Post Comments - Baby bled to death after circumcision :(

latinamomof3

That's why many new Jewish parents are replacing Brit Milah to Brit Shalom - a ceremony without the cutting!  They have realized that they are not going to do any barbaric procedure to their own sons.  Many Israelis are finally putting a stop to genital mutilation in the name of religion.  KUDDOS TO THEM!

Here is a video about a Rabbi (Harold Kushner) who tries to make circumcision seem harmless with humor. Christopher Hitchens shows how pathetic and disgusting his joke really:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtdmKrSHjfU

latinamomof3

I agree Jacqueline and guess what?  ANOTHER baby just died from another UNNECESARY CIRCUMCISION!

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/02/423057.html

A Strange Case of Double Standards

Laura MacDonald

27.02.2009 20:38

Another child has died from male circumcision in England - apparently the
third such death in 25 months - and boys (from babies to teenagers) are
being regularly treated in hospitals for serious injuries or infections
resulting from ritual genital cutting. NORM-UK, the charity concerned with
the foreskin, calls on the government to implement fully the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child and give both boys and girls protection against
ritual wounding - in all its forms.

Jacquelyn1984

I think it's wrong to remove a boys foreskin,the baby was born with it there for a reason it's not a birth defeat!!! it's meant to be there,I dunno how anyone could hurt there son by  removing it,it's just inflicting pain on the child by removing it for what?  cosmetic appearance ,I think it's a cruel practice and a baby died from it,this should be a crime it's cruelity on the child

James Loewen

Circumcision - healthy? Since when is it "healthy" to create a wound on a perfectly formed infant? There has never been one single valid medical reason to cut the most sexually sensate skin from a healthy infant or child. Those who cut children attempt to stack up all the specious "reasons" for circumcision as if the more "reasons" there are the more validation they have. If any of these specious medical "reasons" were actually correct the majority of the world's men ( who are genitally intact) would be suffering. They are not.


When these flimsy medical excuses are knocked down circumcision proponents try to use even flimsier cultural reasons, "It looks better" or, "We wanted the baby look to like his father." OK so now it's cosmetic surgery. Should parent be allowed to have cosmetic surgery done to a child? How about other body modifications, piercings or tattoos, just like daddy?
 
Religious reasons? If an adult wishes to chop of part of his or her own body for "religious reasons" I would feel sorry for their delusion, but they are an adult and should be capable of weighing the pros and cons for themselves. Done to a child for religious reasons? We have been taught not to criticize religion. This renders us dutifully paralyzed to even have a rational discussion of circumcision. How about shifting to a support for those parents who even with pressure from their religion choose NOT to circumcise?
 
Mutilation? Look it up in the dictionary. Circumcision is mutilation.

James Loewen

Most people arguing in favour of circumcision are simply trying to justify what was already done, to themselves, or that they allowed to be done to their children. There is no justification for genital abuse of children. If a stranger fondles your infant or child's genitals that is considered sexual abuse. But if that stranger is a doctor who fondles the child's genitals and then cuts part of them off... we are supposed to accept that as "therapeutic"?
 
Every year children die from circumcision, the deaths are often kept hushed, or blamed on something else. Many more children will grow with up serious life-long side effects from circumcision (too much skin taken to allow for a normal erection), rarely even acknowledged or understood as a result of this "therapy." 
 
To deflect attention from this recently reported death (or other casualties of circumcision) by suggesting the parents "did not take care of the baby properly" or finding fault with the diaper is pathetic! Well you are partially right. The parents did not take care of the child properly! Handing the perfectly formed, few days old infant over for sexually wounding surgery is NOT proper child care. It is dutiful adults doing what is expected of them, following the chain of abuse, trying to rationalize their ignorance of natural genital form and function.
 
Those who cling to the pathetic excuses for wounding infants and children remind me of those who cling to pathetic excuses to justify other examples of social injustice, racism and sexual inequality. Thankfully circumcision is coming to an end. The general public is becoming informed on the harm caused by it. 
 

eepster

Damsel, we aren't talking about a full grown adult, we are talking about a new born infant.  It's not like it takes pints and pints of blood for him to bleed to death.  Any disposable diaper can easily hold enough blood to kill a new born.  It's not like this is the first time a baby has ever bleed to death following circumcison.  It wasn't caused by some super diaper.

latinamomof3

anappleaday, there is no CONS for NOT getting a circ.  The boy can grow a really healthy boy with a foreskin, in fact, 85% of the male in the WORLD are intact (not circumcised).

Here is an educational video that talks about this, they even make the comparison to female genital mutilation

Circumcision Decision featuring Dr. Dean Edell

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5395565256830319025

latinamomof3

Hello damsell, thanks for sharing your 2 cents, but unfortunally, circumcision IS mutilation :(  The Type One in female circumcision is just as similar as male circumcision and it is the most practiced.  In fact, you cut less in Type 1 since you only cut 8,000 nerve endings found in the clitoral hood as opposed to 20,000 found in the foreskin.  Amputation is NOT the appropiate way to make someone healthier, hygiene and good eating habits makes someone healthier and in the case of sexual parts, proper sexual education is also necessary. I would assume that in developing countries we won't need to cut someone's body part to 'prevent' something, we have evolved to better medical and hygiene practices.  I really wish I was there to help the parents that didn't know about how unnecessary circumcision is, it takes away the rights of the child and the rights of genital integrity.  Removing the foreskin takes away the pleasure of having natural sensual intercourse and it is painful for the partner.  It affects both.  You can check out to learn more http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com  Baby boys have the rights to own all his parts and let him decide if he wants to have that part of the penis cut off when he is an adult.


Blessings,

latinamomof3

anappleaday

Poor babies, I feel one shouldn't mess with nature like that. On the other hand it is a cultural or religious thing. So, I respect that yet parents should be aware of the pros and the cons of not getting a circumcision.

latinamomof3

womanangel2, it was a healthy choice for your grandson?  was he 'unhealthy'?  was the penis abnormal?  my boy is intact and he is healthy, so I don't really know how circumcision will help him.  Seriously, with all due respect, amputation doesn't make anybody healthy.  I mean many kids suffer from ear infections, I don't see how amputation of their ears will be any healthy.  How would you treat an infection (IF there is any) of your finger?  would you cut it off?  I am trying to have a reasoning talk, no bashing or flaming I promise, just an adult exchange of thoughts.

Blessings,

Enith 

Add Your Comment!

Log in to leave a comment or Create an account