, try to use persuasive language to lure us into agreeing with you. Now, persuade me that my happily circumcised husband who, let's face it, could last longer - I am such a horn bucket - should have his foreskin back (and therefore last even less time before blast off). I warn you, he won't thank you for trying to re-attach the darn thing...LOL...

Is this the sort of execrable site where you source your so-called unpaletable [sic] truth?

Lord spare us, math, and to think some of us get pissed off by the DM.

It's Goebbels and Streicher with the power of the internet!

Freud would have a field day with this thread.

I respect people who are opposed to circumcision but I don't understand the hysteria.

Foetus and baby are nt the same

Says you, Posies. Plenty of people say abortion is barbaric and unenlightened and the people who perform it should go to jail for murder. They would think the same of you as you think of other people on this thread.

I also respect people who are anti-abortion, as long as they don't get all hysterical and go around tellling people who are pro-choice that they're barbaric.

See how that works?

No.

The studies of African HIV spread looking at circumcision came up with one fact nothing prevents it better than a condom. And unless it's tested in the West there really is no known benefit to men here.

Ha.

I give up then.

So it would be okay if a mother decided to abort a five and a half month fetus...but not if she delivered the child prematurely at five and a half months and had the baby circumcised?

Posies, are you really suggesting that there should be studies in the West 'testing' circumcision and HIV transmission??? How on earth would that work? And what exactly do you think is the difference between an African penis and a Western one?

By the way, the African studies were halted years ago and all uncircumcised participants were offered circumcision as it was deemed unethical to go on.

No I am saying that the health benefit is a moot point as there is no such evidence in the West. In fact in studies that I looked at in USA circumcised men still caught HIV and it's a risky gamble to equate circumcised penis with protection against HIV.

"Repeating tales of what a mohel may or may not do during a circumcision with the intention of inflaming opinion on the subject is vile and immoral."

And why on earth should they not be repeated Mathanxiety? Is it I wonder because people who did not realise that this was a feature of some Jewish ritual circumcision ceremonies would be truly sickened to hear it?

Let's get the facts out there and discuss them I say.

As it goes, my sole intention in mentioning this was to illustrate how bizzare it is that in a country where the docking of a puppy's tail is illegal such unspeakable and henious acts are allowed to continue unchallenged.

You know from reading my posts that my only agenda here is to speak out in condemnation of any form of unnecessary (not medically justified) ritual and non ritual circumcision of infants. I most certainly do not have an agenda against the Jewish faith or Jewish people, nor do I seek to discriminate against them - which as I understand it is the definition of Anti-Semitism. Your suggestion that I do is just obtuse.

If this particular act were carried out by every faith under the sun I would judge them all equally as harshly and would make no distinction between them. The fact is that this is a feature of some ritual Jewish circumcision ceremonies. As far as I'm aware it is not a feaure of Islamic ritual circumcision and if it were I would judge that as henious and unspeakable too. Ritual circumcision is not a feratuire of any other organised world religion as far as I'm aware, so what else can I say? Indeed, plenty of Jewish people exchew ritual circumcision too and find it barbaric and unnecessary and are very vocal in condemning it. Are they Anti-Semitic too in your book?

www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

www.mammaprimitiva.com/journal/2011/9/12/todays-jews-reject-circumcision-and-choose-peaceful-welcomin.html

I will continue to judge ANYONE who condones and perpetrates unnecessary (not medically justified) ritual and non ritual circumcision upon babies irrespective of their religion, creed or colour. People will have to accept this in just the same way that I have to accept that it will continue to happen to a greater or lesser extent around the world. I have every faith, however, that the rates of non ritual unnecceasry circumcision in the USA will fall as education and enlightenment makes headway. Societies and civilisations evolve and develop and as they do, so they leave primitive, outmoded and outdated behaviours and cultural practices behind. The unneccessary non ritual circumcision of infants is certainly one such practice.

Ritual religious circumcisions will no doubt continue, although I believe that these rates will decrease over a generation or two among the Jewish community as dissent among adherents, particularly the more liberal factions, grows.

Circumcision of male or female babies without medical need - abuse

Asking for baby to go through any operation such as appendix/tonsil/anything removal with no medical need - abuse

Ear/ nose/ eyebrow/ lip/ any piercing of baby - abuse

Why would anyone see it as not?

Oh, and to those saying it reduces the rik of so and so...what a load of crap.

Why don't you have a mastectomy, oh and a total hysterectomy too while you are at it, it will reduse your chances of breast cancer, and ovarian cancer and uterine cancer.

Math. That is when a person ia pre disposed to a likely cancerous and therefore fatal outcome, not just in case there's a slim chance.

Ethnocentric? When it comes down to harming a child it doesn't need to be about ethnicity, this is babycentric, it's only you that thinks ethnicity can view this differently.

Breast cancer doesn't necessarily = fatal disease.

Women who choose a radical mastectomy can cut their risk factor by about 90% even for high risk cases. 'If results show that you have a mutation in genes associated with breast cancer (BRCA1 or BRCA2), you have a 35 to 85 percent chance of developing breast cancer by age 70. If you have these genetic mutations and are of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, you have a 26 to 81 percent chance of developing breast cancer by age 70.' Many women of Ashkenazi descent choose mastectomy even if they have a 35% chance.

Equating circumcision with 'harm' is where the ethnocentrism comes in, in the absense of any evidence to support your view.

(Not that I can make head nor tail of your garbled last post, but I think that is an appropriate response to what I think you were trying to say. I actually think you haven't understood half of what I have posted here, or the meaning of 'ethnocentric').