Not even in the same ballpark.
But I’d like to know why painkillers aren’t a regular part of the process. I just don’t get it. Every other fucking thing, and there’s at least SOME sort of anesthetic. Why!? Why!?
Are you asking why pain control isn’t used during female genital mutilation? Again, this is relating to the family friend who worked in Somalia as a midwife. Infibulation (the most drastic kind of FGM) is performed there, and from what she said, it sounds like the girl would be lucky if the equipment was sterile. It’s not usually performed by doctors - a village woman, trained in it as best as possible, uses a knife or razor blade and the girl is sewn up with thorns. It’s not as though it’s being performed in a doctor’s office. Several relatives hold the girl down so she can’t struggle too much, and a knife that’s not appropriate for surgery is used in the operation. Painkillers are not available in the area.
Places that aren’t quite the hellhole Somalia is probably have slightly higher standards, but it’s not an operation usually done by doctors. They maintain the traditional ways of doing it. Real medical care is very hard to find in most of Subsaharan Africa.
Having kept up with this entire thread, I’ll go you one further and say that catsix’s argument is trollish.
I would contend that the physical marking is more severe and should be left up to the individual, because no matter how much you send someone to a religious school or how many prayers you make them recite, they still have the ability (or possibility) of just not believing. There’s no way a person can opt out of believing that his or her body has been marked.
It’s possible to be in a religious school and not believe in what is taught. It’s possible to be taken to church/synagogue/temple/mosque and just not believe in what is said. It is not possible to be circumcised and not believe you are.
Further, I find your statement that circumcision or a bris is important but not necessary. To me this indicates that those who accused me of trying to banish the Jewish religion by making it illegal to circumcise without individual consent were wrong in their accusations.
I would also like to know, in all seriousness, why it is unacceptable to wait until the person is old enough to make his own declaration of faith?
If it were illegal to circumcise a child that cannot consent, would this be a valid reason to delay?
I am aware that it’s a virus. I’m also aware that there are literally hundreds of variants of this virus, some sexually transmitted, some not, and that I have yet to see a single medical document that says it is an absolute fact that circumicsion reduces the odds of catching it.
I can assure you that I am not posting merely to get a reaction. I firmly believe the things I have said based upon the research I have seen into this matter.
Again, because the command was to circumcise on the eighth day.
As I said above, I’m not sure. Based on Zev’s answer, I doubt it would be.
I ask again, at what age would you agree that a boy can consent to circumcision?
I’d think that on average, they’d know whether or not they were interested in confirming their religion in that manner at age 14.
I’m sure you do. The problem is how you’re steadfastly defending your belief in the face of opposition. Reminds me of how lucwarm was behaving in a tailgating thread which ended with Coldfire suggesting that everyone stop feeding him.
But, nonetheless, the lifelong effects on my “unconsenting” children from their education and upbringing will have a much greater impact on them and the way they lead their lives than any circumcision that they may have. They can ignore their circumcision most of their lives. They can’t very well ignore their upbringing. Even if they choose to rebel against it at some future date, it will still affect them just about every waking moment for the rest of their lives in the way they look at the world and the way they interact with thier fellow man and environment. If you really want to protect children, you should ban any religious upbringing…
You are misunderstanding what I’ve said and confusing two different concepts. A child who is born Jewish is Jewish no matter what. If he doesn’t have a circumcision, then he is still technically Jewish. However, he isn’t practicing Judaism. You can take a Jew who doesn’t keep kosher, doesn’t keep Shabbos, doesn’t fast on Yom Kippur, doesn’t pray, doesn’t put on tefillin daily, doesn’t give charity, doesn’t honor his parents, doesn’t eat matzah on Passover and doesn’t learn Torah daily. That person is still a Jew, but he’s not practicing Judaism.
Circumcision is essential to the practice of Judaism. If I gave you the wrong impression on that before, then I apologize. It is absolutely necessary – a person who does not have a circumcision is in violation of the second commandment. There are only two positive commandments (“Thou shalt…” as opposed to “Thou shalt not…”) for which there is a punishment of heavenly excision for failure to comply with. One is a failure to bring the Passover sacrifice (which is moot today as we have no Temple). Want to hazard a guess as to the other?
As I mentioned earlier, the primary goal of any Jew is the transmission of our values, the Torah and it’s commandments to the next generation. How would it look if we failed at the very first opportunity?
Because, as others have mentioned, God told us to do it on the eighth day. When God speaks, we tend to listen to Him.
Nope. Not unless there was a direct threat to life (i.e. goon squads from the government constantly watching and who will execute at will). Throughout the years, many Jews have gone to prison and endured hardship and prison to keep this (and other) commandments.
Zev Steinhardt
I’d like to know when Jeff Olsen became a mod.
And Zev, thank you for your explanation. While I still don’t agree with it, and think that the law should require parents not to circumcise any of their children, male or female, leaving the decision up to them when they are capable of consenting, at least you have been civil and more explanatory in your answers than others.
I just don’t find that ‘god said so’ is something that should be given so much weight by government.
Where did I imply I am? I consider your argument to be trollish and said why. In case I wasn’t clear, it’s not that I think you don’t really believe what you’re posting, it’s that you’re doing the message board equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going, “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”.
BTW: calling an argument “trollish” is not agaisnt the rules. I’m not calling you a troll, just your argument.
Are you sure [earnest question) it isn’t against the rules? - the dividing line seems pretty fine to me, in the particular case of trolling.
Jeff brought up an instance with lucwarm being beyond obstinate in a thread, to the extent that the thread was finally closed. Was lucwarm accused of being a troll for that thread? I am not sure, but I don’t think so.
I think Jeff is trying to compare catsix’s behavior with lucwarm’s. I don’t think he was saying that lucwarm was a “troll” in that other thread, just an annoying pain in the ass who was wasting a lot of time and energy and bandwidth.
I know Gaudere said that it’s okay in GD to refer to the posts and not the poster. This, of course, is not GD but the same reasoning should apply. The ruling was made here in the Pit, after all. I could try to find a cite if you’d like.
Not directly, no. Coldie did make a backhand comment at the end.
You got the gist of it. 
lucwarm also did the finger-in-the-ears thing.
A thought, well more questions really, on the “this is an unconsenting infant, and that’s why it should be against the law” argument. Just out of curiosity.
How much say does the baby get regrading the approximately 7500 diaper changes (based on 10 to 12 changes a day, from birth to 24 months, a guess since that’s when my son was potty trained), complete with the indignity of foreskin retraction, especially that given by inexperienced parents, possibly resulting in pain and problems, and cleaning of his penis?
And how much say does the then toddler have in the indignity of being nagged and/or held down foreskin retracted and cleaned from 2 years to 5 or 6 years of age?
And how much humiliation does he unwilling, unconsentingly suffer upon being nagged to clean his foreskin and penis properly at older ages? WeirdDave perhaps could answer this one, IIRC, he was explaining how he and his wife had to nag their intact son to do just that.
Cite for varieties of HPV that are not sexually transmitted? In all my research, I never saw one.
Well, first of all…the foreskin should never, under any circumstances not related to absolute medical necessity be forcibly retracted. To do so risks damage to the head, creating a wound with the expected risk of infection. Also, when the foreskin rolls back over the damaged glans, it can grow/heal to it, causing an adhesion.
Most boys won’t have a retractible foreskin before the age of 2 1/2 or 3, and they will do this by themselves, painlessly and gradually, by playing with themselves. Some boys will not retract before puberty. This too (barring an actual medical issue such as phimosis) is within the range of normal. If the boy cannot retract due to phimosis, there are treatments that can work, including the judicious use of steroid creams under the guidance of a knowledgeable doctor.
As for 10 year old boys who refuse to retract themselves and wash, I dare say that many parents struggle with many 10 year old boys who refuse to wash themselves, sexual organs or otherwise, and the fact that this particular boy won’t wash under his foreskin is very probably within the range of normal also. It may be olfactorily offensive, but I doubt it’s unusual. Smegma is sticky and may appear offensive, but it is not a breeding ground for bacteria - it’s actually antibacterial in nature - so its presence is not so much problematic as “icky”. I actually make a point of leaving smegma on my daughter when I change her diaper.
Now, about the indignities of diaper-changes…it’s true, babies don’t like having their diapers changed. But they’d like it a whole lot less if they were left to sit in the same diaper for the first 2 1/2 years of their lives. 
Plus the infection that would set in would be most unpleasant. It’s a cost-benefit thing.
So the foreskin just stays in place, unwashed under the foreskin with all the pee, and other possible material having seeped in under there, until the about age 2 or so?
I was under the impression from reading other posts, that it was a supposedly simple matter of merely retracting the foreskin and cleaning under it. What you’ve said strikes me as grotesquely unsanitary and as previous cites have stated, fraught with risks such as phimosis.
Well, my post wasn’t regarding the mere indignities of just diaper changes, but the diaper changes with the attempt to properly clean an uncirumcised penis and the indignity of THAT specifically. And as to it being a cost benefit thing. Um yes, exactly the point many pro circs have been trying to make.
That of that there are many unpleasant things done to children in the name of their best interests without their express consent. So opposing circumcision on the basis that it’s “done without the infants consent” is illogical.
And again, that is NOT to say that we’re agreeing that no anasthetic is acceptable.
For this, I will refer you to Doctor Greene, who addressed this question in a very straightforward method in 1997:Cleaning the Uncircumcised Penis
And in case anyone might decide he’s an anti-circ nutcase, here’s what the American Academy of Pediatrics has to say about the very same subject.
Until the foreskin retracts (or is forcibly separated from the glans, to which it is naturally attached), all those yucky things you’re thinking about…just don’t happen. The outside can be washed like any other body part. Occasionally, some ‘pearls’ of smegma may form underneath the prepuce. They are not harmful, not infectious, and not a problem except for people who try to forcibly retract the foreskin to get them out. Once the foreskin can be retracted gently, the area can be washed with water just like any other part of the body, and be just as clean.
Gross, but not unsanitary. The glans penis and the prepuce are attached quite closely; material doesn’t gather between them. The ‘natural’ design of the penis is not flawed.
The idea that boys would need to be told to wash their genitals strikes me as rather odd; in my experience, boys (and sometimes men) have, if anything, to be restrained from handling their genitals at any moment, but especially while bathing.