Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Groups opposed to circumcision

Lewis

Member
What is going on here ? There are groups opposed to circumcision ? This is crazy. The procedure is Biblical, because hats where it comes from. Even though it is supposed to be on the 8th day, because God knew that less bleeding would would take place on the 8th day after birth. I forgot how it goes but on the 8th day your body does something.

CNN
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Groups opposed to circumcision are watching the case of an 8-year-old suburban Chicago boy whose divorced parents are fighting in court over whether he should have the procedure.

The child's mother wants him circumcised to prevent recurring, painful inflammation she says he's experienced during the past year. But the father says the boy is healthy and circumcision, which removes the foreskin of the penis, is an unnecessary medical procedure that could cause him long-term physical and psychological harm.

"The child is absolutely healthy," the father said during a break in a court hearing on the matter Wednesday. "I do not want any doctor to butcher my son."

The mother testified that her son has had five bouts of painful inflammation and has begged her to help him. Her son cannot wear underwear or jeans during the bouts and is comfortable only in loose-fitting pajamas, she said.

"My child was in the bathroom crying. He asked me to come in because his penis did not look normal," she said, describing one of the episodes.

The couple's 2003 divorce decree gave the father the right to offer input on medical decisions. Earlier this year, he sued to block the surgery and Cook County Judge Jordan Kaplan ordered the mother not to have the boy circumcised until he could hear from both parents and the opinions of doctors who've examined the boy.

The Associated Press is not naming the parents to protect the child's privacy. The father was born and raised in Poland. The mother is from Slovakia.

The case reflects a national debate over the medical necessity of circumcision. In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics reversed its support for routine infant circumcision, citing questionable benefits and medical and anecdotal evidence that circumcised men have less penile sensitivity.

David Llewellyn, an Atlanta attorney who specializes in circumcision cases, is helping the father's attorneys without a fee. He called the surgery "a bizarre American custom."

Most U.S. newborn boys are circumcised before they leave the hospital. But a growing number of parents are opting against the surgery. The percentage of male babies circumcised has fallen from an estimated 90 percent in 1970 to about 60 percent today.

Roger Saquet, director of the Non-Circumcision Information Center in Belmont, Massachusetts, said he heard about the case from others who promote leaving boys' foreskins intact.

"I can't imagine an 8-year-old boy to be forced to go to a hospital and have his genitals mutilated," he said.

Tracy Rizzo, the mother's attorney, said religion, not medicine, is the father's concern. Rizzo said the father disagrees with circumcision because he resents the fact that his ex-wife has remarried a Jewish man. The mother lives with her new husband, her son and her husband's son from a previous relationship in Northbrook.

The father, an Arlington Heights resident, denies he's concerned about the religion of his ex-wife's husband.

The mother testified Wednesday that she wanted the boy circumcised when he was a newborn, but her then-husband refused. She quoted him as saying at the time: "There is no way my son is going to be circumcised. He is not a Jew."

But the judge would not allow Alan Toback, an attorney for the father, to ask the new husband, who also testified Wednesday, if he is circumcised.

"We're not going there," the judge said.

For Jews, a ritual circumcision, or bris, is a sacred covenant with God, commanded in Genesis. Jews have been circumcising their sons for thousands of years.

In a March 1999 policy statement that was reaffirmed this year, the American Academy of Pediatrics said there are "potential medical benefits" to circumcision, including a reduction in risk of urinary tract infections. However, existing data "are not sufficient to recommend routine ... circumcision" of newborns, the statement says.

The group estimates that 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised in the United States a year at a cost of between $150 million and $270 million.

Dr. David Hatch, a pediatric urologist who testified, said he performs 250 circumcisions a year, including about 20 on boys between the ages of 5 and 10.

Hatch testified his own three sons are uncircumcised because he does not think it is normally medically necessary. But he said he would recommend circumcision for a son with a history of recurring inflammation or infection.

Kaplan declined to decide the case Wednesday, ordering both sides to submit additional arguments in writing.
 
There hasn't been a valid religous reason for circumsion for 2000 years. But the medical reasons are undeniable.
 
ttg said:
There hasn't been a valid religous reason for circumsion for 2000 years. But the medical reasons are undeniable.
Well yes, you are right, but it still comes from the Bible.
 
What is going on here ? There are groups opposed to circumcision ? This is crazy. The procedure is Biblical, because hats where it comes from. Even though it is supposed to be on the 8th day, because God knew that less bleeding would would take place on the 8th day after birth. I forgot how it goes but on the 8th day your body does something.
The body starts to produce coagulants, namely vitamin K, after 8 days. Would Man have actually know this thousands of yeas ago? Hmmm...

There hasn't been a valid religous reason for circumsion for 2000 years. But the medical reasons are undeniable.
Lack of proper hygene was and still might be a good reason for circumcision. There is also a study going on that may show circumcisions could reduce the risk of contracting HIV. another hmmm... 8-)
 
vic said:
What is going on here ? There are groups opposed to circumcision ? This is crazy. The procedure is Biblical, because hats where it comes from. Even though it is supposed to be on the 8th day, because God knew that less bleeding would would take place on the 8th day after birth. I forgot how it goes but on the 8th day your body does something.
The body starts to produce coagulants, namely vitamin K, after 8 days. Would Man have actually know this thousands of yeas ago? Hmmm...

[quote:a45a5]There hasn't been a valid religous reason for circumsion for 2000 years. But the medical reasons are undeniable.
Lack of proper hygene was and still might be a good reason for circumcision. There is also a study going on that may show circumcisions could reduce the risk of contracting HIV. another hmmm... 8-)[/quote:a45a5]
Thank you Vic that is what I had forgot. Further proving the Bible's accuracy, all those years ago. And yes God was always concerned about our hygene.
 
vic said:
What is going on here ? There are groups opposed to circumcision ? This is crazy. The procedure is Biblical, because hats where it comes from. Even though it is supposed to be on the 8th day, because God knew that less bleeding would would take place on the 8th day after birth. I forgot how it goes but on the 8th day your body does something.
The body starts to produce coagulants, namely vitamin K, after 8 days. Would Man have actually know this thousands of yeas ago? Hmmm...

In that specific of a way to identify why the 8th day is the best? No. Were they capable of discerning when something bled more or bled less? I'd expect. Not to cast doubt on your thoughts, but you don't need divine intervention to recognize which pool of around the moyle is bigger.
 
moniker said:
vic said:
What is going on here ? There are groups opposed to circumcision ? This is crazy. The procedure is Biblical, because hats where it comes from. Even though it is supposed to be on the 8th day, because God knew that less bleeding would would take place on the 8th day after birth. I forgot how it goes but on the 8th day your body does something.
The body starts to produce coagulants, namely vitamin K, after 8 days. Would Man have actually know this thousands of yeas ago? Hmmm...

In that specific of a way to identify why the 8th day is the best? No. Were they capable of discerning when something bled more or bled less? I'd expect. Not to cast doubt on your thoughts, but you don't need divine intervention to recognize which pool of around the moyle is bigger.
HUH!!!!!!! Yes they were able to discern about the bleeding, those people were not stupid.
 
moniker said:
In that specific of a way to identify why the 8th day is the best? No. Were they capable of discerning when something bled more or bled less? I'd expect. Not to cast doubt on your thoughts, but you don't need divine intervention to recognize which pool of around the moyle is bigger.
I understand your logic and where you are coming from, but there is no indication that circumcision was performed prior to God's command to circumsise, nor is there any indication it was a "trial and error" precedure. The command to circumcise on the eight day is from the LORD Himself:

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
 
You know what Vic, I had forgot that there were no circumcisions before the command from God Himself. But when the procedure was done the people could see that the bleeding was small compared to when other people were cut.
 
vic said:
The body starts to produce anti-coagulants, namely vitamin K, after 8 days. Would Man have actually know this thousands of yeas ago? Hmmm...

Very young babies are more prone to hemmorhaging, but there's nothing special that happens on the eighth day that increases coagulation. (Also, Vitamin K is a coagulant, not an anticoagulant. Anticoagulants in infants would be bad. :) ) Generally speaking, the longer after birth you wait, the safer it is. The exception is right after birth, since prothrombin concentrations are really high then, but they drop within a day.

ttg said:
There hasn't been a valid religous reason for circumsion for 2000 years. But the medical reasons are undeniable.

There really aren't any medical reasons. There's a small chance that it may help prevent HIV, but this is pretty speculative so far, and even a correlation between circumcision and HIV would not imply a causation. There's the alleged hygeine aspect, but the extra risks of any sort of actual health issue in non-circumsized males is overshadowed by the risks from the procedure itself, which can result in disfigurment or death in rare cases. The only real reason non-Jewish people get their kids circumsized in the US is aesthetics.
 
ArtGuy said:
vic said:
The body starts to produce anti-coagulants, namely vitamin K, after 8 days. Would Man have actually know this thousands of yeas ago? Hmmm...

Very young babies are more prone to hemmorhaging, but there's nothing special that happens on the eighth day that increases coagulation. (Also, Vitamin K is a coagulant, not an anticoagulant. Anticoagulants in infants would be bad. :) ) Generally speaking, the longer after birth you wait, the safer it is. The exception is right after birth, since prothrombin concentrations are really high then, but they drop within a day.
the addition of "anti" on my part was a typo and is fixed.

In addition to Lewis' post above, read this:

Vitamin K deficiency may cause unexpected bleeding (0.25%–1.7% incidence) during the first week of life in previously healthy-appearing neonates (early vitamin K deficiency bleeding [VKDB] of the newborn [formerly known as classic hemorrhagic disease of the newborn]). The efficacy of neonatal vitamin K prophylaxis (oral or parenteral) in the prevention of early VKDB is firmly established. It has been the standard of care since the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended it in 1961.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg ... ;112/1/191

That's the first week of life; seven days. The eight day follows the seventh, unless you want to argue that too. 8-)

but there's nothing special that happens on the eighth day that increases coagulation.
I disagree and so does the LORD:

Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

God is SO much wiser than we, so I go with God on this one. He knew. :wink:
 
vic said:
ArtGuy said:
vic said:
The body starts to produce anti-coagulants, namely vitamin K, after 8 days. Would Man have actually know this thousands of yeas ago? Hmmm...

Very young babies are more prone to hemmorhaging, but there's nothing special that happens on the eighth day that increases coagulation. (Also, Vitamin K is a coagulant, not an anticoagulant. Anticoagulants in infants would be bad. :) ) Generally speaking, the longer after birth you wait, the safer it is. The exception is right after birth, since prothrombin concentrations are really high then, but they drop within a day.
the addition of "anti" on my part was a typo and is fixed.

In addition to Lewis' post above, read this:

Vitamin K deficiency may cause unexpected bleeding (0.25%–1.7% incidence) during the first week of life in previously healthy-appearing neonates (early vitamin K deficiency bleeding [VKDB] of the newborn [formerly known as classic hemorrhagic disease of the newborn]). The efficacy of neonatal vitamin K prophylaxis (oral or parenteral) in the prevention of early VKDB is firmly established. It has been the standard of care since the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended it in 1961.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg ... ;112/1/191

That's the first week of life; seven days. The eight day follows the seventh, unless you want to argue that too. 8-)

[quote:845c7]but there's nothing special that happens on the eighth day that increases coagulation.
I disagree and so does the LORD:

Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

God is SO much wiser than we, so I go with God on this one. He knew. :wink:[/quote:845c7]
Hallelujah Glory to God, yes He knew, yes He knew. We serve a poweful God , a all knowing God. His knowledge is to wonderful for me, I cannot attain unto it, said David. This is just further proof of the truth of the Bible.
 
We cured the hemmorage risk in children. Every child is given a vitamin K injection within 24 hours of birth. I have personally given about a dozen of them.

There is evidence that circumcision does reduce the incidence of urinary tract infections as well.

Should we circumcise our children, who really cares if it isn't for a medical reason, God doesn't require it of us now.

For the kid in the article I say do it if it will help his medical condition.
 
vic said:
the addition of "anti" on my part was a typo and is fixed.

I know, I was just making a joke. Sorry.

Vitamin K deficiency may cause unexpected bleeding (0.25%–1.7% incidence) during the first week of life in previously healthy-appearing neonates (early vitamin K deficiency bleeding [VKDB] of the newborn [formerly known as classic hemorrhagic disease of the newborn]). The efficacy of neonatal vitamin K prophylaxis (oral or parenteral) in the prevention of early VKDB is firmly established. It has been the standard of care since the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended it in 1961.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg ... ;112/1/191

That's the first week of life; seven days. The eight day follows the seventh, unless you want to argue that too. 8-)
[/quote]

You'd be hard pressed to convince me that "the first week of life" is being used in a scientifically precise manner, there. The figures generally used are the first 3-5 day - "the first week" is being used as a colloquialism.

At any rate, that wasn't much my point; I'm aware that hemmorhage is more likely in the early stages of the child's life. I was mostly contending that nothing magical happens on the eighth day. The eighth day is safer than the 3rd, but then the 20th day is safer than the eighth. Not every infant sees the exact same progression of hormonal development, and so there will be statistical outliers that don't see 100% vitamin K production until after the 8th day. If you wanted to play it really safe, you'd wait until a month or so.



[quote:ef472]but there's nothing special that happens on the eighth day that increases coagulation.
I disagree and so does the LORD:

Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.[/quote:ef472]

Try as I might, I can't see any reference to increased coagulation, there. Why isn't enough to claim that God told us to wait until a certain day because it fell at some point after a certain safe period? Why manufacture the story that something special happens on that day that makes it safer than any other day in the infant's life? God's glory is impressive enough without having to make things up to augment it.

As to that link, Lewis, I'm familiar with the tale. The only one who makes the claim that coagulation actually spikes on the 8th day is one S.I. McMillan, who says so in a book of his. Curiously enough, I couldn't find any studies that bolster his claim - it seems that this is pretty much just one guy's opinion based on some dubious (or perhaps nonexistant) research, and that it was made as a deliberate attempt to prove a point about the power of the Bible as a health guide. It has "agenda" written all over it, and I would hardly use it as a source of reliable information.
 
As to that link, Lewis, I'm familiar with the tale. The only one who makes the claim that coagulation actually spikes on the 8th day is one S.I. McMillan, who says so in a book of his. Curiously enough, I couldn't find any studies that bolster his claim - it seems that this is pretty much just one guy's opinion based on some dubious (or perhaps nonexistant) research, and that it was made as a deliberate attempt to prove a point about the power of the Bible as a health guide. It has "agenda" written all over it, and I would hardly use it as a source of reliable information.
ArtGuy, that was a really strong statement. I will get back to you, in a little bit.
 
vic said:
What is going on here ? There are groups opposed to circumcision ? This is crazy. The procedure is Biblical, because hats where it comes from. Even though it is supposed to be on the 8th day, because God knew that less bleeding would would take place on the 8th day after birth. I forgot how it goes but on the 8th day your body does something.
The body starts to produce coagulants, namely vitamin K, after 8 days. Would Man have actually know this thousands of yeas ago? Hmmm...

but also after the first kids kept dieing because thye cut it off the first day, they would realize they need to wait longer. Just as humans knew you needed to cook meat, before the bible told them it was smart, and how native americans, that NEVER read the bible, or were introduced to europeans, knew not to eat certain berrys and foods.
Trial and error :-P

Trial and Error my dear friend ;-)
 
peace4all said:
...but also after the first kids kept dieing because thye cut it off the first day, they would realize they need to wait longer. Just as humans knew you needed to cook meat, before the bible told them it was smart, and how native americans, that NEVER read the bible, or were introduced to europeans, knew not to eat certain berrys and foods.
Trial and error :-P

Trial and Error my dear friend ;-)
LOL, ok... show me one Biblical reference (a verse will do, one verse, that's all) just one that proves there were circumcisions prior ro Gods' covenent and commandment weredore and clildren died.

It was part of His covenant with His people. There was no trial and error period. Like Lweis stated, God doesn't do trial and error. He chose the eight day of lile to perform circumcision for a reason known to Him at the time. The very science you people hold in such high esteem has shown some light on this but for some reason ya don't want to see it. :-?

I don't equate this with cooking meat or any of His dietary laws. Circumcision was required for His covenant and no evidence that I know of exists saying the Hebrews performed circumcisions until God commanded it. So trial and error is improbable... unlikely and unBiblical.


KnarfKS, nice post. Thanks for the info.
 
vic said:
peace4all said:
...but also after the first kids kept dieing because thye cut it off the first day, they would realize they need to wait longer. Just as humans knew you needed to cook meat, before the bible told them it was smart, and how native americans, that NEVER read the bible, or were introduced to europeans, knew not to eat certain berrys and foods.
Trial and error :-P

Trial and Error my dear friend ;-)
LOL, ok... show me one Biblical reference (a verse will do, one verse, that's all) just one that proves there were circumcisions prior to Gods' covenent and commandment were dore and clildren died.

It was part of His covenant with His people. There was no trial and error period. Like Lweis stated, God doesn't do trial and error. He chose the eight day of lile to perform circumcision for a reason known to Him at the time. The very science you people hold in such high esteem has shown some light on this but for some reason ya don't want to see it. :-?

I don't equate this with cooking meat or any of His dietary laws. Circumcision was required for His covenant and no evidence that I know of exists saying the Hebrews performed circumcisions until God commanded it. So trial and error is improbable... unlikely and unBiblical.


KnarfKS, nice post. Thanks for the info.
We are still waiting
 
Back
Top