1
 
   
 

When Circumcision is just plain sick…

 
CaptPorridge
 
Avatar
 
 
CaptPorridge
Total Posts:  22
Joined  22-12-2004
 
 
 
02 February 2005 12:35
 

This from CNN:

NEW YORK (AP)—City health officials are investigating the death of a baby boy who was one of three infants to contract herpes after a rabbi circumcised them.


Under Jewish law, a mohel—someone who performs circumcisions—draws blood from the circumcision wound. Most mohels do it by hand, but Fischer uses a rare practice where he uses his mouth.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/02/02/circumcision.health.ap/index.html

His Mouth?
He used his mouth :shock:

That Rabbi makes Michael Jackson look like a good candidiate to work at a kindergarten

Hope he gets charged with murder

 
 
Avatar
 
 
CanZen
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  22-01-2005
 
 
 
04 February 2005 19:02
 

Yikes! What a bunch of crazies! I had visions of that scene from Rosemary’s Baby where “who knows what?” the ritualists were doing to that infant satan.  A friend and I were discussing, with revulsion, that incident and I inadvertantly called the circumcising mohel a bloodsucker - all at once I was reminded of having read in several texts that up to the 20th Century many Europeans believed that Jews would suck the blood of babies.  It was one of the frightful stories that was used as a threat to make sure children kept clear of those Hebraic maniacs.  I would usually shake my head at the stupidity of the christians, but now I am forced to fess up . . .  (If this is a traditional practise of Mohels) THE CHRISTIANS WERE RIGHT - the Jews do indeed suck the blood of babies (fortunately for the rest of us it’s a treat reserved for their own Jewish babies)!!

I’ve long waited to see the day when the christians were right and I and my liberal/atheist pals were wrong, but this is ridiculoius!  I guess it takes one bloodthirsty mob (recall that the drinking of wine represents the drinking of the blood of Christ) to know another bloodthirsty mob.

Bob

 
 
nancynancy
 
Avatar
 
 
nancynancy
Total Posts:  25
Joined  22-12-2004
 
 
 
08 February 2005 15:20
 

I think there should be a law making it illegal for anyone but a medical doctor to perform a circumcision on a baby boy in any place but a doctor’s office or hospital.  These restrictions would most likely lead to a decrease in the number of procedures performed.

I also think we should start prosecuting anyone who performs female circumsion in the United States. We know this barbaric practice, common among Muslims from some countries, now takes place within our boarders.  It’s tragic that there’s been no public outcry against this mutilating custom. This is just one more example of how Political Correctness works against a rational society.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Anonymous
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  02-12-2004
 
 
 
11 February 2005 03:42
 

I bet this one (about the mohel) will turn up on Law & Order next week!

 
 
Avatar
 
 
GaryR52
Total Posts:  4
Joined  20-02-2005
 
 
 
20 February 2005 11:49
 

[quote author=“Islander”]I bet this one (about the mohel) will turn up on Law & Order next week!

Actually, I believe it already has.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Anonymous
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  02-12-2004
 
 
 
21 February 2005 16:23
 

circumsision shouldnt be legal for any age until the male/female is 16 or 18. shouldnt need a parents permission either

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Anonymous
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  02-12-2004
 
 
 
21 February 2005 23:23
 

Nancynancy,

I am genuinely intrigued by your posting and by the reaction of others to the original post.

Cutting off an important and sensitive skin from a 7 day old child for no good reason is a criminal offence. Period. If a priest cut off a child’s ear, he would be charged with GBH. Why it is different for a rabbi?

My point is: why do you object only to female circumcision? You imply approval of male circumcision. Why is there such a conspiracy of silence on this issue? It is a barbaric practice that violate human rights by any definition.

As for the bloodsucking rabbi, people seem shocked because he used his mouth. But he had no business mutilating the child in the first place, so how he cleans up the mess seems like detail to me. Obviously the guy is sick, as is anyone who condones, by action or inaction, this heinous activity.

Come on America, I am deafened by the silence on this issue.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
CDarrow
Total Posts:  34
Joined  28-02-2005
 
 
 
01 March 2005 05:41
 

Yes, that Mohel was (in our minds) performing a very sick, weird ritual.  But to the members of that family, it was part of their Jewish tradition, so blame the faith and the sheep-like observance by its followers.

Most circumcisions (I hope) take place in hospitals.  I do not consider it mutilation, but of course I was snipped so to me it is normal.  Comparing circumcision to having a clitoris removed is unfair.  Women who are clitoris-less would certainly have issues in the bedroom, whereas my wedding tackle works just fine, thank you.  Sorry if that was TMI.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Anonymous
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  02-12-2004
 
 
 
01 March 2005 19:13
 

Sorry, CDarrow, but you answer just doesn’t stand up to reasoned argument, IMHO.

You are clearly biased in favour of having your child circumcised, simply because it was done to you. In the US (and Iran, Saudi Arabia and other bastions of human rights), this is normal procedure. But that just doesn’t make it right.

Why are we cutting off healthy tissue from children with out their consent? Here’s why:

1. It’s a religious tradition, born out of religion’s obsession with controlling the sex lives of its members. The theory was circumcision would stop masturbation, but this is clearly not the case.  Surely it’s time to stop running our lives by ancient religious traditions?
2. Doctors get paid a lot for these ‘operations’, so they are incentivized to recommend them.
3. Dogmatic parents think they own their children and they have a right to make these kinds of decisions for them. But this is not like deciding what sweater little Johnny is going to wear today. The kid has human rights.

As for you argument on the difference between male and female circumcision, just how much mutilation of soft tissue is acceptable in your view. So long as the organ still ‘works’, it’s ok? Maybe, if we just chop a smaller amount of clitoris, it would be acceptable?

But the big question - how many 18 year olds would volunteer for this mutilation, given a free choice when they are old enough to decide. The practice woul die out in one generation if we introduced an age of consent.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Ricky
Total Posts:  6
Joined  01-03-2005
 
 
 
03 March 2005 02:11
 

Two gentleman of Roman Catholic, Italian, Irish background were having lunch with me while one blurts out, without provocation, “I am circumcised but I didn’t have my son circumcised.  My Jewish doctor said that the only reason he had his son circumcised was because his wife insisted on it”.  The other one was shocked and said he had his sons circumcised, “because it looks better”.  I didn’t comment (because I had nothing to say).  I do have the impression the pediatricians are not advising circumcision these days and that is the main reason it is declining among US gentiles.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Anonymous
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  02-12-2004
 
 
 
07 March 2005 23:37
 

Ricky, I though you were about to tell a joke there (about the circumcised Italian, Irish and Jew). But alas no.

I did read a very funny typo once, where a doctor wrote that ‘he had examined the man’s penis and found it to be circusized’.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Anonymous
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  02-12-2004
 
 
 
24 March 2005 06:38
 

I think this is a trickier issue than the way it’s being presented. First we have to define “healthy tissue.” Does that mean tissue with blood and nerves, or just tissue serving a biological purpose?

Would hair qualify as “healthy” if it were performing it’s function, which in a strict Darwinian sense, serves a cosmetic and social function in selection, in addition to any anatomical reason. What of fingernails? Do parents have right to cut the hair and fingernails of their children?  Clearly hair can be pulled back and bound. Nails can grow, or fall off naturally.

The only reason I mention this is because foreskin is something of a unique case. It is, by no medical standard, an organ, or an appendage of bundled nerves (like a clitoris, which is indispensible for orgasm) and it’s absence, like wisdom teeth, is of negligible concern.

Should we give rights to children in regards to tissues of negligible concern? That raises problems.

One might argue “negligible concern” totally subjective.  But by that argument one could also say, subjectively, that hair, to them, is sacred and should not be cut, thus making parents criminals for cutting young children’s hair.  Clearly we need a different criteria to what is a dispensible and what isn’t, besides subjectivity.

I think we must make a distinction between utilitarian tissues and vestigial tissues. I’ve seen no one on this thread put forth any evidence that foreskin has a utilitarian purpose. Clearly, circumcision has a social and aesthetic purpose, aside from the religious reasons. The point made that we shouldn’t equate the foreskin with the clitoris is entirely valid, as the clitoris has a specific function and is indispensible to orgasm, and is in fact an appendage, whereas the foreskin’s function is less clear and is merely dermis.

Finally there is no rational reason to care one way or the other. I am a circumsized man, and on rational grounds I don’t care. There is no evidence that having the skin or not makes a bit of difference. (If I am wrong please tell me.) The fact that it happened on religious grounds doesn’t matter to me. A lot of things happen on religious grounds. Some good, some bad and some neutral. As gruesome the idea of cleaved flesh, the fact is, it’s harmless, and the only objection to circumcision is based on some belief in the sacredness of your body’s natural state…and friends, this also smacks of religion. There is nothing sacred (or functional) about foreskin. We should limit human rights in children to organs that are functional and indispensible. This is flawed, I agree, but we have no chooice to draw the line somewhere, and for me, given the medical and anecdotal evidence, foreskin clearly lies on the dispensible side, universally.  There are more important issues at hand.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
MrMody
Total Posts:  707
Joined  16-05-2005
 
 
 
18 May 2005 08:50
 

If god hates foreskins, why did he create them?

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Anonymous
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  02-12-2004
 
 
 
26 May 2005 09:51
 

that’s a fallacious argument. According to many religions, God creates lots of things that are intended to be altered and manipulated by us. Otherwise, they would apply the same thing to evil, and they don’t. Clearly religious people don’t say that because God allowed for evil means we must not attempt to snip at it or change it. Besides, your argument breaks down when you consider that if God created foreskins he also created the insturments and will to cut the foreskin, and proponents of circumcision could throw the argument back at you. It’s an infinite regression.

In any case, most of us here believe God didn’t create foreskins for any reason. Evolution led to foreskins. And evolution has led to the religions that are cutting off the foreskins. And evolution has led to people questioning foreskin removal. I have no problem with parents removing infants foreskin as long as it’s done in a sanitary and humane way, with a doctor or skilled mohel. The effects are negligeble and it’s a silly thing to debate. Reality is you want your son to have a pretty penis. So cut off the damn thing and improve his chances to participate in natural selection down the road.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
MrMody
Total Posts:  707
Joined  16-05-2005
 
 
 
06 June 2005 06:45
 

Most men around the world are not circumcised.  It is a myth that it is healthier. One should not take medical advice from a bunch of ancient tent dwellers who thought sex was bad.
The foreskin envolved for a reason, and cutting it off is barbaric.
The mazazine Men’s Health had a great article about this a few years ago.
As for what makes a penis “pretty”, I leave that up to women and fans of “Will & Grace” to decide.  I would prefer to have a handsome penis.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
snakechic
Total Posts:  407
Joined  16-06-2005
 
 
 
16 June 2005 15:55
 

[quote author=“MrMody”]Most men around the world are not circumcised.  It is a myth that it is healthier. One should not take medical advice from a bunch of ancient tent dwellers who thought sex was bad.
The foreskin envolved for a reason, and cutting it off is barbaric.
The mazazine Men’s Health had a great article about this a few years ago.
As for what makes a penis “pretty”, I leave that up to women and fans of “Will & Grace” to decide.  I would prefer to have a handsome penis.

that’s hilarious…....

how about a holy one?

The Holy Prepuce, or Holy Foreskin (Latin præputium) is one of several Quick Facts about: relic
An antiquity that has survived from the distant pastrelics purported to be associated with Quick Facts about: Jesus Christ
A teacher and prophet born in Bethlehem and active in Nazareth; his life and sermons form the basis for Christianity (circa 4 BC - AD 29)Jesus Christ. At various points in history, a number of churches in Europe have claimed to possess it, sometimes at the same time. Various Quick Facts about: miraculous
Quick Summary not found for this subjectmiraculous powers have been ascribed to it.

source….
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/H/Ho/Holy_Prepuce.htm

 
1