Shopping & Style2 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.
//”For the government to force a rabbi who’s practicing a religious act to tell his congregants it’s dangerous is totally unacceptable,” Niederman told The Post.//
The rabbi is conducting a completely unnecessary surgical procedure upon a child who has no choice in the matter – and infecting him to boot – and all in the name of religion. Unfortunately there are many parents who are completely comfortable with it - but where are the child’s rights in all this?
The rabbi is conducting a completely unnecessary surgical procedure upon a child who has no choice in the matter – and infecting him to boot – and all in the name of religion. Unfortunately there are many parents who are completely comfortable with it - but where are the child’s rights in all this?
I guess we can await the prosecutions for failure to comply with the law.
Little doubt that the rabbi with the herpes continued to perform the same procedure even though it was clear he had passed the infection on because he insisted there was no danger despite the evidence.
Faith trumps evidence for these idiots.
Little doubt that the rabbi with the herpes continued to perform the same procedure even though it was clear he had passed the infection on because he insisted there was no danger despite the evidence.
Faith trumps evidence for these idiots.
> And what parent could be comfortable with such a practice in this day and age?
I'm not seeking to defend the practice of circumcision of a baby boy at all, but I don't think this is about that.
The article says that "some Orthodox Jewish parents insist on" it. Presumably those same parents would therefore also sign a waiver to allow it to be done. The Health Department seems prepared to allow the practice to go ahead as long as the waiver is signed. The practice itself isn't the issue then in this case, it's the waiver and what it represents.
The waiver appears to be designed as a last-ditch education attempt, and the Jews are complaining that the education itself is wrong.
If it is true that herpes simplex is passed on through this method, then the health department isn't doing enough with a simple waiver; but, if it isn't true, then the health department is doing too much in requiring a waiver to be signed to prevent something happening that wouldn't happen anyway.
The other alternative is that they're not really sure and that this waiver is therefore a fudge, with the side-effect (or maybe even the main aim) of drawing the non-Jewish community's attention to the practice so we can cast judgement on it and/or reinforce our already-made opinions.
BTW a look at the home page of the New York Post reveals it to be not a high quality paper. The fact it tried to launch a popup on me only adds to my low opinion of it. I checked it out because I thought the article itself was pretty shoddy.
I'm not seeking to defend the practice of circumcision of a baby boy at all, but I don't think this is about that.
The article says that "some Orthodox Jewish parents insist on" it. Presumably those same parents would therefore also sign a waiver to allow it to be done. The Health Department seems prepared to allow the practice to go ahead as long as the waiver is signed. The practice itself isn't the issue then in this case, it's the waiver and what it represents.
The waiver appears to be designed as a last-ditch education attempt, and the Jews are complaining that the education itself is wrong.
If it is true that herpes simplex is passed on through this method, then the health department isn't doing enough with a simple waiver; but, if it isn't true, then the health department is doing too much in requiring a waiver to be signed to prevent something happening that wouldn't happen anyway.
The other alternative is that they're not really sure and that this waiver is therefore a fudge, with the side-effect (or maybe even the main aim) of drawing the non-Jewish community's attention to the practice so we can cast judgement on it and/or reinforce our already-made opinions.
BTW a look at the home page of the New York Post reveals it to be not a high quality paper. The fact it tried to launch a popup on me only adds to my low opinion of it. I checked it out because I thought the article itself was pretty shoddy.
@ Ellipsis.
Well, perhaps you might prefer an article on the same subject from a different source ?
http://
or how about this reference, again referring to the controversy surrounding this particular procedure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah
I applaud your scepticism when analysing the source of the story. That source, in and of itself, does not necessarily invalidate the facts however.To make that assumption would be an ad hominem logical fallacy........
The issues seem clear to me. A community wants to practice circumcision, something integral to their own identity as orthodox jews. Is it the circumcision that is important, or the manner in which it is done? The fact that some parents and rabbis are happy to use a sterile pipette would suggest that it is the circumcision that is the critical cultural feature here.
The only possible reason to carry on with the potentially less hygenic, possibly seriously damaging and frankly more bizarre method of mouth suction is to adhere to a fundamentalist view of their particular religion.
Fundamentalist religious views distort the adherents worldview. Sometimes it is harmless barmpottery - in other cases, it can be dangerous, delusional and deadly - and this practice falls into the latter category.
If there is a health risk, of course the parents should be informed - and the rabbis carrying out such practices should be forced to tell them. Religious practices and convictions do not and absolutely should not shelter the faithful from the law of the land.
Tell me, Ellipsis - How can any rational reasonable person object to a law which ensures parents are informed of the health dangers to their child of their practice of this specific type of religious observance, and sign a waiver saying they have been informed? What is unreasonable about that? It comes down to this - a bunch of arrogant rabbis wishing to practice their own arcane rituals without interference, regardless of the health risks.
And I know - I may be displaying my liberal, lefty atheist bias here - what sane,rational, reasonable individual can find the prospect of their child being subjected to "direct oral suction" by a rabbi?
Well, perhaps you might prefer an article on the same subject from a different source ?
http://
or how about this reference, again referring to the controversy surrounding this particular procedure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah
I applaud your scepticism when analysing the source of the story. That source, in and of itself, does not necessarily invalidate the facts however.To make that assumption would be an ad hominem logical fallacy........
The issues seem clear to me. A community wants to practice circumcision, something integral to their own identity as orthodox jews. Is it the circumcision that is important, or the manner in which it is done? The fact that some parents and rabbis are happy to use a sterile pipette would suggest that it is the circumcision that is the critical cultural feature here.
The only possible reason to carry on with the potentially less hygenic, possibly seriously damaging and frankly more bizarre method of mouth suction is to adhere to a fundamentalist view of their particular religion.
Fundamentalist religious views distort the adherents worldview. Sometimes it is harmless barmpottery - in other cases, it can be dangerous, delusional and deadly - and this practice falls into the latter category.
If there is a health risk, of course the parents should be informed - and the rabbis carrying out such practices should be forced to tell them. Religious practices and convictions do not and absolutely should not shelter the faithful from the law of the land.
Tell me, Ellipsis - How can any rational reasonable person object to a law which ensures parents are informed of the health dangers to their child of their practice of this specific type of religious observance, and sign a waiver saying they have been informed? What is unreasonable about that? It comes down to this - a bunch of arrogant rabbis wishing to practice their own arcane rituals without interference, regardless of the health risks.
And I know - I may be displaying my liberal, lefty atheist bias here - what sane,rational, reasonable individual can find the prospect of their child being subjected to "direct oral suction" by a rabbi?
Sorry, grammatical error in that last paragraph.
As posted, it reads
"And I know - I may be displaying my liberal, lefty atheist bias here - what sane,rational, reasonable individual can find the prospect of their child being subjected to "direct oral suction" by a rabbi?"
It should have read
"And I know - I may be displaying my liberal, lefty atheist bias here - what sane,rational, reasonable individual can be comfortable with the prospect of their child being subjected to "direct oral suction" by a rabbi?"
As posted, it reads
"And I know - I may be displaying my liberal, lefty atheist bias here - what sane,rational, reasonable individual can find the prospect of their child being subjected to "direct oral suction" by a rabbi?"
It should have read
"And I know - I may be displaying my liberal, lefty atheist bias here - what sane,rational, reasonable individual can be comfortable with the prospect of their child being subjected to "direct oral suction" by a rabbi?"
> And I know - I may be displaying my liberal, lefty atheist bias here - what sane,rational, reasonable individual can be comfortable with the prospect of their child being subjected to "direct oral suction" by a rabbi?
Hmm, not you or I, but we're not Orthodox Jews. And that's kind of the point. The waiver won't put an end to the practice. If babies are dying from herpes as a result of this practice, then they'll still be dying from herpes as a result of this practice after the waiver is made law - even if the law is obeyed! So what's the point of the waiver?
If these people are indeed insane, irrational, unreasonable and have managed to get to this point of their lives thinking that this practice is OK, how is the waiver going to help exactly?
Hmm, not you or I, but we're not Orthodox Jews. And that's kind of the point. The waiver won't put an end to the practice. If babies are dying from herpes as a result of this practice, then they'll still be dying from herpes as a result of this practice after the waiver is made law - even if the law is obeyed! So what's the point of the waiver?
If these people are indeed insane, irrational, unreasonable and have managed to get to this point of their lives thinking that this practice is OK, how is the waiver going to help exactly?
@Ellipsis - The waiver does several things. It creates a legal framework by which individuals who fail to pass on the relevant information can be censured / sued / prosecuted.It may very well force such individuals to, at the very least, apply for and carry public health indemnity insurance, if they do not already - it may even force such individuals to have regular herpes screening tests.
It ensures that parents who may be considering such a process are fully conversant with the very real, severe and occasionally fatal health risks of what they propose to subject their child to - it is not at all clear that all parents who currently follow or endorse this practice are actually made aware of the risks.
It highlights the issue and gets people talking about it - more routes to becoming informed.It may well provoke informed debate within the community who can talk about the risks, and the need to carry on with "direct oral suction" compared to the use of a sterile pipette - It may even encourage debate over the whole need to draw blood issue, which is a hangover from a stone age rabbinical medical practice with no relevance today.
Introducing a waiver system will offer greater transparency and better data to track the level of health risk.
What sane, rational and reasonable person could fail to object to such measures?
It ensures that parents who may be considering such a process are fully conversant with the very real, severe and occasionally fatal health risks of what they propose to subject their child to - it is not at all clear that all parents who currently follow or endorse this practice are actually made aware of the risks.
It highlights the issue and gets people talking about it - more routes to becoming informed.It may well provoke informed debate within the community who can talk about the risks, and the need to carry on with "direct oral suction" compared to the use of a sterile pipette - It may even encourage debate over the whole need to draw blood issue, which is a hangover from a stone age rabbinical medical practice with no relevance today.
Introducing a waiver system will offer greater transparency and better data to track the level of health risk.
What sane, rational and reasonable person could fail to object to such measures?
But don't you think, if the evidence is strong that this method passes on herpes, that the practice should be banned? Not some simple "waiver" to say "I give you permission to maybe pass herpes to my child." In that case, shouldn't the parents and/or the rabbi be charged with (something like) assault? Or even manslaughter?
@Ellipsis - Yes, I do think they should ban the process - but once again this is a clash of the secular and the religious. In my view we spend far too much time pandering to the needs of religious fundamentalists ;)
Ands anyway, this idea of using a waiver system is not that dissimilar to the practice they adopt for the childhood immunisation programme. The default state is that all children should be immunised using the nationally agreed childhood immunisation programme - one of the few exemptions to this practice is if the parent states that their religion prevents them from doing this, whereupon they sign a waiver to that effect.
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.........
What sane, reasonable, rational person could object to implementing such a waiver system?
Ands anyway, this idea of using a waiver system is not that dissimilar to the practice they adopt for the childhood immunisation programme. The default state is that all children should be immunised using the nationally agreed childhood immunisation programme - one of the few exemptions to this practice is if the parent states that their religion prevents them from doing this, whereupon they sign a waiver to that effect.
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.........
What sane, reasonable, rational person could object to implementing such a waiver system?
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.
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.
Latest Posts
Crosswords11 mins ago
News13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Good Morning Late Wednesday Birds.
ChatterBank17 mins ago
