If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I can’t seem to get something off of my mind this morning, so I thought I would share. You know, as some food for thought. Yesterday, a friend of mine posted something on her Facebook status that she had learned at a class she’d taken. She was asking other people to share their thoughts on a common procedure that is done on infants in the United States, as she was forming her opinion but didn’t quite know what she would do in the future once this decision might be hers to make. I thought she would get a variety of responses, sharing different views and opinions on the post, because she had posted a very open ended question to a controversial yet interesting subject. However, to my surprise, the views were all quite the same. Of course, there were the couple of unique, opposite views. It saddened me to read the same, uneducated answer over and over again. Here was the gist of the matter, the overall opinion went something like this: “Yes, it is a painful, sad procedure at the time… But, I have done/would do it to my child because it doesn’t really matter, after all they won’t remember.” Some even went so far as to state, “I asked adults who had it done, and they don’t remember. See? It’s fine.”
I posted research that shows the opposite of their views. None even responded or gave me any notion they had read the research. All kept coming back and saying because there was no memory of it, it didn’t really matter. I am curious, dear blog readers, do any of you see a problem with this? Let me pose the question another way (the way one of my blog readers and Facebook friends responded to me via text message when she read the discussion): “So, if a child is raped and doesn’t remember it, does that make it okay?” I know this is a very harsh question to pose, and a crude way to put it. But, seriously, it paints it in a different light. I am sure a lot of things could be done to a child and they may very well not remember (or say they don’t) them later in life. But, I ask you, does this make it right, does this make it okay? Just curious…
Whittney
January 24, 2010
9:47 AM
No Cindy. It doesn’t make it right and it is disturbing to me that parents use this to rationalize not doing their research. I could go on and on, but I’m trying to keep my stress level low so I’ll just stop.
Annise
January 24, 2010
12:00 PM
I agree with you and probably most of your readers but of course we are a “biased” group: Wellness-Conscious, educated, information gathering, attached, mothers and healers…..but I must also add this: Many people don’t “remember” traumatic things in their lives, it’s a protective mechanism of our amazing brain and body. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t traumatic. Anyone watch or see the Oprah segment on “Ruby”? (just for an example).
Mae
January 24, 2010
12:56 PM
can I just say that pic of Harper is hilarious?
you already know my feelings on this :]
Angelina
January 24, 2010
1:24 PM
Wow, Cindy, you make such a good point! I had never thought of it that way, not that I was a proponent for “it” to begin with, but hadn’t had to give it much serious thought before. I wish you could reach the world with this message, and so many others, but like everything else, only the ones who want to hear, will hear. Still, a seed planted is good…it gets people thinking. Keep shouting from the rooftops, Cindy!
Brea
January 24, 2010
10:31 PM
Until we found out we were expecting a baby boy, I had honestly never given it much thought. But then I was forced to start thinking about it and once I started doing the tiniest bit of research, it was a very simple decision. There is no reason to do it…and so it wouldn’t be done for our little guy. What saddens me so much is that most people choose to do it just because everyone else is doing it to their sons and they don’t want their son to be “different.”
Heather
January 26, 2010
4:50 PM
If we have a son we are not going to do “it.” But still, I wonder why God told people to do it in the first place . . . it’s a bit confusing.
Sarah
January 27, 2010
11:24 PM
Kip was convinced for spiritual reasons & I couldn’t seem to change his mind, so I was going to go along & honor his wishes but just kept praying. Well, baby J was born and hubby just kept waiting & thinking, thinking & waiting… needless to say it was never done. Phew! I’m sure it helped that we got to take him home immediately from the birth center & hubby could see just how perfect his little body was just the way it was born.
DrMomma
January 27, 2010
11:28 PM
To answer your question, I see a LOT wrong with it…
Here is a resource list of materials I’ve been reviewing as of late… if someone were to dive into just a fraction of the research surrounding ‘this common procedure’ they would never think twice about subjecting another human baby to such horrors. http://www.drmomma.org/2010/01/are-you-fully-informed.html
DrMomma
January 27, 2010
11:31 PM
On the subject of genital cutting for religious (specifically Judaic) reasons…
What we now call ‘circumcision’ was not performed in the same manner in antiquity (or among many Jews the world over today). At that time it was a ‘cutting of the blessing’ – a very, very small slit made at the end of the penis to allow a few drops of blood to fall.
“Cutting the Blessing” in antiquity was VERY different than today in modern N.American culture where we amputate the entire prepuce organ. Hebrews and early Jews made a very tiny slit in the tip of the prepuce to allow for a few drops of blood to be shed as the blood sacrifice of the covenant. The Hebrew words used for the practice are “namal” and “muwl”. In Hebrew, namal means ‘to clip’ – like one would clip the ends of our fingernails. Muwl means ‘to curtail, to blunt’. Neither of these words mean “to cut” “to amputate” “to remove” “to cut off” etc. There were very different words in Hebrew to represent ‘the cutting off’ or ‘the removal of’. The difference was obviously clear to people at the time.
After all, you could not possibly amputate the prepuce organ in antiquity and expect the child to live! Even today we deal with a 1-in-3 rate of complications associated with prepuce amputation. At that time, babies would have hemorrhaged if this organ were removed, and if they lived through the blood loss, they would have died of disease.
I will be writing an article on this subject that gets more in depth into the topic (and why Baby Jesus was always painted in what we would see as an intact fashion) on http://www.drmomma.org/. Jesus was, of course, born to Jewish parents and would have been subject to the ‘namal’ on his 8th day of life. Again, this means a tiny slit would have been made in the end of his prepuce to allow for the shedding drops of blood as a part of the covenant his parents had with YHVH [Yahweh]. If we (with our modern Western eyes) pour over these paintings of a naked baby Jesus, we would think that he was INTACT!! Why? Because the prepuce was NOT removed! It was not amputated. It was never ‘cut off’.
Ancient peoples never dreamed of doing away with an organ that was so useful, so important. The prepuce was regarded with such honor that it was thee organ seen as being most GOD-LIKE. Hence the reason it was the organ ‘slit’ for the blood letting as a sign that YHVH is the one “I” am trusting in — not my own ‘god-like’ member.
When Jews in antiquity wanted to exorcise in the gymnasium (which was often done in the nude) they had to appear intact. Greeks only allowed intact men to participate in activities there. So, the prepuce was pulled down over the glans (head) of the penis, before going in. There were even little devices made to cover the scar from the slit in the prepuce end so that no one would be the wiser. None of this would have been possible if the entire prepuce were removed.
‘Circumcision’ as we know it today began in the United States in an effort to curtail masturbation among boys and sexual exploits of our soldiers traveling overseas. Kellogg and Graham — 2 of the big proponents of the ‘new circumcision’ methods knew that if you amputated the entire prepuce organ, it would remove a great deal of a man’s sexuality and forever change his sexual experience (and greatly reduce pleasure). Somehow over the decades their technique continued, but parents who choose to do this to their sons are grossly unaware of where this prepuce amputation originated, or why.
Prepuce amputation (circumcision) is NOT recommended by ANY medical or health organization in the entire world.
[cont below]
DDF
January 27, 2010
11:37 PM
Today many Jews (especially those in N. America) are opting for a Brit Shalom instead of harmfully amputating the prepuce of their newborn.
Interestingly, a large percentage of the active intactivists (those who believe that all human beings deserve their basic right to bodily and genital integrity) are Jewish men and women. Including the Jewish physician who wrote the book, “What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision”: http://www.amazon.com/Doctor-About-Circumcision-Performed-Unnecessary-Surgery/dp/0446678805/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261860648&sr=8-1
More about this subject, with videos from other Jewish pediatricians, mothers, and fathers at the links under “Judaism & Circumcision”: http://www.drmomma.org/2009/06/circumcision-jewish-fathers-making.html
For more information on religion and circumcision – look into Christianity & Circumcision (circumcision was always banned/forbidden or discouraged among Christians): http://www.drmomma.org/2009/06/information-on-circumcision-for.html
BTW – genital cutting of the penis was being done before, and outside of, Judaism in history. A fairly detailed account of this can be found in the book, “A Mind of Its Own: A Cultural History of the Penis” http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Its-Own-Cultural-History/dp/0142002593/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263340876&sr=8-1
Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon is the Jewish filmmaker (with an orthodox rabbi father) of the highly informative documentary, “CUT: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision”. (Watch/Buy Here: http://www.cutthefilm.com) After spending years researching this topic and studying with some of the ‘experts’ in the fields of human sexuality, human health, religion, history, and genital cutting, he concluded, “Circumcision was a cure in search of a disease. When you look through history, you see that whatever the scary disease of the generation was, that was the one that circumcision would help prevent. So in the early 20th century it was syphilis, a scary disease that there was no cure for then. Later, it was cancer. Then UTIs, and now HIV.” As a Jewish man, strong in his faith, Ungar-Sargon chose NOT to cut his son.
Male circumcision as we know it, and female circumcision in the United States actually share a VERY similar history. All the myths we now toss around concerning MGM, we once held about FGM. http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/history-of-female-circumcision-in.html
I wholeheartedly agree with what others (and Ungar-Sargon) have said — genital cutting and the amputation of a healthy, functioning body organ from a non-consenting human being is a severe violation of human rights. If we did such a thing to a dog, we would be charged with animal abuse. And what we do to babies due to our own ignorance is certainly more criminal than that.
BTW – we have banned all forms of genital cutting of baby girls in the United States since the 1990s with our FGM Bill. This includes any genital cutting done for religious reasons on a non-consenting person. Don’t baby boys deserve the same protection? This is what our MGM Bill would do (www.mgmbill.org).
There are many reasons that a large percentage of the developed world today has a ban on ALL forms of genital mutilation on non-consenting persons – no matter the reason. No human being is less valuable, or less deserving of basic human rights, simply because they were born with a larger prepuce organ.
p.s. in addition to the above links I listed, these 2 books are also excellent resources for those wishing to explore Judaism and circumcision:
http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Circumcision-Perspective-Ronald-Goldman/dp/0964489562/ref=pd_sim_b_9
http://www.amazon.com/Marked-Your-Flesh-Circumcision-Ancient/dp/019517674X/ref=pd_sim_b_2
but be sure (if you don’t read any other articles/books) to check out Ungar-Sargon’s film: http://www.cutthefilm.com/Cut_Website/Home.html
Guggie Daly
January 27, 2010
11:52 PM
They really step out on a ledge by using this excuse. Does this mean we can bite them? Shake them? Leave them locked in a closet all day? Because they won’t remember?
Can we knock people out and rape them, since they won’t remember?
And what do they mean when they say “he won’t remember.” The brain does not forget.
Chavi
January 28, 2010
12:24 AM
“does this make it right, does this make it okay?”
No. I don’t think you can justify an unwarranted reduction on a healthy newborn.
Heather, the way this partial human sacrifice was conducted in the beginning is DRAMATICALLY different than the American Modern Style. There are two Hebrew words that are used for the Old Covenant: Namal(this is the word God used when He first instituted the ritual)and muwl. Namal simply means “clipped,” just like the tips of the fingernails are clipped and the ends of the hair are clipped. The Hebrew language has words for “cut off”, or “removed” which are entirely different than this word. Muwl is defined as “to curtail”. Other resources that refer to the “cutting of the blessing” is only a simple nick, a small dorsal slit in order to shed a few drops of blood. Nothing was removed.
“Leave it to Satan to hijack a commandment from God to a chosen people and twist it into a grotesque imitation.” – A statement, said better than I could say it, from a dear friend.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090927130048.htm
DrMomma
January 28, 2010
12:19 PM
{cont fr. above comment}
Today many Jews (especially those in N. America) are opting for a Brit Shalom instead of harmfully amputating the prepuce of their newborn.
Interestingly, a large percentage of the active intactivists (those who believe that all human beings deserve their basic right to bodily and genital integrity) are Jewish men and women. Including the Jewish physician who wrote the book, “What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision”: http://www.amazon.com/Doctor-About-Circumcision-Performed-Unnecessary-Surgery/dp/0446678805/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261860648&sr=8-1
More about this subject, with videos from other Jewish pediatricians, mothers, and fathers at the links under “Judaism & Circumcision”: http://www.drmomma.org/2009/06/circumcision-jewish-fathers-making.html
For more information on religion and circumcision – look into Christianity & Circumcision (circumcision was always banned/forbidden or discouraged among Christians): http://www.drmomma.org/2009/06/information-on-circumcision-for.html
BTW – genital cutting of the penis was being done before, and outside of, Judaism in history. A fairly detailed account of this can be found in the book, “A Mind of Its Own: A Cultural History of the Penis” http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Its-Own-Cultural-History/dp/0142002593/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263340876&sr=8-1
Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon is the Jewish filmmaker (with an orthodox rabbi father) of the highly informative documentary, “CUT: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision”. (Watch/Buy Here: http://www.cutthefilm.com) After spending years researching this topic and studying with some of the ‘experts’ in the fields of human sexuality, human health, religion, history, and genital cutting, he concluded, “Circumcision was a cure in search of a disease. When you look through history, you see that whatever the scary disease of the generation was, that was the one that circumcision would help prevent. So in the early 20th century it was syphilis, a scary disease that there was no cure for then. Later, it was cancer. Then UTIs, and now HIV.” As a Jewish man, strong in his faith, Ungar-Sargon chose NOT to cut his son.
Male circumcision as we know it, and female circumcision in the United States actually share a VERY similar history. All the myths we now toss around concerning MGM, we once held about FGM. http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/history-of-female-circumcision-in.html
I wholeheartedly agree with what others (and Ungar-Sargon) have said — genital cutting and the amputation of a healthy, functioning body organ from a non-consenting human being is a severe violation of human rights. If we did such a thing to a dog, we would be charged with animal abuse. And what we do to babies due to our own ignorance is certainly more criminal than that.
BTW – we have banned all forms of genital cutting of baby girls in the United States since the 1990s with our FGM Bill. This includes any genital cutting done for religious reasons on a non-consenting person. Don’t baby boys deserve the same protection? This is what our MGM Bill would do (www.mgmbill.org).
There are many reasons that a large percentage of the developed world today has a ban on ALL forms of genital mutilation on non-consenting persons – no matter the reason. No human being is less valuable, or less deserving of basic human rights, simply because they were born with a larger prepuce organ.
Mae
January 28, 2010
1:28 PM
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but when my husband explained it to me, he put it very simply that this was done religously as a blood sacrifice, as well as personal hygiene. There aren’t a lot of showers when you’re roaming around the dessert. “Clipping it” I assume made it easier to pull back and clean from the beginning, but we do have those resources today, so there is no need.
By the way, worrying about other boys checking your sons penis out in the locker room is BIZARRE to say the least…
MelissaNeece
January 30, 2010
2:55 AM
when people give the locker room excuse, just say half of the boys will be intact, since its now about 50/50 and being intact is winning all the time….I would imagine those who have been circumcise will be more likely to be made fun of as boys do by saying they are only “half man” etc…this sometimes makes people think about it…also an interesting conversation piece is that there are several young men now suing the hospitals, and even some who are suing their parents for doing this to them….it makes a parent think….and then you can talk about all the other reasons to keep a boy intact.