- Add a Comment
-
- The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
"Researchers at Children's Hospital in Boston noted changes in sleep patterns, activity level, irritability, and mother-infant interaction. They concluded,
The persistence of specific behavioral changes after circumcision in neonates implies the presence of memory. In the short term, these behavioral changes may disrupt the adaptation of newborn infants to their postnatal environment, the development of parent-infant bonding, and feeding schedules.( 25)
A team of Canadian researchers produced evidence that circumcision has long-lasting traumatic effects. An article published in the international medical journal The Lancet reported the effect of infant circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. The researchers tested 87 infants at 4 months or 6 months of age. The boys who had been circumcised were more sensitive to pain than the uncircumcised boys. Differences between groups were significant regarding facial action, crying time, and assessments of pain.
The authors believe that 'neonatal circumcision may induce long-lasting changes in infant pain behavior because of alterations in the infant's central neural processing of painful stimuli." They also write that "the long-term consequences of surgery done without anesthesia are likely to include post-traumatic stress as well as pain. It is therefore possible that the greater vaccination response in the infants circumcised without anaesthesia may represent an infant analogue of a post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by a traumatic and painful event and re-experienced under similar circumstances of pain during vaccination.' "
It's cosmetic surgery, people. The only person who should decide to surgically alter a healthy, functioning body part is the owner of that body part.
@MichaelHays....yes, babies have and do die from blood loss during circumcisions. Actually more babies are harmed/killed by the procedure than are saved from penile cancer as old men.
Circumcision does not prevent HIV. Circumcision does not prevent UTIs. Circumcision does not prevent skin yeast infections.
The only consideration, is that it violates the rights of males to make their own decisions for their own bodies as adults. End of discussion. There is no debate about this topic in Europe, and why would there be as it's rarely practiced, even among Jews. People who call intactivism "new anti-Semitism" are unaware that Jewish boys have the right to remain intact as nature created them, and it is anti-Semitic to deny them or any other boy this right. The religious issue is moot, because men's rights take precedent over religious superstitions. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, which also includes physical protection from the scarification of genital cutting and the damage that results. Baby boys are not objects or pets owned by parents. Parents have the wrong ideas if they have children in an attempt to create a clone of themselves.
Can you imagine if a man were to authorize elective surgery on his wife to which she did not consent?
Can you imagine the outrage if someone wanted to forcefully remove the foreskin off an unconsenting grown man?
Think about it!
the truth hurts, almost as much as cutting off a piece of your own dick
3 ounces is about 90 milliliters. There are only 200 milliliters about in a full term newborn. If a newborn loses 2-3 ounces of blood volume, that is about half their blood volume! How can that NOT be fatal?
http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/death-from-circumcision.html
-A newborn baby can die from as little as 2.3ounces of blood loss.
http://www.opposingviews.com/counters/death-occurs-even-when-circumcision-is-carried-out-by-a-medical-doctor
In your response to John_Rational, you say that "the ***** [...] does not change size in infancy." Of course, it doesn't. It changes obviously later in childhood development. That's why you want to wait until AFTER most of post-birth development (puberty) of the ***** has occurred. If you remove skin that allows blood flow properly and erection/flaccid cycles to occur naturally you restrict how much the ***** can expand during those cycles. What happens when you restrict growth of ***** shaft during erections? You get pain, tearing, bleeding and the need for lots and lots of lube.
None of the arguments against circumcision--physical, physiological, or psychological--has any grounding in fact. Look around and look back in time: if any of the arguments were true, circumcised Jewish and Muslim men would be disproportionately debilitated by disease, with higher mortality rates than those of the general population; dysfunctional or sexually displeased; or deranged. (When they invoke trauma, Christians cannot imagine the trauma to an uncircumcised Jew or Muslim adult male who believes that he was not treated properly by parents who denied him this mark of his birthright and religious identity.)
All of the arguments against circumcision thus make false arguments or use inflammatory language (knife attacks on baby boys, mutilation, and much else).
All of the arguments come from Christians who want Jews and Muslims to do as instructed despite this obvious infringement on their right to practice their religion. This First Amendment right is not likely to be superseded by some overriding state concern about foreskin. So enactment will expose San Franciscans as fools or fascists or both.
Note that the New Left Anti-Semites show the same ignorance of, or indifference to, the Constitution as some Tea Party members. I guess left meets right in their disregard of fundamental democratic principles.
just because you say it does not make it so. thousands of baby boys die every year from circumcision, an absolutely POINTLESS surgery. even more end up with botched circumcisions (there's that redundant term again)
as for the psychological aspect, go look at all the desperate men who try to restore their foreskins. do you think they are just doing this for fun?
nice job pulling the anti-semite card again, btw. your argument is as dull as the knife the rabbi used to mutilate your ***** with. heh
John_Rational--it being a religious practice of long standing, circumcision will be protected by the First Amendment. I have no idea how to measure pain, but it is likely no more painful than the shots, vaccinations, and drawing of blood done to children in the first few days after birth; abuse is not an argument which is going to work. According to some branches of Judaism, circumcision is not obligatory. So there may be Jews who have chosen not to have their male children circumcised. I do not know of a Jew who believes that other Jews should be legally barred from choosing to have their son(s) circumcised. But there may be one or two--so what? More people believe themselves to be Jesus Christ. Finally, there is the obvious anatomical reason for early circumcision: the ***** (CBS will censure the word because of its infantile belief that the word is a dirty one) does not change size in infancy. BTW, you assume but have no evidence that I am Jewish and have fathered a son. Any informed layperson can know what I know. I know something about Shakespeare, but I am not Shakespeare, whose works were written by another man with the same name!
John_Rational--it being a religious practice of long standing, circumcision will be protected by the First Amendment. I have no idea how to measure pain, but it is likely no more painful than the shots, vaccinations, and drawing of blood done to children in the first few days after birth; abuse is not an argument which is going to work. According to some branches of Judaism, circumcision is not obligatory. So there may be Jews who have chosen not to have their male children circumcised. I do not know of a Jew who believes that other Jews should be legally barred from choosing to have their son(s) circumcised. But there may be one or two--so what? More people believe themselves to be Jesus Christ. Finally, there is the obvious anatomical reason for early circumcision: the ***** (CBS will censure the word because of its infantile belief that the word is a dirty one) does not change size in infancy. BTW, you assume but have no evidence that I am Jewish and have fathered a son. Any informed layperson can know what I know. I know something about Shakespeare, but I am not Shakespeare, whose works were written by another man with the same name!
http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/death-from-circumcision.html
-A newborn baby can die from as little as 2.3ounces of blood loss.
http://www.opposingviews.com/counters/death-occurs-even-when-circumcision-is-carried-out-by-a-medical-doctor
In your response to John_Rational, you say that "the ***** [...] does not change size in infancy." Of course, it doesn't. It changes obviously later in childhood development. That's why you want to wait until AFTER most of post-birth development (puberty) of the ***** has occurred. If you remove skin that allows blood flow properly and erection/flaccid cycles to occur naturally you restrict how much the ***** can expand during those cycles. What happens when you restrict growth of ***** shaft during erections? You get pain, tearing, bleeding and the need for lots and lots of lube.
Christians cannot imagine the trauma, but you can, tends to imply you are not a Christian. When you mention Jews and Muslims you always mention Jews first, which tends to imply you are Jewish. You are showing more than just a passing interest in this topic of circumcision which tends to indicate you have a son. None of this is definitive, but if you are not Jewish I maintain based on your words it was an understandable mistake. And I would still like to know if Judaism requires babies to be circumcised? If it would satisfy Jewish law to wait to age 13 or even 18 then their is no possibility of ANY religious argument for circumcising babies.
As for the uncircumcised Jew or Muslim adult male who believes that he was not treated properly, let them go get circumcised. Nobody has a problem with adults doing this. If they are more worried about the pain than pleasing G*D, then they don't have the "Faith" to begin with.
And I know it hurts to hear it but the Constitution nowhere gives anybody the right to cut off a piece of a child's body. There is a very long precedent in the courts of the nation for forbidding "religious" practices that harm children. For example "Christian Scientists" routinely have children taken away from them for refusing to get them medical treatment which is forbidden by their religious beliefs.
The health and safety of children ALWAYS trumps religious practice. The only argument the courts will consider will be,"Is it good for the child?" If it is found to be bad for the child it will be forbidden. Also the courts will uphold the Child's first amendment right to make his own religious decisions when he is an adult. YOU have religious freedom, but you are not free to impose a virtually irreversible religious mutilation on another person. Children are people not property. There is absolutely no possibility that any first amendment challenge to anti-circumcision laws could prevail. Forget that crap.
Cutting off a piece of another persons body IS mutilation. It is not a matter of opinion, and you have absolutely no right to disagree. It's like "2+2=4", if you disagree you are just wrong, period.
Think about your anatomy and how it functions before you call anyone a fool. Fool.
Have fun with your phimosis.
I just called my husband, had to make sure he knows we need to have our sons soon before the idiocy spreads.
heh, botched circumcision, what a redundant term
Besides, is it YOUR piece of skin that they'll be trashing? Who's right is it, anyways? I don't hear you complaining about you keeping all of your body parts! Do you give your husband control of your body and the right to remove healthy tissue unnecessarily from you?
Here's a little project for you: wait until your baby boy(s) are old enough to talk and answer and then ask them if you can take body parts from them. If they ask what's wrong with it, tell them "nothing is wrong." Tell them it needs to come off because you said so. IF they complain, what will you do? Ah, yes. There's the complication: if you do this early enough they don't have a voice to complain and voice their displeasure in a way that law enforcement will recognize.
You might be able to hit the mute button but the harm will already have been done.
"...the religious right of Jewish parents to practice circumcision..."
This is no such right, and there can never be any such right. Your rights end where the rights of others begin. Religion has absolutely no relevance to this issue. The ONE, and ONLY ONE, relevant question here is,"Does circumcision harm the child?" And not just on the day of the circumcision but in the course of a lifetime. What is so difficult about erring on the side of caution and letting men make this decision for themselves as consenting adults? I assure you that American courts will confirm their right to do so.