ChatterBank3 mins 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.
Keyplus, I take it that you were subjected to circumcision by your parents as well being indoctrinated into a religion not of your choice. When are you going to stand up for the rights of the individual instead of meekly giving in to the demands of your peer group. You would get more respect on AB if you weren't such a sheep..
I have been watching this thread with interest, but particularly as the procedure of circumcision has been "flogged to death."
It would seem that some...we don't know how many. Rabbi's suck blood from the cut prepuce and this has led to a spread of a certain strain of Herpes virus leading to at least two neonatal deaths.
I must say that i have read all the links and can see no evidence that the the neonatal infection came from the Rabbi and not the mother..........I stand to be corrected.
Child abuse to me is physical or mental damage to a child who is developed enough to appreciate the pain and anguish of such treatment......I do not think that this is applicable to a neonate.
To the Jews, for whatever reason, their religion and rituals are important to their lives and who are we to discourage that fact and hence i do have some sympathy with the post an opinion of Keyplus.
Are there any medical benefits?...I will trot out the usual ones and Lazygun will refute the evidence so i will desist for the practicality of brevity.
I am not a Jew and i am an Atheist.
It would seem that some...we don't know how many. Rabbi's suck blood from the cut prepuce and this has led to a spread of a certain strain of Herpes virus leading to at least two neonatal deaths.
I must say that i have read all the links and can see no evidence that the the neonatal infection came from the Rabbi and not the mother..........I stand to be corrected.
Child abuse to me is physical or mental damage to a child who is developed enough to appreciate the pain and anguish of such treatment......I do not think that this is applicable to a neonate.
To the Jews, for whatever reason, their religion and rituals are important to their lives and who are we to discourage that fact and hence i do have some sympathy with the post an opinion of Keyplus.
Are there any medical benefits?...I will trot out the usual ones and Lazygun will refute the evidence so i will desist for the practicality of brevity.
I am not a Jew and i am an Atheist.
@Sqad.
Plenty of epidemiological evidence. Evidence showing vertical transmission from the mother was not causative - negative for HSV-1. Evidence showing no transmission from siblings - either HSV2 or HSV negative status.
Do you challenge the science behind the route of transmission? Do you challenge the epidemiological data? Do you challenge the serious health consequences of HSV in a neonate Sqad?
This particular rite - the "direct oral suction". Is unnecessary. The Talmud does not advocate it. Hasidic Law does not say it has to be performed. Indeed, The vast, overwhelming majority of Mohels/Rabbis eschew such a ritual, in favour of a sterile syringe, or a sterile sponge.
And lets not even talk about how distasteful the whole practice is.
Germ Theory and our knowledge of disease transmission have replaced a rough and ready method of cleaning a wound site. The Talmud specifically instructs the faithful to refrain from practices, holy or otherwise,that are potentially a mortal threat.
This practice is archaic, arcane and unnecessary. It is not even as if NY State are trying to ban the practice ( which i would like to see). Because of politics and politicians scrabbling for the orthodox vote, the freedom to practice arcane, unnecessary ritual is favoured over the clear and present danger that indulging in such practices represents.
It is stone age thinking. It is shameful to potentially endanger innocents by persisting in such practices and most especially when your own holy books do not require such an observance.
We will disagree in many things Sqad - cultural differences and different political / libertarian impulses - but even taking that into account, I am surprised to see you attempting to defend such a practice.
This is the waiver that the NYSHD wish Mohels to distribute to prospective parents, and in turn get the parents to sign a waiver saying they have seen the document. Would you agree that it is clinically correct and uncontroversial?
http://
Here is the clinical paper - Note the authors. Note the epidemiological evidence. Note the discussion, where it states that since Semmelwiess Talmudic practice is quite happy to allow for means other than "direct oral suction"
http://
Here is a qualified Mohel and surgeon explaining why he thinks it unnecessary, potentially dangerous, to perform direct oral suction (bpeh)
http://www.emohel.com/lifeordeath.htm
Still want to defend the practice Sqad?
Plenty of epidemiological evidence. Evidence showing vertical transmission from the mother was not causative - negative for HSV-1. Evidence showing no transmission from siblings - either HSV2 or HSV negative status.
Do you challenge the science behind the route of transmission? Do you challenge the epidemiological data? Do you challenge the serious health consequences of HSV in a neonate Sqad?
This particular rite - the "direct oral suction". Is unnecessary. The Talmud does not advocate it. Hasidic Law does not say it has to be performed. Indeed, The vast, overwhelming majority of Mohels/Rabbis eschew such a ritual, in favour of a sterile syringe, or a sterile sponge.
And lets not even talk about how distasteful the whole practice is.
Germ Theory and our knowledge of disease transmission have replaced a rough and ready method of cleaning a wound site. The Talmud specifically instructs the faithful to refrain from practices, holy or otherwise,that are potentially a mortal threat.
This practice is archaic, arcane and unnecessary. It is not even as if NY State are trying to ban the practice ( which i would like to see). Because of politics and politicians scrabbling for the orthodox vote, the freedom to practice arcane, unnecessary ritual is favoured over the clear and present danger that indulging in such practices represents.
It is stone age thinking. It is shameful to potentially endanger innocents by persisting in such practices and most especially when your own holy books do not require such an observance.
We will disagree in many things Sqad - cultural differences and different political / libertarian impulses - but even taking that into account, I am surprised to see you attempting to defend such a practice.
This is the waiver that the NYSHD wish Mohels to distribute to prospective parents, and in turn get the parents to sign a waiver saying they have seen the document. Would you agree that it is clinically correct and uncontroversial?
http://
Here is the clinical paper - Note the authors. Note the epidemiological evidence. Note the discussion, where it states that since Semmelwiess Talmudic practice is quite happy to allow for means other than "direct oral suction"
http://
Here is a qualified Mohel and surgeon explaining why he thinks it unnecessary, potentially dangerous, to perform direct oral suction (bpeh)
http://www.emohel.com/lifeordeath.htm
Still want to defend the practice Sqad?
Sqad, //Child abuse to me is physical or mental damage to a child who is developed enough to appreciate the pain and anguish of such treatment......I do not think that this is applicable to a neonate. //
I'm shocked! Truly I am! Does that mean in your opinion pain inflicted upon a baby by an adult does not constitute child abuse simply because that child is too young //to appreciate the pain and anguish of such treatment//?
I'm shocked! Truly I am! Does that mean in your opinion pain inflicted upon a baby by an adult does not constitute child abuse simply because that child is too young //to appreciate the pain and anguish of such treatment//?
@Sqad - And be aware that we are NOT debating the pros and cons of the circumcision here. This is not an example of the repressive state trying to band circumcision, or a lefty liberal trying to band it ( although I freely admit I would if I could:) ) - This is, specifically, to do with one element of the ritual - one element that the Talmud is quite happy for its rabbis etc to find an alternative for. Indeed, the vast, overwhelming majority have.
There is a lot of evidence both for and against the clinical benefits of circumcision. Central to all of the discussions though is the fact that the child is incompetent to give informed consent at the time that most circumcisions are performed, and that most of the benefits of circumcision arise later in life. In my opinion, should a male be convinced of the benefits of circumcision, they are perfectly at liberty to do so - when they are competent to make that informed choice.
There is a lot of evidence both for and against the clinical benefits of circumcision. Central to all of the discussions though is the fact that the child is incompetent to give informed consent at the time that most circumcisions are performed, and that most of the benefits of circumcision arise later in life. In my opinion, should a male be convinced of the benefits of circumcision, they are perfectly at liberty to do so - when they are competent to make that informed choice.
LazyGun
\\I must say that i have read all the links and can see no evidence that the the neonatal infection came from the Rabbi and not the mother..........I stand to be corrected. \\
That is hardly defending the practice.
\\\To the Jews, for whatever reason, their religion and rituals are important to their lives and who are we to discourage that fact and hence i do have some sympathy with the post an opinion of Keyplus. \\
Hardly defending it, just putting another point of view.
naomi
\\\I'm shocked! Truly I am! Does that mean in your opinion pain inflicted upon a baby by an adult does not constitute child abuse simply because that child is too young //to appreciate the pain and anguish of such treatment//?\\\
In this particular case, I do not think that the object of the Rabbi's procedure is purely that of inflicting pain...no....I don't.
\\I must say that i have read all the links and can see no evidence that the the neonatal infection came from the Rabbi and not the mother..........I stand to be corrected. \\
That is hardly defending the practice.
\\\To the Jews, for whatever reason, their religion and rituals are important to their lives and who are we to discourage that fact and hence i do have some sympathy with the post an opinion of Keyplus. \\
Hardly defending it, just putting another point of view.
naomi
\\\I'm shocked! Truly I am! Does that mean in your opinion pain inflicted upon a baby by an adult does not constitute child abuse simply because that child is too young //to appreciate the pain and anguish of such treatment//?\\\
In this particular case, I do not think that the object of the Rabbi's procedure is purely that of inflicting pain...no....I don't.
Sqad
I have been watching this thread with interest, but particularly as the procedure of circumcision has been "flogged to death."
It would seem that some...we don't know how many. Rabbi's suck blood from the cut prepuce and this has led to a spread of a certain strain of Herpes virus leading to at least two neonatal deaths.
I must say that i have read all the links and can see no evidence that the the neonatal infection came from the Rabbi and not the mother..........I stand to be corrected.
Child abuse to me is physical or mental damage to a child who is developed enough to appreciate the pain and anguish of such treatment......I do not think that this is applicable to a neonate.
To the Jews, for whatever reason, their religion and rituals are important to their lives and who are we to discourage that fact and hence i do have some sympathy with the post an opinion of Keyplus.
Are there any medical benefits?...I will trot out the usual ones and Lazygun will refute the evidence so i will desist for the practicality of brevity.
I am not a Jew and i am an Atheist.
15:30 Thu 06th Sep 2012
I take it then that you would forego anaesthesia when performing circumcisions . . . and that you volunteer your services for reconstructive surgery when a victim of your procedure subsequently realises later in life that they have in fact been mutilated in this fashion . . . or do you simply advise them to "Take two ibuprofen and call me in the morning."?
I have been watching this thread with interest, but particularly as the procedure of circumcision has been "flogged to death."
It would seem that some...we don't know how many. Rabbi's suck blood from the cut prepuce and this has led to a spread of a certain strain of Herpes virus leading to at least two neonatal deaths.
I must say that i have read all the links and can see no evidence that the the neonatal infection came from the Rabbi and not the mother..........I stand to be corrected.
Child abuse to me is physical or mental damage to a child who is developed enough to appreciate the pain and anguish of such treatment......I do not think that this is applicable to a neonate.
To the Jews, for whatever reason, their religion and rituals are important to their lives and who are we to discourage that fact and hence i do have some sympathy with the post an opinion of Keyplus.
Are there any medical benefits?...I will trot out the usual ones and Lazygun will refute the evidence so i will desist for the practicality of brevity.
I am not a Jew and i am an Atheist.
15:30 Thu 06th Sep 2012
I take it then that you would forego anaesthesia when performing circumcisions . . . and that you volunteer your services for reconstructive surgery when a victim of your procedure subsequently realises later in life that they have in fact been mutilated in this fashion . . . or do you simply advise them to "Take two ibuprofen and call me in the morning."?
mibn
\\\\I take it then that you would forego anaesthesia when performing circumcisions \\\\
The discussion is not about what i would do, but about what the Rabbis do.
The worsed case of mutilation that i have seen was the result of a circumcision performed by a surgeon in the NHS for a paraphimosis (Google it) which could not have been performed worse by a Rabbi.
\\\\or do you simply advise them to "Take two ibuprofen and call me in the morning."?\\\
That and it's answer should be confined to Chatterbank.
.
\\\\I take it then that you would forego anaesthesia when performing circumcisions \\\\
The discussion is not about what i would do, but about what the Rabbis do.
The worsed case of mutilation that i have seen was the result of a circumcision performed by a surgeon in the NHS for a paraphimosis (Google it) which could not have been performed worse by a Rabbi.
\\\\or do you simply advise them to "Take two ibuprofen and call me in the morning."?\\\
That and it's answer should be confined to Chatterbank.
.
> I can then assume you understand that my principles don't lead me to believe that papa is always right - regardless of what he dictates - and regardless of the effect that it has upon those under his control.
Of course. I would imagine that you, I and most other people on the planet share the same principles there, just with different opinions on what is "right" or "tolerable".
I do find it difficult to reconcile your intolerant stance on circumcision with your tolerant stance on abortion. I can see how a rational person could tolerate both, or tolerate neither, or tolerate a circumcision but not a termination; I just can't see how a rational person could tolerate the termination of a healthy unborn baby but not the circumcision of a healthy newborn baby. What's the difference in principles?
Of course. I would imagine that you, I and most other people on the planet share the same principles there, just with different opinions on what is "right" or "tolerable".
I do find it difficult to reconcile your intolerant stance on circumcision with your tolerant stance on abortion. I can see how a rational person could tolerate both, or tolerate neither, or tolerate a circumcision but not a termination; I just can't see how a rational person could tolerate the termination of a healthy unborn baby but not the circumcision of a healthy newborn baby. What's the difference in principles?
Ellipsis, as Jom says //we could discuss it// and as mibs says //another thread perhaps//. LG is trying to keep this thread on track - and in fairness to him, your questions on abortion should be posted separately if you're so inclined.
Back to the subject. I asked early on why, in this day and age, these rabbis and parents deem it necessary to continue this practice? They don't even have the excuse of religion to support it. Perhaps those here who have no objection to it can answer that.
Back to the subject. I asked early on why, in this day and age, these rabbis and parents deem it necessary to continue this practice? They don't even have the excuse of religion to support it. Perhaps those here who have no objection to it can answer that.
@ Ellipsis.
The idea that there is some sort of cognitive dissonance being exhibited by those who are pro-abortion / anti circumcision is something worthy of a separate thread, I think.
In the first instance - this thread has never been about the rights or wrongs of circumcision.
It has been about faith vs medicine.
It has been about the obstinate, stubborn refusal to amend arcane ritual by a small cohort of fundamentalist practitioners and adherents.
It has been a graphic illustration of how an ultra- orthodox, fundamentalist worldview can lead to a rejection of obvious risk, a glossing over of the tragedy of avoidable death and injury for participants not even able to offer their own consent or to withhold it.
It is about how, indirectly, faith can effect politics and the law - intruding into the secular.
It is about how those with such belief have a sense of entitlement that they believe should transcend the rules and laws that are set up for the the protection of society.
The reason that the NY Health Department cannot ban the practice and prosecute the participants is because of that interference of faith into the secular, by using the enormous local political clout that they have.
This is not a new story either. It was an issue in NY in 2005, and has peroidically been newsworthy on several occasions over the last century or more. This is a wholly avoidable practice the need for which has been questioned ever since Semmelweiss and the formulation of germ theory. Over that 150 years or so since, the jewish faith has been happy to accomodate the science - interpretations of hasidic commands and Talmudic scripture have no issue over using alternative procedures to the b'peh - this idea of direct oral suction. This is about an ultra-orthodox sect of judaism, refusing to change or adapt their faith to the evolutionary changes of society.
Infants have been, and are being, damaged, maybe killed, because some stubborn believers refuse to change their interpretation of what their faith demands. Thats the tragedy of fundamentalism, and thats kind of my point.
The idea that there is some sort of cognitive dissonance being exhibited by those who are pro-abortion / anti circumcision is something worthy of a separate thread, I think.
In the first instance - this thread has never been about the rights or wrongs of circumcision.
It has been about faith vs medicine.
It has been about the obstinate, stubborn refusal to amend arcane ritual by a small cohort of fundamentalist practitioners and adherents.
It has been a graphic illustration of how an ultra- orthodox, fundamentalist worldview can lead to a rejection of obvious risk, a glossing over of the tragedy of avoidable death and injury for participants not even able to offer their own consent or to withhold it.
It is about how, indirectly, faith can effect politics and the law - intruding into the secular.
It is about how those with such belief have a sense of entitlement that they believe should transcend the rules and laws that are set up for the the protection of society.
The reason that the NY Health Department cannot ban the practice and prosecute the participants is because of that interference of faith into the secular, by using the enormous local political clout that they have.
This is not a new story either. It was an issue in NY in 2005, and has peroidically been newsworthy on several occasions over the last century or more. This is a wholly avoidable practice the need for which has been questioned ever since Semmelweiss and the formulation of germ theory. Over that 150 years or so since, the jewish faith has been happy to accomodate the science - interpretations of hasidic commands and Talmudic scripture have no issue over using alternative procedures to the b'peh - this idea of direct oral suction. This is about an ultra-orthodox sect of judaism, refusing to change or adapt their faith to the evolutionary changes of society.
Infants have been, and are being, damaged, maybe killed, because some stubborn believers refuse to change their interpretation of what their faith demands. Thats the tragedy of fundamentalism, and thats kind of my point.
Sqad, //In this particular case, I do not think that the object of the Rabbi's procedure is purely that of inflicting pain//
That’s not the issue. You said //Child abuse to me is physical or mental damage to a child who is developed enough to appreciate the pain and anguish of such treatment......I do not think that this is applicable to a neonate.//
Unlike you, I don’t claim expertise in the field of medicine. However, I do know enough to comprehend that a human being who is too young to understand pain nevertheless experiences it, just as it experiences the anguish pain creates. That aside, if the ritual we’re talking about were performed by anyone other than a member of a religious group, society would, without doubt, deem it child abuse – and rightly so. I find your attitude quite extraordinary – and, actually, bearing in mind your claimed profession, rather worrying.
That’s not the issue. You said //Child abuse to me is physical or mental damage to a child who is developed enough to appreciate the pain and anguish of such treatment......I do not think that this is applicable to a neonate.//
Unlike you, I don’t claim expertise in the field of medicine. However, I do know enough to comprehend that a human being who is too young to understand pain nevertheless experiences it, just as it experiences the anguish pain creates. That aside, if the ritual we’re talking about were performed by anyone other than a member of a religious group, society would, without doubt, deem it child abuse – and rightly so. I find your attitude quite extraordinary – and, actually, bearing in mind your claimed profession, rather worrying.
I went to antenatal classes before my first child was born in the early 80s. Circumcision was discussed.
I found it incredulous when the teacher said that the procedure was done by a doctor without anesethetic. They didn't seem to appreciate that the child would still feel the pain even if they were unable to understand it.
Sqad seems to back the idea that the child won't feel it too. How bizarre.
I found it incredulous when the teacher said that the procedure was done by a doctor without anesethetic. They didn't seem to appreciate that the child would still feel the pain even if they were unable to understand it.
Sqad seems to back the idea that the child won't feel it too. How bizarre.
