Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Field Researcher
Original Poster
#1 Old 6th Dec 2018 at 11:51 PM Last edited by CuteCuteSimChild : 7th Dec 2018 at 3:57 PM.
Default Do not get your babies circumcised right after birth, wait!
God told Abraham to circumcise kids on the 8th day, the body starts to utilize Vitamin K on the 8th day which helps with clotting that helps with healing

When should the procedure be performed? Most doctors recommend that circumcision be done within a few days from the delivery of the baby. Some doctors recommend waiting two or three weeks. When the birth occurs in a hospital, circumcision is usually done within 48 hours.

Why babies die from circumcision is easy to answer: we do it before the babies can fully heal it.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/219867.php
God didn't say it just because of a law or anything, he did it because he knows how the bodies of babies work and how vulnerable they are.

I can understand why parents wouldn't look up why, but our doctors look up these things all the time, they do the circumcision! Why haven't they looked up why we should do it and when?
This is crucial, the Jewish doctors don't do this for law and only law! Our doctors should know!
Here is what happens if you have a Vitamin k deficiency: https://www.timeslifestyle.net/2018...n-k-deficiency/
![image|640x480](upload://2d5DXhQteyA9ju1ioL43OZtB9ul.jpeg)
It's not a good idea to do it right now.

It's best to wait for when the body DOES produce it, and let the body do it. Think about it: Why doesn't the body do it sooner? It must be crucial to wait for it.

I wouldn't suggest eating anything with vitamin k while breastfeeding for 8 days until then.

Anyway, http://apologeticspress.org/apconte...13&article=1118

In this article, it says that: " In Genesis 17:12, God specifically directed Abraham to circumcise newborn males on the eighth day. Why the eighth day? In 1935, professor H. Dam proposed the name “vitamin K” for the factor in foods that helped prevent hemorrhaging in baby chicks. We now know vitamin K is responsible for the production (by the liver) of the element known as prothrombin. If vitamin K is deficient, there will be a prothrombin deficiency and hemorrhaging may occur. Oddly, it is only on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn male’s life that vitamin K (produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract) is present in adequate quantities. Vitamin K, coupled with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, which is important in any surgical procedure."

So, why aren't doctors following this science with our babies? It may be the removing of the skin, but these are babies! Newborns! They need gentle care, if you shake a baby they could have problems!
Easy: Ignorance.

Why do we allow them? Answer: TOO MUCH TRUST.

We trust them to know everything about health and that isn't healthy, we are discouraged from looking up things online but don't let it discourage you too much! When it comes to a matter like circumcision, which is seen as a small only-for-religion thing, they may not do as much research or put in as much care for our babies as we want them to.

So, it's best to look up when is the best time, don't just do it as soon as possible, when you see something happen in the bible, think it through. "Why does God want this?" "Should I do it, too?" "What if it's good for my baby?"

This is the best option, look things up! Don't just blindly believe what the doctors tell you, let them be the second to know.
Ask for a circumcision when it is TIME, not when the baby can't protect himself! It is important for your baby's health!
http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
"Robert Baker estimated 229 deaths per year from circumcision in the United States. Bollinger estimated that approximately **119** infant boys die from circumcision-related each year in the U.S. (1.3% of all male neonatal deaths from all causes). There are several case reports of death in the medical literature."
Wait for when your babies can't bleed out by circumcision as much to circumcise them!

This is common in the U.S. to circumcise too soon, don't! Take time, your baby can wait!

HE won't die!

(BTW, girls don't need circumcisions. That's a myth by jealous husband and pervs.)

EDIT: I never meant that girl circumcision was a myth, I meant that The NEED of it was a myth.
As for a non-sedated baby,
Actually, I read about it online, the babies have a numbing cream put on their privates to numb the pain of a circumcision.

What? No, I mean that the body produces Vitamin K on it's own and utalizes it on the 8th day. This is why it is BETTER to do it on the 8th day, it can help with hemorrhaging and prevent it. They don't have to have vitamin k shots. the questions CHRISTIANs should ask is for Christians, when it has something to do with your babies then try to find out why instead of completely disregarding what God told someone to do just because of their race. It's stupid and highly uneducated.

His post is for moms and dads who want a circumcision, this is to help them make the right choice. Pros and cons if circumcision will be added.

https://www.medicinenet.com/circumc..._and_cons_facts here are the pros and cons of circumcision.

Circumcision: Medical pros and cons facts

Inability to retract the foreskin fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.
Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis).
Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and may reduce HIV transmission.
Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.
Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.
There is still no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.

Goodbye.
Advertisement
Mad Poster
#2 Old 7th Dec 2018 at 1:00 AM Last edited by simmer22 : 7th Dec 2018 at 3:45 PM.
Your baby (boys and girls alike) doesn't need this hideous crime of having their bodies disfigured unnecessarily, just because their parents follow a particular very old book where people didn't have any medical knowledge to say a procedure was wrong or right, but did so purely out of religious reasons (there are maybe one or two reasons, for the occasional baby or young boy out there, why this procedure may be necessary, but for completely different reasons than "parents are religious", and decided by a doctor with the medical knowledge of why this is needed - but this is only true for a very small number of babies/kids compared to how many get it done without a valid medical reason).

I'm happy this horrible thing is NOT something that's endorsed in my country. Here, there has been suggestions in favor of banning it outright. We're not quite there yet, but by law (and if parents of various religions would do it anyway) it must be performed by an actual doctor who knows what they're doing, and for the love of sanity not having it done on girls. There was even a case here where a baby died because of a circumcision (so that's possible too), which stirred up quite a bit of outrage. It should be said that the state religion here (some or another form of Protesthantic Christianity) doesn't endorse circumcision, and the majority of boys here (except those with parents of certain other religions where it is a thing) get to keep all those bits and pieces intact, without any issues later in life.

If you think girls don't get circumcized, read the news, please. There has been so many cases where young girls have been disfigured just because of their parents' religions' outdated ideas, and it's not a myth. It's reality. People are even stydying the why/how, and how to prevent it, such as this study. Wiki has a whole article on the theme, here (you can look up links from there if you want - I'm too tired atm...).

Done without proper sterilization of equipment (particularly in a non-sterile, non-hospital setting with non-medical personnel doing it), circumcision has also proven to be a possible cause of HIV and other blood-borne infections in infants. The wound in itself is also a possible infection risk, particularly in a baby or small child without a fully developed immune defense. Some places it's also done without any form of anesthesia or even local sedation, causing the baby or child a great deal of pain and fear. There's also a real risk of causing more damage than intended, because that's always a risk when cutting into something small and wriggly like a non-sedated, crying child.

On the Vitamin K deficiency issue, one of the reasons many babies may have blood-related problems in their first days of life is that their navel cords are often snipped too fast after birth. If the placenta is given time to stop working so there's no longer any significant blood flow between the baby and the placenta, then the baby gets most of its needed nutrients and a surplus of extra blood from the get-go (some more alternative parents do have this notion that the placenta should fall off on its own, which can take several days, though that's a bit extreme). Babies do get one or more doses of vitamin K just in case, because it may help stop bleeding, and since some babies may have a risk of getting a vitamin K deficiency disorder. By 6 months (after they've starting to eat solids), babies have started building up their own supply. This has nothing to do with whether or not they get circumsized, and quite frankly - why should parents voluntarily cause their newborn child to possibly be in danger of a lot of bleeding when it's preventable by not doing the thing that can cause bleeding in the first place, and not even medically necessary?

Also some food for thought - why (again, in the name of sanity) would a supreme being put an extra bit on the creature they made just to have the parents of future creatures chop the piece off as a sacrifice? I know you probably have a ton of quotes to support this, but in a non-Jewish mind (or in the mind of anyone else who hasn't been led to believe circumcision is a good idea), this makes absolutely no sense, and is quite frankly a horrible thing to do to a small, defenseless child who can't even give their own opinion on the matter.

Would you willingly cut off your child's earlobes for the same reasons as you'd cut off their foreskin? They're technically not needed, they're just bits of skin. But I guess there aren't many holy books that say this is a thing you must do - but it's not an accepted thing to do, so people don't usually do it, even for religious reasons. People do often disfigure their earlobes for other reasons, though - I have to say I'm also against the idea of piercing the ears of babies, because what if they would otherwise choose not to do it when they got older? It's fine when they're old enough to decide for themelves, perhaps even at a younger age, because a lot of kids like to dress up and use jewelry. But not all kids do, and I'd say they should have a right to decide over their own earlobes, just like they should have the right to decide over their own foreskins.

If people want to do it to themselves when they're of a deciding age (16/18/older), fine, it's their choice, and they're legally allowed to take such decisions over their own bodies at that age. I don't have anything against that (I still think it's stupid, but at least they're doing it of their own free will. If anything goes horribly wrong, at least they get a Darwin award for the trouble) - but until the child is old enough to decide over their own body, parents should have the decency to not cut off any bits and pieces of their kids for religious reasons.

By the way, vitamin K shots weren't a thing back in the olden days. So using that as an argument is a bit on the side of what you're trying to suggest.

Quote:
So, why aren't doctors following this science with our babies?


Well... most of the more reasonable doctors are, because most doctors who don't follow a particular religion where circumcision is a thing would say it's a completely unnecessary procedure to do on a healthy baby/child (with science backing them up), except for those few cases where problems with the individual person's anatomy (may not always be babies) makes it a necessary procedure. So they don't do the procedure at all in the cases where it's not medically needed - which is good medical practice. A doctor shouldn't start cutting into people if there's no medical reason to cut into them, and (if the world was sane, which sadly it isn't) doctors who did cut into underage children with no medical reason why, should in all fairness be sued for malpractice and lose their job, and maybe even worse for the parents who told them to do it in the first place.

But I guess religion is that one universal excuse for "why continue to do or believe things people started doing or believing a long while ago, which make no sense in a modern and relatively science-based society."
Mad Poster
#3 Old 7th Dec 2018 at 10:40 AM
These posts are getting weird... what is it with you and child genitalia?

~Your friendly neighborhood ginge
Field Researcher
Original Poster
#4 Old 7th Dec 2018 at 3:32 PM
I never meant that girl circumcision was a myth, I meant that The NEED of it was a myth.
Field Researcher
Original Poster
#5 Old 7th Dec 2018 at 3:36 PM
I just post things that might be helpful...this post is for parents who believe in circumcision.
Mad Poster
#6 Old 7th Dec 2018 at 3:37 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 7th Dec 2018 at 3:52 PM.
Rational humans already know it's a myth. My point is that the need for boy circumcision is also a myth.

Besides, this is a sims site, and maybe it's not the best place to talk of such themes. Most people who visit this site is more interested in lighter themes for the off-topic areas (how's your day, venting, funny pictures, and that kind of stuff). If you're so into discussing these things, maybe find somewhere else to post it (and by 'somewhere else' I don't mean the debate area).
Instructor
#7 Old 22nd Dec 2018 at 5:26 PM
i don't wanna read it for too long but there will Always be complications on the mom's and the baby's side no matter what it is

there will be babies born with down syndrome, or the syndrome i had (west syndrome, search it on google) and however,
my 2 best friends has autism, my other best friend has something on the brain, i don't know how it's called anymore though,

someone else i know has something on his hip that he can't walk for TOO long

and i could say everything else from my best friends

but all of my friends and me has 1 thing in common, we all have a mild form of dissibality (or however you spell it when you have a IQ between the 70 and the 50) everyone won't see it to my face, i also say most of the things right but when it comes to other things you might could see it, i learn slowly and difficult but not impossible
so yes there will Always be complications on the baby's mostly, NO matter what it is

so yes i don't wanna read the comments on the orginal poster when the topic started with something TOO long


also i think you search everything on internet, because i know for sure it's bullshit what everyone could be posted there
Mad Poster
#8 Old 22nd Dec 2018 at 5:36 PM
Some guy in a desert that wore a funny hat wrote into a big book to chop up your boys genitalia and you all believe him. Makes me wonder. If some guy in a desert that wore a funny hat were to write into a big book that you should get a lobotomy at birth, would you do it?

Me? I'd rather castrate and mutilate myself because I wanted to, not because the funny hat guy says so.

Because the earth is standing still, and the truth becomes a lie
A choice profound is bittersweet, no one hears Cassandra Goth cry

Top Secret Researcher
#9 Old 23rd Dec 2018 at 6:57 AM
According to some scholars, it isn't even known unequivocally that the guy's hat was all that funny. So I think I'd reach the same conclusion as @HarVee. Except for not wanting to do it myself either. Maybe just a tasteful tattoo.
Back to top