FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Circumcision linked to increased risk of autism in young boys
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

From Science Daily:




Ritual circumcision linked to increased risk of autism in young boys, research suggests
Date: January 9, 2015
Source: SAGE Publications


Research published today by the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine suggests that circumcised boys are more likely than intact boys to develop autism spectrum disorder (ASD) before the age of 10. Risk is particularly high for infantile autism before the age of five. The research was carried out in Denmark among a cohort of all children born between 1994 and 2003. During the study over 340,000 boys were followed up to the age of nine between 1994 and 2013 and almost 5,000 cases of ASD were diagnosed. The study showed that regardless of cultural background circumcised boys may run a greater risk of developing ASD. The researchers also made an unexpected observation of an increased risk of hyperactivity disorder among circumcised boys in non-Muslim families.

Professor Morten Frisch of the Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, who led the research, said: "Our investigation was prompted by the combination of recent animal findings linking a single painful injury to lifelong deficits in stress response and a study showing a strong, positive correlation between a country's neonatal male circumcision rate and its prevalence of ASD in boys."

Today it is considered unacceptable practice to circumcise boys without proper pain relief but none of the most common interventions used to reduce circumcision pain completely eliminates it and some boys will endure strongly painful circumcisions. The researchers say that the pain associated with circumcision in very young babies is likely to be more severe during the operation and post-operatively.

Painful experiences in neonates have been shown in animal and human studies to be associated with long-term alterations in pain perception, a characteristic often encountered among children with ASD.

"Possible mechanisms linking early life pain and stress to an increased risk of neurodevelopmental, behavioural or psychological problems in later life remain incompletely conceptualised," said Professor Frisch. "Given the widespread practice of non-therapeutic circumcision in infancy and childhood around the world, our findings should prompt other researchers to examine the possibility that circumcision trauma in infancy or early childhood might carry an increased risk of serious neurodevelopmental and psychological consequences."


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by SAGE Publications. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

    M. Frisch, J. Simonsen. Ritual circumcision and risk of autism spectrum disorder in 0- to 9-year-old boys: national cohort study in Denmark. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2015; DOI: 10.1177/0141076814565942
Poor little babies. I think circumcision should be prohibited for infants. The child must be old enough to discern if he wants a circumcision or not.

I believe circumcision is a nonsense

N.
I'm getting the impression that there isn't a single thing which isn't linked to autism.
I suspect that there are, in reality, different "autisms," a heterogeneous set of atypical neurochemical and neuroanatomical features, of different etiologies.

I do not know what to make of this Danish study specifically, but it makes sense that severe physical pain in infancy would affect a child's developing mind in some way, even if the child has no conscious memory of the trauma. Medical specialists no longer believe, as they once did, that newborns cannot feel pain.

I would be interested in knowing how infant circumcision compares with other traumatic, painful events, like other surgeries.

Another angle to consider, beyond pain: autism has already been linked to viral infections after birth. Perhaps circumcision, creating an open wound, similarly stresses the infant's immune system, producing systemic inflammation that may affect the developing brain. Inflammation is not very localized, but is associated with the release of small proteins, called cytokines, that regulate and coordinate behavior across cells in the body. An inflammatory disease like rheumatoid arthritis, primarily affecting the joints, can directly cause problems elsewhere, such as through lung disease ( http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-condi...q-20058245 ).

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/co...ism-052214
http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/scie...une-system
(01-14-2015, 03:24 AM)Neopelagianus Wrote: [ -> ]Poor little babies. I think circumcision should be prohibited for infants. The child must be old enough to discern if he wants a circumcision or not.

I believe circumcision is a nonsense

N.

Whoa!

Come on, circumcision was commanded by God Himself in the Old Law, and just a couple of days ago we commemorated the circumcision of the Lord. And remember how Moses almost died because he delayed the circumcision of his son?

We just don't do it anymore because the old law was fulfilled in Christ and we live in the New Covenant. To say its an abuse is a bit of exaggeration.

(01-14-2015, 10:37 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-14-2015, 03:24 AM)Neopelagianus Wrote: [ -> ]Poor little babies. I think circumcision should be prohibited for infants. The child must be old enough to discern if he wants a circumcision or not.

I believe circumcision is a nonsense

N.

Whoa!

Come on, circumcision was commanded by God Himself in the Old Law, and just a couple of days ago we commemorated the circumcision of the Lord. And remember how Moses almost died because he delayed the circumcision of his son?

We just don't do it anymore because the old law was fulfilled in Christ and we live in the New Covenant. To say its an abuse is a bit of exaggeration.

Look at it this way: if fasting and spending time in prayer were not of benefit to the spirit, it would be abusive to command it, because it wouldn't be giving up a good for a greater good, it would be reducing goods for no reason. Similarly, if disciplining a child was not good for their character but produced no benefit, it would be abusive to do so. In the same way, it is abusive to circumcise a child for the frivolous reasons Americans do today.
(01-14-2015, 10:37 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]Whoa!

Come on, circumcision was commanded by God Himself in the Old Law, and just a couple of days ago we commemorated the circumcision of the Lord. And remember how Moses almost died because he delayed the circumcision of his son?

We just don't do it anymore because the old law was fulfilled in Christ and we live in the New Covenant. To say its an abuse is a bit of exaggeration.

Bullsh**.  No God in his right might would design the male form uncircumcised and then command it to be obliterated in order to be in a relationship with him. 

The books of Moses were written several centuries after the fact.  Most of it was composed in forms of Hebrew that didn't even exist until the time of Josiah.  Even granting, for the sake of argument, that Moses wrote the books himself (not sure exactly how he could compose the account of his own death, but whatevs), the account of Abraham accepting circumcision would have taken place several centuries before Moses wrote it down. 

Here's what we know from archaeology and anthropology.  Circumcision was not practiced by the Canaanites.  Circumcision was practiced in Egypt on priests and on slaves.  For slaves in particular, it was practiced to show the slaves that they were no longer their own.  Sound familiar?  It's interesting that the Bible records that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, and that after their escape, they were then to be slaves of Yahweh.  What else do we know from archaeology?  The land of Canaan was polytheist long after the Israelites supposedly came and conquered the land.  We also know there was a war god named Yah who was initially only worshipped by the Midianites.  Wait, what?  Isn't the land of the Midianites where Moses fled to after he murdered an Egyptian?  Didn't he marry the daughter of a Midianite priest?  Are we starting to put 2 and 2 together now?

Moses was a murderer.  Not exactly someone you would trust to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  By the scriptural account, he flees to a land that, by archaeological accounts, worshipped a war god.  He marries the daughter of a priest of the war god.  According to scripture, he returns to Egypt and takes the slaves away (who are marked as slaves by circumcision) and they trek off to Canaan, practicing the arts of a war god in their long, bloody path.  When they finally arrive at Canaan, according to scripture, they slaughter every man, woman, child and animal in sight.  The archaeological evidence, however, shows that Canaan remained polytheistic even while the Israelites were there, and only between Moses and Josiah did the cult of Yahweh gradually grow stronger.  There are even hints of this in the Old Testament (why were kings of Israel and Judah still demolishing pagan altars to Baal and Asherah that should have been demolished centuries ago?)

The scriptural accounts and the historical accounts DO NOT MATCH UP.  There is no reason for you to trust that the story of circumcision in the OT is anything more than a myth concocted long after the fact.  Circumcision as a commandment of God is a farce.  It's a way of explaining why Egyptian slaves were mutilated and incorporating it into their theology of slavery to their war god.  No benevolent God would command it, and to believe, with both history and common sense against you, that this is something that actually happened is to forsake the use of the brain God gave you.  He never commanded circumcision, it is a violation of bodily integrity, and any person who circumcised their child at any point in history has committed a grave sin.
(01-14-2015, 12:14 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]The scriptural accounts and the historical accounts DO NOT MATCH UP.  There is no reason for you to trust that the story of circumcision in the OT is anything more than a myth concocted long after the fact.  Circumcision as a commandment of God is a farce.  It's a way of explaining why Egyptian slaves were mutilated and incorporating it into their theology of slavery to their war god.  No benevolent God would command it, and to believe, with both history and common sense against you, that this is something that actually happened is to forsake the use of the brain God gave you.  He never commanded circumcision, it is a violation of bodily integrity, and any person who circumcised their child at any point in history has committed a grave sin.

What do you mean by "bodily integrity" and why should I value it?
(01-14-2015, 12:21 PM)Dirigible Wrote: [ -> ]What do you mean by "bodily integrity" and why should I value it?

A physical body, whole and complete.  The way you (presumably) believe God designed it.  So, you tell me.  Why should you value the body God designed in the way that he designed it?
(01-14-2015, 12:23 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-14-2015, 12:21 PM)Dirigible Wrote: [ -> ]What do you mean by "bodily integrity" and why should I value it?

A physical body, whole and complete.  The way you (presumably) believe God designed it.  So, you tell me.  Why should you value the body God designed in the way that he designed it?

If the reason I shouldn't alter my body is that God made it that way, then it follows that I should alter it if God tells me to.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5