No. Sorry, but you cannot give written permission for your child to be sexually molested.

Diogenes The Cynic: Would it be perverted if blood was sucked from a baby's knee?

It would no longer be perverted, but it should still be banned because human saliva is simply THE most bacteria- and virus-infested bodily fluid. You should not put your mouth on someone else's open wound.

Ehcks: Diogenes The Cynic: Would it be perverted if blood was sucked from a baby's knee?

It would no longer be perverted, but it should still be banned because human saliva is simply THE most bacteria- and virus-infested bodily fluid. You should not put your mouth on someone else's open wound.

I'm not going to argue for the use of the mouth angle here. You're right that the baby could get infected.

But don't you see how you're projecting your cultural apprehensions onto people that don't have them?

/Not perverted

Any other group would be charged with performing a lude sexual act on a child/infant.

Wodan11: Tradition, in general, shows how supid the human race really is. If there's ever something you're doing just because it's tradition, that should be reason to consider not doing it.

TRADITIOOOOOOOOOON!! TRADITION!

/if i were a rich man
//yeidel deidel deidel
///am actually jewish by birth, but who the hell cares about racial purity?
////oh wait, some people still do

Oh, and the cries of anti-Semitism actually remind me of the whole "They hate us for our freedom" or "They hate us cuz we're 'Mericans!" ... or in fact, "They hate us because we're Muslim and they made fun of Muhammad!" ... There's a lot of this going around these days. The atheist leftists seem to be the only ones not claiming to be hated for their race, beliefs or traditions. (What are the traditions of atheists, anyway? There's always the airing of grievances I guess?)

Of course such hate does exist, but to see it where it doesn't exist,.or refusing to see how your group's oppressive or reprehensible actions might piss off others... is ignorant.

ShobuZukuri: Any other group would be charged with performing a lude sexual act on a child/infant.

No, it's lewd. Ludes haven't been around much since the 70s.

Diogenes The Cynic: Unsung_Hero: Diogenes The Cynic: Tommy Moo: Not far enough. It needs to be banned. I don't give a flying fark if your religion commands you to give oral sex to a newborn. Eat shiat and die, orthodox Jews. You are a bunch of child molesting f*cks and I'll call you that to your faces.

Well, you must be the edgiest 14 year old out there.

Protip; if you read anything sexual into this, there is something wrong with the way you think.

Sucking the blood from a baby's freshly cut penis is simply obviously sick and perverted, regardless of whether or not there is a sexual motivation behind it. The practitioners simply can't see it because religion.

Would it be perverted if blood was sucked from a baby's knee?

Less so, but yes. Generally speaking, cutting babies and sucking blood from the wound is odd behaviour.

I've heard that they originally started doing this because, however many centuries ago, they thought the saliva would act as a coagulant. Surely back then they were aware of babies bleeding to death following circumcision; there's always the danger of the wound not healing, and it doesn't take much blood loss in an infant to be life threatening. For some reason circumcision was important enough to them that they wanted to keep doing it, so I guess the bloodsucking thing was considered a way of minimizing the risk. I assume they just didn't know much about oral transmission of disease at the time.

No matter what they do, any form of circumcision is endangerment as well as child abuse. This is one reason there are activists of all major religions in this country trying to get it banned (or at least reduce its prevalence).

djkutch: Anyone else glad they're cut? I can't imagine a turtle neck rubbing against the lad all the time.

If by "the lad" you mean the head of the penis, the foreskin doesn't rub against it unless a guy were to take his hand and roll the skin back and forth. A foreskin is doubled over on itself at the end, so it has two layers. Any friction on the outer one would also have to pull or rub pretty hard against the inner one to bother you. It's sort of like how wearing an undershirt would prevent your shirt from chafing your nipples. It's kind of hard to describe, but it's as if you were to take the skin on the shaft and pull it up over the head. Just imagine there being more skin, and that would be pretty much it.

So how do they prove that any individual patient has benefitted from the operation? The AAP mentions nothing about a followup examination. If they can't provide any documentation, there's a possibility such claims of health benefits could be considered fraudulent.

It's not difficult, in this day and age, to spin the results of an inconclusive or methodologically flawed study to draw a conclusion in favor of a predetermined course of action. That's been done in the studies quoted which make the case for the "benefits" being promoted. I know, this would also be a big argument, but it would be an even bigger argument to provide proof that any of these studies were rock solid - and I doubt we're going to see any proof.

Note that in the full text of the policy statement at the page you've linked, they claim that these benefits are sufficient to "warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns." In other words, they want insurance companies to cover the procedure. This shows a huge conflict of interest, and here's why: doctors get paid to do this.

Many hospitals have undoubtedly noticed that circumcision rates have declined where certain insurance programs, including Medicaid in some states, have ceased coverage of this particular operation. Parents are much less likely to fork over a few hundred dollars for unnecessary surgery on their kid's dick... but if insurance covered it, they might be more likely think it's worth doing since someone else is paying for it. Although insurance might pay less than what doctors could charge parents directly, it would result in a much higher number of operations performed, and actually increase profitability. It's not unlike a retail sale: if you decrease the cost of a product, it appears more attractive to someone who might not otherwise buy it. All that's needed is a clever sales pitch to push people toward the product - and claims of "benefits" to the buyer (or patient, in this case), can often do just that.