Did You Know That Inhalers For Asthma...
ChatterBank1 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.
Well for a start this is in the US, so it's not much to do with us. But if for the sake of argument it was here in the UK, then I'd object if the law was being broken. If the law wasn't being broken but I felt strongly enough about something, I would campaign for the law to be changed.
I don't feel strongly enough about male circumcision to campaign for the law to be changed on that, but wouldn't - indeed didn't - impose it on my own kids. I certainly would campaign on female circumcision if it was legal in our country, but it isn't.
As for this US case, I see a lot of parallels between it and this:
http://
I don't feel strongly enough about male circumcision to campaign for the law to be changed on that, but wouldn't - indeed didn't - impose it on my own kids. I certainly would campaign on female circumcision if it was legal in our country, but it isn't.
As for this US case, I see a lot of parallels between it and this:
http://
OK then, I'll take that to mean any age as long as it's for valid medical reasons.
When an abortion takes place because of what the parent perceives to be a genetic defect, where "the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman" (to paraphrase the abortion act), would that be a valid medical reason for abortion?
When an abortion takes place because of what the parent perceives to be a genetic defect, where "the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman" (to paraphrase the abortion act), would that be a valid medical reason for abortion?
To me, the fascination with this story is that it perfectly illustrates what disturbs me most about the fanatical adherence to a particular religion -
So, we have here an arcane ritual- with disturbing overtones ( "direct oral suction"), originally practiced as a hygiene measure one imagines, but one whose value and importance has been superceded by our understanding of germ theory and the need for sterility.Indeed, for most of the jewish faith it is not even an issue - many rabbis are happy to use gloves, sterile equipment, sterile syringes or sponges - all of which is perfectly in keeping with their faith based instructions.
This arcane ritual has been shown, by various epidemiological measures, to be the likely cause of hospilisation of at least 1
So, we have here an arcane ritual- with disturbing overtones ( "direct oral suction"), originally practiced as a hygiene measure one imagines, but one whose value and importance has been superceded by our understanding of germ theory and the need for sterility.Indeed, for most of the jewish faith it is not even an issue - many rabbis are happy to use gloves, sterile equipment, sterile syringes or sponges - all of which is perfectly in keeping with their faith based instructions.
This arcane ritual has been shown, by various epidemiological measures, to be the likely cause of hospilisation of at least 1
Doh- managed to hit the submit button before I was ready :) - sorry!
To continue.....
This arcane ritual has been shown, by various epidemiological measures, to be the likely cause of hospilisation of at least 11 babies and of those, 2 died, 2 suffered serious encephelitis, and 7 were in critical care struggling to cope with drips and anti-viral agents. The causative agent is a virus, HSV-1 - extremely rare in children, unlike its cousin, HSV-2. HSV-1 however is extremely common in the adult community - on average, 65-75% of adults will have this virus - and its a virus that sheds frequently if unpredictably, that will shed its viral load even when no lesion is present, and is most commonly transmitted via saliva.A virus tolerated by the adult immune system but deadly to a neonate. One absent in siblings, shown to absent in the mother - more proof that this ritual is responsible for the transmission of the virus.
And what do the leaders of this ultra- orthodox community do, when asked to self - police this issue, when asked to at least ensure that parents are informed of the risk, when asked to collect proof that the parents have in fact been informed? The same leaders for whom the whole process is quite lucrative, coincidentally? They go on the defensive - they attempt to refute the evidence. They try to diminish the evidence. They claim their own hygiene standards far exceed state authority standards. They sign letters - 200 of them -saying they will defy the law, that this is a gross infringement of their first amendment rights, that the state is interfering in their freedom to practice their religion. Some (but not all) of the parents in this story support these intransigent Mohels, by conveniently "forgetting" which Mohel is was that performed a particular rite.
And this is my point. These fundamentalists twist and deny and attempt to refute the evidence.They ignore the tragic loss and destruction of life that this practice can bring. The malign influence of faith spreads further- the reason that this practice is not treated as reckless endangerment, or manslaughter and the ritual banned and participants arrested and tried - the reason the State has to treat it as a minor public and communicable health infraction - is Politics. These holy men, these fanatics, carry political clout - so the governor and various senators and congressmen all shout loudly about the freedoms of religion because they are politically in thrall to these special interest groups.
The malign influence of faith manifests in the parents, warping what should be the natural response to a threat to their infant - they place adherence to an unneccesary religious observance above the wellbeing- above the life of their infants!
Its disgusting, and tragic, and wilful and saddening.And unneccessary! Their own mainstream interpretations of the Torah and other Hasidic commandments preclude the carrying out of any religious rite if it endangers the health or wellbeing of one follower! But these twisted, stubborn fanatics insist upon adherence to a tradition simply because it is thousands of years old.
Its irrational. Its lunacy and it is scary, and it perfectly illustrates why a fanatical adherence to stone age tenets in a modern day world is so wrong.
Like Naomi, and indeed others here, I would argue that circumcision is child abuse, since the child themselves cannot offer informed consent, and constitutes a process with some health risks, both physical and potentially psychological, for no good reason except tradition and belief. But this stubborn defence of an utterly unnecessary rite, Metzizah Bpeh, makes me extremely angry - as does the realpolitik in its defence, and those attempting to defend harmful religion on the grounds of religious freedoms.
The parents should be confronted, educated, and made aware at every opportunity.Even mockery might be appropriate here....
To continue.....
This arcane ritual has been shown, by various epidemiological measures, to be the likely cause of hospilisation of at least 11 babies and of those, 2 died, 2 suffered serious encephelitis, and 7 were in critical care struggling to cope with drips and anti-viral agents. The causative agent is a virus, HSV-1 - extremely rare in children, unlike its cousin, HSV-2. HSV-1 however is extremely common in the adult community - on average, 65-75% of adults will have this virus - and its a virus that sheds frequently if unpredictably, that will shed its viral load even when no lesion is present, and is most commonly transmitted via saliva.A virus tolerated by the adult immune system but deadly to a neonate. One absent in siblings, shown to absent in the mother - more proof that this ritual is responsible for the transmission of the virus.
And what do the leaders of this ultra- orthodox community do, when asked to self - police this issue, when asked to at least ensure that parents are informed of the risk, when asked to collect proof that the parents have in fact been informed? The same leaders for whom the whole process is quite lucrative, coincidentally? They go on the defensive - they attempt to refute the evidence. They try to diminish the evidence. They claim their own hygiene standards far exceed state authority standards. They sign letters - 200 of them -saying they will defy the law, that this is a gross infringement of their first amendment rights, that the state is interfering in their freedom to practice their religion. Some (but not all) of the parents in this story support these intransigent Mohels, by conveniently "forgetting" which Mohel is was that performed a particular rite.
And this is my point. These fundamentalists twist and deny and attempt to refute the evidence.They ignore the tragic loss and destruction of life that this practice can bring. The malign influence of faith spreads further- the reason that this practice is not treated as reckless endangerment, or manslaughter and the ritual banned and participants arrested and tried - the reason the State has to treat it as a minor public and communicable health infraction - is Politics. These holy men, these fanatics, carry political clout - so the governor and various senators and congressmen all shout loudly about the freedoms of religion because they are politically in thrall to these special interest groups.
The malign influence of faith manifests in the parents, warping what should be the natural response to a threat to their infant - they place adherence to an unneccesary religious observance above the wellbeing- above the life of their infants!
Its disgusting, and tragic, and wilful and saddening.And unneccessary! Their own mainstream interpretations of the Torah and other Hasidic commandments preclude the carrying out of any religious rite if it endangers the health or wellbeing of one follower! But these twisted, stubborn fanatics insist upon adherence to a tradition simply because it is thousands of years old.
Its irrational. Its lunacy and it is scary, and it perfectly illustrates why a fanatical adherence to stone age tenets in a modern day world is so wrong.
Like Naomi, and indeed others here, I would argue that circumcision is child abuse, since the child themselves cannot offer informed consent, and constitutes a process with some health risks, both physical and potentially psychological, for no good reason except tradition and belief. But this stubborn defence of an utterly unnecessary rite, Metzizah Bpeh, makes me extremely angry - as does the realpolitik in its defence, and those attempting to defend harmful religion on the grounds of religious freedoms.
The parents should be confronted, educated, and made aware at every opportunity.Even mockery might be appropriate here....
Ellipsis, no, the key phrase in the question you asked me to answer was //When an abortion takes place because of what the parent perceives to be a genetic defect…//
A parent’s perception is not a medical opinion, and no reputable surgeon would ever perform an abortion simply on the perception of a medically unqualified parent.
LG, Very well said!! Excellent!
//….the fascination with this story is that it perfectly illustrates what disturbs me most about the fanatical adherence to a particular religion…//
…and, it would appear, not only by the fanatical adherents of any particular religion. It never ceases to amaze me how the religious and their apologists attempt to defend even the most bizarre (and that’s putting it kindly) of beliefs and practices – but to what should be their shame, and isn't, they do.
A parent’s perception is not a medical opinion, and no reputable surgeon would ever perform an abortion simply on the perception of a medically unqualified parent.
LG, Very well said!! Excellent!
//….the fascination with this story is that it perfectly illustrates what disturbs me most about the fanatical adherence to a particular religion…//
…and, it would appear, not only by the fanatical adherents of any particular religion. It never ceases to amaze me how the religious and their apologists attempt to defend even the most bizarre (and that’s putting it kindly) of beliefs and practices – but to what should be their shame, and isn't, they do.
OK naomi I'll try to bring it into a more factual area.
The medical reason that many abortions are performed is that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.
i.e. the "valid medical reason" is not to do with the health of the foetus or the physical risk to the woman.
Thousands of abortions are performed on this basis every year.
I agree 100% with the UK abortion law, even though under that law almost 200,000 abortions were performed last year in England and Wales alone ( http://
But given that I can accept that parents can legally arrange for their perfectly healthy, unborn child to be terminated, I can also accept that parents can arrange for their perfectly healthy, newborn child to be circumcised. Again, I don't like the idea of it, I wouldn't inflict it on my own kids, but I can live with it.
Incidentally I asked about abortion because back on page 1 you said:
> Sadly, no one seems to consider the individual freedom of the child, who has no choice in the matter, to grow to adulthood ...
That's remarkably like an argument used by pro-life campaigners, and you reminded me then that there are many different wrongs that parents can inflict on their children; removing the foreskin is one, I would agree, but there are much worse.
Life is a crapshoot, which starts with the parents you're given and the circumstances those parents are in at the time of your conception.
The medical reason that many abortions are performed is that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.
i.e. the "valid medical reason" is not to do with the health of the foetus or the physical risk to the woman.
Thousands of abortions are performed on this basis every year.
I agree 100% with the UK abortion law, even though under that law almost 200,000 abortions were performed last year in England and Wales alone ( http://
But given that I can accept that parents can legally arrange for their perfectly healthy, unborn child to be terminated, I can also accept that parents can arrange for their perfectly healthy, newborn child to be circumcised. Again, I don't like the idea of it, I wouldn't inflict it on my own kids, but I can live with it.
Incidentally I asked about abortion because back on page 1 you said:
> Sadly, no one seems to consider the individual freedom of the child, who has no choice in the matter, to grow to adulthood ...
That's remarkably like an argument used by pro-life campaigners, and you reminded me then that there are many different wrongs that parents can inflict on their children; removing the foreskin is one, I would agree, but there are much worse.
Life is a crapshoot, which starts with the parents you're given and the circumstances those parents are in at the time of your conception.
Ellipsis, I know the criteria for abortion in this country – and I haven’t suggested it is simply down to physical risk – and please don’t misquote me because what I said is nothing like the argument used by the pro-life campaigners. What I actually said was …
//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.//
Sorry for the capital letters – I’ve given up trying to use italics here.
//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.//
Sorry for the capital letters – I’ve given up trying to use italics here.
Latest Posts
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News2 mins ago
Time For A Limit On Angry Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Good Morning Late Wednesday Birds.
ChatterBank21 mins ago
