bravo, lita, for not c'g your own boys. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!

as long as people eat poorly and don't take care of themselves, keep themselves clean, there will be bodies that are sick and icky. and different parts of different people will be sick and icky. but that's still no reason to cut the foreskins off babies. those men deserve to have whole bodies. and

"And yes, actually some do sleep or at least do not show signs of stress!While others are obviously traumatized... but the perspective parent is told that they've never seen a baby that does more than a slight whimper, then goes back to sleep. They are told that the baby doesn't have the nerves that an adult has, that the only thing that could possibly upset the baby during this procedure is being held still... being messed with...etc."

well, lita, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. and all have been used to perpetuate this profit center for the medical industry. if they only stopped for one moment and thought about it, they would realize how hollow their argument sounds. babie sure are far from numb. they are especially sensitive, having come from such a sweet, kind, protected, climate-controlled cave with soft, warm walls, gentle water bed, surround sound, environment. they need all the protection we can give them to make sure they are not jarred out of that beauty, that peace. it's an assault to a baby to give it anything less than the gentlest, kindest, least intrusive birth.

babies are aware enough to notice if you touch them gently or stick them with a diaper pin and there are a myriad of other indications that babies are very conscious beings. some remember the music that was played to them while they were in the womb. after all the kindness, they surely see our little 'tests' as violence.

as for 'sleeping" through a surgery on the tenderest part of your anatomy without anesthesia? i have to laugh at the idea. doctors who think about it, say that the baby has passed out; lost consciousness. it might look like sleep, but it's more like retreat. there's only so much pain anyone can handle before they dissociate, separate themselves from the body.

the medical people should not try to sell this procedure to parents. they use fear to sell it; emotional blackmail. and their century of success will prove to be a temporary triumph, for there will soon be men complaining en masse. little by little they're realizing why they've had such trouble with sex and they're starting to speak out.

"My dd was convinced to c'd her sons, at the last moment for the last baby. I was broken hearted, but she swears that her babies did not seem, in any way, traumatized. She is a natural parent, is very conscientious. If she can be convinced..."

oh, lita, i am SO sorry. that must've been so hard to hear, after taking such care with your own sons. hopefully she will be able to love him out of his trauma.

they have developed some great sales pitches. and the universality of the sales pitches lets you know it's something that they're trained to talk about in a certain way. the 'rap' is the same, all across the country and in other countries too. we've been had, lita. i'm sure my mother was also sold through fear: "your daughter will never grow up to be a proper young lady unless..." it's rather sick, once you start catching on. i'm really sorry about your grandson. maybe a way to talk about it to your daughter is to say, 'did you know they used to circumcise little girls in the US? -- blue cross blue shield covered it until 1977.' it always makes people stop and think when they hear that.

i don't remember where i wrote this earlier, lita, but here's some ammo. i hope it helps. :) ......

a parent's first loyalty is to the child, not to any social system or religious system. protect him from anyone and anything that might harm him in any way. circumcision hurts babies. circumcision hurts the men those babies become. if you need something to say to others to keep their hands off your baby's genitals, here are a few things that might come in handy.

1) religious reasons?

a) judaism, christianity, islam, all circumcise, and all blame it on abraham and his talk on the mountain with god about marking all his possessions: slaves and children. was circumcision really god's idea? no. in the world since abraham, these three religious traditions have circumcised not for god's sake, not for the baby's sake. who knows who really profited from the practice? maybe it was just a tribal marking, like a cattle brand -- this is our property.. we probably will never know where/why/how circumcision really began. but some little guy edited the original history of the jewish people and started a really big fashion statement: "the book of J" -- a beautiful book with no circumcision covenant. you'd think if there really had been a circumcision covenant, it surely would show up the first time they told the story about abraham and isaac, wouldn't you. but no, it's not there. the circumcision covenant was added hundreds of years after abraham's death when a certain faction took over the tribe. "corrupt priests" one scholar called them. i call them 'the kinky ones.' why? because there is more...

b) you might want to also compare the story of the rape of dinah in the book of j to the torah/old testament. those same priests sexed that story up. they added the element of circumcision! dinah's two brothers said they would consent to the guy who raped their sister's proposal of marriage if he and all the men in the town would be circumcised. he gladly complied and talked the other men in the town into doing it too. on the third day -- when they were all in excruciating pain (hint: the only pain and trauma are not at the moment it is done -- the pain continues and continues -- some men complain of pain with every erection), the two brothers slaughtered all the men, stole their belongings, wives and children. circumcision and cruel slaughter were added hundreds of years after the original story was penned. so whoever those new editors were, they were certainly fixated on blood and penises.

c) these days, many who "should" circumcise for religious reasons, but who don't, have a naming ceremony instead; same celebration, without the human sacrifice.

d) all religions first and foremost encourage kindness, compassion, loving, "do to others as you would have done to you" and, conversely, "don't do to othes what you wouldn't want them to do to you." if something contradicts that basic premise, i'd suggest thinking twice about doing it. might be a human invention instead of a holy thing.

2) choice? choice is an ironic word to use when talking about circumcising a baby. if an adult chooses, himself, to be circumcised, then i call that choice. if it is a baby -- i call that a human rights issue. so whose choice should it be? the parents? the religion's? the medical system's? the child's, whose body it is? i'd say the respectful and loving thing to do would be to let him decide when he comes of age. i would have preferred not to have been circumcised, personally. but i was; against my wishes. and i was a girl. an american girl.

3) safety + trauma? you say that circumcision can be performed safely & without trauma. i have to ask, "whose safety" and "without whose trauma"? "it won't hurt," is a FAMOUS medical/dental FIB.

4) fear and guilt? my observation has been that the fear and guilt element might not be about the fear of the procedure (other people's surgery is always minor surgery, right?), but fear and guilt motivated by a religious or a social concern, such as:

* fear of not looking like daddy,
* fear of not fitting in in the locker room,
* fear of not being ok with women who are squeamish about foreskins
* fear of not being ok with god
* fear of disease, infection
* fear of doing it wrong
* fear of not doing it right.
* fear that you are disobeying god
* what will people THINK/SAY?
* what will my parents say, if i don't have it done?
* what will my friends say, if i don't have it done?
* will people think i am a negligent parent if i don't have it done?
* will people think i am cheap if i don't have a big bris?

5) what about bonding? i'm sure the mothers in the olden days were screaming inside during the bris, just as they do now. but they were overpowered, just as their baby boy is overpowered. they are forced into submission to the group. circumcision requires the mother to close her heart, a distancing that is not good for the bonding of mother and child. and from what i understand from psychologists, the baby blames the mother for any harm that befalls him, because she is supposed to protect him. circumcision throws a cruel monkey wrench in the bonding process.

6) psychology? circumcision is a primal wound. freud didn't have HIS son circumcised.

please put yourself in the baby's shoes before you even think of cutting him. cutting hurts babies. best to raise them with peace and love and kindness.

:)