Zev is a man. I believe it has been established that his wife is the most beautiful woman on the SDMB.
Mazel Tov, Uncle Zev!
"Just to clear up this point.
One of the things our society turns on is respect for physical integrity of the person. Every breach of that integrity is a crime unless:
The person is subject to legal restraint, or
- The person gives informed consent or
- If the person is unable to give that consent, the procedure is in the best interests of the child.
- To be in the best interests of the child there must be a sound medical reason for the procedure.
There isn’t in the case of cosmetic pediatric orthodontia. That it is permitted is simply an anomaly of selective non-prosecution for cultural reasons.
To clarify, children are not property. Parents do not have the right to do as they please with children."
Discuss.
I will certainly give you the first half of the statement, however, do you have any links to prove that the pain of circumcision "has measurable long-term affects on infant behavior "? This is the type of thing I have been asking for.
See, here’s the problem with that analogy. Nobody has yet proved that the foreskin actually performs a function. See the fundamental difference?
Actually, all you are arguing is that the arguements in favor of circumcision do not outweigh the risks inherent in any medical procedure, and that in these other cases they do. That is a fine decision, and I commend you for making it. Unfortunately, it again misses the overriding point here: You get to make that decision for yourself and your family, but you don’t get to make it for anyone else, unless you can prove real, tangeable, quantifiable harm. So far you haven’t.
Once again I see that people are not interested in what I actually think, only the straw man they’ve built and attributed to me.
Perhaps when you stop telling me what I think and start listening to me without the automatic response that anything I say is ‘batshit insane’, I’ll have some incentive to actually give a rat’s ass about answering your questions.
Right now, any attempt would be useless because my answers will be mischaracterized and I’ll just get called more names.
I have, however, learned something from this thread. It’s acceptable on the SDMB to question any and all practices involved in Christianity, including whether or not a belief in god is ‘sane’. It is not acceptable to question any practices of Judaism whatsoever, nor to suggest that any of those practices might be wrong.
Way I see it, your position would not be justifiable even assuming religion had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter.
After all, as I keep pointing out, there is no religious basis whatsoever to cosmetic othodontia - yet no-one seems to be interested in protesting against that.
I think the matter can simply be argued on the following basis: “resolved: parents have the moral right and duty to make decisions involving children’s bodies, subject to their being made in good faith in the best interests of the child, and subject to a test for reasonableness (in other words, both a subjective and objective standard)”.
By that test both cosmetic orthodontia and circumcision pass - and a host of other decisions parents make for kids. No need to drag the religion thing into it, as you don’t even have to get to the “its a religious thing” issue at all.
However, I am starting to think (as a result of the continual lack of argument of analogous cases by the “anti” side) that this debate really has nothing to do with the bodily integrity of kids, and everything to do with some sort of Christian resentment of Jews on the part of some:
That’s a place I have no interest in going.
Thank for clearing up why I was considered to be a luncatic since I was a child.
Salaam. A
If babies carry subconcious mental scars from circumcision - just imagine how fucked up they must be from the act of birth, having umbilical cord cut, etc.! :eek:
Well, that is why people go in sessions to get back at that stage and repair all that horrible mental damage.
Thank you for bringing that option under my attention.I see a very new market opening up. I’m going to set up practices for people who want the cutting event mentally undone. How many sessions shall I say it will take and what is the common price for such sessions? I don’t want to enter the market with an underpriced product (overprizing is always better for a product’s reputation).
Salaam. A
Again, i think it’s up to the parents. But you and I already agree on this issue, so there’s no point in debating it.
Sure, my scenario was a first draft, feel free to amend it at will. 
True, and that’s why i don’t think there’s any reason for circumcision to be standard operating procedure for a newborn. But i still don’t see a reason for it to be illegal. It might, in a small percentage of cases, be medically beneficial, so it’s hard to argue that it’s purely cosmetic.
When you figure that the parents are the ones who will not only have to foot the bill when Junior manages to develop an infection because he’s not practicing proper hygiene, but also have to be the ones taking care of him and driving him to the doctor’s office, why shouldn’t they get some say in it? They’re doing it to reduce the risks that their child is going to have to deal with a particular illness, and perhaps save themselves money in the long run.
If there were an operation that could be done at birth that reduced a person’s risk of getting cancer from 1 in 100,000 to something smaller, do you think it would be made illegal?
Again, i agree. It shouldn’t be routine. But it should be an option.
OK, this statement makes me think we totally agree on the issue. Let’s replace “lump” with “foreskin,” head to the bar, and call it a day? The parents should get to make an informed decision about it. Perhaps instead of arguing over its legality, we oughta just encourage doctors to pass out unbiased informational pamphlets to expecting mothers, so they won’t just “make him look like daddy.”
Yeah, this seems pretty extreme. I dont’ think the scenario needs to be tweaked to that degree though. And of course, i totally agree, it’s all in the details.
And i’d like to add that Aldebaran has presented anything i could possibly offer to this discussion, and done so more eloquently by orders of magnitude.
Not all of us. My ex was Jewish, born in Moscow in 1960 to a father who was a Holocaust survivor. He is not circumcised.
His parents believed that the risk of making him even more identifiably Jewish than he was with his very Jewish last name was suffient that they decided not to circumcise him. Their justification was that they believed God would rather have their son alive and uncircmcised than circumcised and dead, or even circumcised and beaten up all the time.
CATSIX, since you still seem to be participating on this thread, I will repeat my question to you. Once again (to refresh everyone’s memory again) my grandfather insisted that my dad be circumcised, because he (grandfather) was uncircumcised and had all sorts of trouble with it. Wanted to spare his son that hassle and discomfort.
So, CATSIX, was my grandfather wrong? Was he out of line? He had my dad circumcised for non-religious reasons; just didn’t want his son to suffer like he had. Was he wrong? Yes or no? I eagerly await your insight on this. And I remind you, I haven’t called you any names, all I’m doing is asking a yes or no question. I thank you!
[QUOTE=catsix]
Once again I see that people are not interested in what I actually think, only the straw man they’ve built and attributed to me.
[QUOTE]
?
?
?
Really? That is encouraging to read this because for more then 300 posts people actually were engaged to teach you something.
[quote]
It’s acceptable on the SDMB to question any and all practices involved in Christianity,
mmmmm… This opens perspectives…
oh… well, I must leave that one to others.
I always knew it. Jews rule the world!
Anyways, since that is common knowledge… Why do you bring that up here again? This is Muslim territory you are taking, lady.
Salaam. A
And see how upset I am about this? I even forgot peview iz my fiend.
You know, Aldebaran, I’m afraid I have no idea whatsoever what you’re trying to say here.
Would you be so kind as to repeat yourself, with a little more detail?
Why do you assume that we want to hear what you have to say? I’ve heard it already. You think that Jewish people have a “fucked up obsession” if they follow the commands of G-d. You think that they could practice their religion without its central tenet, or if not, it’s fine to tell them not to practice their religion. You think that having one friend who’s decided to project his own problems with his parents onto his penis is adequate reason that other parents should be denied the right to make a decision for their kids that they’ve always been allowed to make, and when we question the wisdom of making a decision on the basis of your one friend’s experience, you throw a temper tantrum and claim we’re insulting you, when all we want is (here comes that nasty word again!) evidence.
Now you’re developing some persecution complex on behalf of Christianity. Even though the reason we haven’t discussed it here is because it’s not germane to the topic at hand.
Seriously, if you wanted to engage in real discussion, I’d stop calling you names. But as long as you don’t even make that effort, and instead post whiny messages about how no one’s taking you seriously, then I’m going to continue to point and laugh, and remind you that you’re batshit insane.
You want to debate the merits of Judaism? Find an appropriate place to do it. You could make a thread anywhere, and you’d probably find people just as willing to discuss it as they would any other religion. However, I don’t think anyone else would be any more willing to indulge your assertions that Judaism is bad because it involves a “fucked up obsession” with practicing its most basic ritual.
Certainly I don’t know what it would be like to be cut, but I do have all the anatomy. And I know that, for example, the claim that the foreskin contains a lot of erogenous tissue doesn’t seem to be true for me. A certain amount of (scientifically minded) experience leads me to think that there’s not much erogenous tissue in the prepuce at all, and I’m skeptical that the change in the texture of the glans penis could have such a profound effect.
And that’s something I wish people would pay attention to; being circumcised does not mean you can’t have every bit as satisfying a sex life as the uncircumcised guy. The ideologically-motivated claims that “sure it’s good, but it ought to be better” just seem like an excuse to argue against circumcision rather than real reasoning, because it doesn’t appear that being cut hurts guys’ satisfaction with their wangs at all.
Makes sense. Having more direct access to the particularly erogenous tissue of the glans penis would seem to improve sensation.
So, Aldebaran, would you mind addressing the theology behind circumcision in Islam? Is it something directly mandated in the Qu’ran, or does it have a different origin? (I’m not quite sure exactly how the Hadith and the other holy documents come into play in Islam.) Are there Muslims who reject circumcision? Is it a major part of the religion, as with Judaism, or a more minor ritual?
I think he was playfully disagreeing with the notion that he was traumatized by his circumcision.
Oddly enough, I was certain I had offered several journal citations about this very thing (pain, and longer-term effects of pain), but since perhaps I am wrong, I will offer again. These cites are taken from the AMA Association website article on circumcision and not, just in case it matters, from the CIRP website or any other anti-circ site:
Marshall RE. Neonatal pain associated with caregiving procedures. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1989;36:885-903.
Schoen EJ, Fischell AA: Pain in neonatal circumcision. Clin Pediatr. 1991;30:429-432.
Marshall RE, Stratton WC, Moore JA, Boxerman SB. Circumcision: I. Effects upon newborn behavior. Infant Behav Dev. 1980;3:1-14.
Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet. 1997;349:599-603.
As a side argument about infants, trauma, and the effects of trauma in their lives, I would like to offer that medical circumcision done without benefit of pain relief certainly fits the description of traumatic. Certainly, the baby boys settle down shortly, and in a few days there’s little evidence they had been hurt (until another painful situation occurs). However, this in itself should be no justification for performing such a painful procedure. We do not permit parents to commit other traumatically painful acts to infants on the basis that they won’t remember it later, so it doesn’t matter. Doctors do not perform other traumatically painful acts on infants without some very strong medical indication that the procedure’s value outweighs the impact on the child.
For that matter, the position of the AMA as stated in the link above is that the benefits do not justify that doctors recommend the procedure, and that it must be done with pain relief. They also find that many doctors don’t think the procedure merits pain relief (and thus don’t offer it, or provide it) and that many parents do not receive sufficient information to make an informed decision.
The AMA doesn’t say ‘stop doing circumcisions’. They do lay guidelines for the procedure which their own members don’t follow. I find a problem in this, personally.
From the AAP press release regarding circumcision, March 1, 1999:
"Considerable new evidence shows that newborns circumcised without analgesia experience pain and stress measured by changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation and cortisol levels. Other studies suggest that the circumcision experience may cause infants to respond more strongly to pain of future immunization than those who are uncircumcised. "
From the AMA Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99) Full Text Neonatal Circumcision:
“Clinical and biochemical evidence indicates that newborn infants exhibit physiological, autonomic, and behavioral responses to noxious stimuli. Acute responses of neonates to painful stimuli include large increases in heart rate, increased blood pressure, decreased transcutaneous pO2 values , decreased vagal tone, crying, breath holding, gagging, behavioral changes, and increases in serum cortisol.(Marshall RE. Neonatal pain associated with caregiving procedures. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1989;36:885-903 / Schoen EJ, Fischell AA: Pain in neonatal circumcision. Clin Pediatr. 1991;30:429-432.) Resolution of these changes is fairly rapid following the procedure. (Marshall RE, Stratton WC, Moore JA, Boxerman SB. Circumcision: I. Effects upon newborn behavior. Infant Behav Dev. 1980;3:1-14.) Although it has been assumed that there are no long-term psychological sequelae from this procedure, circumcised infants who were not anesthetized at the time of the procedure show stronger pain responses to vaccinations at 4 and 6 months of age than do uncircumcised infants or infants who received a topical anesthetic cream at the time of circumcision. (Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet. 1997;349:599-603. )”
I made that effort. You called me batshit insane. Weirddave called me a cunt. This to me shows that further efforts are useless.
You mean like how people aren’t interested in debating Christianity by referring to sky pixies? And by the way, I have no offense on behalf of Christianity. I am not a Christian, and I have been rather critical of their beliefs and practices as well.
I haven’t called you any bad names, and I’ve asked you a simple yes or no question. Could you be so kind as to give me an answer? The post with my question is at the top of this page. I thank you.