Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That is indeed good news! We can but hopeI have some very good news for you Wiccan_Child. Data collected from hospitals and printed by the Center for Disease Control shows this:
Here is the link:
- 2006: 56% of children born is hospitals were circumcised
- 2009: 32.5% of children born in hospitals were circumcised.
Steep Drop Seen in Circumcisions in U.S. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html
That is a huge drop in the period of only 3 yearsSo the rate of circumcision in the U.S. appears to be plumbing like a proverbial rock. In a few years I can see it being similar to the rates found by its European cousins.
See, if wide-spread circumcision really did help curb HIV infections, I'd be all for its state-sponsorship in places like Botswana.Here are some interesting quotes from the same New York Times article.
"Greater awareness about female circumcision may have influenced parents as well, she said, asking, How can you think its O.K. to cut little boys, when you are horrified by the idea of cutting little girls?
Also from that same article is a fact I did not know.
Several state Medicaid programs stopped covering circumcision after the academy issued its current policy in 1999, and Dr. Brady said that may be one reason fewer parents opt for the procedure. ... As well the anti-circumcision movement ...
This next part of the article I found really interesting because although it was referring to the United States; it would seem the same statement may to able to much of the world:
Yet even advocates of circumcision acknowledge that an aggressive circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact on H.I.V. rates here, since the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk, men who have sex with men.
And while studies in Africa found that circumcision reduced the risk of a mans becoming infected by an H.I.V.-positive female partner, it is not clear that a circumcised man with H.I.V. would be less likely to infect a woman.
Okay if any one reading this is an executive in the insurance industry, I have a way for you to save a lot of money. That is to deny coverage of routine circumcisions if a defect does not exist.
Isn't that somewhat dangerous to the child? I'm loathe to quote tabloids, but I remember reading about this rash of infant deaths when Rabbis with oral herpes, when performing a circumcision, infected the kids (if memory serves, traditional circumcision involves the Rabbi placing his mouth on the child's penis and removing the severed foreskin orally). Even if we can't get Jewish communities to stop circumcising their kids, there's surely nothing in the Torah or Talmud to prevent hospital circumcisions... so, why do Jews not usually get hospital circumcisions?I'd say it's going to be impossible among religious Jews. Remember that to a religious Jew this is a direct commandment from God so that Jewish sons remember the covenant. Also, whenever it is attempted to be forced on a Jewish population, it actually increases the amount of religious Jews and, therefore, increases the commitment to circumcision. It's also going to be much, much harder to stop since Jews do not perform this at a hospital usually.
I would try to help them out even more by giving them condoms by the shipping container! I have the feeling a condom (physical barrier) is much more effective at preventing the spread of H.I.V. than one's foreskin status. Just my unscientific guessThat is indeed good news! We can but hope
See, if wide-spread circumcision really did help curb HIV infections, I'd be all for its state-sponsorship in places like Botswana.
Isn't that somewhat dangerous to the child? I'm loathe to quote tabloids, but I remember reading about this rash of infant deaths when Rabbis with oral herpes, when performing a circumcision, infected the kids (if memory serves, traditional circumcision involves the Rabbi placing his mouth on the child's penis and removing the severed foreskin orally). Even if we can't get Jewish communities to stop circumcising their kids, there's surely nothing in the Torah or Talmud to prevent hospital circumcisions... so, why do Jews not usually get hospital circumcisions?
I think its fine to circumcise males after theyre born. Its a perfectly harmless and benefitial procedure.
Should it be unethical to feed newborns vitamins just because they didn't give you consent?
How can we know that the procedure is more painful for adults than for infants? Infants can't talk yet.
In countries where routine circumcision is not practiced, only a small percentage of men have to go through the procedure due to congenital defects. Most foreskins are not defective.That's true, but it would seem it is an easier procedure for an infant than for an adult. I only know of one man who was circumcised later, due to his foreskin not fully retracting once he went through puberty. It caused him a great deal of discomfort, so he and his mother opted for a circumcision when he was in his late-teens. He said the recovery was horrific and to this day cannot urinate a single stream, rather it sprays everywhere.
I'd say it's going to be impossible among religious Jews. Remember that to a religious Jew this is a direct commandment from God so that Jewish sons remember the covenant. Also, whenever it is attempted to be forced on a Jewish population, it actually increases the amount of religious Jews and, therefore, increases the commitment to circumcision. It's also going to be much, much harder to stop since Jews do not perform this at a hospital usually.
You're comparing the circumcision of healthy babies to medically necessary circumcision of older children or adults. With medically necessary circumcision there's something wrong with their foreskin or penis so it doesn't surprise me that it is a painful experience. We don't know that it's less painful for babies so that's not relevant. But the majority of men do not need a circumcision. I still see no argument to circumcise every infant (unnecessary procedure causing discomfort and pain for every male baby, who can not consent) just because a small percentage will need a circumcision later anyway (necessary procedure causing discomfort and pain for a small percentage of males, who can consent).That's true, but it would seem it is an easier procedure for an infant than for an adult. I only know of one man who was circumcised later, due to his foreskin not fully retracting once he went through puberty. It caused him a great deal of discomfort, so he and his mother opted for a circumcision when he was in his late-teens. He said the recovery was horrific and to this day cannot urinate a single stream, rather it sprays everywhere.
Why would it matter if the Jewish faith does it when it's a matter of ethics? I don't see anyone saying "it's impossible to prevent female circumcision because X religion thinks its a command from their god." It's the same argument.
The benefit of circumcision is both dubious (the mild medical boon is tentatively proposed at best) and irrelevant (the issue is consent, not boon), and if you think it's perfectly harmless, feel free to ask any man who's had one done, when old enough to remember.I think its fine to circumcise males after theyre born. Its a perfectly harmless and benefitial procedure.
No, because vitamins are a medical necessity - we don't have the luxury of waiting for the infant to grow old enough to give consent. Thus, we defer to the next best thing: the parents. Circumcision is not a medical necessity, therefore we do have the luxury of waiting for the infant to grow up.Should it be unethical to feed newborns vitamins just because they didn't give you consent?
If it's medically warranted (e.g., phimosis), then sure, snip away. At least then there's an objective reason to do so. But if the infant has a perfectly healthy and normal penis, why should we even consider cutting bits of it off?That's true, but it would seem it is an easier procedure for an infant than for an adult. I only know of one man who was circumcised later, due to his foreskin not fully retracting once he went through puberty. It caused him a great deal of discomfort, so he and his mother opted for a circumcision when he was in his late-teens. He said the recovery was horrific and to this day cannot urinate a single stream, rather it sprays everywhere.
If it's medically warranted (e.g., phimosis), then sure, snip away. At least then there's an objective reason to do so. But if the infant has a perfectly healthy and normal penis, why should we even consider cutting bits of it off?
I wonder if people consider the foreskin to be a design flaw?I'd like to know also, why --assuming god exists-- he would want us to be circumsized?
A Jewish man on here told me it was a symbolic act to show the covenant was still upheld, hence why some Reform Jews use a needle to get a drop of blood. More anthropologically, it was also to keep the Jewish people a unique tribe.I'd like to know also, why --assuming god exists-- he would want us to be circumsized?
I wonder if people consider the foreskin to be a design flaw?
I'd like to know also, why --assuming god exists-- he would want us to be circumsized?
You aren't Jewish, so it doesn't apply to you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?