Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

[uppityperson]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hauz0PI_3kYdqBNezvr9DhlBbwLwD8UD1M800

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The wishes of a 12-year-old boy should be considered in a dispute between his divorced parents about whether he should be circumcised, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The father, James Boldt, converted to Judaism in 2004 and wants the boy to be circumcised as part of the faith. The mother, Lia Boldt, appealed to the high court, saying the operation could harm her son physically and psychologically.

The state Supreme Court ruled that earlier court decisions failed to determine whether the boy wanted the circumcision, as his father contended, or opposed it, as his mother alleged.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court to answer that question

[spotbird]

1. That poor kid

no matter who wins, he loses.

[Raejeanowl]

159. OMG, They're Battling Over His Foreskin?

I love divorce! Adversaries instead of partners in raising their son.

Twelve is old enough to make his own decision about this. How he can genuinely do that is another question.

Let's say I hope he has a real opportunity to voice his preference and the parents develop more respect for the boy's autonomy.

[Radio_Lady]

206. There's a movie title in here somewhere: How about "The War over the Roses' Son's Foreskin"?

That will look GREAT on the marquee!

:sarcasm:

[zanne]

2. Thank God.

Nothing like using your own son for spite.

[Bicoastal]

3. No person outside of infancy should get curcumcised...

...unless you really want to.

In the torah, Abraham did it HIMSELF when he was an elderly man, and it must have hurt like hell--but hey, you think it's easy being Jewish?

[Warpy]

7. Absolutely

The pain pathways in infants aren't fully established yet and topical anesthetic is about all a kiddo needs when he's circumcised shortly after birth. The area heals very quickly.

Those pain pathways are pretty well established by the age of two. Not only is the procedure itself more painful, the recovery is more painful and the sudden exposure of the glans is also quite uncomfortable for some time.

The fact that Abraham was macho doesn't mean this kid needs to be.

[Gruenemann]

11. Right, babies don't feel pain.

That's why they never cry when something hurts.

[Bicoastal]

12. Ask any Jewish male if they remember the pain of being circumcised.

I don't remember anything before my 3rd birthday.

We've been doing this for thousands of years--I think we know what we're doing.

[Gruenemann]

17. Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't hurt.

Just for the record, I'm circumcised. I don't remember it either. But my mother happened to drop into the hospital nursery to see me when someone else's circumcision was going on, and she was horrified at the tortured, agonized screams. Back then they didn't even use a local anaesthetic because they believed the bullshit about babies' nervous systems not being 'developed.' Ha bloody ha.

[Bicoastal]

19. How has your circumcision affected you later in life?

For the record, I'm not affected at all.

I have NO nightmares related to "suppressed memories"

My sex life is perfectly healthy, with few complaints from either party.

Circumcising a teenager is one thing, but I have no tolerance for people who view infant circumcision by an experienced, knowledgeable moyel as "mutilation."

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Two things. One, I was circumcised. Two, I was with my newborn son when they pricked his foot for a

test less than an hour after he was born, and I watched him scream.

Raise your kids how you choose, and I will do the same- but if you honestly believe a baby getting the end of his penis cut off with no anesthetic doesn't "feel any pain", you're seriously deluded.

And no, we didn't circumcise our son- a position my observant Jewish wife advocated more than I did, during the pregnancy- but you know what? When I watched them prick his foot and saw him scream, the first thing that went through my head was, "No fucking way is anyone cutting this kid unless it's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY"

And, no, for my money, circumcision is not "necessary".

[orleans]

92. i did a little reading up on this topic before my daughter was born

we didn't know if she would be a boy or girl

i was horrified when my obgyn told me that she doesn't use a topical on infants.

i agonized over this decision.

it was terrible. i figured the experience of being born was traumatic enough.

it was another reason i was relieved to have a little girl.

(i also loved the way pierced ears looked on babies--but i couldn't bring myself to have her ears pierced either.)

[Pastiche423]

113. Your story reminded me that when I was pregnant

I asked my then, Jewish husband (I'm a shiksa) if we were going to have a Bris if our baby was a boy.

He asked me, what's a Bris?

A girlfriend who doesn't let her feathers get ruffled, told me of attending a Bris. She was just fine until the baby let out a huge wail. She passed out w/her back to a wall and slid down, missing the rest of the Bris.

My story turned out like yours. We had a beautiful baby girl.

[orleans]

114. congratulations on your little girl! (check your p.m.) n/t

[Pastiche423]

119. A reply is heading your way!

[Bright Eyes]

134. They really don't use any anesthetic?

Even local? Geez...

[orleans]

166. not since last i inquired--which was awhile ago--but it was horrifying to me!

i kept thinking these poor babies, they've just gone through enough trauma of being born and then they have to go through this?? just because these doctors don't want to wait around for fifteen minutes or however long it takes for a local to take effect.

pretty bad.

and this business about babies don't feel pain--well, i would want to error on the safe side. just because they can't say OUCH! doesn't mean there is no fucking pain involved!


so yeah--if the day comes when you have to make a decision regarding this--be sure to inquire how it's done.

[Horse with no Name]

184. Yes they do.

And for the record, as someone who has given hundreds of brand new infants their first bath...they cry worse when bathed.
They use local blocks with xylocaine and then give the babies high doses of sucrose causing endorphins to be released during the procedure.
Most sleep through it.
For the record, I don't have a dog in this hunt...it is strictly up to the parents and their preference (while in the newborn state).
But using appropriate anesthesia, it does NOT appear to hurt.

[liberalhistorian]

117. Sorry, but I've witnessed a couple of

such "experienced, knowledgeable" circumcisions and I'll never forget hearing the screams of both babies. Don't ever tell me they don't feel too much pain, because that's bullshit.

With my own son, I chose not to have him circumcised. I'm not Jewish, but still the cultural and social pressure for circumcision was unbelievable. It was no one else's fucking business, but you'd have thought I was maiming him for life by not getting him circumcised. He's almost seventeen now and I still maintain I made the right choice and have absolutely no regrets. I saw no reason for it other than cultural pressure and even my own doctor agreed that it really wasn't necessary and that it caused needless pain. And, as the other poster said, when I heard him screaming with just a little prick of his foot, I was even more glad that I'd chosen not to have him suffer through a circumcision.

[Liberal In Texas]

118. I carry an incredible amount of guilt having seen my sons

have circumcisions.

I would never do it again.

But that was what was done back then.

It is wrong wrong wrong...

[Radio_Lady]

198. I married the Jewish son of conservative stock who were refugees from WWII.

I really had nothing to say at my wedding, conducted in Hebrew and German. I got to say "I do" in English!

We had our daughter first, with just a little party for her. Fourteen months later, I gave birth to a son. I was at his "briss" (the circumcision ceremony done with a Jewish rabbi called a "mohel").

I actually watched the whole thing. I don't know of any other Jewish woman who saw them do it. They dipped a little bit of cloth into the ceremonial wine and put it into his mouth. The whole procedure was over in a few seconds. I took him right in the bedroom and started breastfeeding, and he just fell asleep.

Now he's 6'2", married, with two sons of his own. I think they're both circumcised, but actually I never noticed since we only see them once a year.

And the icing on the cake is that my son converted to Mormonism in his 20s, and is not only married to a lovely girl
but "sealed for all eternity" to her in a separate ceremony.

Hey, with all that commotion, what's a little piece of skin?

[Jack Sprat]

214. From experience,

circumcision does indeed desensitize the helmet of the penis and the many nerves that once elevated male excitement to its' highest level. I was a walking woody until circumcision in my late teens in the military. The only problem with a hooded penis develops when a young person has not been taught to pull the foreskin back to clean the glans penis properly. A buildup of yeasty bacteria in the warm sheltered area under the foreskin can cause itching and hyper sensitivity that can make a teen at the height of his puberosity go about town trying to bore his way into live oak trunks.

In all sincerity, I was raised without knowledge of the self-sanitation and after an infection of one of those (duckbutter) yeasty buildups, I was advised by an AF doctor to submit to circumcision for the sake of cleanliness and because my foreskin did not recede naturally as most did. Have I forever regretted the fateful circumcision? Heck yeah I have. Never again have I regained the potency of a super-charged, wood boring, attacker of oaks, elms, and mohogany hardwoods.

[nonconformist]

21. I have NEVER understood that bogus argument

So that means you can do whatever you want to an infant, because they won't remember it? Beat the baby... it won't remember it, so it's ok!

Both of my boys were circumcised... both of them were botched. The oldest didn't have enough skin removed, so it eventually re-fused with his glans, which eventually ripped away and was considerably painful. The youngest had a plastibell fiasco, which led to a DENTIST using a dental drill to cut the damn thing off. He's left with significant scarring and a "tight" circ, which may or may not be painful for him in the future.

If I ever have another son, I won't circ him, but instead let HIM decide if it's something HE wants done when he's old enough to make that decision.

Pain is pain, and arguably much more tolerable when you know the REASON for the pain and CONSENTED to it. Not to mention, older children and adults are given a local, while babies aren't always (neither of mine were given anything).

[Bicoastal]

22. Was it done by a doctor or by a religious professional? nt

[nonconformist]

23. Doctor. nt

[Bicoastal]

24. I DON'T understand how the practice passed into the mainstream medical profession...

....because I don't think your average neo-natal doctor knows how to do as well as a mohel, whose ultimate purpose in the Jewish community (besides other rabbinical duties) is for this one ceremonial procedure. They study how to do it for years, using the most up-to-date medical and religious sources available. In fact, it's customary that a mohel's FIRST circumcision is upon his own son or male relative, so they better damn well know what they're doing.

I'm VERY sorry and sympathetic about your sons' experience, but it's definitely unusual for Jewish curcumcisions to go as badly as that twice for one family. If circumcisions went wrong in the Jewish community as often as they do outside of it, we never would have survived for thousands of years without abandoning the procedure altogether.

[Radio_Lady]

201. Oh, my dear. That is such a sad story! There was only one worse...

the woman who had twin sons, left them at the hospital to be circumcised. One was botched so badly they cut off the penis.

And so, the doctors in charge decided to help the mother raise that maimed boy as a little girl. This was documented by the doctor in his scholarly papers. (I think this all happened in Maryland, but don't recall the details.)

I cannot imagine the pain after years and years of doing what the doctors said... both twins were so devastated as adults that they eventually committed suicide, separately.

I will never forget that mother's story.

[Ian David]

57. For a people who couldn't figure out how to safely cook pork, you're right. They aced THIS one. n/t

[Radio_Lady]

202. Love your answer! "Here's lookin' at you, kid!"

[JackRiddler]

62. Wow, what an answer!

Ask any circumcised male (the group of victims extend far beyond Jews) if they know what it's like to have their penis intact. Oh, they don't.

[Bicoastal]

77. I AM NOT A FUCKING VICTIM!

So quit calling me one.

[JackRiddler]

81. I don't care how you justify it to yourself - circumcision is mutilation

And I haven't called you a victim, but rather referred to victims of this mutilation.

[ShaneGR]

127. That's a bit over the top, "victim?"

I'm circumcised, not Jewish, and I'm not a victim. Mine works just fine, and it's easier to keep clean too!

[JackRiddler]

131. Victim/not-victim - emotionally laden terminology

Among those we call victims are the murdered and horrifically maimed, so applying the term to the practice of foreskin amputation on infants does tend to be emotionally laden - as we see with bicoastal's impassioned declaration that golly, he's "not a victim" (basically an effort to shut down rationality).

But by a strict dictionary definition I believe that yes, you are the victim of a wrongful practice, one based entirely in religion and cultural prejudice, and it has deprived you of your choice and of 50 percent of your penile nerve endings (thus possibly of some great orgasms - you'll never know).

Even if you feel fine about that, you should not be trivializing the objections to it.

[LanternWaste]

211. So are piercings and tattoos.

"circumcision is mutilation"

So are piercings and tattoos. One man's mutilation is another man's art, I suppose.

[Bucky]

204. I too am a victim of penile mutilation. I share your pain, glans-brother.

[XboxWarrior]

130. I don't recalll......getting whacked

But I do know that 97 out of a Hundred chicks prefer.......

Bobbin' on the 'scribed' head.

It's just a thing..........

[JackRiddler]

132. Oh, yeah? How did you conduct this study, Your Studliness?

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bettyellen]

150. what repulsive mysogyny.... you kiss your momma with that mouth?

and she doesn;t slap you?

[Touchdown]

172. He said chopped dicks are prettier for women, and I'm the sexist?

What's the difference between the foreskin and the labia? NOTHING! Anatomically, it is the same protective skin. Only the XY chroms decide what they look like.

What are the biggest complaints from women (at least American women) on foreskins? They're ugly and they stink. So tell him to wash it and get over how it looks and accept him for who he is.

[Touchdown]

194. When I found out my Momma made cockrings with magnet jewelry...

I found out there is literally nothing I could do or say to shock her.:hi:

[Radio_Lady]

203. Zounds! Maybe I'll take Grandpa's Viagra and replace them with magnets!

:sarcasm:

[Touchdown]

227. These boys don't either, because they're dead.

... Expired Yahoo page

What they say they saw were some of their relatives that were forcefully circumcised, and some that were killed," Oyugi said in a telephone interview with AP in New York. "Basically, you're held down by a group of people from the Kikuyu tribe, and they basically cut your foreskin, without any regards to how much pain they cause."

http://www.icgi.org/2007/12/circumcision-kills-eight-in-2007/

Hill said, “The year started with the death of two-week-old Amitai Moshe in February after a ritual circumcision at Golder’s Green Synagogue in London. This was followed by the death report in March of an unnamed infant boy in Ontario, Canada from infection, disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (blood clotting in the vascular system), and multi-organ failure. In June, Malaysia reported the death of four-year-old Nui Jia Yuan from asphyxia and Kuldeep Kumar Vishnubhai Patel, a ten-year-old boy, died in Gujurat, India in November.

The scene moved to Africa in December, Hill went on. “Kenya was next with the death of an unnamed 13-year-old from bleeding, and in South Africa, the government reported three deaths during the ‘circumcision season’ in Eastern Cape Province.”

“These are only the reported deaths,” Hill emphasized. “There may have been others. In all cases, circumcision served no medical purpose, and these deaths could have been avoided. We warn everyone that circumcision is not an innocuous procedure. Any circumcision can go wrong at any time.”

(Ed: ICGI estimates that over 100 circumcision-related deaths occur in the United States alone each year.)

[Touchdown]

208. Woody Allen, Albert Brooks, Richard Lewis.

All three have issues of inadequacy, or at least comically. It could be un conscience childhood trauma. Or... wait for it!:evilgrin:

[Warpy]

14. Please study the subject

of cephalocaudal myelin sheath generation.

[Touchdown]

28. Proof?

"The pain pathways in infants aren't fully established yet and topical anesthetic is about all a kiddo needs when he's circumcised shortly after birth."

I've read some dumb things in my life, but this...:wow:

[JeanGrey]

43. I'm sorry but that is ridiculous! I had the misfortune of seeing

my son circumcized (against my will) when he was in the premie intensive care nursery and he screamed so loud and long he turned blue!! No pain, indeed!

[JackRiddler]

61. With all due respect: cut off your own (whatever it is you have)

Nobody asked me to have a piece of my body cut off and I don't care if it hurt. I'm fucking angry about it anyway. I'm sure there were all kinds of mutilations one could have performed upon me as an infant that would not have "hurt" at the time.

Circumcision is not merely a "barbaric practice" but a form of mutilation and abuse. A crime with such general sanction that those responsible do not act with criminal intent in their heart but honestly believe it to be a good thing. Yet a crime nevertheless.

You know, "painlessness" is an argument used for lethal injections, too.

This practice should absolutely be illegal. When they are adults, people have the freedom to practice whatever self-mutilation they choose.

[Liberal In Texas]

93. I agree. This stupid practice should be sent back to the Dark Ages.

Where it belongs.

I was circumcised, as were my sons. It was "expected".

I wish I hadn't been, or my sons. Cutting off a piece of ones body for no reason is just stupid.

[Gruenemann]

9. Right, it's okay to mutilate innocent babies' genitals.

But not adults who might be able to give informed consent.

[Bicoastal]

15. What's with the word "mutilate"?

You got something against circumcision done by an expert in a child's infancy?

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Why is it better in infancy?

I humbly suggest that if infants were equipped with the language to say "Fuck! That hurt!" It would end.

[Bicoastal]

20. Because out of the thousands of grown-up infants who have it done....

...nobody EVER remembers back to the date of being eight DAYS old. If babies COULD talk, they probably also would quit wearing diapers and head to their day jobs at the office. But they can't, so they don't.

And the number of people who have "nightmares" or "suppresed anxieties" or "sexual disfunction" or other such nonsense is so small as to be nearly nonexistant. I'm Jewish, as are several of my friends, and believe me--we're FINE.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. Then maybe we should just do it to alzheimers patients.

Since the benchmark of cruelty is the ability to remember the abuse.

[Bicoastal]

31. Look, the fact in the matter is, it SHOULDN'T be a mainstream medical procedure.

Know why? Because a doctor won't do it nearly as well as a mohel. Not sure when the procedure entered the mainstream, but one fact remains--WE (ie Jews) know how to do it better than anybody. If we didn't, the procedure would have died out years ago. But if you just look at the success rate of any hospital operation, then compare it to the small numbers of Jewish people worldwide, you can be sure that there IS a difference between an elaborate cermenony performed by a man specificially trained to do this one operation...and an overworked hospital doctor with hundreds of procedures and duties to perform each week.

[uppityperson]

89. Oh bs. Most docs who do this are pediatricians. At least those that do it to babies.

"an overworked hospital doctor with hundreds of procedures and duties to perform each week." leads me to think you believe that doctors are randomly chosen, "hey you! wanna do a quick circie?" OR that you protest that doctors who do circumcisions are incompetent because they do many of them. And, guess what, some doctors are jewish. And guess what again, pediatricians are specially trained to do circumcisions. I guess a jewish pediatrician who is laid back would be the best?

[CTyankee]

149. My Jewish ob/gyn did my son's circumcision in the hospital, as we weren't Jewish.

It was done at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City. There were absolutely no problems or issues.

My second (and current)husband was born Protestant and converted to Judaism before I knew him. He had been circumcised at birth. Absolutely no problems or issues.

I have attended the Bris's of friends baby sons and no one passed out or were shocked.

This is a non-issue, made an issue by people whom I suspect have other agendas.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

193. Babies remember NOTHING!

By your reasoning, it's OK to inflict ANY kind of pain to an infant, as long as it doesn't cause permanent damage, because "they won't remember."

It seems your sense of morality and empathy were located in your foreskin.

[Touchdown]

29. I got a problem with this "procedure" period!

The fact that there are experts in the field of this is shameful, no matter what the justification, religious or otherwise.

[Bicoastal]

33. Too bad. 5000 years of persecution couldn't stop Jews from doing this...

...and you won't either.

And the very fact that we've SURVIVED for 5000 years despite this "shameful procedure" should tell you something.

[Touchdown]

37. Not the same procedure for time immemorial

In Abraham's time through the Enlightenment, only a tip was taken from the foreskin, which means it could still function as an erogenous zone and glanz (internal organ) protector that it is. Complete removal didn't start occuring until the Victorian (1860s or so) era when that procedure was thought to cure masturbation.

Read some history of your own rites for once.

[Bicoastal]

39. Where the fuck are you getting your bullshit information?

"Complete removal didn't start occuring until the Victorian (1860s or so) era when that procedure was thought to cure masturbation."

Do you think we Jews gave a fuck about Victorian-era fears about masturbation in the late 19th century, when the VAST majority of us were fighting anti-Semitism and/or being attacked by the Cossacks left and right?

[Touchdown]

42. A book. "The history of Circumcision"

Your library has it. Decide if it's bullshit after you read it.

I don't think Jews cared about masturbation, but I'm a Christian, and it's not in my religion to touch my dick, fondle it, have a ceremony over it, much less chop it apart, and it's been sliced apart anyway. Why, because the AMA found it to be a very profitable procedure in the early 1900s, and because the AMA had a majority of Jews on it's board at the time. Any medical reason to justify a religious ritual was considered good for both back then.

[Bicoastal]

45. I've said it twice already and I'll say it again.

I completely agree that there is no reason for circumcision to have become a mainstream practice. For one thing, I'm not convinced that your average doctor will do it better than a mohel. Say what you will about medical science, but doctors are overstressed and overworked, and they DO make mistakes; a professional mohel, on the other hand, is trained SPECIFICALLY in this procedure and often performs his first on a family member. The ceremony is relaxed, and the mohel is given all the time he is needed--a far cry from a busy hospital operating room.

If most male Jews had problems later in life with their circumcised penises, we would have either stopped doing it a long time ago or just completely died out. It's your non-Jewish population that has the majority of the problems, both physical and mental.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

124. I wonder if any studies of this have been done?

Lord knows there are studies galore out there, this would be a really good one to tackle. The success rate of this procedure in the Hospital setting verses Family setting.
A family member of mine had a botched circumcision in the Hospital.

[JackRiddler]

135. Prediction: no difference would be found.

People fuck up whether they're mohels or surgeons.

Start here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=4cW&q=mohel+botched&btnG=Search

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

163. No one is perfect, but I still wonder if there is a difference

in the percent rate of errors. I think it is a valid question.

[JeanGrey]

44. You bet. Unless it is done for religious reasons it is multilation

of the foresskin of the male, where much of the sensation resides. If we didn't need it we wouldn't be born with it. It has become standard practice in America (when it is non religious reasons) because we are too lazy to clean ourselves or teach our sons how to do it.

[Bicoastal]

46. Well, I DON'T think it should be a standard medical practice.

Jews do it because it's precious to us, and because we CAN do it better than anybody else.

I don't know why everyone else suddenly wanted one too....

[JeanGrey]

52. For the reasons I gave.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

74. Even if it's done for religious reasons, it is mutilation, and shouldn't be allowed except on adults

Circumcision is not a decision anyone should be allowed to take for anyone else.

It should be illegal to circumcise anyone who isn't old enough to decide for themself, for religious reasons or other wise.

[JeanGrey]

87. Well there I disagree. You'll never stop jewish people from

having their boys circumcized. But I'm not jewish and therefore won't do it.

[JackRiddler]

65. An "expert," you say! An expert in cutting off a child's foreskin.

Yes it is mutilation. As one of the victims of this practice I wish there was anything I could do about it; at least I've seen to it that the other children were spared.

[Liberal In Texas]

94. Yes, I do. It's a stupid barbaric practice.

How would you like your nipples cut off when you were a mere baby? Or another part of your body? You have had no input. Your crazy religious parents decided that cutting off a part of your body is good for you.

This is insanity, and it should stop.

[Boojatta]

10. What do you think of this...?

Islam and male circumcision


For the majority of Muslims, circumcision is seen as an introduction to the Islamic faith and a sign of belonging.

In Islam there is no fixed age for circumcision. The age at which it is performed varies depending on family, region and country.

The preferred age is often seven although some Muslims are circumcised as early as the seventh day after birth and as late as puberty.

In some Islamic countries circumcision is performed after Muslim boys have recited the whole of the Qur'an from start to finish.

In Malaysia, for example, the operation is a puberty rite that separates the boy from childhood and introduces him to adulthood.

Source:
bbc

[DutchLiberal]

185. Nobody should get circumcised. Especially not infants. Because infants don't have a say yet.

[baldguy]

4. Has dad been cut?

Before he asks his son to do it, maybe he needs a little off the top - so to speak.

[Bicoastal]

5. I think that's fairly obvious, since the guy converted...

...he probably had it done or was done at birth in a non-religious setting.

[Warpy]

6. New converts to any religion are tough on everybody around them

and if this poor kid decides not to undergo circumcision (which is a pretty drastic thing after infancy), he's still going to be under pressure and a threat of rejection by his dad.

He's got a terrible choice to make. Neither choice is completely right or completely wrong. I hope somebody has the wisdom to tell him that.

[Elspeth]

8. Is there some way to let the kid wait until he is a legal adult (18) before he decides?

Seems to me that non-essential surgery is something that can wait until the boy grows up. 6 years from now, the circumcision option will still be there and he may be better able to navigate his parental minefield.

[CTyankee]

13. Great! Just what we need: a circumcision thread, to kick off the weekend!

I knew it had been too long since the last flame war over circumcision, but a person can hope...

[Jamastiene]

70. ...

:popcorn:

[Radio_Lady]

213. UPDATE: Yep. But now we've run out of weekend and hope the court comes up with the best decision.

The kid should live with his kindly grandmother, because these parents are NUTZZZZZZZ!

[LeftinOH]

16. "Son, I've changed my religion..so now YOU have to get your peter snipped...."

..As a 12-year old, that wouldn't have gone over too well with me, either.

[hyphenate]

25. Shit

Male circumcision is nothing compared to what some Islamic--and other--countries do to girls. Try having the clitoris and the minor labia being completely cut off (in some countries, they only cut off the clitoris hood) with a razor blade or yes, a piece of glass, and then being sewn up, still bleeding profusely, leaving only twigs to hold the incisions, with absolutely NO anesthetic, performed by an old lady in the tribe--NO doctor, NO pain meds, NO nothing. In some countries, they sew a girl up to within millimeters of completely closing her up, allowing only enough space to urinate, or to let menstrual blood through. Some girls get severe infections, and some die.

Nothing can compare to that happening to them, as most of the girls are about 8 years old when they are practically dragged to a place far from the tribe and forced to have it done.

The girl turned woman is then, literally, ripped apart by her husband on her wedding night, the procedure in place to show she is a virgin.

If guys want to bitch and moan about circumcision, and not understand how most women in other countries are used in this regard, you really are coming off as whiners.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. You digress.

Did you have an opinion on this topic?

[hyphenate]

32. On make circumcision?

Or on this one particular case? On this one case, I'm glad the kid gets to make up his own mind. He should understand the procedure, and why some groups require it, and why other groups say not. That way he can make an informed decision.

In general, an infant is under the guardianship of his parents, and as long as they want it done, and as long as it's done with a measure of anesthetic, that's fine. I really can't tell you the argument of which is better, but I'm sure it's been studied well by both sides, and the choice either way isn't going to really matter to an infant, as long as he doesn't feel it.

I still think the female "circumcision" argument is one that really needs to be discussed, especially here in the United States. It's important to fight this "ritual" and bring it to the light it really needs.

[Touchdown]

40. Female Circumcision isn't being performed in the US

in fact it's a felony...but male mutilation occurs to 55-60% of males here, and you think that FGM should be more discussed in the US instead? :puke:

[hyphenate]

47. You would think it wasn't

But don't tell that to all the girls who ARE going through it in the U.S.

Here is one link which talks about the practice, and all the names under which the practice is known.

http://www.4woman.gov/faq/fgc.htm

Even Wiki mentions that some people are doing it in the U.S., despite it being illegal.

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

Here's another source of information:

http://www.cirp.org/pages/female/

[Touchdown]

50. I'll ask again. Was your clitoris removed?

My foreskin was. Forcibly, without my permission, and without anesthetic. You have no place to lecture me on anything related to the subject of genital mutilation... that is, unless you were as well.

[Yupster]

128. Hyphenate had the same reaction to this thread as I did

As I've been reading down this thread I've been thinking of the book I recently read called "Infidel," about a woman growing up in Somalia.

I had no idea that female circumcision in that part of the world involved literally sewing up the vagina so theoretically it is as smooth as possible with only a way for urine to "drip" out.

Geeze - If we want to bark about circumcision, let's get this horrible practice ended before we worry about the other.

Instead, female circumcision is growing in the west as Islamic immigrants move into Europe in large numbers.

[lumberjack_jeff]

143. I reject the idea that inappropriate acts done to boys in this country...

... is permissible so long as inappropriate acts done to girls anywhere in the world continues.

This thread was about circumcision. If you wish to start a thread about female genital mutilation, that is entirely your prerogative.

[carly denise pt deux]

30. OMG that is terrible!

ALL mutiliation should be outlawed in all countries, especially in children of any age, they don;'t have a choice....if an adult willingly volunteers to have all this stuff done, then more power to them, but kids are victims IMHO
Carly

[Bicoastal]

35. Screw you--I'M not a victim!

And you're not going to stop Jews from doing this. Period.

[carly denise pt deux]

38. I was posting in ref to the female mutilitation tactics, not your precious circumsicion

so screw you
Carly

[Bicoastal]

41. Sorry...I overreacted...

...but it IS precious. :hi:

[carly denise pt deux]

48. that's o.k....

and yes, it should be considered precious
Carly

[sniffa]

59. We must stop the Joos!!

:eyes:

[Touchdown]

36. Were you buchered when an infant? I was.

This is America. A supposedly "enlightened country". You can be smug that we leave your genitals alone, but you don't give us boys the same courtesy, eve demand it because "it just looks prettier"... so save your faux-victimhood for people who are stupid enough to fall for your hate men, so they deserve the pinking shears to their dicks bullshit.

Those same "some islamic" countries that do this barbarism to girls also do it to teen boys too, universally, 100%, no exceptions, usually with machetes or some other sharp tool. No stitching, no twigs, NO anesthetic, performed by an old man in the tribe. 17 boys in one tribe died of infections in 2007 alone. You just don't hear about that because you are allowing barbarism to occur in our country because otherwise "it's just whining".

[hyphenate]

51. You can call it whatever you like

But I know that both my brothers were circumcised, and the prevailing attitude at the time (the 50s) was that there was nothing wrong with circumcision, and that it was actually healthy.

In many societies it is traditional, and it's up to the parents of an infant to decide whether to circumcised or not, whether they are doing it for religious or health reasons. You can blame your parents if it comes down to that for you, but you can't condemn all other parents of those who believe circumcision is fine.

As for being a "man hater" I don't know where you got that idea. I'm not--not even close. All the men I've dated and been with have been circumcised, and the subject of circumcision has never really came up (pun intended).

As far as female "circumcision" is concerned, though, it is still being practiced here in the U.S. even though it is illegal, and even were it not, it shouldn't concern me because I'm not living in one of the countries where it takes place? It is one of the human rights violations which affects my gender most dramatically, and is often overlooked because women are usually second class citizens in those countries where it is being performed.

When I was born, cigarettes were popular--now, we know the damage they create in many different ways. But we have gotten to a point in history where we are better off knowing the effect that cigarettes have on people. However,50 years ago, no one was considered a bad parent if they smoked in the house, or if a woman smoked while she was pregnant. We learn from research and we learn from experience. If circumcision on the vast majority of boy infants is now considered less desirable, then so be it, but nothing will have changed the fact that up until recently, it was considered normal.

[Touchdown]

99. Disagree. It is a disgrace that "parents decision" prevails.

It's his body. They are only temporary stewards of his body, not the owners. Nobody should have surgical jurisdiction over another human being, no matter what the age or relationship. This is why they do it to infants, because they're less prone to object, and it's a good excuse to do some "preemptive attacks" on the patriarchy, just in case Sonny-Boy forgets his place later on. If they waited until he knew what he was about to lose, then they would have some serious problems getting him to conform to "norms".

AS far as FGM are concerned, I agree. It is a barbaric practice. But remember what I said. Every one of these cultures that do this also do it to teenage boys 100% of the time. Some rites of manhood shit. So it's more religious dogma than anything else.

Your boyfriends were conditioned by society to see nothing morally wrong with it. Of course the subject wouldn't come up.

[Touchdown]

101. Was your clitoris removed? Third time from a butchered "whiner"

What do you have to be more indignant than me for? :shrug:

[TZ]

71. There is scientific evidence that circumcision MAY prevent the spread of HIV

Should Adult Male Circumcision Be Recommended For HIV Prevention In The US?
ScienceDaily (Jul. 26, 2007) — Three clinical trials in Africa found that adult male circumcision reduced the risk of men acquiring HIV infection from heterosexual sex by 51-60%. While adult male circumcision may also have a role to play in preventing HIV transmission in the US, say scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in a paper in PLoS Medicine, "the extent of this role on a population basis is unknown."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070724113945.htm
So this may not be a "butchering" as you are claiming. In fact I believe that the World Health Organization does recommend boys in Africa be circumcised for this reason.

[NMMNG]

78. It *may* help prevent the spread of HIV

in male-female sexual contact in conjunction with condom use etc, etc. In other words, there are lots of "ifs" and the jury is still out. I've read those studies before and I can't say they've convinced me of the efficacy of widespread use of circumcision for HIV prevention considering condom usage would still be necessary.

[TZ]

79. I realize that.

But I did want to point out that circumcisions are sometimes done for reasons outside of "barbaric and outdated religious rituals".

[NMMNG]

80. Point taken

:hi:

[Touchdown]

102. As with all thing subject to time, This study is being questioned.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7519/781

In the Auvert study doctors tracked black men while they became infected with HIV. Apparently, the participants were not given or allowed to use condoms because this would have disturbed the experiment. This is reminiscent of the infamous Tuske-gee syphilis study, in which newly discovered penicillin was withheld so that the study could continue.4

http://forum.fathermag.com/circ/106/forum/messages/255278.shtml

Bailey was responding to concerns that the circumcised men would not use condoms. In Bailey´s letter, he shares that the intervention group (the circumcised men) reported condom use up from 22% to 36% over the baseline (control) group.(§) That is the exact increase to gain a 61% protective factor. This indicates that the men´s circumcisions played no part in the lower infection rate but instead, the condoms were the protective factor. In the later studies that reported 48% and 52% protective factors, it would indicate that circumcision actually increased the men´s susceptibility to HIV/AIDS.

Additionally, the circumcised group reported that they had reduced their number of sexual partners. The percentage of men with more than two sexual partners decreased from 42% to 33%. This would put them at less risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

This new information turns the studies completely upside down and appear to strongly suggest that the circumcised men were substantially more likely to contract HIV/AIDS.

[JackRiddler]

138. Gasp!~

That's powerful stuff - that I unfortunately missed before writing my own lengthy deconstruction of the Auvert study based solely on a reading of it.

[uppityperson]

140. Many other things can impact research.

Thanks for posting this since it shows that. More research is needed into HIV/AIDs.

[JackRiddler]

129. The kind of science that confirms religious prejudice gives comfort to all, doesn't it?

Your link is to an article that cheerleads but says little about the actual "MC" study in South Africa, which is also available online.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020298

In assessing any such study we must consider both the sociological set-up of the study and the selection process for the control and "intervention" (test) groups, about which the study presents quite a bit of obfuscation, as we shall see.

The selection mechanisms of the two groups are given their most exhaustive summary in the following flowchart:



The key piece of information otherwise is surely this: "During the study, 20 and 49 participants acquired HIV infection in the intervention and control groups, respectively, corresponding to incidence rates (95% CI) of 0.85 per 100 py (0.55–1.32) and 2.1 per 100 py (1.6–2.8) in the intervention and control groups, respectively."

While the 20 and 49 are presumably hard figures for the numbers who tested HIV+ (what's the false positive rate again?), the 0.85 and 2.1 per annum figures and high-low ranges for the rates are interpretative statistics. 1.34 percent of the “intervention group” ultimately test positive, as opposed to 3 percent of the control group.

So, what do we know about this study, just from what its authors present?

Six authors come together to conduct the study. It required an unspecified number of staff, including other doctors, nurses and lab personnel. It ran for two years. That's substantial funding and time, so let's not pretend there was no pressure felt to come up with results that were conclusive.

They recruited 3,483 South African men. "The recruitment of participants took place in the general population from July 2002 to February 2004." Recruitment within an impoverished population was at least partly induced by payment: "The participants received a total of 300 South African Rand as compensation (1 South African Rand ~ 0.12 Euro)." The doctors randomized the men into two groups. They excluded 146 from the study who test HIV+ (although this group still came in for the followups). Thus they created a control group of 1598 and an "intervention group" of 1493.

What came next was surely the most dramatic moment in the study. To the men in the "intervention group," the doctors offered the option of having the foreskin amputated. The study notes that participants were "informed that the impact of MC on the acquisition of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV, is not known." But we can imagine how many of them believed it must be a good bet, otherwise one might think the study would not be held.

One may legitimately doubt the men were told the simple fact that the foreskin carries one-half of the skin surface and one-half of all the nerve endings in the penis.

What other persuasive means may have been applied is unclear, but 1339 men accepted the procedure. (Ninety-three did not, but seem to still be counted in the "intervention group," and their number rises to 96 at a later stage; this probably has to do with some of the missing coming back, rather than magical foreskin regeneration. No accounting is given for why the control and “intervention” groups seem to each be contaminated with men who should be placed in the other group.)

This is a serious commitment on the part of the experimenters. They haven't just located groups of circumcised and uncircumcised; they have in fact carried out a massive circumcision action just to get their experiment going. Implicitly, the doctors already believe in the high likelihood of the benefits of circumcision, or are themselves likely to pick up such a belief in the process of carrying out an act of social engineering on a mass scale. If they don't find some benefit to circumcision, then they may have persuaded 1339 men to have their foreskins cut off for no benefit to them.

Furthermore, the write-up gives little consideration to the psychological impact that the amputation may have had on the recipients. Obviously they would have felt pain for a few days and then the strange sensation of not having the foreskin for weeks or months. Might this experience have affected their behavior, including their sexual behavior, compared to the control group, including in subtle ways that aren't measured by survey-type questions?

Participants were asked about their sexual behaviors at the follow-ups, but the study fails to provide breakdowns of the hard figures by group (e.g., for incidence categorized by the number of sexual partners in control and "intervention"), except for a vague statement that sexual activity was slightly higher in the “intervention” group. "When controlling for behavioural factors, including sexual behaviour that increased slightly in the intervention group, condom use, and health-seeking behaviour, the protection was of 61% (95% CI: 34%–77%)."

Accordingly the table compiling information on sexual and other behaviors fails to break down figures into control and "intervention" groups:

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=slideshow&type=table&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298&id=4938

Right at the bottom of this chart, however, we have the interesting information that 21 out of the 69 HIV+ cases found (30 percent!) "attended a clinic for a health problem with the genitals" in the 12 months before the point at which they were found to be HIV+, as opposed to only 276 out of 4575 (6%) of those who remained negative.

Now this is a study of the effects of a procedure conducted on the genitals. Furthermore, having a different infection or other "problem with the genitals" is known as a huge factor in HIV transmission, as the study itself notes. So you would think the study has an interest in knowing how the genital procedure it is testing works out in preventing a "problem with the genitals," as a likely contributing factor to preventing HIV infection.

Given the poverty and low health-coverage in South Africa, we can also assume the number of those who had a problem but did not visit a clinic for it was higher. This could be the most important factor in explaining the incidence of HIV+ among men in the test, regardless of circumcision, and for this reason I can't think of a more important stat to see broken down by control and "intervention" groups.

Various numbers go missing from both groups at the follow-ups, anywhere from 40 to more than 100 at each stage, and 16 are found to have died (the causes are unspecified and said to be unrelated to HIV or to "MC," although we are told the missing were generally visited at home to inquire as to why they weren't showing up).

"Even though some participants were lost during the follow-up, and the loss to follow-up rate was greater than the event rate, the impact of missing participants on the overall results of this study is likely to be small"--honestly, do you expect them to ever say otherwise?--"not only because the loss to follow-up was small for a cohort study conducted in a general population, but also because those who were late for at least one follow-up visit were protected by MC just as the other participants. The reason for this loss to follow-up was a result of participants moving from the area or being unreachable, and not a result of HIV infection." (In the case of unreachable, how does one know the reason?)

Finally, by the time of the follow-up at 21 months, the doctors had found a total of 20 men testing HIV+ positive at one of the follow-ups in the "intervention group," and 49 men in the control group. (Once again, it is unclear to me how those who were circumcised in the control group and those who remained uncurcumcised in the "intervention group" were accounted for in all this - maybe you can figure that out).

Rather than continuing the study past the two-year window, these results were judged as so dramatic that victory could be declared immediately--so dramatic, in fact, that it was apparently thought unethical not to try to persuade the control group to also have their foreskins amputated right away: "The Data and Safety Monitoring Board advised the investigators to interrupt the trial and offer circumcision to the control group, who were then asked to come to the investigation centre, where MC was advised and proposed." (The doctors presumably started writing up new grant applications the next morning.)

Interesting is the discussion at the end of how amputation might help reduce infection rates:

"The reasons for this protective effect of MC on HIV acquisition have to be found elsewhere, and several direct or indirect factors may explain this <25>. Direct factors may be keratinization of the glans when not protected by the foreskin, short drying after sexual contact, reducing the life expectancy of HIV on the penis after sexual contact with an HIV-positive partner, reduction of the total surface of the skin of the penis, and reduction of target cells, which are numerous on the foreskin <26>."

Reading that, one wonders why there was no study proposed first to determine the benefits of washing and drying the foreskin soon after sex, which should achieve almost all of these same effects, other than "keratinization of the glans"? (*see below)

"Indirect factors may be a reduction in acquisition of other STIs, which in turn will reduce the acquisition of HIV."

This makes the failure to break down by control and intervention group those HIV+ participants who visited a clinic due to problems with their genitals all the more curious.

"Our study does not allow for identification of the mechanism(s) of the protective effect of MC on HIV acquisition."

But despite this admission of so much that is still unknown, there should be no doubt that the study has discovered something important and urgent, as the sentence immediately following argues:

"The first and obvious consequence of this study is that MC should be recognized as an important means to reduce the risk of males becoming infected by HIV. As shown by our study, MC is useful and feasible even among sexually experienced men living in an area with high HIV prevalence."

Furthermore, those reporting on the study (as in the cheerleading articles) seriously raise the idea that every uncurcumcised male in the world should have their foreskin amputated to reduce the spread of HIV, even in countries like the United States where the incidence of male-to-female/female-to-male transmission (i.e. predominantly vaginal as opposed to anal penetration) approaches zero.

Now it is true that HIV transmission in Africa seems to more frequently result from male-female sex than it does in the West, based on the far less complete numbers available for African populations, implying a higher rate of vaginal transmission in Africa.

Therefore I'm curious why the doctors who ran this study and their funders chose to center on the relative lower rates of male genital mutilation in Africa than in the West as an important factor, rather than first considering the higher rates of female genital mutilation - which is known to increase susceptibility to infections? (South Africa has banned FGM but does not report on possible rates of the practice, which are no doubt lower than in Muslim African countries.)

Thus, finally, the choice of question in the first place reproduces the biases of Western culture and Western religions with regard to male as opposed to female genital mutilation. The latter is rightly considered barbaric but generally ignored; concerns about the former are dismissed because it is "hygienic" (regardless of evidence) and "traditional." This is obvious in the language employed by the study. Foreskin amputation - which would be an accurate clinical term - is reduced to "MC," providing an abbreviation that renders the operation generic, neutral, "scientific." And an act of mass social engineering involving the irreversible removal of part of one's body (and all based on a hypothesis) is covered by the term, "intervention group" with its implications that something was wrong with having a foreskin, before the Western-funded team arrived to intervene.

Do you know of a study to determine a possible link between female genital mutilation and HIV incidence? In a brief search I was unable to find anything large-scale like the MC study in South Africa, but a few surveys indicate it needs to be taken very seriously. This is where the money would have been better spent!

Check out this article:

http://allafrica.com/stories/200711160852.html

Tanzania: The Link Between Female Genital Mutilation And HIV Transmission

Arusha Times (Arusha)

ANALYSIS
17 November 2007
Posted to the web 16 November 2007

Mary Katherine Keown
Arusha

Researchers and activists are linking the feminization of HIV-AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa with another major health affliction for women in the region: female genital mutilation.

Sporadic research data over the past 10 years has correlated dirty cutting equipment, hemorrhages requiring blood transfusions, and injurious sexual intercourse causing vaginal tearing and lesions with rising rates of HIV transmission among women in countries where female genital mutilation (FGM) is still widely practiced.

"Because FGM is coupled with the loss of blood and use is often made of one instrument for a number of operations, the risk of HIV-AIDS transmission is increased by the practice," the New York-based United Nations Population Fund says on its website. "Also, due to damage to the female sexual organs, sexual intercourse can result in lacerations of tissues, which greatly increases risk of transmission. The same is true for childbirth and subsequent loss of blood."

Other organizations, such as the London-based International Community of Women Living With HIV-AIDS and the Washington-based Global Health Council, make similar assertions on the immediate risks of HIV transmission and anti-FGM activists in the region express confidence in the link.

A representative from the Network against Female Genital Mutilation in Moshi believes there is a link between FGM and HIV transmission, and a delegate from the National Union of Djiboutian Women - who asked to remain anonymous - says she believes FGM is the single largest contributing factor to HIV infection in that country, with risks that are immediate, as well as long-term.

Meanwhile, a cross-section of data drawn from a 2006 United Nations report on the global AIDS epidemic, for instance, shows that in several countries in Africa where FGM is common-including Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania and Djibouti-between 55 and 60 per cent of HIV-infected individuals are female.

---

* "keratinization of the glans" - also a euphemism, albeit in clinical terms, referring to the tendency of protein to build up over the scar tissue after amputation, further dulling sensation.

[JackRiddler]

63. Please don't succumb to divide and conquer.

You are absolutely right. Female circumcision practices are incomparably worse than the cutting off of the male foreskin. When I first learned of this, many years ago, I was unable to sleep. It's one of the worst horrors on this planet. But please, don't use it to trivialize the practice of male circumcision. By this logic, since murder, rape and pillage are also worse than robbery, victims of robbery shouldn't go around "whining" about it.

[hyphenate]

68. You are totally correct

I've been thinking more about female circumcision lately a lot, because women in some of these countries are becoming worse off than ever, and still this horrendous shit goes on and on, interminably. I recall reading about it quite some years ago, when a woman had been forced into it as a child, and had come to the States as a refugee, and had no one to talk with about it. She wrote about it for a major magazine, and I felt violated myself as I read her account of it.

It's something that needs to be discussed more openly, despite how much of a taboo it can be, simply because the more discussed something is, the less it can be used against us. And I mean that both literally and figuratively--how long were many sexual issues kept secret, regardless of how natural they were, making prisoners of those who were part of a society that couldn't bear to discuss them?

Anyway, that's pretty much all I wanted to say on the subject.

[conscious evolution]

64. ritual mutilation of anyone is wrong.

Doesn't matter if they are male or female.
Especially when the person being mutilated is unable to give their informed consent.

[uppityperson]

144. Many of us can multi-task. I think a 12 yr old's opinion has weight here

It's difficult to say exactly when, at what age, a person is able to make good choices, but I think a 12 yr old should be asked, in private, by a knowledgeable and capable advocate.

Here is a longer article on this case:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hauz0PI_3kYdqBNezvr9DhlBbwLwD8UD4N1O0
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/120132152622450.xml&coll=7

Yes, female circumcision is not addressed enough, people (even here) do not know enough about what it is, what it entails, etc. Horrible thing.

[uppityperson]

145. dupe, DU bug in the works.

[killbotfactory]

34. Let the boy decide when he is an adult

What's the rush?

[rucky]

54. He's got one year to go...

till the Big BM

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

49. That's an astonishing decision by the state Supreme court

"Go back and ask the kid"

Who'da thunk it? Common sense.

:thumbsup:

[depakid]

53. The only trouble is that there were allegations of coercion by the custodial parent

the newly religious father.

Even so, the practical effect of the decision will be to put off any medical procedure until the boy is older- perhaps old enough to where consent is givn more weight- or required by Oreon law.

One constitutional law professor who has been following the case called it "a reasonable ruling"

"I think what may be delicate and tricky is ... how much we can trust what the 12-year-old says, given the circumstances," said Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond. "He likely feels some pressure from (his parents)."

The custody dispute began when the child was 4 and the circumcision issue began three years ago when he was 9. The courts have steered clear of religious or medical issues, focusing on the questions of custody and care of the child.

Determining the youth's opinion is important, the Supreme Court said, because forcing him to undergo circumcision against his will at age 12 could affect his relationship with his father and his father's capability to care for him properly.

"We think that no decision should be made without some assessment of (the child's) true state of mind," the decision said.

It said a trial court could order independent physical or mental examinations or set up an independent panel of experts to gather information.

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-22/1201281704181690.xml&storylist=orlocal

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

55. We have ways of asking the kid

tasers, waterboards, we can get the kid's true wishes out of him.
:rofl:

Or, any decent court-appointed psychologist could interview the kid. With the parents elsewhere. A key phrase from the court (in your post): assessment of the kid's true state of mind.

The effects of coersion can be gotten around.

[originalpckelly]

56. Circumcision is always a "sensitive" topic around here.

There are all sorts of argument for or against it. Really, we're not talking about much. It's a little piece of skin, that's it. Nothing more. Not some deep religious issue or something. Get over it. I don't care if you're cut or uncut, it doesn't matter. It's not the end of the world one way or another. Obviously, no kid ought to have to go through pain against their will, if the pain is not absolutely necessary. Yeah, it may make a certain few activities feel better if you have it, on the other hand they still feel damn good if you don't. No one has the right to force a semi-responsible person like a 12 year old to get cut, that's what we do know.

Why we pick these weird issues to get pissed off at, I have no clue. Leave this talk to someone's bedroom.

[JackRiddler]

69. Ah, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy? Please.

Tell me, has the tip of your natural penis been chopped off?

[Touchdown]

104. Eh' sorry. No.

It's not just a "little piece of skin" and it's a key tenet of two very large world religions, practiced for thousands of years.

Anatomy of a foreskin...

http://www.noharmm.org/anatomy.htm

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

Those Muslims and Jews here in the thread can give you their links to why it's religiously justified. I'm a Christian, and it should've never been done to me, since it's not part of my faith.

[JackRiddler]

133. You're being too polite... babies don't have faiths yet!

So it shouldn't be done to them, regardless of their parents' faith, until they are old enough to choose.

[Blue-Jay]

58. 12 is plenty old enough to decide about that particular procedure.

[Tektonik]

66. I'm glad they're going to have the common sense to ask the kid if he wants to be mutilated or not

Circumcision is an outdated procedure, and it is mutilation.

[Jamastiene]

67. Oh boy.

:popcorn:

[Touchdown]

105. 20 pages of threads, and you picked this one why?

You just needed a reason to post that tired old picture again?

[NashVegas]

72. This Strikes Me As Pretty Bogus on the Dad's Part

I have more than a few friends of mixed religion parents where one parent is Jewish, one not. They all say the same thing: if your dad is Jewish and your mom isn't, you aren't really considered to be Jewish.

They may have been pulling my leg, :) but if not this guy is just being nutty and trying to "claim" the kid, IMO.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

73. Well, I was hoping they could nip the one in the bud.

I don't want to see this little guy headed back to the Supreme Court.

It would all be in vain, methinks.

Although, upon appeal, I think it would no doubt be BRISk.

I have it on a tip that this sort of trial will start popping up everywhere.

Puns are the lowest form of humor. Grow up, people.




PENIS

[NMMNG]

75. Ah jeez

Circumcision is barbaric, whether it's the male or female variety. I've seen infants who've undergone it screaming in pain for days afterwards. It's cruel and unnecessary. Don't even give me that religious/cultural justification stuff as I won't buy it.

If someone who is capable of making an informed decision about it chooses to do it that's fine, but nobody should have it forced on them. Ever.

[TZ]

76. Well Buffy here's something to consider....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2764867&mesg_id=2766446

[totodeinhere]

82. Uncircumcised men are more susceptible to STD's.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/cook1/

[hulklogan]

88. Men with no penises are even less susceptible to STDs.

Why not chop the whole thing off?

[Stephanie]

90. I had a friend who had to get it done at age 24.

because of recurrent infections. very painful.

[Liberal In Texas]

100. HAD TO? BULLSHIT!

More like the doctor HAD TO make a boat payment!

[uppityperson]

106. Oh pshaw. Anyone getting it done that old has a definite need.

And yes, there are cases where it is for the good. Not many, but there are cases. And any adult getting it done has a health need.

[Maddy McCall]

108. Nope. I worked with a guy who got it done in his 40s.

His new wife was grossed out by the foreskin. He went through circumcision in his forties to PLEASE HER.

They are still married, and that's been 20+ years ago.

[uppityperson]

111. Well, I stand corrected. The few I've run across had it done for med issues.

But then I've only been a nurse for 30 yrs and haven't seen it all.

[Liberal In Texas]

116. I hope he at least got her to have her breast enlarged in the bargain.

Because it is pretty much the same thing.

This is nothing more than body modification at that point.

[Touchdown]

110. Was he American? The Dr. American?

I got $100 riding on a second opinion from a European Dr. that'll say it really wasn't necessary.

It was the boat payment.

[uppityperson]

112. No matter what I say, you'll come up with something else.

I have no need to argue with someone whose mind is made up. Best luck in life.

[Touchdown]

136. You don't know anything about this subject.

It's a cultural practice in the US. Too many doctors who have been trained and practice in the US are too quick to cut when a penis problem arises. Doctors around the rest of the modern world have found less invasive and more conservative approaches to infections and problems relating to the penis. Those of us who have read a little bit about this know that. European Doctors know from education, and practice that circumcision is usually not necessary for 99% of penile problems, and that surgery is usually only done as an absolute last resort. The culture in Europe finds circumcision to be barbaric, and many of them I've talked to refuse to believe, or are shocked to learn that we Americans still practice it with no shame whatsoever.

I was trying to pass along a bit of information to maybe goad you into looking into it a bit more, but you decided to give up, because you like dicks chopped apart. Don't try to bullshit me with your silly justifications of infections, or "I had a friend who was going to die..." remarks. It's all a smokescreen, and has been for years. You, and many others just like the look of butchered babies, and when facts get in the way of doing that, then you project you closed-mindedness on those of us who aren't child molesting scalpel perverts.

[uppityperson]

139. Bwahahahaha.

Guess you missed the bit where I said I don't support circumcisions en masse, but have seen, as a nurse, a couple cases where it was needed. Guess you've missed the parts in the past where I don't support getting babies circumcised, including my own kid (contrary to societal and heritages religion). Guess you have no idea of much of anything about me.

what the hell is up with DU today, lots of attacks and flames.

[Touchdown]

168. Bwahaha. Your an American nurse. You know nothing.

You haven't been trained on exactly what is lost when a foreskin is chopped off. The American Medical Establishment is very ignorant on foreskins, and sees them as a nuisance.

Good for you for taking your whole baby home.

[TZ]

170. What is lost?

In your case, its the brain it seems like. So you know more than a nurse do you...Well heres some more PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE about circumcisions:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107101013.htm

[Touchdown]

173. See post 104 for what is lost. n/t

[TZ]

180. didn't read my post did you?

I'm so sorry your itty bitty genitals were damaged so badly you have to go around being a big jerk to compensate....

[Touchdown]

197. Yeah, I read your post. I thought you were asking a real question.

Guess I found out that your just another calloused female who wants to chop all dicks off for whatever transgression the patriarchy has done to you.

Silly me.:eyes:

[uppityperson]

177. It is "you're" not "your", speaking of knowing nothing.

You mean I don't know about Judaism and Islam and circumcisions? Huh, how 'bout that.

[Touchdown]

200. Well, Ex-k-ha-use me! Ever spell anything wrong before yourself?

You are correct. Spell check didn't catch that. :hi:

All I'm saying is that being an American health care provider, you are trained, schooled and accustomed to a sort of "common wisdom" that circumcisions are perfectly fine, and even desirable in most urological cases, and usually as the first answer to any penile infection . Only national smugness would believe that only American Doctors have the better answers than those trained in other parts of the world, where they don't see foreskins so cavalierly as our medical establishment does.

I may have been quite the ass (or dick) in the way I said it, but keep in mind, I was never given the choice the Ore. Court is giving this boy. I do resent being born in this country for that reason.

[Liberal In Texas]

115. Grrrrrrrrrrr

The number of cases where "infections" are causing you to HAVE to have a part of your body removed must be pretty rare.

They took my tonsils out. They took my foreskin off before I could object. This prophylactic intervention because it MIGHT cause problems is tantamount to cutting off your breasts in your teens because you might develop cancer; a lump in the breast in your twenties.

This is medicine coupled with myth and religion. It's nonsense.

If your friend may have needed a body part cut off, but how many doctors did he consult? If I'm not mistaken, infections are pretty much controlled by modern drugs. Not cutting off a part of the body.

[uppityperson]

122. They are rare, an not my friend.

I have taken care of a couple adults who have had circumcisions. I worked a surgical floor in a hospital and the adults were admitted for a couple days after surgery. Yes, this was back in the old days when day surgery and overnight stays were rare, not sure about now. And the couple I took care of had enough health issues that they got it done. Rather like having an ear cut off, or a foot amputated, because of an infection. Those also happen, even with all the modern drugs and antibiotics.

And I agree that in most cases circumcisions are unnecessary.

[TZ]

123. MRSA?

Your lack of real medical knowledge is astonishing. There are MANY infections that are drug resistant. PLUS there are many people who don't go to a doctor soon enough and even antibiotic treatments are too late.
And if the infection was bad enough..consulting this that and the other doctor might not have been a good idea. I'm willing to bet he knew DAMN WELL that he had a serious infection. You would have to be a moran not to know that.
And yes, people do have hands, toes, feet and limbs cut off with very serious infections. Particularly people with compromised immunity system.
But don't let actuall facts get in the way of your doctors are evul money making shill beliefs.

[Touchdown]

141. And all men will get them unless circ'd in infancy, right?

And...circing is a cash cow. Not only for the doctors, but hospitals, and the cosmetics industry which the hospitals harvest foreskins for, and sell them at a huge profit. It's being pushed by Oprah.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/47421

http://www.oprah.com/health/beauty/health_beauty_treatments.jhtml

"Dr. Wexler also mentioned a new product that boosts collagen production and can rejuvenate skin called TNS Recovery Complex. TNS is comprised from six natural human growth factors found in normal healthy skin. Dr. Wexler told us the factors are engineered from human foreskin! "

Your lack of knowledge in the medicine for profit industry is astonishing.

[uppityperson]

142. Most of us are arguing AGAINST circumcision. This subthread is about infections.

"If I'm not mistaken, infections are pretty much controlled by modern drugs. Not cutting off a part of the body."

You are mistaken, sometimes amputation is necessary. Do you really think people get amputations just for fun? Do you really think doctors do amputations just for profit? Well, some do, but broadbrushing like that is ridiculous. As is your lack of knowledge about infections.

[Touchdown]

169. Your confusing me with another. There are two of us ganging up on you.

That quote was from the other poster.

I specifically said that in 99% of the cases, non-invasive treatments of the foreskin are adequate. No species of any animal ever went extinct because of the existence of foreskins.

And yes, I do think Doctors do it for profit. My sister told of my nephew getting cut. The Dr. snipped, the boy screamed. Then the Dr. said..."There. Now the girls will go after him. I got a tee off in 20 minutes." Wonderful bedside manner.

[TZ]

171. Question

Do you believe that doctors perform abortions solely for profit as well?

FYI--99.9% of animals never contolled their environment so your comparison is inept.
We have a lot of fossils we can do without because of that..appendix, tonsils, wisdom teeth, etc.
That doctor was a jerk. Don't broadbrush. When was the last time you saw an ad for a circumcision clinic?

[Touchdown]

174. No they don't. Abortions are different.

Nobody has an abortion when no pregnancy is there. Likewise, tonsil/appendectomies don't occur on healthy tonsils and appendi. Wisdom teeth can only be removed when they grow in a bit. None of these procedures happen unless there is a medical condition to warrant them. Circumcisions are cosmetic and justified for "preventative" reasons.

The animal comparison is valid, because the reasons for universal infant circumcisions are for "health" justifications. All of them through history have proven false.

The last time? Humana, Kaiser Permanente, St. Joseph's Hospital, and any number of other hospitals who have ad dollars and a natal ward. They perform circ's on a routine basis, for profit, and they hound mothers and fathers with signing the foreskins away...

A woman on a Penn Jillette radio show told her story of how her baby had very long finger nails, and she asked numerous times if the nurses would cut them, because he was scratching her breasts. They never did. However, the DID come in and ask 8 times if she wanted her baby circumcised, and she kept saying "No". Wrong answer. They need that profit. There is no profit in cutting fingernails. When she got home, she double checked to see if he was still intact. Nobody should have to go through that right after having a baby.

[TZ]

187. There ARE health justifications

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2764867&mesg_id=2766446

And because you think all american health practictioners are stupid and corrupt here's the World health Organization take on it:
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/7/news10706/en/
I realize there are some big words in there..Scientists tend to talk like that. And are you gonna tell me WHO doctors are all idiots too?

And actually alot of those foreskins are used for science research, so they do serve a purpose. Of course since you seem a bit fundamentalist here, you probably think the holy skin should be thrown away if cut off...

[Touchdown]

191. And they're all bullshit.

Here's some other diseases that Circumcision "cured" in the past...

Rickets
Insanity
Bed Wetting
Nightmares
Masturbation
Fidgeting (Restless Leg Syndrome)
Tuberculosis
Gangrene
Polio
Epilepsy
Diarrhea
Syphilis
Cancer (it doesn't matter which)
Phimosis
"Sand Under Foreskin" - a myth to justify mass circs in WWII during the Battle of Guadalcanal.
Many others

Not a fundamentalist. I just respect the ownership of each person's body, no matter the age. You, on the other hand, seem to be a bit fundamentalist that dicks should be chopped apart at infancy, for some high minded "common good". If it is such a nuclear meltdown necessity for humanity's survival, then consider... When the British set up the NHS, they decided not to pay for circumcisions. The rate of circs in Britain fell from 35% down to less than 10%. It must only be medically necessary if someone else is paying for it.

If the US is the only country left in the modern world who still practices this with regularity, and Asia, Australia, and especially Europe see it as unnecessary and in some cases barbaric, the the WHO has a lot of explaining to do.

I read your link long ago. You are not giving me anything new. But... you are reading the AIDS study wrong. The WHO recommendations are for AFRICA only and for ADULT MEN ONLY. Not universal, worldwide infant circumcision.

Since we're on the world stage with you, is the UN just as valid as WHO regarding Circumcision? ...

United Nations adopts Convention on the Rights of the Child. Section 14 guarantees children their own freedom of belief and religion, and Section 24.3 requires signatories to "take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children", meaning circumcision among other cruel or harmful customs. Ratified by Australia, December 1990.

This AIDS study is also being questioned, not only for it's ethics, but also it's results. Expect the WHO to revise this recommendation within 5 years. As with all things in history, Circumcision will remain a cure in desperate search of a disease.

[uppityperson]

178. You are right, that quote was from another.

LibinTex says "If I'm not mistaken, infections are pretty much controlled by modern drugs. Not cutting off a part of the body."
turtlensue talks about MRSA info
you reply "And all men will get them unless circ'd in infancy, right?"

No, all men don't get MRSAs or infections if uncircumcised, I don't see anyone saying that. But those that do may need a circ. I am not for routinely circumcising infants, unless there is a clearly proven health care need, or their religion mandates it. However, my research into those religious practices shows me that wayyyyy back, circumcision could be merely (yes, merely) clipping the foreskin, not removing the whole thing. And yes, I have talked with Jewish and Muslim people who have told me this. I wonder how it got changed to chopping off the whole foreskin.

[Touchdown]

192. You are correct about the tip removal in ancient times.

Historically, that was the practice by the ancient Hebrews and Muslims world-wide until these people...

1893. Publication of P.C Remondino, History of circumcision from the earliest times to the present: Moral and physical reasons for its performance. Dr Remondino was one of the most ardent crusaders for universal infant circumcision before Terry Russell and Brian Morris, and just as scientific. His lengthy book on the subject, stressing moral as well as physical reasons, was a diatribe against the foreskin as a "moral outlaw", as well as a pathogenic feature of the male body which nature ought to have abolished. He claimed that the foreskin caused and circumcision could cure just about everything from syphilis and tuberculosis to night terrors and bed wetting.

John Harvey Kellogg MD (1852-1943) publishes the first edition of Plain facts for old and young, in which he promotes circumcision as a cure for masturbation. He writes that the operation was to be performed "without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

Abraham Wolbarst, Jewish doctor in New York, urges universal male circumcision as a preventive of syphilis, cancer and masturbation. (Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 62, 1914, pp. 92-7)

1920s-1950s. Most Australian baby and child care guides recommend routine circumcision. Some suggest circumcision of girls in cases of persistent masturbation, though this is rarely done.

1966. Excessively severe circumcision (involving amputation of entire penis) of "John Thiessen" (Bruce, now David, Reimer) in Winnipeg leading to sex-reassignment surgery and failed attempt to bring him up as a girl.

late 1980s. Demands from circumcision advocates for mass circumcision as a means of controlling AIDS. At this time USA has highest proportion of circumcised men and highest incidence of AIDS cases in developed world.

1988. California Medical Association declares circumcision "an effective public health measure" on a voice vote, at the instigation of long-time militant circumcision advocate, Aaron Fink.

1989. American Academy of Pediatrics proposal that its 1971 position against routine circumcision be re-examined is widely misreported as a reversal of its position.

1993. Claim that uncircumcised men had significantly higher rate of cancer of the penis exposed as a myth, yet again.

1997. Paper by Edward O. Laumann et al on circumcision, sexual practice and STDs shows circumcision does not prevent STDs, and that higher STD rate correlates with more varied (stimulation-hungry?) sexual practices.

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=31

And I will concede that you are correct that in few extreme health cases, circumcision may be necessary for infections. My problem with the American Medical Establishment, is that it's almost always a first choice for anything down there, rather than a last resort.

[uppityperson]

126. "Infectoins are pretty much controlled by modern drugs"?

Well, it's better than before antibiotics, but infections do kill people still. And yes, sometimes cutting off the infected part is needed. Sometimes opening up the part that continues to be repetitively infected is needed also.

[Touchdown]

209. It's "infections" not "infectoins"

:P

Gotcha back, Miss Spell-a-thon.

[Touchdown]

109. So that justifies chopping them all off?

When do we start on all mammaries to prevent breast cancer?:eyes:

Oh' yeah, and your study link is 28 years old. It's been debunked by the same website. You conveniently didn't link to this page on the same site...

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/

Cross-sectional studies. Cross-sectional studies have been carried out in the United States,9 the United Kingdom,14 and Australia16 to determine the effects of circumcision upon STDs. All studies have found no significant effect of circumcision on the incidence of STD. Laumann et al. reported that circumcised men are slightly more likely to have both a bacterial and a viral STD in their lifetime.9 The British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles reported that circumcised males have slightly more STDs but the difference was not judged to be statistically significant.14 Richters et al. found that non-circumcised men are slightly more likely to have penile candidiasis (yeast).16

[JackRiddler]

120. So chop off your own - this is the dumbest argument imaginable.

Never mind the bullshit "science" refuted by other studies on the same site.

Never mind the logic: Let's chop off any body part that might get an infection.

[Writer]

83. I suppose it's once again time for the "General Acceptance Penis Song"

((cue acoustical guitar))

Gather 'round, every man
Every man of every land.
Bring along nature's bounty
Bring it on - from every county!

The wind blows, but we don't care
Sitting bare on our derrières!
Brothers all, let's stand and sing
Our hands entwined but not coup-ling!

I look at you, you look at me
We're nature's brothers, can't you see?
You have a hood, and yours is free
And together now, we will sing:

No skin should stand between us!
No Bris Milah separates us!
We're brothers all, can't you see?
We're all one penis - you and me!

The fighting has brought ill-repute
To decisions made without dispute,
By boys and men, every day,
To keep the hood or let it free!

We handle every one the same,
We handle it - it's not a game!
We handle it, and handle it some more,
(I think I've lost track of the score...)

But we're together, our hands entwined,
It's time to let our hate unwind.
Your dick is capped, and his is bare
And together now, we will sing:

No skin should stand between us!
No Bris Milah separates us!
We're brothers all, can't you see?
We're all one penis - you and me!

Listen close, hear that sound?
It's the rush of something profound.
It's not a fart, but our resound.
Brothers, let's not goof around!

We came together for a cause.
What other reason would give us pause?
But our manly bits, proud and bare
Would there be a greater care?

So brothers all, look around!
We're together here, gender bound!
You are hooded, his is free,
And together now, we will sing:

No skin should stand between us!
No Bris Milah separates us!
We're brothers all, can't you see?
We're all one penis - you and me!

((music slows))

We're brothers all... can't you see?
We're all one penis...

JUST YOU AND ME!

[TZ]

85. BWAHAHA!

Genius work there, writer. And PERFECT for this uber serious thread...:thumbsup:

[cgrindley]

84. Circumcision is always sexual assault (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

86. What's the religious rationale, anyway?

When did God say he didn't like foreskins?

[JackRiddler]

121. Who cares? Obviously there's some fucking "scripture" somwhere that can be read accordingly.

The justification is irrelevant - the motivation for infant mutilation ultimately must lie in some sense of mortification, domination, taking possession and humbling the individual before even s/he is conscious of existence. It's the deathwish at work.

[Radio_Lady]

220. Cleanliness was the reason, I believe. During the 1980s and even earlier, there were women and men

debating this issue, both Jews and non-Jews.

I didn't really think much of having my son circumcised; it was a "fait accompli" for Jewish people in 1969.

Later, my stepson (who was circumcised in my husband's former marriage with the wife who is deceased) along with his wife, a non-practicing Catholic nurse/administrator, decided against circumcision because of their lack of involvement with any religion, but mostly because it seemed like the wrong choice for that particular mixed couple.

So, my 19-year-old grandson isn't circumcised. He went to an almost all Jewish grade school and high school, and I once asked him if he felt "different" than his father and the other boys at school. He shrugged it off as "no big deal." He's a pretty happy go lucky kid and I think his exact words were, "It's just a piece of skin... whatever..."

I also dated two men, both born in the 1920s, who were "natural". They were not Jewish and they said they had to be more rigorous with cleaning, but that was about it.

Cordially,

Radio Lady

[Hoof Hearted]

91. I cannot imagine anything more embarrasing for a 12 year old boy than a court case

revolving entirely around his right to sovereignty over his own genitalia.

That poor kid. I would put myself up for adoption.

[Book Lover]

98. Best post in this or any other circ thread!

[Hoof Hearted]

103. Thanks. He's a twelve-year-old human being, not a potted plant.

I can't believe this is even an issue.

[uppityperson]

107. Yes, a 12 yr old should have the choice. eom

[last_texas_dem]

95. Yay for circumcision!

:popcorn:

[Liberal In Texas]

97. You funny.

With your popcorn.

Glad you like yours.

I don't.

[Occam Bandage]

147. I read this circumcision thread,

and all I got was this turtleneck sweater.

[gtar100]

167. You should cut that long neck part off. It would be more comfortable.

and you'd have fewer neck infections.

[L. Coyote]

96. "OUCCHHHH" ROFLMAO

[LWolf]

125. "His wishes should be considered"

Ya think?

I wonder about the 12 year old boy who would wish to be circumcised in order to comply with his father's new religion.

[Occam Bandage]

146. I love circumcision threads.

"My penis is fine. Your penis is disgusting to look at and unclean, making it inadequate!"
"My penis is fine. Your penis is mutilated and unnatural, making it inadequate!"
"Your penis is a health risk."
"There's no evidence of that. Besides, your penis provides you less pleasure."
"There's no evidence of that. Besides, your penis is disgusting to look at and unclean, making it inadequate."
"My penis is fine. Your penis is mutilated and unnatural, making it inadequate."

And around and around we go.

[uppityperson]

148. And what's really funny here is this topic is about should a 12yr old's wishes be taken into account

How about that.

[Occam Bandage]

152. This really could have been a far simpler, less-insecure thread.

"Yes, I believe that 12-year-olds are capable of deciding not to undergo cosmetic surgery."
"No, I believe that 12-year-olds are not capable of making medical decisions for themselves."

For the record,

1. I think the kid shouldn't have to be snipped.
2. I don't really give a damn if anyone is or isn't circumcised. No skin off my ass. (See how I resisted the pun?)
3. I think it has some medical benefit in sub-Saharan Africa, but that's totally irrelevant to this discussion.
4. I think comparisons to FGM are utterly sickening.

[uppityperson]

153. So, do you think 12 yr olds are capable of deciding? Let's make this into legal thread.

I think he should be assigned a guardian ad litem who can act in his best interest, who will talk with him, and then he can talk with the judge in his chambers. I think a 12 yr old's wishes need to be taken into consideration in cases like this. And others. But yes, in cases like this (cosmetic surgery vs medical decisions). Though that gets into opening up piercings to 12 yr olds also.

[Occam Bandage]

154. Well, it certainly depends on the situation.

I would say absolutely no to any matter of health, lifestyle, or safety; kid gets no say. I would expand that by saying no to any matter in which the decision not to proceed would be irreparable; say, if a 12-year-old wants to decline stitches to prevent scarring of a wound, he isn't fully capable of making that decision.

Finally, I don't think that should be interpreted to mean that children should be able to pursue cosmetic procedures. Rather, I think there should exist a means of limited resistance to cosmetic procedures in cases in which it can be demonstrated that there exists reasonable concern that later quality-of-life may be impacted (even in pure matters of preference, such as circumcision), and in which it can be further demonstrated that failure to undergo the procedure in question would not aversely affect the child.

[Occam Bandage]

155. Carry discussion over to other thread.

[uppityperson]

156. Thanks. I just started another topic asking this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2764867&mesg_id=2771078

It becomes interesting, complicated, quickly.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

161. Your link leads to the linked from thread.

[uppityperson]

164. oops, making a confusing thread moreso. Try this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2771152&mesg_id=2771152

[CTyankee]

151. Thank you, Occam! I just re-read some of the threads here and I am shocked

at the anti-Semitism I saw! This is bad. I don't know what to say about liberal Democrats saying stuff like this about Jews. I am not Jewish, but my 3 granddaughters are and I now know how to feel a pain I never grew up with, the pain of anti-Semitism, and I can tell you, this just disgusts me. IMO, this really should have been locked...

[JackRiddler]

160. You think you can pull that kind of trick?

Just searched the thread - maybe I missed something - where is the supposed "anti-Semitism"?

Or is this your special lock-the-thread by invoking magic word strategem?

[CTyankee]

181. (sigh) I expected this kind of response from someone. Guess it's gonna be you...

Oh well. If you can't see it, I can't tell you what it is. As for your "lock" conspiracy, I didn't hit alert or do anything else. I was just lamenting what I felt was necessary to lament. Sorry if you can't see it. I can.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

162. Where is this anti-semitism you're talking about?

Thank You kindly for reply.

[CTyankee]

175. Go back and read the posts yourself. Perhaps you don't see it.

I happen to.

[JackRiddler]

188. Ha, only the Elect can see, the Unwashed need not be pointed to it.

And that's Calvinism, not Judaism.

But really, why don't you enlighten us? It's a serious evil you have invoked, maybe you can make people see what you mean and strike a blow against that evil.

Like, why isn't it anti-Muslim, since that group is also into foreskin amputation?

Why isn't it anti-doctor, at least the large number of doctors who have historically lobbied for and supported the practice?

Why anti-Semitic?

[CTyankee]

190. OK, let's leave it at anti-Semitic since that covers both. n/t

[Touchdown]

216. Let's not, and have you explain yourself instead.

[CTyankee]

217. I won't do your homework for you. Read the posts. If you find them

absolutely devoid of any anti-Jewish feelings then I can't be of any help to you. It is just the way you feel. Well, guess what, I feel differently. That's all. You are entitled to your opinion and I to mine.

[JackRiddler]

222. What a cowardly post.

How dare you come in and throw out a discussion-stopping (and completely irrelevant) word-grenade -- anti-Semitic -- and then refuse to specify the posts or writers against whom you level this serious accusation? Instead, you leave it as a vague poison in the air. Shameful.

[CTyankee]

223. You want me to do your finger pointing for you.

No, I won't. Look at the comments, please, in this thread. Please, just look. Try to keep an open mind. Say to yourself, "Could this possibly be taken as an anti-semitic post?" Try to put yourself in the position of someone who is Jewish. Isn't that worth it in the context of what I have been saying?

[JackRiddler]

224. How marvelously empathic of you.

So "anti-Semitic" is now supposed to be some kind of mystery egg hunt where we just better not talk about any issues like circumcision at all because it could be insinuated that, blah blah.

No, any finger pointing I do, I do myself. The whole point is for you to do your own fingerpointing, rather than insinuating you could but blah, blah.

How about you show sympathy when there is all this talk of "triviality" to all the boys and men who had one-half of the skin and nerve endings on their penis amputated as infants because of mythology? I don't care if that mythology is Jewish, Muslim, 19th Century Victorian Christian, or Medical - it's wrong.

[CTyankee]

225. Since I cannot convince you to examine posts that you have seen fit to defend without defending

here, I will conclude by saying va bene, va bene! That which you cannot see, you cannot see. It is not my purpose in life to expose this to you, you must discover it on your own.

Va bene.

[JackRiddler]

226. What posts? This is McCarthy tactics!

Somewhere in this thread is a post by a Communist! But I demand you find out which!

[JackRiddler]

158. Completely missing the point.

It's not about what one thinks of the results as an adult as the fact that it is irreversible and done to infants before they can even develop will. And yes, one can compare it to female genital mutilation and it is not sickening, in the same way one can admit murder is worse than assault but categorize both as crimes.

[Hoof Hearted]

165. you forgot the "only Jews are good at penis modification"

angle. . . So to speak. . . .

[xchrom]

157. yay!!! -- a circumcision thread!!! --

for the record -- i just love dick -- cut and uncut.
and i love mine -- cut.

carry on --:popcorn:

[U4ikLefty]

176. He's 12 years old and probably just starting to have fun with it

and they want to cut it??? I think NOT!!!

[uppityperson]

179. The boy may be the one wanting it. What about that?

[U4ikLefty]

189. When he's 18 he can sign the form & have it done.

[WheelWalker]

182. Sounds suspiciously Pro Choice to me.

[Horse with no Name]

183. Since he is the one who has to hold and look at his penis on a daily basis

He should be the one to make a decision.
I would think that at an average of being potty trained when he was 2, urinating on the low average of 3 times a day, that he has been up close and personal with his penis over 10,000 times in his life and should have a pretty good idea of how he would like for things to look.

[Radio_Lady]

219. Right on, Horse! This kid should have a penis with YOUR name on it!

Right now, he's just 12, and tattooing HORSE WITH NO NAME kinds of runs a little long for the young pisser's pisser.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

186. I never had this awful thing done to my sons

Mess with your own genitals, leave other peoples alone. (Unless they want them messed with).
WHAT THE FUCK IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND HERE!
Let yours sons decide when they are all grown up.
The willy your son is born with is HIS, and HIS alone.

I'm for choice myself..

PS MY boys really love their willies.

[rucky]

195. Oh, the turmoile!

[McCamy Taylor]

196. OMG! That poor kid! His dad has put him through hell! Imagine going to court at age 12

over something like this? If I were a 12 year old boy and my penis was the subject of a national news debate, I think I would want to die.

[Radio_Lady]

221. In Massachusetts, the courts allowed children of 14 to decide which parent they wanted to live with.

I don't know what Oregon law says, but there have been children of "tender ages" who have divorced their PARENTS because of ridiculous stuff like this.

Hopefully, this court system has a guardian ad litem for this child to get through these procedures.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that the child or the parents have been named in the newspapers or other media.

Anybody want to chime in on that?

[Love Bug]

199. His penis, his decision

He 12, for cripes sake, let the boy have a say. What are they planning to do? Hold him down and force this? That would be reprehensible.

[Radio_Lady]

205. I'm just sorry this had to happen in Oregon. Those two parents deserve all the heartache

that could have been averted. Just like in the story of Solomon in the Old Testament.

I witnessed a man converting to the Jewish religion, but he was in a Reform temple. They made a small cut in his index finger to SIMULATE circumcision. At least, that's what I think it meant.

He put on a yarmulka (head covering) and a tallis (shoulder shawl) and said a couple of prayers. That was it.

[Touchdown]

207. Better than Mel Gibson's next movie about Terri Schaivo

"What Women in a Persistent Vegetative State Want"

[Radio_Lady]

210. LOL. Let's threadjack this sucker. Ummm... look below:

Name a movie, book, or well-known quote, but replace one word in the title with FORESKIN.

"Foreskins and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth..." Honest Abe

[Radio_Lady]

212. Current favorite: "There Will Be Blood... on Our Foreskins"

[Touchdown]

215. Severing Ryan's Privates

You make this too easy

Six Foreskins of Separation
Little Foreskin Sunshine
LOTR: Fellowship of the Foreskin
The Two Foreskins
Return of the Foreskin
King Kong -no need there.
Foreskins of Our Fathers
For Your Circumcision (Christopher Guest's finest tale)
Foreskin 9/11
Indiana Jones and the Foreskin of Doom
Lucky Number Slider
Hedwig and the... oh' never mind.:D
Monsters Inc.:P

[Radio_Lady]

218. You are TOO MUCH, Touchdown! I love them all! You are a joy!

:hi:

:hug: