Aug 9, 2012 -- 11:35AM, christine3 wrote:

Aug 9, 2012 -- 11:02AM, vra wrote:

If the very short period of having some localized pain is going to cause one to become psychopathic, then maybe we're all doomed.  Ever see it done?  The baby normally will stop crying within a minute. 

I had a broken leg and broke my collar bone 5 times before I hit 10 years of age, so I must be a totally deranged maniac who's plotting to destroy all life on Earth!  They're coming to take me away, aha!  

If there were a way to monitor the pain coming off this planet, the indicator would be off the charts.  Breakdown of the human psyche comes from many traumas.  The less trauma on this earth, the better for all.  Let's scale it down from an everyday event starting at the beginning of our lives, in all its different forms, whether done to us or us watching it done to others.  

OK, then let's take it to some logical conclusions of what you're saying. 

Buying a young child a bicycle whereas there's children killed on them every year, or to take a child to an ice-cream parlor to have a fattening dessert, or to take a child to the beach whereas they will be exposed to dangerous u.v. levels that could lead to cancer later even if they do have sunscreen on, or to take a child in a car just to visit someone whereas they could die in an accident, or have them play a sport like soccer whereas head injuries could cause permanent damage, etc., etc, ..., seems far more risky than circumcision.

The reality is that almost anyone who's a parent puts their child at some risk, and there's almost no way to avoid it-- unless one takes their child, wraps them in cotton, and refuses to take them anywhere or do anything that has any potential risk. And what you may feel is an "unnecessary risk" may not be agreed upon by myself, and what I feel is an "unnecessary risk" you might not agree with. 

If circumcision is the worst thing a boy may go through in life, I would suggest that he would be extremely lucky. 

"If there were a way to monitor the pain coming off this planet, the indicator would be off the charts.  Breakdown of the human psyche comes from many traumas.  The less trauma on this earth, the better for all.  Let's scale it down from an everyday event starting at the beginning of our lives, in all its different forms, whether done to us or us watching it done to others."  

Vra:...there's almost no way to avoid it unless one takes their child, wraps them in cotton, and refuses to take them anywhere or do anything that has potential risk. And what you may feel is an "unnecessary risk" may not be agreed upon by myself, and what I feel is an "unnecessary risk" you might not agree with. 

>>>I'm not talking about unnecessary risk.  The way to avoid pain in our lives caused by others is not to have it in the first place.  I'm talking about the overall consciousness on this planet.  It needs to change so there is are no daily assaults no matter where they come from, other people, other countries, industries.  Everywhere in the world people are being oppressed and demonstrating for their rights as human beings.  They want a better world in which to live and raise their children.  I'm not concerned that they will never achieve these freedoms, but do know that it will take a very long time through much suffering.

Aug 10, 2012 -- 10:54AM, vra wrote:

Pain is much less the problem then how we deal with it. 

I know that it's hard to imagine a life without pain.  Life will have it's ups and downs.  I'm not talking about ups and downs.  I'm talking about pain.  Suffering has been anthropomorphized.  Whole industries circumcise populations to pain and suffering.  It seems people accept pain as a given that will always be.  It seems that of the two, pain or no pain, people have chosen pain.  I gather that historically circumcision has always been done without painkiller.  Why is that?  This has been changed in recent years by parents who have called attention to this.  The medical industry, doctors, have not listened until recently.  

Is there some sort of problem that if it is not the self feeling it, it doesn't matter?  When all children are our children, all parents our parents, all grandparents are our grandparents, when we are one family, then it matters.  Until then, what is done to others won't be stopped if we don't feel it.  That seems to be the way things work on this planet.

Aug 9, 2012 -- 12:53PM, mindis1 wrote:

Aug 9, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Girlchristian wrote:

 . . . reducing the risk for urinary tract infections among infants . . .

Let’s quantify these claims to see if they actually are rational.  What is the risk of urinary tract infections among infants? And how much does circumcising infants reduce this risk?

How many studies have documented this reduction in risk of UTIs?

Are the UTIs in these studies as serious or as numerous as the complications of circumcision?

I take it that circumcising infant girls would also reduce the risk of urinary tract infections. In fact, I suspect that for infant girls, removing the entire clitoris would reduce the risk of UTIs even more?  

Have you mutilated your own genitals in any way in order to reduce the risk of having a UTI?

BTW:  I've never had a UTI, either as a child or adult. 

Perhaps GC has changed her mind that she can defend some alleged rational reason for non-therapeutic circumcision of infants.  

The AAP’s current position statement on circumcision summarizes their reviews of the studies on circumcision and UTIs, and found that “these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”  

Although all these studies have shown an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised male infants, it is difficult to summarize and compare the results because of differences in methodology, samples of infants studied, determination of circumcision status, method of urine collection, UTI definition, and assessment of confounding variables. Furthermore, in some studies, methods for determining the reliability of the data were not described. 

Few of the studies that have evaluated the association between UTI in male infants and circumcision status have looked at potential confounders (such as prematurity, breastfeeding, and method of urine collection) in a rigorous way. For example, because premature infants appear to be at increased risk for UTI,^75–77 the inclusion of hospitalized premature infants in a study population may act as a confounder by suggesting an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised infants. Premature infants usually are not circumcised because of their fragile health status.⁷⁸

[. . .]

In summary, all studies that have examined the association between UTI and circumcision status show an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised males, with the greatest risk in infants younger than 1 year of age. The magnitude of the effect varies among studies. Using numbers from the literature, one can estimate that 7 to 14 of 1000 uncircumcised male infants will develop a UTI during the first year of life, compared with 1 to 2 of 1000 circumcised male infants. Although the relative risk of UTI in uncircumcised male infants compared with circumcised male infants is increased from 4- to as much as 10-fold during the first year of life, the absolute risk of developing a UTI in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most, ~1%). [My underlining.]

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/1...

And, as we saw above in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology paper (www.cirp.org/library/general/grimes/) , the rate of serious direct complications from circumcision is far higher than 1%, not even counting the many later consequences of circumcision or the lifelong loss of highly sensitive tissue that is essential for normal sexual functioning.

Circumcising infants in order to reduce the risk of getting those first-year UTIs is like what is often said about suicide: a permanent solution to a temporary problem (if circumcision actually were a solution to a problem).

The reasons being given to try to justify non-therapeutic circumcision are utterly insane.  There is no rational justification for mutilating a child’s genitals on the prospect that it might prevent the child from acquiring some disease, just like there is no rational justification for cutting off an infant’s functioning arm because the arm might get broken some day. 

So, does anyone else want to make a failed attempt to justify the mutilation of children's genitals?

Aug 9, 2012 -- 9:18PM, christine3 wrote:

Aug 9, 2012 -- 8:08PM, Dostojevsky wrote:

Jeremiah 4:4

⁴ Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

Jeremiah 6:10

¹⁰ To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the Lord is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.

Heart, ear?

In the olden days people had to be taught. Through evolution we had to learn many things re food, health, hygiene, to make fire, to cook food etc. It is not like being born into 20th century. Only in the last century a Doctor was imprisoned and medical licence taken away from him because he insited surgeons should wash their hands before performing operations. Look how far we have come. Today mothers know to tell their boys the importance of washing private parts.

Circumcison was good for the boys to keep infections away but a deeper spiritual truth is that of the circucision of heart. I would have thought Jewish Rabbis would know that. It is in their scripture.

I understand that this is confusing.  Using Strong's Concordance, the word "circumcision" is used in many ways and I am not sure it means cutting off penis skin.

It's only the Strong's which is confusing.  The original texts are quite clear as to what the words indicate.

As to what ANY poster who's neither Jewish nor has respect for Judaism "would have thought Jewish Rabbis would know":  THAT reads suspicously like standing outside a synagogue and trying to tell the people inside what they should be doing.

Just because ArielG insists others' beliefs are 'dead rituals' doesn't make it so.   LOL - sounds like ol' ArielG has more than a touch of the 'One True TRUTH' disease...... (No, true Judaism never makes any such claim:  the Neturei Karta are the only ones who pretend that's OK).