circumcision yes or no

[morocco]

My 5 month old has a tight foreskin and doctors here recommend circumcision but Im really not keen. I spoke to docs in the UK and they said to wait and see but then I started worrying about whether it would be traumatic for him to be circumcised at say 4 or older and whether it might be better to just go ahead now. Has anyone been through this with a child of this age/older? All advice gratefully received

and Tissy denial is an interesting thing..."Ear piercing is nothing like circumcision, btw, it is over in an instant, and only momentarily painful, unless infection sets in"

how exactly is this different to circumcision? skin is skin?

Lil - I AM admitting that it is horrific and I condemn people that have this done to their babies too!!!

Still - I don't think you'll hear any man with his ear-pierced who will agree that it's just as painful as having part of your penis removed with NO anaesthetic. And please don't anyone have a go at the fact I'm repeating myself. The only thing I don't agree with is Circumcision WITHOUT anaesthetic. SO please don't drag me back into this. I was dealt enough abuse the last time.

Lil, you will see if you read my posts again, that I am opposed to children having their ears pierced AND circumcision. Both of them. And I REALLY resent the implication that I am a racist because I oppose circumcision.

How is circumcision different to ear piercing.....?

Well,

1. With ear piercing the skin is pierced, not removed. It is painful for a few seconds; for circumcision to be painless requires a decent anaesthetic, whether local or general.If a baby suffers as much pain as a circumcised man,(and who can tell whether they do or not?) then he will be in pain for a good two weeks.

2)With ear piercing the blood loss is negligible, never enough to threaten life itself (you will see lower down that I have had experience of a child who had had a ritual circumcision, who nearly died)

3)Ear piercing is usually done only at the request of the recipient. Reputable jewellers wouldn't dream of piercing a child's ears. Ritual, cultural and "aesthetic" circumcision of babies is done at the request of the child's parents.

4)Ear piercing is reversible, if you don't use earrings, the hole closes, barely leaving a scar.Surgical reconstruction of a foreskin is very difficult, sometimes impossible.

5)Ear piercing is not a cultural tradition, I don't believe the majority of british women or men have their ears pierced. It is a form of adornment- not a device for inclusion to a group.
British mothers, whatever their religion or lack of it, don't, en masse, cart their infants off to be pierced. The majority of Jewish and Muslim boys are circumcised without their consent. This also applies to the Western culture of the USA. I believe its wrong in all settings- the country/ culture is irrelevant. I know a man who was born into a Christian family, who fell in love with a Jewish girl, and as his faith wasn't as important to him as hers was to her, he agreed to convert to Judaism . He also agreed to be circumcised. That was his choice.

I could go on, but I've got work to do.

Couldn't have put it better myself Tissy

I have long thought that the use of controlled crying is one of the many many western habits that would be viewed as "barbaric" and "tantamount to child abuse" by a lot of other cultures. Those against it would argue that its harm is potentially life long and that parents only do it so they could get a good nights sleep. Something that in many cultures would be viewed as "pointless" in the overall context of child rearing.

I think there is a big difference between condemning different countries' practices such as torture, execution and so on and judging abosutely everything by the standards of what is acceptable to a white Christian British person.

Croppy - I am not a Christian.

Message withdrawn

The original post on this thread was about a genuine medical reason for a possible circumcision. All those against it, for whatever reason, are entitled to have those opinions and to air them - but on this thread? What about those mothers who really do have no choice, because there are genuine medical reasons why it has to be done? How do you think they are going to feel being classed as uncaring and not loving - being compared to child abusers in some posts! If this thread had been titled - Circumcision Right or Wrong? Then fair enough, but parents viewing this thread for more info, may find some of the comments and views distressing. Not everyone has a choice in this and we should be thinking of those right now. It is time this thread reverted back to the original intention and perhaps a separate thread started for those who want to argue the moral ground.

Thank you Lisalisa for your views, I hope what you have read has not put you off Mumsnet! I hope you don't mind my using you as an example of one viewer who has been deeply offended by the nature of some of these posts, and so I really do think this should stop now.

Fwiw, I asked dh whether he minded being circumcised - he was done at birth, because he was born in a country where it was routine, I think, for hygiene reasons (in the middle/far east) - he said it was done as soon as he was born as far as he knew, and he couldn't care less! He also said that he'd have been far more annoyed at someone piercing his ear, as that makes more of a statement to the outside world because people can see it! (I didn't ask him about that - he came up with it on his own). From what his mum has said, I don't think it caused him any pain at the time either.

Thanks also Lisalisa. That was the point I was trying to make in that I found it so extraordinary that people continually referred to it as a "pointless" procedure. It is quite patently anything but pointless in the context of being Jewish and to suggest otherwise is an awfully big insult.

The pain inflicted is the issue and anyone with common sense and a little bit of a scientific background can at least acknowledge that it must hurt immensely and it should ALWAYS be done with an anaesthetic.
I will never understand why people can see this as ok and justify by saying it's religeous law. There are a lot of religeous laws which are now commonly accepted as wrong. I am not religeous, I believe in facts and science.

This thread has gone around in circles.

Agree with you on the circles!. I'm no expert and am an idiot when it comes to science but it is only skin. Would it really necessarily hurt substantially more than having a baby's ears pierced?

Ask your partner or a male friend. Pinch his ear, hard with your nails and then pinch the part of the foreskin that is cut (dodgy if they are only a friend perhaps!!! - don't want them getting the wrong impression). A little scientific experiment that I think will prove conclusive. And I'm going to try it 2nite with dp - poor soul.

I was interested in your post, lisalisa, thank you for explaining. Much further down the thread I asked why the foreskin is removed, and you haven't really answered that- someone else said that God asked Abraham to circumcise his sons as a sign of his devotion to Him- is that right? (Sorry, really don't have the time to read the whole lot again!).Why is it a requirement of Jewish law? Aren't there different types of orthodoxy that adhere to different rules regarding dress, behaviour, diet etc? Why is that law so immutable?

BTW, being a Christian doesn't absolutely require you to believe in the resurrection as such, there is an awful lot of theological argument about exactly what the resurrection is/ was.

Do you really think a smear of wine on the end of a finger is an adequate anaesthetic, or does the wine have a ritual significance, too?

This is not a dig at your Faith, I'm really interested in the background of the practice of circumcision. Whilst I still can't say that I approve, I'd really like to understand!

Message withdrawn

thanks for your contribution, lisalisa.

Perhaps our adult anticipation of the pain is actually worse than what the baby feels. For example, I get all my dental work done without any anaesthetic of any kind and have also had numerous skin growths sliced off without any anaesthetic of any type. The dentists/doctors performing the "work"/"operation" were absolutely petrified that I was going to be a gibbering mess from the pain and had a hard time being convinced to do it without the anasethetic. Every time they commented afterwards on how I didn't flinch and didn't seem to feel the pain. The reality is that it just doesn't hurt that much. Certainly no more than a paper cut or somesuch.
The point is, aren't there more important things to be up at arms about than circumcision.
Although I am jewish and american (double whammy there), I chose not to circumcise my son, but completely understand someone else's decision to do so and in no way would think badly of them doing so. I also agree about the ear piercing...l will not let either my ds or dd pierce their ears until they are at least 16 (or maybe 35), when they are old enough to know what they are doing).

Tissy, I have been a Christian for 20 years and true Christianity absolutely does require you to believe in the resurrection. This is the whole basis of Christianity!!! When you profess your believe in Christ through baptism, you are asked whether you believe that Christ died for your sins and rose again from the dead. The New Testament is based on Jesus' ministry, his death and his resurrection. I am more than happy to back this up with scripture.

Any 'theological argument' about this point is due to the fact that people either simply do not want to believe what the scripture says, or they are trying to find other ways to explain the appearance of Jesus to his disciples three days after his death. If you read the NT, you will see it is very clear on the topic of resurrection.

Anyway, this is a gross diversion from what this topic is meant to be about - circumcision - but I'm afraid I couldn't ignore your statement about resurrection.

Should be 'belief' not 'believe' in the second line.

Lisalisa - may I quote you - "..... friends who do not eat kosher food or go to synagogue to pray or have any vestiges of the religion left but who would recoil in horror from not having their sons circumcised."
Is it not gross hypocrisy of those people, who ask so little of themselves as Jews in the form of participation in Jewish communal or religious activities, but who find it so easy to demand so much of their sons?
As stated in the Encyclopaedia Judaica, "Any child born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether circumcised or not".
On this website there is an article "Modern Circumcision: The Escalation of a Ritual" which details (with illustrations) how the Biblical form of circumcision procedure has changed. The original procedure (which fulfilled the Covenant for two thousand years) involved cutting away only the protruding tip of foreskin (which is why Michelangelo's anatomically correct David looks intact). The more modern method is far more radical and cuts away most or all of the foreskin and frenulum.
I'm atheist and have no time for any religion although I wouldn't try to talk anyone away from their own beliefs - provided those beliefs do no harm to anyone who hasn't consented. Let people do what they want with their own bodies - but leave helpless babies alone.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

StuartC your posting comes across as extremely rude and unpleasant. There is no need to be so disrespectful and antagonistic. Lisalisa comes caross a a quiet,calm person who is explaining & clarifying the jewish position. You come across as a person spoiling for a fight.

Furthermore you (and many others) have ignored my post and, I think, Rhubarb's reiteration, requesting that you take your opinions sensationalist language to another thread and leave this one to its original purpose - for parents facing the dilema of circumcision for medical grounds. Your comments are ill judged and totally unhelpful.

Nicola3, what would you call a person baptised as a baby,who follows the teachings of Jesus to the best of his or her ability, who nevertheless has difficulty understanding what resurrection means? Or one of the several C of E bishops who have publicly discussed resurrection and its meaning? Not true Christians? Who are you to judge?

Though I was brought up in a Church-going family, and was confirmed at 11, and have a very healthy (platonic) relationship with a C of E priest, I do have some difficulty with the idea of resurrection, with the idea that it happened, and that it is going to happen to me.(I suppose you'll say that it won't ).

Much of the New Testament was written many years after Jesus' death, by people who had an interest in putting a positive "spin" on the story. The very fact that the gospels accounts vary so much bothers me.

I believe that Jesus probably did exist, and that he certainly was someone special (Son of God? Proof?). I don't believe that it really matters who he was, its what he said and did that was important. I try to follow his example to the best of my ability. If that isn't true Christanity, well I'm happy with it, it suits me.
Just as there are many branches of Judaism (and Islam if it comes to that) there are many different traditions in Christianity. There are people who don't question anything that is written in the bible, and people who wonder whether a story (for that is what it is) can survive 2 thousand years and many many translations completely unaltered.

There are good people that I have met in all religions, and I find it difficult to believe that if there is a heaven they won't be there. I know that Jesus said " I am the way the truth and the life etc....", but I don't think a loving God would turn away a good Hindu, Muslim, Jew or Buddhist at the gates of heaven. There are plenty of people who profess to be Christians who commit atrocities in His name.

(Ducks head behind parapet for the onslaught)