ChatterBank2 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.
LazyGun>In the first instance - this thread has never been about the rights or wrongs of circumcision.
I refer you to many posts before and every post since you made that statement, which have been about the rights and wrongs of circumcision in general.
But I'll try to bring it back to metzitzah b’peh by saying again that the waiver does nothing except put a bit of red tape in the process. It's a last-ditch education attempt, supposedly to be handed out by people (rabbis) who don't agree with the education! You can imagine how well that will work. Parents are still likely to make the choice, and what then? Nothing has changed. If the practice is dangerous, then do something about it. Why isn't the Health Department talking directly to the parents instead of asking the rabbis to do it for them? Why don't they ban metzitzah b’peh? Why don't they make prosecutions? For their response to this terrible problem that causes deaths to be a waiver, handed out by rabbis, is pathetic and all wrong; unless of course, as sqad suggests, the solid proof isn't actually there.
jomifl> The anti abortion lobby claim that foeti feel pain
If that's in response to my remarks, can I point out (as I said earlier) that I'm not in the anti-abortion lobby and whether or not the foeti can feel pain is irrelevant to the abortion analogy.
I am pro-choice on abortion and pro-choice on circumcision, i.e. pro-parental choices. I don't see how, rationally, somebody could be pro-choice on something as life and death as abortion, yet make such a big fuss over the choice of circumcision. It's not logical.
I refer you to many posts before and every post since you made that statement, which have been about the rights and wrongs of circumcision in general.
But I'll try to bring it back to metzitzah b’peh by saying again that the waiver does nothing except put a bit of red tape in the process. It's a last-ditch education attempt, supposedly to be handed out by people (rabbis) who don't agree with the education! You can imagine how well that will work. Parents are still likely to make the choice, and what then? Nothing has changed. If the practice is dangerous, then do something about it. Why isn't the Health Department talking directly to the parents instead of asking the rabbis to do it for them? Why don't they ban metzitzah b’peh? Why don't they make prosecutions? For their response to this terrible problem that causes deaths to be a waiver, handed out by rabbis, is pathetic and all wrong; unless of course, as sqad suggests, the solid proof isn't actually there.
jomifl> The anti abortion lobby claim that foeti feel pain
If that's in response to my remarks, can I point out (as I said earlier) that I'm not in the anti-abortion lobby and whether or not the foeti can feel pain is irrelevant to the abortion analogy.
I am pro-choice on abortion and pro-choice on circumcision, i.e. pro-parental choices. I don't see how, rationally, somebody could be pro-choice on something as life and death as abortion, yet make such a big fuss over the choice of circumcision. It's not logical.
@Ellipsis
"I refer you to many posts before and every post since you made that statement, which have been about the rights and wrongs of circumcision in general.
But I'll try to bring it back to metzitzah b’peh by saying again that the waiver does nothing except put a bit of red tape in the process. It's a last-ditch education attempt, supposedly to be handed out by people (rabbis) who don't agree with the education! You can imagine how well that will work. Parents are still likely to make the choice, and what then? Nothing has changed. If the practice is dangerous, then do something about it. Why isn't the Health Department talking directly to the parents instead of asking the rabbis to do it for them? Why don't they ban metzitzah b’peh? Why don't they make prosecutions? For their response to this terrible problem that causes deaths to be a waiver, handed out by rabbis, is pathetic and all wrong; unless of course, as sqad suggests, the solid proof isn't actually there. "
I must be a terrible communicator, ellipsis, or perhaps you just haven't read any of my posts or links.
1. I repeat- this thread has never - I repeat, never - been about circumcision. It has always been primarily about the practice of "direct oral suction" , and the health threat it represents. Circumcision may been mentioned as a secondary issue, and some here have offered their view on circumcision - but this thread is not about that. How much clearer can I make this to you?
2. The dangers of this specific element of the ritual are well known and well documented.This is not a new objection to the practice either; Ever since Semmelweiss formulated germ theory 150 odd years ago, the vast, overwhelming majority of Rabbis have changed their practice. This "metzizah b'peh" is now only practiced by a tiny minority of ultra-orthodox rabbis, who refuse to amend their practice in the light of the very real dangers of infection that such a practice represents. Do you not bother to read the links I offer?
3.I personally cannot speak directly as to why the Health Department in NY do not ban the practice.I presume they would like to ,as would the CDC - what is stopping them, it would appear, is politics. The Governor has been lobbied intensively by this ultra-orthodox sect, as have several of the local political representatives. It appears that the Public Health department have been prevented from doing what they wished to do, to ban the practice, because of politics.
4. Regarding the waiver and its likely impact. Red tape can be useful ,and can be important. Putting the waiver mechanism in place means the rabbis have to be able to demonstrate that they gave the waiver to the prospective parents, and also that the parents indicated that they had read and understood the risks, and that they were happy for the process to go ahead. This record is to be kept on file. The reason this may have at least some, limited benefit, is that from the news reports, some at least of the parents of infants subjected to this ritual said that either they were unaware of this element of the ritual, or that they were unaware that this element involved "direct oral suction", or that they were unaware of the health risks associated with such a practice. Such a waiver system may at least ensure that such parents are made aware and save at least some infants from being exposed to this practice. That must surely be something to be welcomed?
Have you read the links I offered, linking to the original papers? Have you read the link I gave to the CDC report? The scientific evidence is there. Did you read the links showing that such a practice was considered unnecessary by all but this extremist minority?
Do you, as an agnostic atheist, believe that parental choice transcends risks to infants?
And if you wish to debate abortion and circumcision,please start another thread.It is an interesting topic, one that deserves its own thread, rather than derailing this one.
"I refer you to many posts before and every post since you made that statement, which have been about the rights and wrongs of circumcision in general.
But I'll try to bring it back to metzitzah b’peh by saying again that the waiver does nothing except put a bit of red tape in the process. It's a last-ditch education attempt, supposedly to be handed out by people (rabbis) who don't agree with the education! You can imagine how well that will work. Parents are still likely to make the choice, and what then? Nothing has changed. If the practice is dangerous, then do something about it. Why isn't the Health Department talking directly to the parents instead of asking the rabbis to do it for them? Why don't they ban metzitzah b’peh? Why don't they make prosecutions? For their response to this terrible problem that causes deaths to be a waiver, handed out by rabbis, is pathetic and all wrong; unless of course, as sqad suggests, the solid proof isn't actually there. "
I must be a terrible communicator, ellipsis, or perhaps you just haven't read any of my posts or links.
1. I repeat- this thread has never - I repeat, never - been about circumcision. It has always been primarily about the practice of "direct oral suction" , and the health threat it represents. Circumcision may been mentioned as a secondary issue, and some here have offered their view on circumcision - but this thread is not about that. How much clearer can I make this to you?
2. The dangers of this specific element of the ritual are well known and well documented.This is not a new objection to the practice either; Ever since Semmelweiss formulated germ theory 150 odd years ago, the vast, overwhelming majority of Rabbis have changed their practice. This "metzizah b'peh" is now only practiced by a tiny minority of ultra-orthodox rabbis, who refuse to amend their practice in the light of the very real dangers of infection that such a practice represents. Do you not bother to read the links I offer?
3.I personally cannot speak directly as to why the Health Department in NY do not ban the practice.I presume they would like to ,as would the CDC - what is stopping them, it would appear, is politics. The Governor has been lobbied intensively by this ultra-orthodox sect, as have several of the local political representatives. It appears that the Public Health department have been prevented from doing what they wished to do, to ban the practice, because of politics.
4. Regarding the waiver and its likely impact. Red tape can be useful ,and can be important. Putting the waiver mechanism in place means the rabbis have to be able to demonstrate that they gave the waiver to the prospective parents, and also that the parents indicated that they had read and understood the risks, and that they were happy for the process to go ahead. This record is to be kept on file. The reason this may have at least some, limited benefit, is that from the news reports, some at least of the parents of infants subjected to this ritual said that either they were unaware of this element of the ritual, or that they were unaware that this element involved "direct oral suction", or that they were unaware of the health risks associated with such a practice. Such a waiver system may at least ensure that such parents are made aware and save at least some infants from being exposed to this practice. That must surely be something to be welcomed?
Have you read the links I offered, linking to the original papers? Have you read the link I gave to the CDC report? The scientific evidence is there. Did you read the links showing that such a practice was considered unnecessary by all but this extremist minority?
Do you, as an agnostic atheist, believe that parental choice transcends risks to infants?
And if you wish to debate abortion and circumcision,please start another thread.It is an interesting topic, one that deserves its own thread, rather than derailing this one.
> I repeat- this thread has never - I repeat, never - been about circumcision.
Then tell that to naomi who, at 8:32 today right after your post telling us it was not about circumcision at 18:54 yesterday, responded to sqad about circumcision. Tell it to beso, who, right after naomi at 8:49, made a post about circumcision. Tell it to jomifl who, right after beso at 8:57, made a post about circumcision. Yes, I do read the posts ...
But unlike those three, I did bring it back specifically to metzitzah b’peh and said what I had to say on it. I take on board what you say, and am mostly sympathetic to it in fact. But yes, as an agnostic atheist, I believe that parental choice transcends risks to infants until it meets the law.
I make choices all the time that put my kids at risk, and most of those choices are a result of my beliefs. For example, I believe that taking them on foreign holidays broadens their mind and will ultimately make them better people, so I take them in a car, on a plane and around a foreign country, all of which is un-necessary and puts them at risk, but is what I believe is good for them.
There's no way I would expose my kids to the risks of metzitzah b’peh or even have them circumcised at all, but with all the other ills and risks in the world I don't see this one as a big deal and I find the waiver laughable. Finally, to go all the way back to your original question, we see it's not even about the waiver:
> And what parent could be comfortable with such a practice in this day and age?
The answer is simple: some Orthodox Jewish parents. Those same parents probably wouldn't expose their children to half the dangers I expose mine too. That's their choice.
Then tell that to naomi who, at 8:32 today right after your post telling us it was not about circumcision at 18:54 yesterday, responded to sqad about circumcision. Tell it to beso, who, right after naomi at 8:49, made a post about circumcision. Tell it to jomifl who, right after beso at 8:57, made a post about circumcision. Yes, I do read the posts ...
But unlike those three, I did bring it back specifically to metzitzah b’peh and said what I had to say on it. I take on board what you say, and am mostly sympathetic to it in fact. But yes, as an agnostic atheist, I believe that parental choice transcends risks to infants until it meets the law.
I make choices all the time that put my kids at risk, and most of those choices are a result of my beliefs. For example, I believe that taking them on foreign holidays broadens their mind and will ultimately make them better people, so I take them in a car, on a plane and around a foreign country, all of which is un-necessary and puts them at risk, but is what I believe is good for them.
There's no way I would expose my kids to the risks of metzitzah b’peh or even have them circumcised at all, but with all the other ills and risks in the world I don't see this one as a big deal and I find the waiver laughable. Finally, to go all the way back to your original question, we see it's not even about the waiver:
> And what parent could be comfortable with such a practice in this day and age?
The answer is simple: some Orthodox Jewish parents. Those same parents probably wouldn't expose their children to half the dangers I expose mine too. That's their choice.
Ellipsis, LG told all of us – and you’re misrepresenting me - again. I didn’t respond to Sqad about circumcision – I responded to his claim that child abuse is physical or mental damage to a child who is developed enough to appreciate the pain and anguish of such treatment......and that this is not applicable to a neonate.
The correlation between abortion and circumcision: let me put this simply. It doesn’t exist. Abortion is carried out for valid medical reasons – circumcision of infants is not – and neither is the disgusting practice we’re supposed to be discussing here.
Parental choice: forced marriages often of little girls to grown men; denying blood transfusions, medical treatment and access to education, female circumcision? All this is done in the name of religion – and all through parental choice. Where do you draw the line – or don’t you?
The correlation between abortion and circumcision: let me put this simply. It doesn’t exist. Abortion is carried out for valid medical reasons – circumcision of infants is not – and neither is the disgusting practice we’re supposed to be discussing here.
Parental choice: forced marriages often of little girls to grown men; denying blood transfusions, medical treatment and access to education, female circumcision? All this is done in the name of religion – and all through parental choice. Where do you draw the line – or don’t you?
@Ellipsis
The whole reason I considered this story worthy of posting about was because it was both fascinating to me that acolytes and practitioners of fundamentalist religious worldviews will resist, deride, deny, ignore or oppose any measures they see as curtailing their religious freedoms, coupled with revulsion that an extremely small cohort of rabbis were attempting to defend and continue this practice in defiance of the strong evidence of serious and indeed mortal harm that this method brings, and ignoring their own more enlightened religious colleagues using more hygienic procedures.
Most of the time, I can view these practices with equanimity or humour, but there are exceptions.These exceptions relate to the potential harms that adherence to such religious observances can inflict upon individuals unable to offer consent - the infants and children of such religious zealots.
We see these cases happening all the time, and it seems to me that indifference equals indirect endorsement, so when I see examples of such evidence, my belief is that it should be highlighted, exposed, criticized and ridiculed for the dangerous nonsense that it is.
Travel, holidays, experience of life itself all self-evidently carry risks but it is facile of you to attempt to draw an equivalence between those activities and the one we are talking about , and whats more, I think you know it is.
I also find it a little strange that you would refuse such a procedure for your own children, but are happy that other children, lacking such enlightened parents, have no choice but to face the risk.
The absence of a current legislative response to this practice does not trivialise the risk, as it seems you believe.In the absence of that legislative instrument,which it would seem has more to do with political interference rather than lack of evidence, implementing a waiver system, which, as the news reports suggest, would have prevented at least some of the parents from allowing such a practice, and is better than doing nothing at all.It offers another means of collecting public health data, of monitoring the risk and the affected kids,and maybe offers another means of controlling the rabbis who refuse to amend their practice.
And just because there may be other, greater ills in the world does not mean we cannot highlight, discuss or condemn this one. As an intelligent human being, I am able to cope with more than one issue at a time, as I am sure you are.
This specific practice is an element of a religious ritual with a great deal of cultural significance. But - it is an element easily replaced with more hygienic methods - methods that have already been scripturally approved and over many years adopted by the vast majority of their own fellow acolytes. It is a well characterised method of disease transmission, and in this case, the effects of this transmission - this totally avoidable, totally unnecessary transmission -can be devastating,crippling, fatal. Why should children be subjected to such an avoidable risk because of the obstinacy of some rabbis and the ignorance of their parents? I think that is something to get angry about......
The whole reason I considered this story worthy of posting about was because it was both fascinating to me that acolytes and practitioners of fundamentalist religious worldviews will resist, deride, deny, ignore or oppose any measures they see as curtailing their religious freedoms, coupled with revulsion that an extremely small cohort of rabbis were attempting to defend and continue this practice in defiance of the strong evidence of serious and indeed mortal harm that this method brings, and ignoring their own more enlightened religious colleagues using more hygienic procedures.
Most of the time, I can view these practices with equanimity or humour, but there are exceptions.These exceptions relate to the potential harms that adherence to such religious observances can inflict upon individuals unable to offer consent - the infants and children of such religious zealots.
We see these cases happening all the time, and it seems to me that indifference equals indirect endorsement, so when I see examples of such evidence, my belief is that it should be highlighted, exposed, criticized and ridiculed for the dangerous nonsense that it is.
Travel, holidays, experience of life itself all self-evidently carry risks but it is facile of you to attempt to draw an equivalence between those activities and the one we are talking about , and whats more, I think you know it is.
I also find it a little strange that you would refuse such a procedure for your own children, but are happy that other children, lacking such enlightened parents, have no choice but to face the risk.
The absence of a current legislative response to this practice does not trivialise the risk, as it seems you believe.In the absence of that legislative instrument,which it would seem has more to do with political interference rather than lack of evidence, implementing a waiver system, which, as the news reports suggest, would have prevented at least some of the parents from allowing such a practice, and is better than doing nothing at all.It offers another means of collecting public health data, of monitoring the risk and the affected kids,and maybe offers another means of controlling the rabbis who refuse to amend their practice.
And just because there may be other, greater ills in the world does not mean we cannot highlight, discuss or condemn this one. As an intelligent human being, I am able to cope with more than one issue at a time, as I am sure you are.
This specific practice is an element of a religious ritual with a great deal of cultural significance. But - it is an element easily replaced with more hygienic methods - methods that have already been scripturally approved and over many years adopted by the vast majority of their own fellow acolytes. It is a well characterised method of disease transmission, and in this case, the effects of this transmission - this totally avoidable, totally unnecessary transmission -can be devastating,crippling, fatal. Why should children be subjected to such an avoidable risk because of the obstinacy of some rabbis and the ignorance of their parents? I think that is something to get angry about......
jomifl.....perhaps my post could have been clearer.
To put it on record, I do feel that a neonate can feel pain, but the difference is that he cannot remember it being a neonate, so to him, he hasn't been assaulted.
As the child develops and it is assaulted in the same way, then this may well be described as physical and mental abuse, because he remember it.
To put it on record, I do feel that a neonate can feel pain, but the difference is that he cannot remember it being a neonate, so to him, he hasn't been assaulted.
As the child develops and it is assaulted in the same way, then this may well be described as physical and mental abuse, because he remember it.
naomi.....yes........you are correct.
However, let us take the case of a Jewish boy who has been circumsized by ANY method and let us look at the status quo.
The Jewish boy doesn' t think he has been assaulted, the Rabbi feels that he hasn't assaulted the boy and the boy's parents doesn't think that their son has been assaulted.
Who will make the accusation and with what in mind?
However, let us take the case of a Jewish boy who has been circumsized by ANY method and let us look at the status quo.
The Jewish boy doesn' t think he has been assaulted, the Rabbi feels that he hasn't assaulted the boy and the boy's parents doesn't think that their son has been assaulted.
Who will make the accusation and with what in mind?
naomi24> Ellipsis, LG told all of us – and you’re misrepresenting me - again
I'm sorry, I thought the "child abuse" you were discussing was circumcision. If it was more general than that, fine, but in that case you were even further off topic! Never mind. Threads do go off topic, especially 100 or so posts in. I'm sure we all understand that. I felt that I was being singled out for being off topic, when the thread was naturally digressing through all participants. Was I right?
naomi24> The correlation between abortion and circumcision: let me put this simply. It doesn’t exist.
If you need to see it like that in order to reduce your cognitive dissonance (nice expression BTW LazyGun), I've learnt enough to realise that there's no point pushing that further. We'll leave it there - and there's no need for a separate thread, clearly, as it's so simple.
LazyGun> indifference equals indirect endorsement
Well, that's debatable in itself. But there's no point because I'm not indifferent. If I was indifferent I wouldn't still be here after 100 posts. I'd like to think I was tolerant:
* indifferent - Having no particular interest or sympathy; unconcerned
* tolerant - Showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with
As you can see, tolerance does not equal indirect endorsement. Far from it.
LazyGun> I also find it a little strange that you would refuse such a procedure for your own children, but are happy that other children, lacking such enlightened parents, have no choice but to face the risk.
Again, tolerance. In my experience, tolerance has a better chance than intolerance of changing the world for the better. Call somebody "disgusting" and they're hardly likely to listen to what you say next ...
LazyGun> political interference rather than lack of evidence,
If as you claim most Jews are against this practice, and there's very little support for it at all, and the evidence is there, then how is it politically savvy to allow it to continue if it leads to the deaths of babies? That would seem to be political suicide. Dead babies don't go down well with the voters.
LazyGun> And just because there may be other, greater ills in the world does not mean we cannot highlight, discuss or condemn this one
That's very true.
LazyGun> Why should children be subjected to such an avoidable risk because of the obstinacy of some rabbis and the ignorance of their parents?
A good question for the politicians. Maybe somebody in America should ask. I don't see what more we can usefully do from here.
naomi24> I would make the accusation with the child's right to choose in mind.
Who are you going to make it to?
I'm sorry, I thought the "child abuse" you were discussing was circumcision. If it was more general than that, fine, but in that case you were even further off topic! Never mind. Threads do go off topic, especially 100 or so posts in. I'm sure we all understand that. I felt that I was being singled out for being off topic, when the thread was naturally digressing through all participants. Was I right?
naomi24> The correlation between abortion and circumcision: let me put this simply. It doesn’t exist.
If you need to see it like that in order to reduce your cognitive dissonance (nice expression BTW LazyGun), I've learnt enough to realise that there's no point pushing that further. We'll leave it there - and there's no need for a separate thread, clearly, as it's so simple.
LazyGun> indifference equals indirect endorsement
Well, that's debatable in itself. But there's no point because I'm not indifferent. If I was indifferent I wouldn't still be here after 100 posts. I'd like to think I was tolerant:
* indifferent - Having no particular interest or sympathy; unconcerned
* tolerant - Showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with
As you can see, tolerance does not equal indirect endorsement. Far from it.
LazyGun> I also find it a little strange that you would refuse such a procedure for your own children, but are happy that other children, lacking such enlightened parents, have no choice but to face the risk.
Again, tolerance. In my experience, tolerance has a better chance than intolerance of changing the world for the better. Call somebody "disgusting" and they're hardly likely to listen to what you say next ...
LazyGun> political interference rather than lack of evidence,
If as you claim most Jews are against this practice, and there's very little support for it at all, and the evidence is there, then how is it politically savvy to allow it to continue if it leads to the deaths of babies? That would seem to be political suicide. Dead babies don't go down well with the voters.
LazyGun> And just because there may be other, greater ills in the world does not mean we cannot highlight, discuss or condemn this one
That's very true.
LazyGun> Why should children be subjected to such an avoidable risk because of the obstinacy of some rabbis and the ignorance of their parents?
A good question for the politicians. Maybe somebody in America should ask. I don't see what more we can usefully do from here.
naomi24> I would make the accusation with the child's right to choose in mind.
Who are you going to make it to?
