http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/r ape_treachery_and_slaughter/gn34_01.html

This is funny in a twisted way. You have Birch to thank for ever bringing it to my attention.

As for my thoughts on this issue, I don't think I could personally circumcize a baby, so I probably wouldn't have had it done to my children had they been boys. My DH is cut, and I have never been with a man who wasn't, but that doesn't make it right or anything. I am happy for what wev'e got, but I probably wouldn't have chsen to have that done to my baby. Since they are girls, I have chosen not to have their genitals mutilated, either.

Guess what?! I got a fever, and the only prescription... is more cowbell!!!

i'll take anal bum cover for $200 alex.

rotflmao

How did Judaism branch off of Christianity?

What are you talking about? Please explain the sacrificial blood, disposing of the foreskin in soil, and patriarchy references.

Here are some interesting pieces of info to ponder:

Circumcision Herpes Death

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City health officials have gone to court to stop a rabbi from performing a type of ritual circumcision they believe may have led to the death of a baby boy from herpes.

The baby was one of three infants found to have contracted herpes simplex virus after being circumcised by Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer,.

"Oral metzitzah after ritual circumcision may be hazardous to the neonate." Signed by 12 medical doctors and Ph.D. researchers, the paper examined the cases of eight young babies who had developed herpes within two weeks of their circumcisions.

"What people don't understand is how widely disseminated the herpes virus is. Statistics say that 80 percent of the adult American population carries it, as you well know from how many people in their lives acquire a cold sore," he said.

"It's an omnipresent danger, and for an infant, in the early days before his immune system kicks in, it's not necessarily localized. It can be a systemic infection.



Circumcision Deaths

Some babies die of complications of circumcision.1 There has been a need to assemble information concerning death from complications of circumcision in one convenient location. This page is designed to fill that need.

Deaths occur secondary to loss of blood or systemic infection from the circumcision wound.

A few deaths are reported in the medical literature. Other medical literature discusses the frequency of those deaths. A few deaths are reported in the popular press.

There is reason to believe that many deaths from circumcision are attributed to other causes. For example, if a baby were to die of meningitis that was contracted through the circumcision wound, the death may be attributed to meningitis while ignoring the fact that the baby would not have had meningitis if he had not been circumcised.

Doctors are highly motivated to conceal the true cause of circumcision death. Neonatal circumcision has no medical indication and is now considered to be an unnecessary7 non-therapeutic8 operation. It is unethical to carry out such operations on minors who cannot consent for themselves.9 Consequently, most doctors who have a baby die after a circumcision would prefer to attribute the results of his unethical operation to secondary causes, such as infection or bleeding, while ignoring the primary cause, which is the circumcision that resulted in the infection or bleeding. It is, therefore, very hard to identify the total number of deaths that occur from circumcision. One senses that one may be seeing only the "tip of the iceberg," with the vast majority of deaths from circumcision being concealed. The deaths undoubtedly cause an increase in infant mortality. Male infant mortality is higher than female infant mortality. It is not known how much of this increased mortality is due to the practice of male circumcision.


Uncircimcized men give women more orgasms
“Women fake orgasm,” she says, “because men are circumcised.”

Milos cites a 1999 study published in the British Journal of Urology which documented that women were more likely to have an orgasm (and less likely to experience vaginal discomfort) with an uncircumcised partner. The study concluded that the uncircumcised penis glides within its sheath of moveable skin with minimal friction. Because of this, uncut men use shorter thrusts than cut partners, who drive more deeply to launch an orgasm. The shorter thrusts of uncircumcised men, according to 71 percent of the respondents, allowed more contact with the mons pubis and clitoris, creating more orgasms for the women.

I'm probably echoing a lot of people's beliefs here, but gonna give my 2 cents anyway! I do not believe in the routine circumcision of infants. The bottom line is you cannot cut off a part of someone's body without their consent. A baby or young child is unable to give consent. I've noticed many people argue they had their boys circumcised because it is the normal thing to do. But you cannot justify doing something solely on the basis that other people do it, or it has always been done in the past. This is illogical. Just because something is common or widespead, does not mean it is right.

The foreskin exists to protect the head of the penis and should not be removed unless it is for a medical reason, such as an infection which cannot be corrected any other way. In this case, circumcision should always be a last resort. Phimosis, too, may be a common issue for boys growing up, but it is in most cases very easily treated. Circumcising babies as a preventative measure is as senseless as gouging out their tonsils in case they might get tonsilitis, or cutting off any other body part you care to mention in case it might get infected some time in the future.

Hygeine is not a valid reason for circumcision either. It is nonsense to say that circumcised penises are cleaner penises. This notion is now outdated. All you have to do is wash properly! Women have the clitoral hood which protects the clitoris glans. Should this be cut off too? Should we all shave our heads for 'hygeine' reasons too? I think the answer is no!

It is up the the individual what they want to do to their own body. So. if when a man is grown up and able to make an informed decision for himself and wants to be circumcised then this is his choice. But a parent should not be able to make the choice on their behalf. Circumcision of an infant for any reason besides medical is wrong.

Very well said, fiona05.

People who think circumcision doesn't bother infants because they don't remember it are wrong on both counts. The growth of the brain and the neural connections therein are permanently changed, and not for the better, after an infant is circumcised. Bonding is severely disrupted between mother and infant, and this only makes sense. WHy would an infant trust the world after it has been tortured?




Circumcision's Adverse Impact

Medical authorities agree that there are no medical indications for circumcision in the newborn period. Male neonatal circumcision is a non-therapeutic operation, an unnecessary procedure that does not promote child health.

Authorities agree that male circumcision is a painful and distressing event for a baby. Infants have fully functioning pain sensors at birth,2 and the pain of the surgery is severe and longlasting.3

It has been established in numerous studies that circumcision causes changes in infant brain function and behavior. Marshall el al. (1982)1 and Howard et al (1994)5 have studied the effect of the pain, stress, and trauma, of male neonatal circumcision upon subsequent feeding behavior. They each found that male circumcision disrupts feeding behavior. Sometimes the infant is returned to the mother in an exhausted and debilitated state in which he is unable to manage the task of latching-on and feeding.5

Taddio and colleagues report that male neonatal nontherapeutic circumcision causes an "infant analogue of posttraumatic stress disorder."6 Rhinehart has clearly and indisputably documented neonatal male circumcision as a traumatic procedure.7

Sorry it has taken me so long. My comp is on the fritz.

Blood has been a very signifcant symbol throughout Jewish history. In more orthodox circles especially, blood carries with it a very special meaning. The blood of the young lamb painted on the posts of the front door of the enslaved Jews in Egypt, for example, was a sign to the "angel of death" to Pass over the house during the plague that killed every first born child... giving us the holiday of Passover. The blood of the circumcision is a symbol of the covenant between God and his chosen people.

Legend has it that Abraham circumcised all the men in his tribe when God commanded it of him. He gathered them together and buried them as well. The foreskin is often buried in a small pot as a continuation of this ritual. Many believe that it is a symbolism of our flesh returning to the earth after we die, many see it as a continuation of God's commandment of circumcision. The commandment : Gen. 17:10-14 and Lev. 12:3.

As for the Jewish Patriarchy: We can see a line of Jewish ancestry traced through the men (tough, ironically, you're often only seen as a true jew if your biological mother is/was Jewish) beginning with Abraham, Noah, Moses, Elijah, David etc. They were all bonded by the covenant through circumcision. The Jewish line is perpetuated through the circumcised Jewish man, it is said.

If you want more, I can send it to you, though it might take awhile! Keep in mind too, that Judaism is incredibly diverse, and many people who call themselves Jews may have a different take on it.

ain't that the truth!!!!

marvel, thanks, and homerx, lol!

HILARIOUS!!!

This is interesting:

The New York Times

February 4, 2008
Male Circumcision No Aid to Women in Study
By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN

BOSTON — A number of studies showing that circumcision among men reduces their risk of infection from the AIDS virus has raised the hope that the procedure would also benefit their female sexual partners.

But the expectations were challenged Sunday by a new study showing that male circumcision conferred no indirect benefit to the female partners and, indeed, increased the risk if the couples resumed sex before the circumcision wound was fully healed, usually in about a month.

The study did confirm the benefit of male circumcision in lowering the incidence of herpes and other genital ulcers among men.

Findings of the study, which was conducted in an area of high incidence of H.I.V., the AIDS virus, were reported at the 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Although the findings did not reach statistical significance, they still underscore the need for more effective education among men who undergo circumcision and their female partners, the authors of the study said.

The study — conducted by the same team of researchers from Johns Hopkins and Uganda who had shown circumcision’s benefits among men in earlier studies — is believed to be the first clinical trial to provide scientific data on the effects on women of circumcision in their male partners.

For many years, epidemiologists observed that the incidence of AIDS was higher in areas of Africa where men were not circumcised and lower in areas where men were circumcised. But many scientists were skeptical that circumcision played a role in acquiring H.I.V. Then in recent years, three scientifically controlled studies in Kenya, South Africa and Uganda convinced the skeptics by showing that male circumcision could reduce the risk of H.I.V. infection by 50 percent to 60 percent.

Although circumcision is no cure-all, the World Health Organization endorsed the procedure last year, increasing demand for it among men in many areas of Africa. When trained workers performed the procedure, the incidence of infection and mishap is much lower than when traditional ritual circumcisers perform it.

Male circumcision took on new importance because of the failure of scientists to develop a vaccine to prevent AIDS. The success rates of male circumcision were high enough for many AIDS experts to call the procedure a virtual “vaccine.”

Some AIDS experts also said there were strong indications that male circumcision of infected men also protects their sexual partners.

“Some infected men inevitably will seek circumcision because it leaves a physical mark” that would remove the stigma of being infected, Dr. Maria Wawer of Johns Hopkins, a co-author of the study, said at a news conference.

Also, if fewer men became infected because they got circumcised, that could provide a benefit to their sexual partners, said another author, Dr. David Serwadda of Makerere University in Kampala.

In the study reported here, all the men and women agreed in writing to participate after they were informed about other ways to prevent H.I.V. infection, wound care and abstention from sex after the surgical circumcision. The men were offered free condoms and the couples were counseled and tested for H.I.V. There were 1,015 H.I.V.-infected men who agreed to having circumcision immediately or waiting two years for purposes of a scientific control group. The timing was chosen at random, researchers said.

The 770 married men were asked to invite their spouses to participate in the study, and 566 did. Among the women, 245, or 43 percent, were not H.I.V. infected. The analysis focused on the 161 couples who enrolled at the same time and in which the men were infected but their spouses were not.

There were 93 couples in the group where the man had an immediate circumcision and 68 in the control group where the man delayed having the procedure for two years. In both groups, the incidence of infection was highest in the first six-month follow-up period, 27.3 in the immediate group and 17.8 in the delayed one.

The incidence declined for the rest of the study period, 5.7 in the immediate group compared with 4.1 in the delayed group.

The higher incidence was found among the couples who resumed sexual intercourse more than five days earlier than a trained health professional certified the circumcision wound had healed fully compared with the couples who resumed intercourse within five days of certified circumcision wound healing.

Dr. Wawer said in an interview that because the numbers in the study were small and the results not statistically significant, additional studies were needed to determine more precisely potential benefits among men and women as well as ways to reduce potential risks associated with early resumption of sex.

Rates of condom use, vaginosis (a bacterial vaginal infection), vaginal discharge, painful urination and infection of the genital-urinary tract were about the same among women in each group.

They should factor hygeine into these studies.. how many of the uncircumcized men didn't clean their wee-wees properly on a regular basis.

why not do is soley on tradition? Other than holidays, we really have nothing 'tradition' in our society. Because my fiancee is cut, we are having our boy's cut (if and when we have a boy). There are a lot worse traditions out there that the death rate is A LOT higher than circumcision.

For example, having razor blade cuts from your neck to your thighs (men only though, but then again, so is circumcision). It takes HOURS and can you imagine sleeping after that? They also do it when the boys are about 14-16. Instead of just letting the scars heal, they put ash in the wounds so the heal as bumps.

So knowing that... Circumcision- short, baby won't consciously remember it, quick healing. I would rather see my child go through a circumcision than that, but both are tradition and it always seems we shy away from anything we've done for hundreds or even thousands of years.

I have known guys that were uncircumcised and later, in there 20s, got clipped because thats what they found to be more in tune with there self prefrence. I guess if you are already cut then you wouldn't have that option...but I am cut and I wouldn't want it any other way..(was that 2 much info???...sorry!)

lol!

If i ever have a son he won't be circumsized. Dom was around 2 when he was and he can still remember the pain

my son is circumsized and I'm glad i did it.. he's less likely to get UTI's and other infections plus its cleaner and he doesn't have to worry about being *different* from other boys or his father.

set down between God and his chosen people, why is it so hard to conceive that having your child circumsized is such a terrible thing? Most of the opinions on here are by women, mothers of sons. Would you really want your child to have complications later in life with a foreskin that doesn't retract properly?

Know this is like throwing a red flag in front of a bull. But, I had only one son. Never any problem. No infection from the circumsion. No problem.