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 ...
ping
And genital mutilation is a barbaric custom, might I add.
I didn't know they started so young. How many baby wingwangs has your Rabbi sucked today? Seems the Catholic church carried it a bit too far though. lol This would make and excellent South Park Episode!
Somehow the idea of Rabbi's sucking baby penises seems a tad ... er inappropriate perhaps?
LOL, I stand corrected. I'm just concerned with state governments using "health concerns" to strip people of liberties. Smoking bans come to mind, along with countless other "health" related regulation.
The mohel was tested and was found to be free of the virus. The infection came from elsewhere.
Hundreds of thousands of babies are circumcised every year (in the U.S., Israel, Europe and elsewhere) with no negative effects as a result of the procedure.
No problem with that in general, but would you have a problem with forcing infants to smoke?
Some people just freak out at the thought of this procedure. I have witnessed several (of my own sons and grandsons) and the entire operation takes a few seconds. There is NO WAY a person could "get off" sexually by doing this, not to mention that there is a crowd of people present during the ceremony.
... File this ritual under, "This Doesn't Help Our Image".
I'm not saying that this particular instance is one that necessarily requires regulation. I mean, granted if it were up to me genital mutilation would just be banned outright, but since the mutilation of infant boys is tolerated due to barbaric custom, I dunno if there's any much reason to worry about the methods beyond that. Now, if there was a legitimate health risk, such as alleged here, then maybe. If they do establish that the circumcision led to the baby's death, then I wouldn't have a problem if the state required that they find a less revolting method of carrying out their barbarism than sucking the boy's penis.
LOL, actually I think one of the early Sp episodes was "Ike's Bris"
And please bear in mind that this is not a matter of the state government 'using health concerns to strip people of liberties' - unless you're referring to the liberty of people to mutilate their children. The infants have no say in the matter, and it's well-known that those who do have say in whether their genitals are mutilated (i.e., adults) rarely choose to get themselves mutilated..
Your comments bely that you posses little to no knowledge of what circumcision is. Not only is it a safe procedure, it has proven health benefits. It has been done for years by both Coptic Christians and Jews on the 8'th day. In all probability Jesus also had the procedure. I wouldn't call the procedure barbaric, by any stretch of the word.
Elaine Benes, "But it had no,you know,character.Don`t
the inny."
Oh please. If you told people you were merely gonna have your newborn's ears pierced they'd think you were some kind of freak, yet slicing up your newborn son's genitals is 'normalized' by nothing but barbaric custom.
Way back in the day, Jews did nothing more than snip the tip of foreskin, which is more tantamount to, say, ear piercing. Radical circumcision - i.e., the tearing off of the entire prepuce - did not emerge but for political reasons until after Hadrian's reign during the Late Roman Empire.
Chances are exceptional that Jesus did not have a radical circumcision such as is customary today, because radical circumcision was not a typical custom among Jews in his day.
This just makes my Ick meter go way off the scale.
Don't you mean that it is well known that those who have their sons circumcised are circumcised themselves?
Circumcision was banned for many years in the soviet Union. Now that religion may once again be freely practiced, fathers are bringing their baby boys to be circumcised, and frequently request the procedure for themselves as well.
The Bible requires the procedure to be performed on the 8th day.
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.