Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News0 min ago
The First Cut is the Deepest?....
96 Answers
I know that circumcision has been discussed before, but I have just read this article, in amazement......
http://
I had never considered Herpes to be a complication of circumcision, but using this particular method it is - and what a bizarre ancient ritual, to want to defend on the grounds of "religious freedom"! And what parent could be comfortable with such a practice in this day and age?
http://
I had never considered Herpes to be a complication of circumcision, but using this particular method it is - and what a bizarre ancient ritual, to want to defend on the grounds of "religious freedom"! And what parent could be comfortable with such a practice in this day and age?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
naomi24
As far as I’m aware, whilst the bible does command circumcision for Jews, and therefore that can be claimed to be a religious requirement, it makes no mention this peculiar practice which seems to have originated in an effort to stem the flow of blood and to clean the wound, thereby, it was thought, preventing subsequent complications – but that was several thousands of years ago. In today’s world I have to ask ‘why?’
Rather than introducing a waiver, the law should deem unnecessary circumcision, along with this disgusting practice, ‘child abuse’ – because that’s precisely what it is - and charge the perpetrators and the consenting parents accordingly. I simply cannot understand the mentality of anyone who makes the slightest effort to defend it.
//Me, I would make it mandatory, but i guess the reason they don't is because of the competing demands between individual freedom vs public health risk.........//
Sadly, no one seems to consider the individual freedom of the child, who has no choice in the matter, to grow to adulthood without his body being mutilated in the name of religion.
16:10 Wed 05th Sep 2012
. . . not to mention the mental abuse and emotional scarring evident in those subjected to being brought up in a religious household and environment, many of whom go on to repeat the same process of hosting and spreading the disease of religion into subsequent generations. Herpes is but one manifestation and consequences of maintaining and promoting the rationally unjustifiable arbitrary beliefs and practices characteristic of religious indoctrination which continues to snip away at personal self esteem and respect for human progress.
As far as I’m aware, whilst the bible does command circumcision for Jews, and therefore that can be claimed to be a religious requirement, it makes no mention this peculiar practice which seems to have originated in an effort to stem the flow of blood and to clean the wound, thereby, it was thought, preventing subsequent complications – but that was several thousands of years ago. In today’s world I have to ask ‘why?’
Rather than introducing a waiver, the law should deem unnecessary circumcision, along with this disgusting practice, ‘child abuse’ – because that’s precisely what it is - and charge the perpetrators and the consenting parents accordingly. I simply cannot understand the mentality of anyone who makes the slightest effort to defend it.
//Me, I would make it mandatory, but i guess the reason they don't is because of the competing demands between individual freedom vs public health risk.........//
Sadly, no one seems to consider the individual freedom of the child, who has no choice in the matter, to grow to adulthood without his body being mutilated in the name of religion.
16:10 Wed 05th Sep 2012
. . . not to mention the mental abuse and emotional scarring evident in those subjected to being brought up in a religious household and environment, many of whom go on to repeat the same process of hosting and spreading the disease of religion into subsequent generations. Herpes is but one manifestation and consequences of maintaining and promoting the rationally unjustifiable arbitrary beliefs and practices characteristic of religious indoctrination which continues to snip away at personal self esteem and respect for human progress.
Ellipsis
What exactly is being proposed here? Is it
* That Jews shouldn't be allowed to bring up their children as they see fit?
* or that Jews shouldn't be allowed to have have children unless they can bring them up as non-Jews see fit?
* or simply that Jews shouldn't be allowed, full stop?
17:52 Wed 05th Sep 2012
No need to make it about the people. It's about the consequences of what each and every individual chooses to believe given the freedom to do so and the requisite knowledge and cognitive skills needed to make an informed and rational choice.
What exactly is being proposed here? Is it
* That Jews shouldn't be allowed to bring up their children as they see fit?
* or that Jews shouldn't be allowed to have have children unless they can bring them up as non-Jews see fit?
* or simply that Jews shouldn't be allowed, full stop?
17:52 Wed 05th Sep 2012
No need to make it about the people. It's about the consequences of what each and every individual chooses to believe given the freedom to do so and the requisite knowledge and cognitive skills needed to make an informed and rational choice.
@Ellipsis
I am sure you are not obtuse, so i can only conclude your last post is being deliberately willful, inflammatory and provocative. To construe this discussion - or even the proposed requirement for a waiver system offering some guarantee that the parents are giving genuinely informed consent, having been told of the health risks to their infant that "direct oral suction"offers - as an attack on jews or the jewish religion is a disgraceful slur.
The defining cultural feature is the circumcision itself - something I personally find repugnant, but this issue is about the process of drawing blood and the manner in which it is drawn. So "direct oral suction" is peripheral, and many rabbis are perfectly happy to use a sterile syringe, which at least minimises the insult to the child.
I am no fan of any religion, especially the more fundamentalist ones, but I am perfectly happy to allow people to the freedom to practice their religion, provided they do not attempt to subvert secular law or harm innocents in the process.
You, it seems, place the observance of a peripheral element of a stone age ritual above a method of ensuring informed consent to a procedure carrying documented serious health risks to the child.
One can only conclude you believe the religious should be given the freedom to indulge in any of their magical rites - however dangerous, irrational or downright stupid- and that these should override placing control measures to aid in the health and well being of the participant - which in this case, I remind you, are children unable to offer their own informed consent.
In the absence of any rational objection, one can only conclude your defence of the process is a product of your own fundamentalism.
I am sure you are not obtuse, so i can only conclude your last post is being deliberately willful, inflammatory and provocative. To construe this discussion - or even the proposed requirement for a waiver system offering some guarantee that the parents are giving genuinely informed consent, having been told of the health risks to their infant that "direct oral suction"offers - as an attack on jews or the jewish religion is a disgraceful slur.
The defining cultural feature is the circumcision itself - something I personally find repugnant, but this issue is about the process of drawing blood and the manner in which it is drawn. So "direct oral suction" is peripheral, and many rabbis are perfectly happy to use a sterile syringe, which at least minimises the insult to the child.
I am no fan of any religion, especially the more fundamentalist ones, but I am perfectly happy to allow people to the freedom to practice their religion, provided they do not attempt to subvert secular law or harm innocents in the process.
You, it seems, place the observance of a peripheral element of a stone age ritual above a method of ensuring informed consent to a procedure carrying documented serious health risks to the child.
One can only conclude you believe the religious should be given the freedom to indulge in any of their magical rites - however dangerous, irrational or downright stupid- and that these should override placing control measures to aid in the health and well being of the participant - which in this case, I remind you, are children unable to offer their own informed consent.
In the absence of any rational objection, one can only conclude your defence of the process is a product of your own fundamentalism.
You could not be more wrong, LazyGun. This probably comes closest to my own position, although really I'm not really bothered enough to have a position:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
To return to my question ... if a particular religious person has access to all the same educational material as you, and chooses to draw a different conclusion from it, and that conclusion directly affects how they raise their children, then what exactly do you propose doing about it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
To return to my question ... if a particular religious person has access to all the same educational material as you, and chooses to draw a different conclusion from it, and that conclusion directly affects how they raise their children, then what exactly do you propose doing about it?
@Ellipsis
Do you still maintain this discussion is an attack on the jewish people and/or the jewish religion? Are you still implying I am anti-semitic?
As to your question - the whole point of this discussion has been about this dubious practice of "direct oral suction", having drawn blood following the circumcision.
This whole discussion has been about the health risks that such a procedure offers to the child - a child I remind you that is unable to offer informed consent on their own behalf.
This thread has been about the health risk and, bluntly, the creepiness of this specific process. It has been, in part, a discussion about a method to at least get some confirmation that any parent agreeing to subject their child to this dubious practice has been informed of those health risks, and, having been informed, wishes for the process to go ahead.
And that is all I want.I think that is a reasonable,secular response.Should the parent indicate they have been informed of the risk and accept them, well whatever happens after that is between their conscience and their child.
As an individual, I would like them to abandon all the idiocy of their magic arcane rituals associated with orthodox or fundamentalist beliefs - but I do not believe in criminalising them for holding those selfsame beliefs, however irrational or dangerous I believe them to be -I believe that the process of the enlightenment- slow but still ongoing- is best served by education, comment, and discussion.
It is interesting though - a mother and father, practicing christion scientists, were tried and convicted of manslaughter for failing to take their daughter to a hospital, preferring instead to attempt to heal through a prayer circle. I personally would have no objection to prosecuting parents if their child was shown to have died as a consequence of a herpes infection caught through participating in this ridiculous practice......
Do you still maintain this discussion is an attack on the jewish people and/or the jewish religion? Are you still implying I am anti-semitic?
As to your question - the whole point of this discussion has been about this dubious practice of "direct oral suction", having drawn blood following the circumcision.
This whole discussion has been about the health risks that such a procedure offers to the child - a child I remind you that is unable to offer informed consent on their own behalf.
This thread has been about the health risk and, bluntly, the creepiness of this specific process. It has been, in part, a discussion about a method to at least get some confirmation that any parent agreeing to subject their child to this dubious practice has been informed of those health risks, and, having been informed, wishes for the process to go ahead.
And that is all I want.I think that is a reasonable,secular response.Should the parent indicate they have been informed of the risk and accept them, well whatever happens after that is between their conscience and their child.
As an individual, I would like them to abandon all the idiocy of their magic arcane rituals associated with orthodox or fundamentalist beliefs - but I do not believe in criminalising them for holding those selfsame beliefs, however irrational or dangerous I believe them to be -I believe that the process of the enlightenment- slow but still ongoing- is best served by education, comment, and discussion.
It is interesting though - a mother and father, practicing christion scientists, were tried and convicted of manslaughter for failing to take their daughter to a hospital, preferring instead to attempt to heal through a prayer circle. I personally would have no objection to prosecuting parents if their child was shown to have died as a consequence of a herpes infection caught through participating in this ridiculous practice......
Imagine a religion where a revolver with only one live round in it's chamber had it's chamber spun, was put against a newborn baby's head by a priest who then pulled the trigger, most people would call it murder when the baby was unlucky. Replace the above scenario with some traditional biblical mumbo jumbo and you still have murder,.
> I personally would have no objection to prosecuting parents if their child was shown to have died as a consequence of a herpes infection caught through participating in this ridiculous practice
I agree.
It's just that I don't agree with the waiver and the flawed logic behind it. The waiver is either too little, too much or a kludge. All the law that's needed is already there.
I agree.
It's just that I don't agree with the waiver and the flawed logic behind it. The waiver is either too little, too much or a kludge. All the law that's needed is already there.
// ... if a particular religious person has access to all the same educational material as you, and chooses to draw a different conclusion from it, and that conclusion directly affects how they raise their children, then what exactly do you propose doing about it? //
If it harms the child, prevent it. There's no need for the word 'religious' in the above question. It applies to everyone. As a civilised society, we already try to prevent misguided or malicious people from harming or abusing others. We have laws and other government structures in place specifically for this purpose.
People who harm and endanger others shouldn't get special dispensation just because they're doing it for religious reasons, and if the abuse is being done to a child with it's parents blessing that doesn't make it ok either.
There are cases of terrible torture being inflicted on children because their idiot parents or relatives thought they were witches or possessed by demons. Do you think we should just accept that as a cultural or religious thing, not to be interfered with by imposing our western moralities on it?
If it harms the child, prevent it. There's no need for the word 'religious' in the above question. It applies to everyone. As a civilised society, we already try to prevent misguided or malicious people from harming or abusing others. We have laws and other government structures in place specifically for this purpose.
People who harm and endanger others shouldn't get special dispensation just because they're doing it for religious reasons, and if the abuse is being done to a child with it's parents blessing that doesn't make it ok either.
There are cases of terrible torture being inflicted on children because their idiot parents or relatives thought they were witches or possessed by demons. Do you think we should just accept that as a cultural or religious thing, not to be interfered with by imposing our western moralities on it?
@Ellipsis
Well, you might explain this post
"What exactly is being proposed here? Is it
* That Jews shouldn't be allowed to bring up their children as they see fit?
* or that Jews shouldn't be allowed to have have children unless they can bring them up as non-Jews see fit?
* or simply that Jews shouldn't be allowed, full stop?"
Most especially the last 2 points.
Who was this post of yours directed at?
Well, you might explain this post
"What exactly is being proposed here? Is it
* That Jews shouldn't be allowed to bring up their children as they see fit?
* or that Jews shouldn't be allowed to have have children unless they can bring them up as non-Jews see fit?
* or simply that Jews shouldn't be allowed, full stop?"
Most especially the last 2 points.
Who was this post of yours directed at?
@LazyGun, that was in response to mib's post immediately above it, in particular:
> the mental abuse and emotional scarring evident in those subjected to being brought up in a religious household and environment, many of whom go on to repeat the same process of hosting and spreading the disease of religion into subsequent generations
But more generally, yes, I think we all have to be careful when talking about a practice that's specific to a particular religious group - when we talk about the practice with little real understanding of what's done or why it's done and how much importance it has to that specific group - that we don't come across as being anti- that group as a whole. It's a fine difference.
I also think some participants in this thread have accepted it as fact that this practice has passed on herpes. My position is that, if it is indeed a fact, then prosecutions should take place. But if it isn't, as the rabbi claims, that casts a different light on things. Personally, I would take greater long-term offence at the circumcision rather than the follow-up suction, but the rights of parents to have their child circumcised seem to be generally accepted, especially in the US.
> the mental abuse and emotional scarring evident in those subjected to being brought up in a religious household and environment, many of whom go on to repeat the same process of hosting and spreading the disease of religion into subsequent generations
But more generally, yes, I think we all have to be careful when talking about a practice that's specific to a particular religious group - when we talk about the practice with little real understanding of what's done or why it's done and how much importance it has to that specific group - that we don't come across as being anti- that group as a whole. It's a fine difference.
I also think some participants in this thread have accepted it as fact that this practice has passed on herpes. My position is that, if it is indeed a fact, then prosecutions should take place. But if it isn't, as the rabbi claims, that casts a different light on things. Personally, I would take greater long-term offence at the circumcision rather than the follow-up suction, but the rights of parents to have their child circumcised seem to be generally accepted, especially in the US.
@Ellipsis.
Thanks for the clarification. I would agree that it is important not to villify a particular group based upon the practices of some.
I would agree that such practices that lead to the harms as suggested should be banned and prosecutions offered - but its not within my gift to change legal policy in the US. The implementation of such a scheme as the one suggested would at least offer some prospect of greater awareness of the risks of the practice, which has to be a good thing.
From the Dept of Public Health statement regarding this proposed change to the legislation'
"Between 2004 and 2011, the Department learned of 11 cases of laboratory-confirmed herpes simplex virus infection in male infants following circumcisions that were likely to have been associated
with direct oral suction. Two of these infants died, and at least two others suffered brain damage. The parents of some of these infants have said that they did not know before their child’s circumcision that direct oral suction would be performed."
Note: 2 deaths, 2 brain damaged from Herpes Simplex out of a total of 11 confirmed cases.
Note also that some parents claimed not to have known about the risks.
This is being introduced as a public health measure ( which may explain why this is not being introduced as a federal or criminal issue) and as such seems entirely reasonable and uncontroversial to me.
http://
Thanks for the clarification. I would agree that it is important not to villify a particular group based upon the practices of some.
I would agree that such practices that lead to the harms as suggested should be banned and prosecutions offered - but its not within my gift to change legal policy in the US. The implementation of such a scheme as the one suggested would at least offer some prospect of greater awareness of the risks of the practice, which has to be a good thing.
From the Dept of Public Health statement regarding this proposed change to the legislation'
"Between 2004 and 2011, the Department learned of 11 cases of laboratory-confirmed herpes simplex virus infection in male infants following circumcisions that were likely to have been associated
with direct oral suction. Two of these infants died, and at least two others suffered brain damage. The parents of some of these infants have said that they did not know before their child’s circumcision that direct oral suction would be performed."
Note: 2 deaths, 2 brain damaged from Herpes Simplex out of a total of 11 confirmed cases.
Note also that some parents claimed not to have known about the risks.
This is being introduced as a public health measure ( which may explain why this is not being introduced as a federal or criminal issue) and as such seems entirely reasonable and uncontroversial to me.
http://
Ellipsis// Perhaps this will help.
http://
Personally, I think the transmission of Herpes is incidental to the real problem.
//…..if a particular religious person has access to all the same educational material as you, and chooses to draw a different conclusion from it, and that conclusion directly affects how they raise their children , then what exactly do you propose doing about it?//
How is this disgusting practice linked - even remotely - to the way in which people raise their children - or to education? This isn’t education. Apart from the pain inflicted, the children subjected to this are oblivious to this abuse – but their parents aren’t – and neither are the perpetrators.
As to your other question (I’ll ignore the last bit – it isn’t worthy of a considered response)…
//What exactly is being proposed here? Is it
* That Jews shouldn't be allowed to bring up their children as they see fit?
* or that Jews shouldn't be allowed to have have children unless they can bring them up as non-Jews see fit?//
…. would you extend your apparent defence of a parent’s right to choose how to raise a child to female circumcision and forced marriages. Does papa, in your opinion, always know best?
Just out of interest, what would it take for you object?
http://
Personally, I think the transmission of Herpes is incidental to the real problem.
//…..if a particular religious person has access to all the same educational material as you, and chooses to draw a different conclusion from it, and that conclusion directly affects how they raise their children , then what exactly do you propose doing about it?//
How is this disgusting practice linked - even remotely - to the way in which people raise their children - or to education? This isn’t education. Apart from the pain inflicted, the children subjected to this are oblivious to this abuse – but their parents aren’t – and neither are the perpetrators.
As to your other question (I’ll ignore the last bit – it isn’t worthy of a considered response)…
//What exactly is being proposed here? Is it
* That Jews shouldn't be allowed to bring up their children as they see fit?
* or that Jews shouldn't be allowed to have have children unless they can bring them up as non-Jews see fit?//
…. would you extend your apparent defence of a parent’s right to choose how to raise a child to female circumcision and forced marriages. Does papa, in your opinion, always know best?
Just out of interest, what would it take for you object?
@Lazygun - thanks for that. As I said, I agree with prosecution if the evidence is there ... of the rabbi and/or the parents.
> Personally, I think the transmission of Herpes is incidental to the real problem.
Not in this case. I said myself that I don't agree with male circumcision - let alone female circumcision! But circumcision in and of itself isn't the issue here, it's the practice that potentially leads to the transmission of herpes.
> Sadly, no one seems to consider the individual freedom of the child, who has no choice in the matter, to grow to adulthood
This is sadly true in all sorts of scenarios, for example: abortion; lack of love and care; ignorance and lack of a decent education; and so on. We can try to change things, but we cannot impose our will on others except through the laws of our society. We certainly can't do it by telling people they're stupid and should know better.
> Personally, I think the transmission of Herpes is incidental to the real problem.
Not in this case. I said myself that I don't agree with male circumcision - let alone female circumcision! But circumcision in and of itself isn't the issue here, it's the practice that potentially leads to the transmission of herpes.
> Sadly, no one seems to consider the individual freedom of the child, who has no choice in the matter, to grow to adulthood
This is sadly true in all sorts of scenarios, for example: abortion; lack of love and care; ignorance and lack of a decent education; and so on. We can try to change things, but we cannot impose our will on others except through the laws of our society. We certainly can't do it by telling people they're stupid and should know better.
