Not to mention, Again, as I posted before, the subjecting babies to this procedure without anesthetic is more a factor of inept/unempathetic/poor bedside manner doctors then it is of one supporting NOT circumcising.
For as Choti said herself, she’s experienced this sort of callousness from doctors HERSELF as an adult, and the first time she suffered the indignity and paint (until she stood up for herself and said “Do it the OTHER way, it doesn’t hurt that way”) was, in fact, WITHOUT consent.
While it is a related topic, it is NOT in and of itself a reason to outlaw circumcision, especially since it can EASILY be corrected by the parents’ choosing a kind, humane, and thoughtful doctor.
As I said to Choti, in a previous post, MY baby’s doctor brought UP the anesthetic before I’d even brought up that question myself, it was part and parcel of his informational “speech” prior to the procedure.
And as I said, my son didn’t give a peep during the actual procedure, and yes, I was right in the room (wasn’t allowed to be right at the table though), so the topical painkiller must have worked pretty well. This is NOT to make any statement on painkillers for other parents, this was just MY experience with it.
You have absolutely know way of discerning what I really know about Jewish faith.
On the contrary, they have not provided any proof of why their exclusion of circumcision from the types of harm it would be illegal to cause a child is valid. They have only stated that it is so.
Well, in my opinion, you’re just condescending in a fair number of the posts you’ve made in this thread and in previous feminism discussions.
My opinions on the matter are firm and unlikely to be swayed by medical ‘evidence’ that consists of a bunch of unproven ‘might’ and ‘may’ type statements, therefore ‘batshit insane’ is used to describe me. But of course, someone whose opiion comes entirely from an unproven but very old book/religion and who is unwilling to change that opinion no matter what is perfectly rational.
You just can’t accept that I have considered the arguments of the other side, and not found any cause to change my mind, can you?
I have a problem with sexist behavior in both directions. I also have a problem with the unnecessary permanent alteration of any person’s body performed without that person’s consent. It’s not because they’re boy babies, it’s because they don’t have a say in whether or not they are unnecessarily harmed.
I would suppose that they make assumptions about your lack of knowledge, based on what you write on this thread. Unless you prove otherwise (which you haven’t, apparently), they’re going to assume that you are ignorant about it.
Why don’t you get into a debate with Zev and the other Jewish Dopers, and tell him what’s what, if you are so knowledgeable about the Jewish faith?
But if the sources are journals that are available online, I don’t see the problem, even if they use it out of context. If you examine the articles you’re throwing citations up for, and quote them, you should be able to determine whether it’s from an ideologue or not. It doesn’t count if you say something, and then find a link to an article that you assume supports it without actually looking at what your quoting - whether you snag the link from CIRP or not.
I didn’t think I was being unclear - the problem is that, whether or not doctors are asses, babies don’t have the same abilities as adults to register discontent. A doctor who is not an ass but just not terribly attuned to their adult patients’ comfort is likely going to be even less able to discern how a baby is doing.
It’s a problem applicable to any sort of minor surgery performed on babies, I suppose, but given that this has to be the most common such procedure, and given that many doctors apparently still don’t use anaesthesia, it’s a major concern. However perfect the operation might be in theory, if a lot of babies are experiencing major pain as a result of circumcision, it’s a big problem that needs to be addressed.
Quote:
CanvasShoes said:
But I still wouldn’t presume to tell someone how they can practice their faith if I have not one single clue about it.
Actually, I do. Your own comments and behaviour in this thread.
Quote:
The difference in THIS thread, is that the pro side has provided cites, reasons, “proof” and very clear ones at that, and YOU have not. All you have provided are what amount to anecdotal what ifs.
Cites, in the form of links were provided several pages ago. Also, several of your main concerns about the “nonconsent” issue, that of pain, mutilation, and nonconsent, have been answered. In the case of pain, an INFORMED parent insists upon painkiller, as I did with my son. In the case of mutilation, several males who are circumcised have answered that, not including the millions of males out there who have had NO problems with it, and SAY so. The nonconsent issue has been answered with concrete examples in previous posts, including an excellent analogy by Malthus, unless you’d like us to provide a cite that kids actually DO undergo cosmetic dentistry in this country that is.
Quote:
IMHO, you’re your OWN worst enemy, most of the posters, in this, and other threads, who’ve had trouble with your posting behaviour, probably don’t give two figs for you outside the few minutes that they spend in here.
I’m very straight forward. And again, you ASKED why you were being singled out. I’m not the only person who’s told you why.
Again, specific cites have been provided by the pro side, YOU are the one giving “might and may” statements. And NO one is trying to sway you to their side. And if you think so, that’s just more evidence that you aren’t listening to, or assimilating what people are saying to you.
Not ONE person in this thread has come in and said that they are trying to change anticirc’s minds so as to make them pro circ. What HAS been said in this thread is that if the anti circ people are out to make the practice illegal, then proof of harm, in more than the miniscule, and iffy cites being provided (most were problems of bad doctors, which is true in ANY procedure, and NOT specific to circumcision itself). And no one has tried to change YOUR mind and tried to make you be pro circ. But you can’t even seem to understand that “Well, okay, these people believe differently than I, and they have that right, they have their reasons and I have mine” Oh NOOO, your stance is much what you’ve just accused others of, you don’t want to merely make your points, you want to FORCE your belief on others, and if they do NOT believe the same way as you, well their mentally ill. THAT, once again, NOT your opinion, is what is getting you dissed.
Quote:
And posts in the “males are being persecuted” threads.
I didn’t bring that up to hijack this thread off into a male lib discussion, I brought it up to provide to you, an example of why people in threads get so annoyed with you.
Well I guess that’s one way to spell ‘condescending’.
I read their cites. Not a single one of them offers any kind of conclusive proof of any health benefit at all.
And I think the ones who want to change the natural state of the body for no proven benefit are the looking the wrong freaking way for proof. Those who want to change the way things come from the factory should be proving a need to change those things.
Is that your considered opinion?
By the way, using all caps doesn’t make me think you’re more worth listening to or more correct, it only makes you look more like a patronizing mommy-wannabe. You are not my mother. I do not need your lectures on whether or not my opinion annoys people. I think what I think about circumcision after a few years of being interested in the topic because of the experiences and attitudes of friends of mine. My opinion will not change because someone threw out a ‘might lower the risk of…’ study. Anybody who wants my mind to change is going to have to do better than medical studies that offer no proof and generalized guesstimates like ‘millions of men seem OK with it.’ Nor will anyone convince me that they should have the right to physically inscribe a religion on a kid that has no choice.
Of course, the babies do register their discontent, in the form of screaming, gagging, struggling, etc., and this is typically dismissed as “Well, all babies cry” “They don’t really feel pain like you and me” “Sure, it hurts, but they won’t remember it later,” as if this makes it okay to continue doing it that way. I contend that it does NOT make it okay. And this isn’t done to just babies, as I have cited. I know more than one woman who was given a cesarean section with no anaesthesia, and in every instance, when they complained and said it hurt, they could feel themselves being cut, they were told “no, it doesn’t hurt, it’s just pressure you feel.” This is a problem. It’s a problem for adults who can speak up for themselves - not because they have inadequate anaesthesia, but because they have inadequate anaesthesia and when they say so, they are ignored - and it must be a much larger problem for babies, who may deliberately be given none (by 75% of OBs who do the procedure, who figure it’s not merited), or may be given some, but not enough - and cannot speak for themselves, and whose protests, screams etc., are dismissed.
It’s a problem. And it has nothing to do with whether the doc is an ass, hell, the doc is probably just following accepted protocol. But the child could be spared that pain…and isn’t. Because…why? This is what has to be justified. We KNOW there is a problem with pain relief for huge numbers of babies who undergo circumcision. Now it really, very seriously, falls upon the ‘pro’ side to justify why it’s okay to keep doing it anyway, in light of this problem. And that’s a different argument from ‘why is it okay to do it in theory’.
So, let me posit a hypothetical situation. Suppose a child is born, and the parents wish to have him circumcised at the hospital. Typically, the child is taken away somewhere well out of the parents’ hearing (I’ve been in the circ room in my local hospital, because that’s where the ultrasound room was, and it’s nowhere near the rooms where the post-partum women stay) so that even if he screamed, it would not be heard. So the parents don’t go with him. The parents do not observe the procedure. They don’t hear. They trust the doctor.
How do the parents KNOW that the doctor has provided adequate pain relief? What could they do they do if they did go along to observe, and saw the baby start to scream and choke in agony? Could they rush in, demand the doctor provide pain relief before continuing - or maybe stop? Would they be dismissed and told, “All babies cry, don’t worry, he’s won’t remember it later, he doesn’t feel pain like you and me anyway”? Would the doctor keep on ripping, and crushing, and cutting…and just get it done because it’s their job? My bet is, yes. This is a problem. You know, and some mothers have reported having their babies handed back to them, glassy-eyed and blotchy-faced but silent, and they’ve been told “Oh, he didn’t cry a bit” and they know it’s a lie. This is a problem.
I have no idea how to address these problems, except to protect the child from the situation in the first place.
And this argument is separate in my mind from the question of the consenting individual, from the question of botched procedures, from the question of men who grow up unhappy with their cut state. Those are valid points of discussion in their own right, but it’s a different argument.
Quote:
CanvasShoes said:
Cites, in the form of links were provided several pages ago.
To say that the proof is not “good enough” to change your viewpoint, is a WHOLE different thing than claiming that you’re being “dismissed” or that no CLEAR proof has been offered. Clear means understandable. It’s not that you don’t understand what proof has been presented, is it? You just don’t happen to agree with it. Fine, but don’t then claim that none has been presented, or that your points haven’t been answered and replied to by whining that your points are being dismissed. They haven’t.
Quote:
I’m very straight forward.
In the words of Inigo Montoya “I do not think that word means what you think it means”. (that was being silly).
I have, in each post stated, in ANSWER to your questions as to why people are insulting you, precisely what is causing it. Blunt? Yes, not nice to hear? Guilty. But condescending? No.
con·de·scend ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knd-snd)
intr.v. con·de·scend·ed, con·de·scend·ing, con·de·scends
To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself. See Synonyms at stoop1.
To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.
I haven’t “lowered” myself to your level because I don’t consider that you’re inferior. You’ve asked “why are people insulting/dismissing etc me”? And I’ve answered each of your questions based on my reaction to your posts, and the reactions I’ve seen many other posters have. Period.
Again, I haven’t been patronizing to you, no “there there dear” or “sweeite” or what have you. And again, I don’t consider myself superior to you, whether I agree with your viewpoint or not. If I were on the anticirc side of this debate, I would STILL dislike your behaviour. Disliking another’s behaviour is NOT to say “oh, they’re not as good” or whatever.
Quote:
Again, specific cites have been provided by the pro side, YOU are the one giving “might and may” statements.
In YOUR opinion. They are still valid medical opinions from doctors. If you don’t consider them “good enough” to support circumcision, that’s one thing. That doesn’t make them “might or may” statements. There were case histories in those cites. I don’t think the kids suffering from the diseases were thinking “this might hurt”.
Quote:
What HAS been said in this thread is that if the anti circ people are out to make the practice illegal, then proof of harm, in more than the miniscule, and iffy cites being provided (most were problems of bad doctors, which is true in ANY procedure, and NOT specific to circumcision itself).
That is your right to think that, but where you’re getting dissed is when you insist upon calling people “fucking obsessed” and “evil” etc. This doesn’t help, and in fact HURTS any good points you might have to make. You’re so interested in getting all hysterical and name calling, and saying someone has a sick fucking obsession, IS name-calling, that you haven’t even noticed that most pro circ folks, in this thread have ALL stated that they may be more willing to not circumcise after having heard reasonable arguments.
Quote:
I didn’t bring that up to hijack this thread off into a male lib discussion, I brought it up to provide to you, an example of why people in threads get so annoyed with you.
It is what I see in other posters’ reactions to this sort of posting style.
lots of people cap words they are emphazing. It’s sheer laziness, not “mommy hood”. And I’m already a mom, not just a wannabe. I have two, one 14, one 25.
Commented upon and answered. YOU asked why people were insulting you.
I don’t care why you got interested in it, no one, not one single person in this thread, especially me, has asked you to change your opinion, or your mind on this subject.
And again, the problem, and why people in this thread are getting on your case, is not due to your opinion about circumcision. But the way in which you present it, replete with calling anyone who is pro circ “sick fucking obsessed” and so on.
I don’t see where anyone has argued that letting babies, or anyone suffer pain unnecessarily is “okay”.
I know this isn’t directed at me, but at someone else’s post, but I’ve replied to this point of yours in about three posts, and included what you quote here, that it’s NOT just done to babies.
First, unless you have cites for why this is being done, you can’t know that it’s “probably that it’s following protocol”.
Second. I agree wholeheartedly, and I think most people, whether pro or anti circ would, that pain relief SHOULD be offered to babies being circumcised. No one in the pro circ side has said that it’s okay to circumcise without painkillers. And again, as I stated in my three previous posts, this, the fact that too many doctors don’t use painkillers, is not an argument against circumcision, it, along with treatment of women by ob/gyns, is an argument for more empathetic treatment by doctors, Period.
Who knows why doctors don’t use painkillers? Ignorance? protocol like you said? Lack of empathy or proper care for patients feelings? I’d wager all of the above, but the problem is in lack of painkillers, as is true just like you YOURSELF said, in too many areas of patient care.
IMO, lack of pain killers is something so easily changed with a parent’s active involvement, and insistance that this isn’t a reasonable argument against circumcision.
Well, first of all, I didn’t have my son circumcised right after he was born. We brought him back a few days later. And we were allowed to be in the room with him, just gowned and masked and we had to stay away from the doctors to give them room. We got him a nano-second after they were done.
Secondly, your whole scenario (and yeah, I agree it’s possible, not disagreeing there), is based upon the premise that the parents haven’t informed themselves, nor taken power in the process regarding their child. If the doctor doesn’t allow this, he needs to be fired, and one who will adress your concerns and behave in a humane way regarding pain killers be hired instead. Again, IMO, that’s more an argument against ignorant parents and not so hot doctors than it is against circ.
Yes it is, but it’s one of ignorance and uninvolvement on the parts of the parents and the “follow procedures at any cost” doctors who would act that way. As I recall, we’d barely gotten seated outside the table area, and they were done. It’s not a long procedure. And as I stated, my doctor gave me a long talk including stuff I hadn’t even thought to ask. And he brought up the painkiller that would be used, before I’d questioned him about it.
There was a time where people considered Doctors infallible and so on. And that was wrong, people should be involved in their own healthcare, and that of their children and understand what is going on. And yes, that’s a problem in getting the medical field to come along. But that’s true of EACH segment of the medical community, it’s not exclusive of circumcision.
You don’t? Empowering yourself as a parent and insisting upon proper care, or firing him and getting a proper one is not an option? (and I don’t just mean in circumcision, I understand you’re opposed to that).
What about malthus’ example of cosmetic dentistry?? Should that just NOT be done because it might hurt? Wouldn’t it be better for the parents to be there, and insist upon painkillers, or at least, if that were for some reason impossible, be there to comfort the child? You wouldn’t INSIST upon being there when your child has any procedures done?
When my son had blood drawn a few days after he was born, from his TINY little FOOT (testing for something normal, but my memory fails me), he screamed bloody murder. I cried!! I can’t imagine why a parent would just blindly trust in someone without knowing what was going on and why. At the time, I questioned the poor lab lady to a fair thee well…Why are you doing it?. Is it necessary? What does it test for? Will it hurt him? When will the results be in? and so on.
In this day and age, there’s no reason for parents not to be fully informed and fully empowered regarding doctors. Meaning, if the answers aren’t satisfactory, you go to someone else.
No argument there, at least SOME anticircs are reasonable
I don’t consider speculative articles that claim there ‘might’ be a reduction in the potential for something, or that there ‘may’ be a lower chance of something else to be ‘proof’. Apparently, you do.
Yeah, you only made that snarky mommy comment once. You are not my mother. You are still acting like you think you are. It is not up to you to lecture me about my behavior.
They did not prove a causal link with enough statistical significance, or they were merely conjecturing about the possible lowered risk of HPV, penile cancer, or HIV transmission, and therefore do not on the whole support the practice being so widespread, and done without a prior history in a particular patient of foreskin related problems.
And all of them appear to be reading things into the studies that frankly, aren’t there. Not a single one of them seems to indicate that pre-emptive circumcision is necessary at all. The only thing they’ve indicated to me is that in certain cases, with certain patients, with certain problems, circumcision fixes those issues.
And what I see in your posts is that you believe yourself to be wiser and more enlightened than me. It also appears to me that you have not left ‘mommy mode’ which you yourself made the comment about.
Which as you seem to be forgetting was in response to ‘We’d keep on doing it even if it weren’t legal to do it until the kid could consent.’
I can only judge based on your posts. On that basis, I can only come to the conclusion that you know very, very little about my religion.
I cited the First Amendment. You should remember as you corrected my spelling. If you disagree with my interpretation of that Amendment, make your case.
It takes a very long time for anything to be considered proven in science, including medical science. However, if numerous studies hold up under scrutiny and their results can be reproduced, we’re pretty far along the path to proven.
Have you read GD? According to various posters folks like Zev and I are deluded, worship a mythical magical sky pixie, believe in a book riddled with contradictions and errors, or are simply confusing activity in our temporal lobe or large amounts of endogenous DMT for spiritual experience.
What other posters in this thread understand is that circumcision is a very important part of Judaism, and that unless they can convince me and Zev to give up Judaism, we’re not going to give up circumcision.
No, I can’t. You say that Judaism can get along just fine without circumcision. Several posters explain why that statement is wrong. You repeat your statement. Several posters again attempt to explain the importance of circumcision in Judaism.
Then you say “You have absolutely know way of discerning what I really know about Jewish faith.”
Chotii
At a Bris, not only are the parent’s close by (in fact, considering that the father of the mohel whose site I linked to earlier is also a mohel, it’s very likely that Joel Shulsoun was actually circumcised by his father) so are the grandparents. One of the grandparents (in my case, my Zeide Herman) is actually responsible for holding the baby still. These are just the relatives that are close by. All the relatives who would be invited to a wedding, Bar Mitzvah or similar occasion are also in the room-just farther away. It’s also considerd a good deed (and by many Jews, good luck as well) to attend a Bris. Any stranger is welcome to come. As my Bris was the first in that part of Virginia, literally hundreds of Christians came to watch. Rabbi Klirs explained the ceremony. Then, he took out some large medical charts to explain circumcision. At that point, most of the crowd fled. The local paper actually ran a story on it. If I can get one of my scanners working again I’ll upload the clipping and post a link.
Shoulson did mention the use of topical anasthetic. I’d like to read for myself the evidence that it is safe (I’m sure that it is-I’d just like to read the stuff for myself).
Are you going to call those numbers “a causal link with enough statistical significance”, or are you just going to ignore them because you don’t want to admit that there are some benefits to circumcision?
To which I responded that the First Amendment, like all the others, is not absolute. The government most definitely does have the power to limit the ability of one person to practice religion upon another without the consent of that other. In the case of circumcision, this practice is done in a permanent, painful manner that involves removing part of another person’s body. It is my opinion that this represents a compelling state interest to limit the practice of religious circumcision at least to the point that the person being circumcised can consent to the practice.
As the Jewish religion does allow conversion to the religion, and circumcision can happen at that point, I cannot see how this would be akin to making the religion itself illegal. Those sons who wish to follow in the religion could easily do so once they reach an age where they can give meaningful consent to.
You have not responded to that.
Proving what? That there might be a reduction in the potential for penile cancer or HPV transmission? That it may lower the risk of HIV transmission? Those statements, and those are what I see from the evidence provided and other articles that I’ve seen over the last few years, are mostly based on small samples and correlation rather than causation. No causal link has been proven in any statistically meaningful way. What is that close to proving?
Yeah, I have, which is why I find it so ironic that I’m supposedly batshit insane. You haven’t called me that, Zev hasn’t called me that, but it’s quite strange that in so many other threads in which religious beliefs are brought up (and I typically see this in threads involving Christianity), those who cling to beliefs in deities are the ones that get the ‘sky pixie’ comments. I haven’t seen it as much with regards to Judaism, and in fact (maybe because Christianity gets discussed a lot more), I don’t really remember the level of debate against those who are Jewish as there is against those who are Christian. It almost seems to me as if this board shies away from debating anything involved in Judaism.
Of unconsenting infants. I have no problem with people deciding to have themselves circumcised in the name of their religion, only with doing it to other people who can’t consent. Why is it that you leave that part of the statement off?
Actually I’d call them a correlation, not a causation. What other factors were accounted for? Family history? Other risk factors for cancer? Testing and detection of pre-cancerous cells?
There is no actual proof in that statement that one event caused the other.
Less than 10 out of over 60,000, in a study of penile cancer and circumcision, and it’s a statistical anomaly. Right.
Are you a creationalist by any chance? Because you are giving a stunningly accurate portrayal of how they argue. Make up your mind, and then discount or ignore any facts which disprove your conclusion, and call it science.
Quote:
CanvasShoes said:
It’s not that you don’t understand what proof has been presented, is it? You just don’t happen to agree with it. Fine, but don’t then claim that none has been presented, or that your points haven’t been answered and replied to by whining that your points are being dismissed. They haven’t.
By George, I think she might be getting it. (now THAT was patronizing, as well as goofy).
First off, cites have been provided from me and others on out POV, you haven’t provided anything but your own opinion and insults to those who are pro.
Second (the by george I think she’s got it part), YES, that’s exactly it. It’s called an OPINION. People interpret facts in their own way. Again, the cites I provided, and others provided included case histories. So did Yosimete’s. So does my personal case history with my son when he was circumcised. I based my beliefs on what I gleaned from information. The information, that of articles, my doctor and so on. Was clear and concise. It could be understood Not clear is not the same as not supportive, something you still don’t seem to be able to get.
You have been claiming that the cites provided weren’t clear. Again, I know you’re smart and can understand what they said, you just don’t happen to feel it supports our viewpoint to your personal POV. No one, but NO ONE has said you had to. But it’s not very honest to claim that the cites weren’t clear.
Quote:
2. Again, I haven’t been patronizing to you, no “there there dear” or “sweeite” or what have you. And again, I don’t consider myself superior to you, whether I agree with your viewpoint or not. If I were on the anticirc side of this debate, I would STILL dislike your behaviour. Disliking another’s behaviour is NOT to say “oh, they’re not as good” or whatever.
Asked and answered. You keep posting, point by point, comments and questions to ME. I am answering them point by point back. Period. And I didn’t make a “snarky” mommy comment. I said “mom mode” off, making fun of MYSELF for that one post, 9 pages ago.
Quote:
They are still valid medical opinions from doctors. If you don’t consider them “good enough” to support circumcision, that’s one thing. That doesn’t make them “might or may” statements. There were case histories in those cites. I don’t think the kids suffering from the diseases were thinking “this might hurt”.
Again, that you feel they aren’t “good enough” proof is a far cry from “not clear” or not provided as you’ve claimed. And again, YOU have posted no cites supporting the supposed mutilation, or “sick fucking obsessed” pro circs, just to name a few.
Quote:
You’re so interested in getting all hysterical and name calling, and saying someone has a sick fucking obsession, IS name-calling, that you haven’t even noticed that most pro circ folks, in this thread have ALL stated that they may be more willing to not circumcise after having heard reasonable arguments.
In YOUR pinion, as you said yourself “they appear” that is YOUR take on the info, others will read the information in a different way, I only posted the three cites, others here have posted others, including, I think one from malthus about cosmetic dentistry.
And as to "not preemptive. There is not way to tell this, if the boys who were going to get penile cancer are circumcised, they won’t get it. It’s not as if the doctor’s have a crystal ball and can say 100% that this illness will occur in this case or that case, all they can do is show the number of problems of uncircumcised me as compared to circumcised men.
At any rate, again, this is what an opinion is partly made up of, that is if a one person or another sees the information as supporting their side. You are drastically anticirc, so of course no information would convince you. No one is asking or expecting it to, you’ve made yourself quite clear. But the information HAS been provided, it’s clear and can be understood. And for you to insist otherwise is dishonest on your part.
Quote:
It is what I see in other posters’ reactions to this sort of posting style.
No, I don’tl As I’ve said, 500 times now. You ASKED why people were insulting you, I answered you in that first post after that question. Since then, you’ve been posting directly to me with a point by point post. And I’ve merely answered, point by point. As to the “mommy mode” asked and answered above.
Quote:
But the way in which you present it, replete with calling anyone who is pro circ “sick fucking obsessed” and so on.
You were making comments like this from the get go, well before the hijack about the Jewish religion.
You were making ugly comments about people believing in and/or practising circumcision well before that. It’s one thing to state your beliefs, it’s quite another to vilify those with the opposing viewpoint.
And before you start. No one has vilified you for your POV. They’ve vilified you for your behaviour. And the reason they’re vilifying you for your behaviour is because YOU first vilified them for their POV. You didn’t say something like “I feel so strongly about this, that I have a hard time understanding that your religion centers around this practice”. No, you called it a fucking sick obsession".
That, right there, is key. It’s NOT the subject matter, it’s that sort of venomous language and treatment of the opposing POV. And before you jump in with “why are you lecturing me”? Remember, YOU posted the above points to ME. I’m merely answering them.
Again, Shulsoun mentions attending a conference in which a large number of mohels concluded it was okay to use topical anasthetic. If you want to prove that the topical anasthetic used doesn’t work, I’ll need a cite.
What age would that be exactly? Considering that the age at which one can be granted a driver’s license, vote, and buy alcohol aren’t the same(16, 18, and 21 respectively) and that the age at which one can give informed consent for sexual activity varies from state to state, what age would that be exactly?
Because the commandment (the passage was posted in this thread) commands circumcision on the eighth day. The parents of a convert are not bound by that commandment, as they are not Jews. Jewish parents are bound by that commandment.
More, I see a legitimate case for a slippery slope argument here. Once Jews give in on part of a core practice, it becomes hard for us to defend anything else.
Additionally, without a bris, the kid isn’t a Jew. We can take him to synagogue every week, enroll him in a fine private Jewish school, and teach him fluent Hebrew. Without a bris, he is not a Jew.
What age did you decide our sons could give meaningful consent at? Was it 13? Less than 13? Because, at 13 we have a Bar Mitzvah to proclaim that they are no longer Jewish boys, but Jewish men. If the age of consent at which they can consent to circumcision is higher than 13, we have to delay the Bar Mitzvah as well.
My guess is that this is due to the fact that Christianity is proselytising religion while Judaism is not. This leads to folks like Jack Chick and that judge who put the ten commandments monument in the courthouse. Judaism teaches that it’s a tough religion to follow, and that oh WeirdDave is much better being a righteous gentile than converting and being turned into a sinning Jew.
As has been said before, there are plenty of other things we can do to our kids without their consent. Why should circumcision be banned but not the cosmetic orthodonture poor, poor Malthus had inflicted on him?
bolding mine
Cat, I just don’t get it. You’re very well written, and obviously intelligent. Are you not READING the dozens of posts on the subjects above?
1.) The pain part IS wrong, and is being slowly eradicated. As I’ve posted no fewer than a dozen times, my doctor provided pain medication to my son. He made not a peep, and the procedure was quick.
2.) There ARE too many doctors who are callous about the pain their patients feel, witness that they tell we women"you’ll feel some pressure and “discomfort” but you don’t really need an epidural. But, as has been discussed in a multitude of previous posts, this is hardly exclusive to circumcision, and it’s hardly the only painful thing that kids, have to face without their consent. The fact that too many doctors are calous about pain is also hardly just a factor of circumcision, which makes the pain issue a factor of a problem within the medical community regaring a less callous attitude toward patient care, NOT a good argument against circumcision. And before you start, that’s NOT to say there aren’t good arguments against it, that’s just not one of them.
3.) Removes a part of their body… Okay, and despite the fact that this question has been posed to YOU numerous times, how would you handle caul removal? Extra finger/toe removal? Cosmetic dentistry? (WITH anesthesia, as discussed in points one and two).
4.) Without their consent, though you claim that this point of yours has been dismissed, several posters have answered your concerns, and instead of addressing their points, you’ve complained that they were “dismissing” or “making fun of” you. it would be interesting to see an actual response to those people’s posts to you on this point.
You are acting as if this hasn’t been answered. It has. Re-read Zev’s post again. Circumcision is an integral part of their cultural identity and their religion. It symbolizes a great many things to them. Others before have tried to abolish circumcision, in the hope of squelching Judaism. Jews are adamant that this not be allowed to happen. No matter how much you kick and scream and bellyache and refuse to pay attention to what they are trying to tell you, the bottom line is, they are not going to allow it to happen.
I am very ignorant of the Jewish faith and I found Zev’s amd Doc’s posts most enlightening. I had no idea that circumcision was that important. I knew it was something that they did, but I simply had no clue. Did you? Be honest now, did you have a clue before this thread that it was that deep and profound a component to their culture, their race, and their religion?
And as for your attempt to blow off Cecil’s cite about penile cancer—give it up already. Give me a freakin’ break. As Weirddave said, you’re trying to call 10 out of 60,000 a “statistical anomoly”? Once again, give me a freakin’ break.
