Is circumcision the kiss of death or source of life?

Toward Tradition ^ | 2/21/2005 | Samuel Silver

[Babwa]

The national news media is abuzz with a story about the possible link between the tragic death of an infant Jewish boy from herpes and his circumcision. At the same time, the media has not fully reported on the fact that circumcision could save millions of lives from the scourge of AIDS.

The problem is that circumcision is in the Bible, which makes it a serious violation of the religion practiced by the majority in academia and the mainstream media - secular fundamentalism. They have stood by while millions died and continue to die. How differently they value human life than Judaism and the Judeo-Christian tradition.

[wardaddy]

Most women prefer circumsized men. I would never want a circumsized woman.

[Alia]

"preventing masturbation"? And you want me to accept this as a legitimate basis for why Doctors were circumcizing baby boys? Did you find a medical paper asserting this? Is it massively covered through scientific and journal evidence? Where did you come up with this?

[dervish]

One motivation is expense. Many of the anti studies are coming out of UK where if they acknowledged health benefits they would have to pay because of socialized medicine. Ditto Canada.

[dervish]

What point are you making?

I'm sorry if I am obtuse.

[dervish]

Have you ever considered that circumcise in the past was a small symbolic cut, not at all the hatchet job that is is nowadays? The precision of modern medicine removes almost all foreskin instead of a sliver as it was done in the days of old. In the old days, they didn't have specially made clamps that stretch and remove all loose skin.

The first recorded circumcision in Genesis 18:1 was of Abraham. It is doubtful that it was a "small symbolic cut" since on the third day after, the still incapacitated Abraham received a visit from God in the form of three Angels paying their respects to the sick.

[briant]

It seems like most of the things circumcision supposedly protects one from, are things that your using your brain could better protect you from.

[olde north church]

It shocked me too when I found out. It was in an advertisement for some sort of Herpes info hotline or something like that. It was within the past year 2004.

It actually makes sense because the virus lay dormant somewhere in the nerve cell. From what I understand there are flare-ups where the condition gets worse and then hibernates.

[disclaimer]

The first recorded circumcision in Genesis 18:1 was of Abraham. It is doubtful that it was a "small symbolic cut" since on the third day after, the still incapacitated Abraham received a visit from God in the form of three Angels paying their respects to the sick.

A life threatening infection can start from the smallest of cuts. Unless, back then, bacteria were so huge that a BIG cut was necessary for infection. I think I follow your lack of logic and reasoning. Thanks for writing.

[disclaimer]

It seems like most of the things circumcision supposedly protects one from, are things that your using your brain could better protect you from.

Circumcision for "health care" reasons sounds like the typical liberal solution, that is, make all pay in one form or another to protect those conducting perverse lifestyles.

[dervish]

When you hear hooves don't think of zebras.

[Cyber Liberty]

This is stupid.

FR is going on about crap like this. No wonder we can't get any traction in the general public. We're arguing about whether having a scrap of skin cut off our Johnsons makes a scrap of difference.

I'm going to bed.

[familyop]

"Disclaimer":

After you wrote things like:
"Save MILLIONS and MILLIONS - Surgically remove all breasts now in Africa, Asia, and America! Think of all the lives we'll save -a woman's breast is just a lusty milk source anyway, just like the foreskin is just a small piece of skin, give all babies formula!!!"

You wrote the insult to Babwa:
"You ignorant fool."

Then you wrote to Alouette:
"...it appears you're carrying a quite a big load as it is, a 'fool' load - so to speak."

You did a good job of displaying emotions on your side of the topic, not to mention your intentional ignorance of history, the bibles and religions. Catherine Emmerich couldn't have said it better, although Vespasian and Titus probably did.

[disclaimer]

You said nothing but take my words out of context and give your unsupported empty opinion. Just had to take a shot at me. I'd call that an emotional response and nothing else.

[visualops]

Late to the thread, but I'll say that is not true. That of course does not preclude an uncircumcised man being quite..err..skillful :)

[visualops]

You know there are plenty of uncircumcised men and parents who do not have their sons circumcised who don't fit your description.
Your suggestion to ban materials from FR is pretty UN-conservative.

FYI, my first husband (Greek Orthodox) wasn't circumcised. My son is not circumcised. I also know there are many Catholics who are not circumcised (especially Hispanics). I am not in favor of circumcision. So what do you think of all of us who are not in favor of the procedure?
I think you are at best narrow-minded, if you are thinking at all.

[visualops]

My son is 16 and just fine too.
Despite their protestations to the contrary, it seems many of the advocates of circumcision are proving themselves to be the extremists.
Personally, I think it's the parent's decision. I do think it is unnecessary. I recall in the hospital when they asked if I wanted him circumcised, and they didn't seem to prefer one way or the other what I decided.

[disclaimer]

When you hear hooves don't think of zebras.

Often what appears to be the most obvious conclusion isn't the correct one. Just as sin is always the hardest path to travel, it appears the easiest on the surface.

[familyop]

"You know there are plenty of uncircumcised men and parents who do not have their sons circumcised who don't fit your description. Your suggestion to ban materials from FR is pretty UN-conservative. . .I think you are at best narrow-minded, if you are thinking at all."

That's a dishonest accusation and insult. I was referring to anti-circumcision activists, who are in the effort to outlaw circumcision. Here are the links that were also in my comment that you are referring to. But thanks for prompting to have these re-posted by pretending to have missed them, just the same.

The Evil Agenda of the Anti-Circumcision Activists:
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child
CIRCUMCISION: DOCTORS LIABLE FOR CRIMINAL ASSAULT

Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

Circumcision of Boys: A Serious Male Health Problem
[Scroll down to "Circumcision violates domestic law," and go from there.]

Warriors and Wildmen: Men, Masculinity, and Gender

Circumcision Case to Proceed to Trial

Circumcision Opponents Use the Legal System and Legislatures

The "UN Convention on the Rights of the Child" and other such agendas of those who wish to outlaw circumcision are certainly against conservatism, among other things. We, as conservatives, have never tried to make laws to force all to have their sons circumcised.

We're not here to compare pee-pees. We're here to defend the rights of parents to have their boys circumcised if they want to, and for doctors to be able to do the procedure without being sued or jailed.

[familyop]

Because of what you wrote, we can safely assume that you were referring to my comment behind the following. ...correct? Otherwise, please show us the comment you were referring to.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1351840/posts?page=258#258

[intacto]

We're here to defend the rights of parents to have their boys circumcised if they want to, ...

What other forms of permanent body modification do you think parents should have a right to do to their children? Should parents have a right to tattoo their children? Should parents have a right to pierce their child's genitals? Should parent have a right to circumcise their daughters?

Male circumcision is medically unnecessary according to every professional medical organization that has an official policy on circumcision. It is a form of permanent body modification like tattoos, branding, and body piercing.

... and for doctors to be able to do the procedure without being sued or jailed.

What other medically unnecessary surgery should doctors be allowed to perform on children without legal consequences?