BTW, non-Jew is capitalized. I wonder if that was an intentional form of disrespect.

Like it or not, this is an issue of great significance to Jews and I can assure you I reflect the majority opinion of Jews that we've been through this before with non-Jews forcing us not to follow our traditions, and that is simply not acceptable to most Jews anymore.

Why are you posting on Thaivisa at 4 o'clock in the morning?

BTW, non-Jew is capitalized. I wonder if that was an intentional form of disrespect.

Like it or not, this is an issue of great significance to Jews and I can assure you I reflect the majority opinion of Jews that we've been through this before with non-Jews forcing us not to follow our traditions, and that is simply not acceptable to most Jews anymore.

My post wasn't aimed at the denigration of Jewish traditions but at your playing the victim card yet again. Somebody forgot to capitalise a word and you see it as 'an intentional form of disrespect'.

BTW, non-Jew is capitalized. I wonder if that was an intentional form of disrespect.

Like it or not, this is an issue of great significance to Jews and I can assure you I reflect the majority opinion of Jews that we've been through this before with non-Jews forcing us not to follow our traditions, and that is simply not acceptable to most Jews anymore.

My post wasn't aimed at the denigration of Jewish traditions but at your playing the victim card yet again. Somebody forgot to capitalise a word and you see it as 'an intentional form of disrespect'.

Why do you assume it was forgotten and not intentional? I don't know but you seem to think you DO know. But you don't so I suggest you consider not asserting that you do.

BTW, non-Jew is capitalized. I wonder if that was an intentional form of disrespect.

Like it or not, this is an issue of great significance to Jews and I can assure you I reflect the majority opinion of Jews that we've been through this before with non-Jews forcing us not to follow our traditions, and that is simply not acceptable to most Jews anymore.

Why are you posting on Thaivisa at 4 o'clock in the morning?

Why is this your business?

no one on this thread is "forcing" you to do anyting.

http://www.drmomma.o...-video-for.html

If anyone is brave enough, watch this video & tell me that this is not distressing for babies. One interesting thing I wasn't aware of is that the baby is restrained!

It's minor surgery. Something is cut. There is some blood. Were you expecting a garden party? That said, I wouldn't have problem with a video like that being shown to people making this decision as long as they ALSO get the OTHER side.

That propaganda site mentions that:

No medical organization in the world recommends infant circumcision.

That may be technically, literally true but in reality at least one such medical organization comes very close to a full endorsement:

CHICAGO – The nation's most influential pediatricians group says the health benefits of circumcision in newborn boys outweigh any risks and insurance companies should pay for it.

In its latest policy statement on circumcision, a procedure that has been declining nationwide, the American Academy of Pediatrics moves closer to an endorsement but says the decision should be up to parents.

"It's not a verdict from on high," said policy co-author Dr. Andrew Freedman. "There's not a one-size-fits-all-answer." But from a medical standpoint, circumcision's benefits in reducing risk of disease outweigh its small risks, said Freedman, a pediatric urologist in Los Angeles.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz25p0uoZjD

Also, this link states:

The World Health Organization already recommends the controversial procedure based on research showing it lowers heterosexual men’s risk of contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

http://www.israellyc...t-foreskin-man/

OK, this is funny:

BTW, it is really really hard to deny that there aren't some anti-semitic tones to some of the anti-circumcision propaganda. To wit:

http://www.fighthatr...n-in-california

uneccesary minor surgery on a baby that is clearly distressing & something that could be done on an boy at maturity under general when they have much lower risk of cardiac arrest & the numerous other issues mentioned on that site in relation to child development & infection.

The WHO link is in relation to hetro MEN. Not babies. As i have already expressed numerous timesm I have no issue with the procedure at all as long as it is done with full consent of the man it is being done to.

And the AAP have very blurred lines when you actually look into who makes up this organisation & what their interests are in relation to keeping this subject legal. Sorry but I would rather listen to global health organisations than one in a country controlled by insurance companies & religious agendas.

uneccesary minor surgery on a baby that is clearly distressing & something that could be done on an boy at maturity under general when they have much lower risk of cardiac arrest & the numerous other issues mentioned on that site in relation to child development & infection.

So you think the American Academy of Pediatrics wants to harm babies, is that it? You ignore the facts there are ARE health benefits and the most logical time to do it is infancy.

This idea of mine of having a program for parents to watch could really be interesting. Some parents would be influenced not to do it who had already decided to do it, but other parents would be influenced to do it who had decided not to do it. That's because there really are TWO SIDES to this social issue.

I think members of the AAP have a different agenda than just protecting babies. There is a definate vested interest in keeping this practice active. Anyone who can read & does enough research can see this if they have their eyes open to it. Any health benefits, and they are erroneous at best, are all for post puberty. A baby doesn't need to be protected for STD & AIDS.

Sure, education is a start but should include a very clear explaiantion of the things that can & quite often do go wrong and there should be further discussion into the rights of the child over the rights of the parent.

I think members of the AAP have a different agenda than just protecting babies.

This fits right in with the claim that the medical industry is purposely ignoring cancer cures to maximize profits. Sorry, but these are just conspiracy theories with no credible evidence to back them up.

dat circlesishum topick is vizzout doubt da most inneresting one outside da box!

message to IsanBirder: "next time you are bored to death try to hit passing by old ladies with little gravel stones."

Who could disagree with that? On potential anti-circumcision laws, obviously different societies have the right to pass such laws, but I just hope they don't. I think circumcision is a GOOD thing and the time to do it is at infancy.

Good answer which deserves reflection.

This is sleight of hand. The basis of law is not to mandate good, it is there to protect from bad.

This all keeps coming back to the same thing really, what gives someone the right to own another human being?

Who could disagree with that? On potential anti-circumcision laws, obviously different societies have the right to pass such laws, but I just hope they don't. I think circumcision is a GOOD thing and the time to do it is at infancy.

Good answer which deserves reflection.

This is sleight of hand. The basis of law is not to mandate good, it is there to protect from bad.

This all keeps coming back to the same thing really, what gives someone the right to own another human being?

I suppose there's a case for mandatory circumcision in infancy, in case people don't want it later in life, in order to reduce the risk of them spreading disease, for the greater good.

SC

I suppose there's a case for mandatory circumcision in infancy, in case people don't want it later in life, in order to reduce the risk of them spreading disease, for the greater good.

SC

Yep. I've never had kids because if they get through the minefield of life and died I would be at blame because I gave them life in the first place.

I suppose there's a case for mandatory circumcision in infancy, in case people don't want it later in life, in order to reduce the risk of them spreading disease, for the greater good.

SC

for the greater good

right you are! and criminals like me who spread diseases on a global scale when they were a wee bit younger should be castrated.

I suppose there's a case for mandatory circumcision in infancy, in case people don't want it later in life, in order to reduce the risk of them spreading disease, for the greater good.

SC

for the greater good

right you are! and criminals like me who spread diseases on a global scale when they were a wee bit younger should be castrated.

...have been castrated.

We should do it pre-emptively, before people have the opportunity to spread disease, or commit their crimes. Like cutting off the left hand of potential thieves.

I'll bet that would have Boo whinging, even though it was done to protect us all

SC

I suppose there's a case for mandatory circumcision in infancy, in case people don't want it later in life, in order to reduce the risk of them spreading disease, for the greater good.

SC

for the greater good

right you are! and criminals like me who spread diseases on a global scale when they were a wee bit younger should be castrated.

...have been castrated.

We should do it pre-emptively, before people have the opportunity to spread disease, or commit their crimes. Like cutting off the left hand of potential thieves.

I'll bet that would have Boo whinging, even though it was done to protect us all

SC

if i'd argue any case (like you did) my wife would conduct a thorough search of my study for illegal bottles of portwine.

...

for the greater good

right you are! and criminals like me who spread diseases on a global scale when they were a wee bit younger should be castrated.

...have been castrated.

We should do it pre-emptively, before people have the opportunity to spread disease, or commit their crimes. Like cutting off the left hand of potential thieves.

I'll bet that would have Boo whinging, even though it was done to protect us all

SC

if i'd argue any case (like you did) my wife would conduct a thorough search of my study for illegal bottles of portwine.

Empty ones, presumably

SC

I think members of the AAP have a different agenda than just protecting babies. There is a definate vested interest in keeping this practice active.

...

Other than the obvious fact that you are personally opposed to infant male circumcision being a choice for parents who want to do it (not required so it does not effect you in the slightest, but you want to impose your prejudices on OTHERS and clearly support laws to persecute and prosecute those who make the choice you don't like) what specific EVIDENCE do you have that the AAP is crooked and doesn't have the best health interest of the babies in mind? That's a pretty outrageous charge to just throw out casually when you offer nothing to back it up.

Not holding my breath.

Is the WHO also crooked?

Who could disagree with that? On potential anti-circumcision laws, obviously different societies have the right to pass such laws, but I just hope they don't. I think circumcision is a GOOD thing and the time to do it is at infancy.

Good answer which deserves reflection.

This is sleight of hand. The basis of law is not to mandate good, it is there to protect from bad.

This all keeps coming back to the same thing really, what gives someone the right to own another human being?

Parents make many kinds of medical decisions for infants and children that do not involve the consent of the child sometimes including much more serious surgical procedures than circumcision. It is not a matter of ownership as such young people aren't legally capable of giving consent. Agree that circumcision is a legitimate social issue worthy of controversy and discussion. Don't agree societies should make it illegal for parents to make this medical decision for their babies.

Its not a medical decision being made...its made for religious reasons in the vast majority of cases.

Are you trying to pull the wool over your own eyes here?

Its not a medical decision being made...its made for religious reasons in the vast majority of cases.

Are you trying to pull the wool over your own eyes here?

Speaking from the American perspective, most people doing it are neither Jew or Muslim. When I was growing up, ALL of my buddies were cut and only 10 percent were Jews. The vast majority of American babies were having it done back then. Now the procedure is less popular in the U.S. I think current babies it is 30 percent. Add up American Jews and Muslims and you've got 4 percent max. Do the math. Also note with American Jews, almost all do it, but the motivations are largely ETHNIC IDENTITY based and not because of fundamentalist belief. I think in your country it is as you think and the procedure is not widely popular. I am most certainly not trying to pull anything over your eyes.

30% is a lot of cutting. Also a lot of money involved....especially for Urologists.

Plenty of vested interest.

30% is a lot of cutting. Also a lot of money involved....especially for Urologists.

Plenty of vested interest.

Well, like I have said, I approve of a transparent information sharing program so that societies make sure the parents are making an informed decision. But making it illegal is a bridge too far.

Also note "medical reasons" can also include cosmetic reasons. Boys in my day were expected to be cut and to not be cut was considered quite freakish. So parents wanted their boys to fit in in the locker room. Medical procedures are not only done to cure disease. Obviously things have changed since then. Lots of factors. For example mass immigration from cultures that do not circumcise such as Latin America. I would also like those from these non-cutting cultures to have the chance to be exposed to information that points out the medical BENEFITS of the procedure. Why should the information be only one way when there are actually strong cases for and against the procedure?

Parents make many kinds of medical decisions for infants and children that do not involve the consent of the child sometimes including much more serious surgical procedures than circumcision. It is not a matter of ownership as such young people aren't legally capable of giving consent.

As a child, I wouldn't have agreed to a shot, vaccination or painful dental procedure if I had been given a choice in the matter.

In Europe there are laws in place to stop the spanking of children

Is that so? It looks like George Orwell was on to something.

I think members of the AAP have a different agenda than just protecting babies. There is a definate vested interest in keeping this practice active.

...

Other than the obvious fact that you are personally opposed to infant male circumcision being a choice for parents who want to do it (not required so it does not effect you in the slightest, but you want to impose your prejudices on OTHERS and clearly support laws to persecute and prosecute those who make the choice you don't like) what specific EVIDENCE do you have that the AAP is crooked and doesn't have the best health interest of the babies in mind? That's a pretty outrageous charge to just throw out casually when you offer nothing to back it up.

Not holding my breath.

Is the WHO also crooked?

Other than the obvious fact that you are personally for infant male circumcision being a choice for parents who want to do it regardless of the right of the child (a procedure not required for any valid medical reason so it does not effect you in the slightest, but you want to force your beliefs on a baby who has not made the choice and clearly support laws to perfom painful and unneeded surgery on those we should be fighting to protect) what specific EVIDENCE do you have that the AAP is acting in only the best interests of the child and doesn't have an additional agenda esp when you look at who members of the organisation are? That's a pretty outrageous claim to just throw out casually when you offer nothing to back it up.

Not holding my breath.

Parents make many kinds of medical decisions for infants and children that do not involve the consent of the child sometimes including much more serious surgical procedures than circumcision. It is not a matter of ownership as such young people aren't legally capable of giving consent.

As a child, I wouldn't have agreed to a shot, vaccination or painful dental procedure if I had been given a choice in the matter.

Exactly! I remember the first time I went to a dentist he literally had to chase me around the chair.

I think members of the AAP have a different agenda than just protecting babies. There is a definate vested interest in keeping this practice active.

...

Other than the obvious fact that you are personally opposed to infant male circumcision being a choice for parents who want to do it (not required so it does not effect you in the slightest, but you want to impose your prejudices on OTHERS and clearly support laws to persecute and prosecute those who make the choice you don't like) what specific EVIDENCE do you have that the AAP is crooked and doesn't have the best health interest of the babies in mind? That's a pretty outrageous charge to just throw out casually when you offer nothing to back it up.

Not holding my breath.

Is the WHO also crooked?

Other than the obvious fact that you are personally for infant male circumcision being a choice for parents who want to do it regardless of the right of the child (a procedure not required for any valid medical reason so it does not effect you in the slightest, but you want to force your beliefs on a baby who has not made the choice and clearly support laws to perfom painful and unneeded surgery on those we should be fighting to protect) what specific EVIDENCE do you have that the AAP is acting in only the best interests of the child and doesn't have an additional agenda esp when you look at who members of the organisation are? That's a pretty outrageous claim to just throw out casually when you offer nothing to back it up.

Not holding my breath.

So you can't answer my question because you have no evidence. As expected. YOU made the charge and you have nothing. Your cheap trick debate tactic of deflecting the question with a question is proof. Cheers.

BTW, there are some cases where circumcision is medically required. Usually not required. OPTIONAL. But it has proven medical BENEFITS nonetheless. There are also very minor risks.

We get it. The baby doesn't give consent. You can't accept that so you want to dictate your strong feelings on all of humanity with onerous legislation. It's a valid position from your point of view, but that is really all you've got. Just a strong feeling. But a total intolerance of CHOICE for others.

Parents make many kinds of medical decisions for infants and children that do not involve the consent of the child sometimes including much more serious surgical procedures than circumcision. It is not a matter of ownership as such young people aren't legally capable of giving consent.

As a child, I wouldn't have agreed to a shot, vaccination or painful dental procedure if I had been given a choice in the matter.

I wondered when someone would throw up this weak assed argument.

Vaccinations are given to stop your child getting sick or dying, a VERY real and valid reason as childhood diseases are killers that children are exposed to every day by being around other children, a very real, avlid medical risk, unlike having a foreskin in childhood which has virtually zero medical risks attached (sorry for the pun)

And if you really think comparing going to the dentist is the same as cutting off part of a boys dick then you have a weird concept of what is right & wrong. And I'm sure that any parent, if a dentist suggested removing all teeth in infancy without a really valid medical argument, would have them removed from the profession or at the very least, reported.

I think members of the AAP have a different agenda than just protecting babies. There is a definate vested interest in keeping this practice active.

...

Other than the obvious fact that you are personally opposed to infant male circumcision being a choice for parents who want to do it (not required so it does not effect you in the slightest, but you want to impose your prejudices on OTHERS and clearly support laws to persecute and prosecute those who make the choice you don't like) what specific EVIDENCE do you have that the AAP is crooked and doesn't have the best health interest of the babies in mind? That's a pretty outrageous charge to just throw out casually when you offer nothing to back it up.

Not holding my breath.

Is the WHO also crooked?

Other than the obvious fact that you are personally for infant male circumcision being a choice for parents who want to do it regardless of the right of the child (a procedure not required for any valid medical reason so it does not effect you in the slightest, but you want to force your beliefs on a baby who has not made the choice and clearly support laws to perfom painful and unneeded surgery on those we should be fighting to protect) what specific EVIDENCE do you have that the AAP is acting in only the best interests of the child and doesn't have an additional agenda esp when you look at who members of the organisation are? That's a pretty outrageous claim to just throw out casually when you offer nothing to back it up.

Not holding my breath.

So you can't answer my question because you have no evidence. As expected. YOU made the charge and you have nothing. Your cheap trick debate tactic of deflecting the question with a question is proof. Cheers.

I have provided several links over the thread, if you have failed to read them & understand the words written plus the numerous sources of proof then that's your issue, not mine.