Circumcise baby or not

[Guest LadyC]

ok, i've kept my mouth shut thus far, mainly because i think this is a personal preference issue. i have one grandson (out of three) who didn't get circumcised until he was 4, and had to have it done for health problems. it was very painful for him, but once healed, it resolved the urinary issues he was having.

that's neither here nor there though, and has nothing to do with what finally made me open my mouth to post here.

freed, i totally understand your distrust of government propoganda... and if the sources that had been listed had been only cdc and who, i'd probably have stayed silent. but you're dismissing jama in favor of some one-sided, biased organization promoting a single point of view? ROFL, that really cracks me up!

now, if you'd like to show any documentation that JAMA later rescinded its information based on new research, that's one thing. but to just say that jama is spreading old wives tales that have been debunked makes you appear to be, well, gullible is probably the most polite way to say it.

do you even know what jama is? it is not a government sponsored organization, ya know. it's a scientific journal that publishes findings from EXTENSIVE research... and if new research ever proves previous analysis of data to be incorrect, they publish the new findings.

it isn't a book of old wives tales.

Then you should be able to post the information, RIGHT? I posted information how about you doing the same if you say there is some other?

Long before the American Academy of Pediatrics issued its first policy statement on circumcision, the practice was well established in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Thousands of years later, in 1971, the Academy acknowledged the historical tradition, but found "no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision." This position was maintained until 1989, when the Academy's evaluation of then-recent data led to the belief that "medical benefits, as well as risk" were associated with newborn circumcisions. In 1999, as a result of new research, the Academy modified its position and while acknowledging potential medical benefits, clearly stated that these benefits were not sufficient to cause the Academy to recommend routine circumcision.

http://www.expectantmothersguide.com/library/philadelphia/circumcision.htm

it's not on me to do so. i'm questioning your dismissal of scientific information that someone else referred to from jama, that YOU said was old wives tales. then i asked you to link to any documentation from jama where they had used more recent analysis of newer studies to counter their own previous findings.

all you did was point to some biased, unscientific organization, call that your proof, and dismiss jama as lacking credibility.

and it makes you sound very gullible and naive.

now, would you like to find some information that proves that your biased, unscientific organization is more of an authority than the jama? in other words, back up your insinuation that jama is a crock of malarky? or do you want to keep sounding..... uninformed?

[Guest LadyC]

hmmm... looking more into your "source", it's very interesting how this organization came about. it's original purpose was to protect intersexed children from having gender assigned by doctors at birth... and i totally support that cause. but from there they have expanded their agenda to include the circumcision issue, because they believe in the genitalia remaining in tact.

i have nothing against what these people believe... and i do agree that the health risks of not being circumcised are far less than what they were once perceived to be.

but they have no credibility as far as within the scientific and medical community. they are an advocacy group. and i suspect that even the RN who founded the organization 20 years ago would be appalled that you would leap to the conclusion that jama is a publication of old wives tales!

[Rick-Parker]

You didn't answer my question. Did you have permission to share that PM from OneLight?

[freedfromsin]

Here is a modern day article on the subject. It makes clear the facts about circumcism rather then the wives tales of past generations.

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

[other one]

I read it and I'm not impressed. It uses way too much shock to try and get a point across. When that is necessary, there is usually something amiss.

Besides, I was circumcised as a new born and you could not make sex any better and stay concious as far as I am concerned. Sex is a mental thing and you develope those things as your brain completes it's wiring at about age 25. If you change yourself after age 20 or so, you might change your sexual experiences.

I also don't see anyone talking about how it might change a males abelity to please his wife one way or the other. But that's not the kind of thing one gets into details about on an open board with young people reading.

So unless you can tell me from knowing the mind of God why he had Abraham to circumcise, I'm assuming it is for the betterment of mankind. Not necessary for salvation, but like the food laws, probably better for your health.

[Guest LadyC]

i see you are unable (or unwilling) to justify calling an esteemed scientific medical journal "old wives tales".... and amazingly enough, you even go so far as to foolishly post a link to a propaganda site to support your assertion. freed, i'm really disappointed in you. first you cite an advocacy group as your source, and that was questionable enough. but now you're resorting to this? if it wasn't so pathetic, i'd be laughing. you are making your case WEAKER, dear.

hey other one... sex is more than just a mental thing. it's a spiritual thing. and when you enter into a sexual relationship in a godly manner, you're right... it just can't get any better.

[OneLight]

You didn't answer my question. Did you have permission to share that PM from OneLight?

I would sure like to know what you are talking about? I see no post with my PM so far. In case there is a question, no I did not and that is the reason for private messaging, to keep it private. I am sure if someone wanted to share with the world, they would post on the boards.

Alan

[ayin jade]

My guess is either he forwarded it to others in pm, or he posted it here and the mods made it invisible.

[~candice~]

Alan, unfortunately it appears that something was shared in this thread, that is now no longer visible or deleted.

[Guest LadyC]

although it was not quoted verbatim, the details of the pm in question were disclosed... at length. i saw it. parker made no assumptions. freed, or someone else in authority, removed the post.