Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Circumcision Ritual Generates Controversy
1010 WINS AM ^

Posted on 01/28/2006 7:21:40 PM PST by chet_in_ny

For thousands of years, rabbis performed a simple procedure to cleanse the wound left by a ritual circumcision. Like Boy Scouts treating a snake bite, they quickly sucked blood from the cut and spit it aside, ostensibly disposing of any harmful impurities.

The procedure may seem pure 18th Century, but it is the subject of a clash between religion and science in modern-day New York.

Prompted by a child's death, the state health department is developing its first set of safety guidelines on the ritual of oral suction, which was abandoned by most Jews long ago but survived in a handful of Hasidic communities.

Doctors have long been concerned that the act, called "metzitzah b'peh" in Hebrew, could spread disease, but their argument became urgent last year when New York City health officials said the procedure had given a baby a fatal infection.

The illness was herpes simplex type 1, the common virus transmitted by saliva that causes cold sores. Usually harmless to adults, it can be deadly to newborns.

(Excerpt) Read more at 1010wins.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: New York
KEYWORDS: bris; newyork; ptooey; snipsnip
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-145 next last
To: CalvaryJohn


sorry,that shoulda` read:

Elaine Benes, "But it had no,you know,character.Don`t like

the inny."


21 posted on 01/28/2006 7:50:29 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar

And as for the Copts, they should read their bibles:

"Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you." Galatians 5:2


22 posted on 01/28/2006 7:50:58 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alouette

What part of "rarely" did you confuse for "never"?


23 posted on 01/28/2006 7:51:38 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

You need to lay off the "mutilation" and "barbaric" rhetoric you wish to be taken seriously.


24 posted on 01/28/2006 7:52:44 PM PST by Jotmo ("Voon", said the mattress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar
Snipping off the end of a childs penis without the benefit of any anesthetic is just as barbaric as ritual clitorecomies without the benefit of any anesthetic.

Why don't you let the kid grow up intact and when he turns 18 he can decide if he wants his penis mutilated.

L

25 posted on 01/28/2006 7:53:37 PM PST by Lurker (I trust in God. Everybody else shows me their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife
Don't you mean that it is well known that those who have their sons circumcised are circumcised themselves?

I'm not entirely clear on what you're getting at, but certainly the very nature of a "custom" is that it is something that tends to be passed down from one generation to the next. As for the fathers, I don't see how it modifies anything I said since the fathers were almost 100% circumcised as infants themselves.

26 posted on 01/28/2006 7:53:38 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
What part of "rarely" did you confuse for "never"?

The part where you declared that this procedure should be banned outright.

I guess that means you want government out of YOUR life but not out of MY SONS & GRANDSONS life.

27 posted on 01/28/2006 7:54:49 PM PST by Alouette (Pray for Israel: Psalms of the Day: 140-150)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jotmo

It is what it is. It's mutilation and it's barbaric. I'm not big on euphemism and rarely use it in any context at all. I know what people generally think about this, and I know how my comments come across, and you can use whatever euphemisms makes you happy. I don't mind.

The #1 reason that establishes its barbarism is that if it were any other body part that were to be mutilated, it would be deemed barbaric. And might I also add that many cultures even back in the day regarded infant genital mutilation as barbaric and contemptible - this include Greco-Roman culture and Far Eastern cultures.

There is nothing at all in the history that suggests it is tolerated except by custom. Now, how the custom itself came about is a mystery lost in the shrouds of time.


28 posted on 01/28/2006 7:56:46 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Alouette
The part where you declared that this procedure should be banned outright.

I mistyped actually. I would not ban the procedure outright. I would only ban the performing of the procedure without the subject's consent.

So, the adult Russians could get themselves chopped up all they like.

29 posted on 01/28/2006 7:58:23 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

I'm just saying it tends to make you sound...unreasonable. That's all.


30 posted on 01/28/2006 7:59:57 PM PST by Jotmo ("Voon", said the mattress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar

It is barbaric. The health benefits are far from proven. The hygiene issue is irrelevant in a modern society where people bathe regularly. Studies on STD risk and urinary tract infections are contradictory. Even if they weren't, the STD risk becomes irrelevant with condom use, and UTI's are easily treated with antibiotics.

Furthermore, the foreskin is there for a reason... Circumcision sacrifices sexual pleasure for the man and the woman.

Also.. I've witnessed one circumcision. It was one of the most brutal things i've ever seen. At first the baby screamed, suddenly stopped and looked sleepy. The nurse told me it was a form of neurological shock. She said that an infant actually feels pain more acutely than an adult. I didn't ask how anyone would know, so don't quote me on that.

Anyway, it just seems unnecessary and cruel. Not to mention a pretty severe and irreversible decision for a parent to make for his child.


31 posted on 01/28/2006 8:00:35 PM PST by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alouette
"The mohel was tested and was found to be free of the virus."

I was just thinking this should have been a mohel rather than a rabbi.

32 posted on 01/28/2006 8:02:55 PM PST by Irene Adler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

I have yet to meet a single Jewish male who wishes he had his foreskin back.

I know that I do not miss mine.


33 posted on 01/28/2006 8:03:37 PM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jotmo

You are probably right, and to be quite honest I don't entirely know why I have such an intense visceral contempt for infant genital mutilation. I mean, other than for what it is, I did grow up in a culture where it's customary (though thankfully the rates are plunging) and my own genitals were mutilated. It doesn't even bother me all too much that I was mutilated, though I suppose if I were given the option I'd want it back - I can always get rid of it again! But truly, I'm fairly content.

But, for some reason, somewhere in my subconscious, I've become totally and viscerally hostile to the mutilation of infants. I honestly dunno why exactly. I suspect it's because the mutilation of infants just flies in the face of my total value system, and I've never been much for irrational rationalization of my principles.


34 posted on 01/28/2006 8:03:47 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: chet_in_ny

Reminds me of the snake joke with the punchline, "The doctor said you're gonna die."


35 posted on 01/28/2006 8:04:31 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar

As a child of Abraham, you can bet that Jesus was circumsized. Remember that God ordered Abraham to circumsize himself (with a rock!) to show his loyalty to Him.


36 posted on 01/28/2006 8:06:39 PM PST by Clemenza (Who Need's Love, When You've Got a Gun?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
According to the bible, God ordered it. I don't understand why really as from a worldly point of view it does sound barbaric.

Circumcision was routine in US hospitals until lately. I had my son circumcized, then all the brouhaha started over it in the last 10 years or so, thanks Dr. Dean, and I started feeling guilty, so I asked him if it bothered him. He said it didn't bother him.

Now one grandson wasn't circumcized, and got a very nasty infection when prepubescent. He ended up in the emergency room and they asked my daughter if she had taught him to clean himself properly. How are you supposed to know to teach your male child that if somebody doesn't tell you?

It gets more personal, but I would prefer a circumcized man for a marriage partner, because I think there is a lesser chance of passing on that virus that causes cervical cancer.

37 posted on 01/28/2006 8:13:29 PM PST by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: chet_in_ny

In this day of modern Western medicine they're still doing this backward ritual?


38 posted on 01/28/2006 8:15:40 PM PST by TheBrotherhood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

>And genital mutilation is a barbaric custom, might I add.

And barbaric it is.

I thought this circumsation thing had been abandoned years and years ago. This cult ritual goes back to biblical times and is often mortal.


39 posted on 01/28/2006 8:17:53 PM PST by TheBrotherhood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Aliska
According to the bible, Christ reversed God's order.

Truly, I realize all the arguments one way or the other. Yes, it's important to know how to take care of things and yes it can get infected. Ears can get infected if you don't take care of them, but you don't just chop them off.

Me and my brother are the only circumcised males in my family. My mother was barely cognizant of what was going on when in labor and thought nothing of it when the doctors had her sign. It was the thing to do of course then. I don't 'blame' her or anything. It just was what it was.

Now, if it were today when it is in fact a controversy and mothers are aware of it, then maybe.

And, as I stated above. It really does not bother me with regard to myself. Of course, I'll never know what it's like to have it, but it's hardly something that concerns me. I'm perfectly content with my equipment as it is.

But that's just because I've grown up with it that way. If it were otherwise, then I'm quite sure I'd be content with things that way. And if I were suddenly given a choice, then I would reverse things just for the sake of novelty if nothing else.

But the clincher for me is that the number of men who have it and want to get rid of it is trivial. The infant has no choice in the matter and of course it's irreversible. Yes, there's the whole matter of religious customs as well, but I'm anywhere of any religion that explicitly requires radical circumcision as is customary (instead of just snipping the tip, as Jews used to do).

40 posted on 01/28/2006 8:22:08 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-145 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson