For the anti-circs/and whoever else is interested

Jenni - posted on 03/13/2011

Antibiotics are generally used to treat infections. Us women get genital infections. We are prescribed antibiotics not circumcision. Sorry this might be a bit long but:



"Interestingly, one of the many reasons given to continue the practice of female circumcision in Egypt is the claim that it lowers the rate of UTI's among girls!



Based on the often-referred-to Wiswell study, “Noncircumcised male infants had a 10-fold greater incidence of infection than did circumcised male infants.” Standing alone, this statement sounds pretty powerful and is probably quite effective in convincing many people who have no other facts to go on that circumcision is a good idea. It implies that the foreskin is to blame for any UTIs that occur among intact infants. However, when you look at the actual figures in the study, it is obvious that UTIs are rare among the intact.



And when they do occur, they are most often caused by factors totally unrelated to the foreskin. The Wiswell study fails to point this out. “60% of children with UTIs have anatomic abnormalities in their urinary tracts. UTIs are significantly more common in girls.” [Urinary] “UTIs are rarely seen in boys and young men.” [U.S.] It also fails to mention other links to UTIs which include malnutrition, diabetes, constipation and incomplete drainage of the urinary system. [New] Infections have also been caused by exposure to E. Coli. Additionally, serious problems can occur in uncircumcised males who experience invasive inspections, overzealous cleaning efforts and retraction attempts. “It has been proven that retraction and washing of the infant foreskin can cause urinary tract infections.” [Hodges]



A parent or doctor might be alarmed if they notice that the tip of the penis under the foreskin is pink or red rather than flesh tone. They might suspect an infection and run a test. False positive results for UTIs occur in 16% of the tests. [Schlager] [Fleiss] Because the intact penis is protected by its sheath, the tip of the penis is pink or reddish in color. This is normal and not cause for alarm. The coloring by itself is not an indication that an infection is present.



In the rare case where a boy does have an abnormal upper tract, and has suffered from recurrent UTIs, a doctor may suggest circumcision in an attempt to eliminate at least one possible cause of another UTI, -- from bacteria in the foreskin. However, even if he is circumcised, the child may still suffer from more UTIs caused by other factors as indicated above.



The Wiswell study “reviewed the occurrence of UTIs in 209,399 infants born in US Army hospitals worldwide from 1985 to 1990. During the first year of life, 1,046 (0.5%: 550 girls and 496 boys) were hospitalized for UTIs.” This draws me to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that about 45 boys were circumcised and about 450 were intact. According to this study, about one boy out of 464 uncircumcised males gets a UTI during the first year of life.



The Wiswell study has been challenged and questioned by many. The American Academy of Pediatrics said “It should be noted that these studies in army hospitals are retrospective in design, and may have methodological flaws.”



In Europe, routine infant circumcision is not performed. From what I understand, UTI rates are lower there than in the U.S. In fact, 82% of the world’s living men are not circumcised and yet we don’t hear about alarming rates of UTIs worldwide.



A study was also done in California by a Dr. Martin Altschul of 118,000 births and infants admitted with a diagnosis of UTI. His findings for intact boys was 120 cases per 100,000. That works out to one infection per 833 boys.



All of the UTIs in both of these studies were caused by different factors. But let’s take a worst case scenario and say they all occurred from bacteria in the child’s foreskin. Depending on which study you choose to rely on, either 464 or 833 boys would have to be circumcised to prevent the occurrence of a single UTI that could usually be treated effectively with oral antibiotics. How does this small of a threat justify automatic circumcision of all boys?



Even if UTIs occurred at a much higher rate than the Wiswell study concluded, say at the rate of 1 in 100, then it still does not make sense to circumcise 99 boys who will never experience a UTI all because one boy might. To top it off, those who do get circumcised are still at risk of UTI's.



Another study was completed in 1995 on preputial development. 603 Japanese boys from newborns to 15 years of age were evaluated. The average age was 3.8. Neonatal circumcision is not common in Japan. All of the boys were intact. During the year long study, none had a symptomatic urinary tract infection. [Journal]



The subject of UTIs is covered extensively in The New Child Health Encyclopedia. In it, there is absolutely no mention of the foreskin as a culprit or cause, nor is circumcision suggested as a treatment or cure. The fact remains that UTIs are rare and can usually be treated effectively with antibiotics."



Ok so lets pretend there were conclusive/irrefutable studies that proved the foreskin was the link to UTIs.

In the same way that having tonsils are linked to tonsillitis. Or having an appendix is linked to appendicitis. Then we should also have the right to remove those organs at birth. If we remove them we would eliminate our child's risk of suffering from an infection and inevitably having to have surgery on them in the future.



Both the appendix and tonsils were long believed to be useless organs by the medical community. Now we know they do serve a purpose. The same as any organ in our bodies. The same as the foreskin.

Why remove something that has a function and purpose, unless it is absolutely medically necessary, without someone's consent?

Audrey - posted on 03/13/2011

oh and to kate- there was never blood in my sons diaper, and he didnt ever scream when he peed. when you have a circumsised son, you put lots of vaseline on a soft gauze square and put it over the end of his penis. that way when you change him, there really isnt much cleaning involved because poop doesnt get on it. as for bath time, just squeeze a little soapy water from a washcloth over it and rinse with clean water the same way and then put the vaseline gauze back on. he was never in pain from it and it wasnt like caring for a typical open wound. i was scared to change him at first but my husband helped me the first few times until i became more comfortable. i will say though that i have heard of little boys who were circd having a bit of trouble with it ( my little cousin included) but it wasnt enough to make me change my mind about it. as for researching it before hand, honestly, i didnt. my mom is very up on all things medical and i trust her to tell me whats true. i think another reason i didnt research it is because i know so many guys who are circd and never had a problem so i figured it was safe. although there are complications with every procedure, i just didnt see the risks outweighing the benifits. not to say that leaving your boy intact doesnt have benefits, it just wasnt what we felt was the right thing for our family.

Kori - posted on 03/13/2011

In Sk. you have to pay 100$ but I think that is silly...my brother was not circ' and then got an infection and had to have it done at an older age...which was very traumatizing! I think if the parents think it should be done then is should be done!

Jenni - posted on 03/13/2011

Johnny, Exactly!

If it weren't for my husband being opposed to circumcision, I'd probably have never looked into it myself. I'd have just assumed it was the norm and more than likely would have opted for circumcision. I would have never researched the subject and came to the conclusions I did about circumcision. So I'm not taking a holier than thou stance on this one. I think it's important that everyone know the facts and have the myths dispelled about leaving the penis intact.

And there are sooo many of them! My own doctor was telling me to pull back my son's foreskin to clean him. Luckily, my husband knew better.

If I had made the decision to circ and then discovered what I know now about it. I probably would have regretted my decision. It wouldn't have made me a bad Mum! We all only do what we feel is best for our children.



If I knew what I knew now and had already made the decision to circ. I would still be an advocate for leaving the penis intact.

Audrey - posted on 03/13/2011

@ sarah s.- if i were a boy my parents would have circd me and i would be happy with their choice. i cant imagine cutting my parents out of my life for something like that! and it's pretty bold of you to blame your parents peircing your ears on your obsession with piercings and tatoos! lots of parents pierce their baby's ears and their kids dont grow up to have a piercing and tat obsession. and im not judging the other mother's for thier decision. ive said before that if you choose not to circ then thats your right. what pisses me off is all the talk about how mothers who choose to circ are somehow bad mothers. yes i know no one actually said those words but the comments make it seem that way. and im sorry if i offended anyone, that was not my intention. i am just trying to defend myself. anyway thats all i got for now.

Julianne - posted on 03/13/2011

I don't judge those who do it either. I believe they truly think they are doing or have done the right thing for their child. It should not be the parents decision to cosmetically alter their child. I am so glad i was not circumcised, that its not the social norm. I like my natural vagina.

If medical reasons require it to be done, thats different. Medical reasons are few and far between though, most are done because of personal or religious preferences. Those preferences may not be the little boy having it done though.

Isobel - posted on 03/13/2011

I don't judge people who have done it either...I think I've said a million times that I believe we all do what we believe is best for our children...but because it's a debate, I share my own personal views with the hopes of changing a few minds.

There are plenty of women here who HAVE circumcised their son and then later changed their mind and came to see it differently and wouldn't circumcise another child...I see that as a success.

I disagree that it SHOULD be a choice without any medical reason though...sorry, I just don't think it should be available.

Johnny - posted on 03/13/2011

It is not about making other mothers feel badly. I do not believe anyone here is interested in a guilt trip. It seems that the main point being made that it is the owner of the penis who has the right to make the decision about what is done with it. Not the parents of that owner who are making that decision before the owner of the penis even knows that he has one.

For people opposed to circumcision, the arguments are not about disrespecting the parents but about respecting the sons.

When my daughter was born, I was pro-circumcision. My husband and I had seriously discussed having it done if we had a boy. Both of us believed it would be cleaner and safer. My father (who is circed) is quite strongly opposed to circumcision and asked us to do a lot of research into it before we made that decision. By the time both my husband and I had done that, we independently came to the conclusion that it would not be the right choice for us to make for our child. If my dad hadn't said anything, if our daughter had been a boy, we too would have circumcised. And I later would have regretted it.

There are mothers here who have circumcised their sons who now believe that RIC is not the right thing to do. They did the best with the information that they had at the time. Now that they have new information, they have changed their minds. No one condemns anyone or is taking a superior attitude. Each and every parent has made choices that seemed the right ones that they later learned may not have been so.

Brandi - posted on 03/13/2011

Well, I agree with you, Kate. I am not here to make anyone feel bad for NOT having it done. But, the ones who are trying to defend it in some sort of way are being thrown facts and are trying to be made to feel bad about having it done. Those are just reasons why we may have had it done, just like the ones who didn't have it done, they have their reasons. I don't think anyone who has had their child circumcised and has posted is trying to make you feel bad about not having it done. Honestly, there aren't many of us on this thread. And the ones that I have read were trying to defend themselves against all the ones trying to make US feel bad.

So, if you feel that way, I apologize for anyone who made you feel bad. AND, YOU are right, it should be a choice.

Kate CP - posted on 03/13/2011

"okay so youre not respecting the mother's right to make a medicaldecision for her child or respecting what she feels is the right thing to do for her baby..."

I don't disrespect or respect a mother for circumcising her son...she just chose a different path for her kids than I did. What I absolutely don't respect is when people start saying things like "it's cleaner, it's healthier, it's safer, it protects against disease" that all a bunch of crap. I don't respect those ideas because it implies that *I* made a poor choice by NOT circumcising my son. I chose not to circumcise my son. I didn't want to see blood in his diaper, I didn't want to have to deal with an open wound, I didn't want to hear him scream every time he peed. All of those things happen when you circumcise a boy. If another mom wants to deal with that then that's her choice but I didn't want to and I won't. All the other things that can or could happen as the result of circumcising or not circumcising your newborn baby are irrelevant to me. I just didn't want to cut my son. Period.

Tara - posted on 03/13/2011

Exactly,

I know someone who has many intentional scars, (scarification) this is also practiced in many indigenous cultures around the world on adults and children.

If someone in the states or canada decided to have their child scarred because they are scarred, even if it were religious in nature, those parents would be charged with torture and child abuse and thrown in jail. People would say "You have NO right to do that to your child's body."

So what is the difference? Why is it a parents right to remove a part of their childs body? When any other modifications that require cutting the skin of a child would result in charges of abuse and torture why is okay for the foreskin? Which incidentally is much less important than any other piece of "skin" on the human male's body.

Not understanding the whole "It's my right" thing. When it doesn't apply to anything but circumcision in regards to modifying our childrens bodies with a scalpel and some drugs to "numb" them.

Minnie - posted on 03/13/2011

Foot binding of girls in China.

Kate CP - posted on 03/13/2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paduang

Nope, they won't die if you remove the coils. It doesn't stretch the neck, it deforms the clavicle.

Jenni - posted on 03/13/2011

This whole debate gets me thinking about other body modifications made to children in other cultures and time periods.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Catego...

I'm sure we're familar with some of these.

Headwrapping was also practiced in many cultures. But isn't it odd that majority of modern, developed cultures have grown out of these traditions?



The neck stretching one really freaks me out. I've heard if they were to remove the rings, the girls will die.

I wonder if a Padaung family moved to say North America if they would be allowed by law to continue their tradition of body modification to a child.

Tara - posted on 03/13/2011

I knew a girl whose mother scrubbed her vagina with dishsoap because she said "she was unclean down there, all girls are unclean down there." this poor girl ended up with severe problems.
But her mother said "It's my right, I am her parent and I'm not hurting her, I'm protecting her."
Is it her right or is that sexual and physical abuse?

Krista - posted on 03/13/2011

Cutting off a healthy part of another human without his or her consent is not something I can respect.

What I respect is each individual's right to bodily integrity.

What a parent 'feels' is right is not always the right thing to do.

EXACTLY. That is EXACTLY how I feel about it too. Why is the parent's ability to do what they feel is right considered some untouchable, irrefutable, deity-granted law of the land? Some parents beat the living shit out of their kids, under the guise of disciplining them, and they're "doing what they feel is right". So should we have no laws against child abuse, because the right of a parent to do what they feel is right is somehow more important than the well-being of the child?

Krista - posted on 03/13/2011

Why the scare quotes around "ladies", Audrey? Are we not ladies, simply because we disagree with you and have strong opinions?

Isobel - posted on 03/13/2011

I ENTIRELY respect a parent's right to make MEDICAL decisions for their children...I DO NOT respect a parent's right to get plastic surgery for a newborn baby that will alter the functioning of it's body for the negative for the rest of it's life.

Jenni - posted on 03/13/2011

Audrey: It's the inet... it's easy to take things out of context especially if it's a conversation you are personally sensitive about. I haven't seen anyone being sarcastic, they are merely combating the opposing side with their research, facts and opinions.
There are plenty of debates where I was on the underdog side. Debating is a way to educate ourselves on all sides of the argument and encourage us to do our own research. There has been quite a few debates that after I was shown facts and research, I conceded. Or at least left the argument more informed on the topic and my stance on it.

Sarah - posted on 03/13/2011

Audrey - imagine you're male and your parents decided to circ you for no other reason (cultural/religious or medical) other than they just felt it would a good thing...i don't know i can respect people do it and i know if i were a boy my father would of had me circ'd just so i looked like him...and i can assure you once armed with the right information at the right age i would of probably cut my parents from my life for doing such a thing without my consent...sometimes i wonder if piercing my ears at 3 months was a good move for my parents cos now im completely hooked on piercings and if its not piercings its tattoos and really it as my parents that decided that i should have studs put through my ears.

Audrey - posted on 03/13/2011

oh and the only reason im getting sick of this debate is not because i cant handle it but because you "ladies
" are underhandedly being disrespectful of the pro-circ mothers. you call it healthy debate but i can sense the sarcasm. i hope someday you can abandon that "superior mother" aditude you have.

Jenni - posted on 03/13/2011

Please. I'd like you to point out where I was being disrespectful?
And we already established that there are *some* medical reasons to preform a circ. In those cases I see no problem with it. Any other reason it is cosemetic. So by that logic I should have the right to decide to give my son a nose job if *I* deem his nose to be too big.

Again, this is a debate forum:
de·bate (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

Sorry if I'm coming across as being condescending but I think you're missing the point of this forum.

And you didn't answer Tara's questions, that's why she asked again.

Minnie - posted on 03/13/2011

Cutting off a healthy part of another human without his or her consent is not something I can respect.



What I respect is each individual's right to bodily integrity.



What a parent 'feels' is right is not always the right thing to do. Last year in February a little girl by the name of Lydia Schatz was killed because her parents chose to follow a particular religious path of discipline. They believed they were right. They were not.



In October a baby died because his mother insisted on circumcision despite him having a severe heart condition. Right decision?



Was it right that my husband's parents didn't think two bits of how his circumcision would affect ME?

Audrey - posted on 03/13/2011

okay so youre not respecting the mother's right to make a medicaldecision for her child or respecting what she feels is the right thing to do for her baby. thanks for clearing that up.and what questions were not answered jennifer?

Jenni - posted on 03/13/2011

Probably because you never answered her questions.

Julianne - posted on 03/13/2011

i respect all you mothers that chose to leave your boys intact so why cant you respect my decision and the other mothers like brandi and their decision to circ their boys?

It is the child and their right to not have their bodies permanently altered by their parents personal preferences that we are respecting.

Audrey - posted on 03/13/2011

tara- you are very repetative

Julianne - posted on 03/13/2011

Obviously medical reasons would make a circumcision necessary. Denying a circumcision for someone who NEEDED it would be inhumane. Needing a full circumcision is rare though. Alternatives exist for those medical reasons. If more people knew how to properly care for an intact penis less cases of these medically necessary circumcisions would exist.

Sarah - posted on 03/13/2011

Tara - I totally agree my ex was given the choice and so we have allowed our son to have the same choice

Tara - posted on 03/13/2011

Again I will ask:
Why is it up to the parents?
Whose penis is the one being altered?
Yours? Your spouses?
No.
Your child. Who is yours because you birthed him and will raise him, but it is not your penis. When he is 18 and an adult you will no longer have any control over what he does to his body, why do you feel you have that "right" prior to age 18?
Why do your "parental rights" supersede his own human right to bodily integrity?
How is it a parents choice to alter someone body that is not their own for purely cosmetic reasons?
Disclaimer: this does not include any medically indicated circumcisions.

Patricia - posted on 03/12/2011

and i don't care either way if you circumscise you child or not it is up to the parents

Patricia - posted on 03/12/2011

good on you Brandi i am definately convinced that circuscision is a good thing after what happened to my little boy i only wish i had it when he was first born and he never would have had this trouble i have since got 2more of my boys done shortly after and wouldn't hesitate to do it again if the baby i am having is a boy

Amy - posted on 03/12/2011

I think the 16 with parental consent or 18 is a great idea - with the exception of course of some medical NEED to circumcise.

I don't see any reason why it won't go in waves of okay and not okay. They did it WAY long ago, didn't for a long time, then became popular in some areas again what.....late 1800s again? It will probably just go back and forth. Like everything else in history that runs in cycles.

Jenni - posted on 03/12/2011

Ummm last time I checked this was a debating forum. If you're not up for a debate on controversial, sometimes very personal issues then it is your choice not to join those debate topics.

No one has been disrespectful or used personal attacks. If they had this debate would have received a 'mod warning' and be closed for further comments.

I personally, would not join a debate on an issue that I was sensitive about if I couldn't handle being scruitinized and critiqued for my beliefs on the topic.

Isobel - posted on 03/12/2011

do you respect the parents' right to circumcise their girls and remove their clitoris? no? That's why these women don't support your right to do it to your son.

Georgia - posted on 03/12/2011

Yes well, the only reason for the speculation of whether Brandi is Jewish is because she said that circumcision was good enough for Jesus (a Jew) so it's good enough for her son. And, someone had asked her what faith she was, but she refused to answer. It was just a question to they to understand how she had arrived at her bible based decision to circ.

And, this is a debate, as Lisa said, but in order to have a debate information has to be exchanged. No one has disrespected anyone's decisions as yet (surprisingly so!). Disrespect would come in the form of an emotion-based post and a personal attack. You're right that not everyone will agree on the subject, but that is the basis for a debate.

For the record, I am not a practicing anything. I used to be a devote born again christain, then was an atheist and now I'm a . if I had to classify myself, my most likely response would be Buddhist. And my parents were Buddhist, but let me attend any church I wanted, and occasionally accompanied me. I've always been fascinated by religions. My parents were so cool that they even came to the vacation bible school play I was in when I was 9!

Minnie - posted on 03/12/2011

No, Audrey, it's a debate. Debaaaaaate.

Relgion can be talked about regarding the topic of circumcision because many people defend the procedure based on 'relgious reasons.'

Audrey - posted on 03/12/2011

why are you even talking about whether or not brandi is jewish? why does it matter to you? she had her reasons for circing the same as you had your reasons for not doing it. everyone has put in their 2 cents(or 20 cents, you know who you are) and this is not a topic that everyone will agree on. i respect all you mothers that chose to leave your boys intact so why cant you respect my decision and the other mothers like brandi and their decision to circ their boys? im not even going to get into the religious aspect of this because this is not a religious thread. but im southern baptist in case any of you wanted to know. lets just agree to disagree and go on with our lives.

Minnie - posted on 03/12/2011

If Brandi is Jewish then she should have only had a sliver of the prepuce removed. But since her second post in this thread was about how 'it prevents STDs so that's enough for me' I will venture that she went ahead and took the whole thing off. Traditional Jewish circumcision leaves all of the foreskin that covers the glans. That means the mucosal membranes are still intact, the muscle layers are still and all of those scary prepucial folds that are sure to hold all of that HIV!

Minnie - posted on 03/12/2011

You're also thinking of your son's future partners.

Tara - posted on 03/12/2011

@Candace
I think about my sons future sex life because I care about them and the relationships they will have later in life. I think about their future beyond the 18 years or so that I am their teacher, their guide and their advocate.
I think about how many men I know who have stated that they had to use hand lotion, or baby oil etc. to masturbate as a teen because it hurt to do it without lube. And I think of all the men I know who were left natural and who didn't have that problem. I think about how I would have felt if my parents chose to reduce my future sexual enjoyment my removing my clitoral hood, how it would have desensitized my clitoris thereby making it harder to achieve orgasm and how I would never want to take away my kids ability to experience sex in all it's glory and satisfaction. But mainly I think about the fact It's Not My Penis.
It's Not My Penis.
It's Not My Penis.
Why would I remove something totally functional that serves a very important purpose in my kids sexual lives.
Why wouldn't I think about my own kids future enjoyment of sex, sex is a very primal bodily need and desire, I would not cheat my kids out of all the pleasure they can experience in their adult lives, simply because I wanted them to "look nicer" "be like their dad" or "to prevent any problems later in life"
By circumcising you are not preventing any problems, you are in effect potentially creating a lot more of them.

Foreskin is important for many reasons. Part of the reason they started taking so much off was to prevent masturbation, why? Cause they knew that it didn't feel nearly as good without the gliding capabilities of a foreskin.
Not that it stopped people from pleasuring themselves, it just made it a lot harder to do.

Georgia - posted on 03/12/2011

Wow, this is the post that just won't quit! Maybe I've been reading all these posts wrong, but I haven't seen anyone giving out circ facts and data actually trying to push their own opinion onto others. They'll inundate you with facts, to be sure, but no one's made any personal attacks.

Sarah, you beat me to it! I was going to point out that Jesus was a Jew too. :-) so maybe Brandi is Jewish?

Okay, for those who think there are better things to spend time on instead of advocating for baby boys (primarily in the US), rest easy. The rest of the world's baby boys are safe from mutilation, so their parents have plenty of time to devote to the other causes. Or maybe baby boy advocating US mums can multitask?

Wouldn't it make one question the medical necessity of a procedure if the insurance company doesn't cover it? If every medical governing body has even said there's no medical necessity?

I've decided on a new form of discipline. All this talk of circumcision has inspired me. Every time my 4yo misbehaves, I'm going to pull out a couple strands of hair. My child, my choice. And before you all get your knickers in a twist, the hair GROWS back! So it's not like it'd be damaging him or anything.

Julianne - posted on 03/11/2011

that's cute, i want a cat tattoo.
here at 16 i could get a tattoo or piercing with my mothers consent, she signed for my tongue piercing then any time i went in they didn't ask for another consent form. So i had my back tattooed before i turned 18.

I think we could apply the same rules to circumcision. 16 with parental consent and 18 without. That way its the childs choice and not the parents.

Minnie - posted on 03/11/2011

What's sort of neat is that little girls' labia do the same sort of 'ballooning'- it helped with our journey through elimination communication.



Julianne- in NH it's illegal to tattoo a minor regardless of legal guardian consent. Incidentally, my five year old just asked me if she could get a tattoo of our cat (profile pic) on her back. Sorry kiddo!

Kate CP - posted on 03/11/2011

Every time I change my newborn son's diaper I am thankful I didn't have him circumcised. He's healthy, happy, AND I can tell when he's about to pee on me because the foreskin on the tip of his penis opens up a little to allow the pee to come shooting out like a damn fire hose. When I see that happen I know to grab a rag (yes, I cut up a towel into little squares to use as pee rags to cover him up while I'm changing him) so he won't soak me or himself...or both. :P

Sarah - posted on 03/11/2011

Julianne - Jesus was also Jewish

Minnie - posted on 03/11/2011

I only brought up the fact that Jesus was whipped and crucified because you were justifying your decision to circumcise your sons based on what happened to Jesus, Brandi. According to the Bible, Jesus is a lot more than what your sons are- just because something happened to him does not mean it should happen to your sons. Julianne is right- Jesus was circumcised according to OT law. If you are a professing NT Christian, you should not be circumcising.

BTW, cutting off part of someone's body in the name of YOUR religion is imposing your religion on that person.

Again, OT circumcision was a small sliver of skin removed from that which hangs past the glans. It doesn't remotely resemble what happens to baby boys in the US. God put the foreskin there because it plays an important part in human sexuality and keeps the glans clean. Removing the entire prepuce of newborns in biblical times would result in death for most from shock, hemmorhage and infection.

Kathy - posted on 03/11/2011

Brandi, if your faith/culture/societal mores demand that you have your daughter's genitalia cut, would you do it? Would you consider it a parental right to make this decision?

Julianne - posted on 03/11/2011

atheists have a right to make their children sinners by not taking them to church. so religious people have a right to chop of their sons organs because their faith commands it of them...that doesnt make sense to me...but apparently thats a good enough reason to circumcise.

Johnny - posted on 03/11/2011

I'm not sure what it really has to do with circumcision...but I was raised by atheists who allowed me to go to church and encouraged me to find my own answers. I'm an agnostic as is my husband and our children will be free to explore their own beliefs and attend church if they so choose. I'll even drive them and attend if they request. How many atheists do you actually personally know? I know quite a few and they've all been very excepting of having their kids go to church. Perhaps this should be a new thread....