COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

Baruch Hashem! It is a Chillul Hashem that this law even saw the light of proposal. Now if we could only get it off the SF ballot. Let those who oppose circumcision choose not to do it with their own kids, heaven forbid they be Jewish.

Chag Sameach and a Gut Yom Tov ... Shavuot is around the corner!

Comment by Moishe on 6/06/11 at 5:20 pm

It is a sad day when a young mother has to be bullied by those with more money and more political power, so much so that she has to retreat.  Unfortunate that the communities who so enjoy their religious freedom to mutilate children’s genitals to please their g-d do not see that they are removing those very rights from their own child.

Comment by Anna on 6/06/11 at 6:39 pm

Thank G-d.  Now work on San Francisco to withdraw their initiative.

Comment by Dave on 6/06/11 at 6:44 pm

Anna-
Did you even read the article? She wasn’t bullied by anyone. She decided that the discussion wasn’t being had appropriately and so she pulled out.

Comment by Daniel on 6/06/11 at 7:52 pm

I agree with Anna here.  The anti circumcision activists make many valid points that don’t have a thing to do with religion.  I think the people who say “Don’t like abortions? Than don’t get one.” and “Don’t like circumcision?  Than don’t circumcise your kid” miss the point completely.  The problem is that the person who should have final say in the matter is the child.

Comment by Jim on 6/06/11 at 9:54 pm

I still fail to follow the logic here. A ballot measure was drafted—the correct way. If opposed to the bill, why pressure the young lady with unfounded accusations and misrepresentation? Why not simply go with the democratic process and work to defeat it at the polls? It would have been an even greater help to religious freedom to have a precedent like that. Now… none.

It was shameful how some people uncivilly accused Ms. Troutman of vicious motives and even lied about the bill, saying it prevented needed medical care or all adult circumcisions. I expect better from my community.

The response was too early, too nasty and not at all strategic. Let’s keep this in mind for the future.

Comment by Louis on 6/06/11 at 10:00 pm

Yes, ban all forced genital reduction surgery on children now. Yes, protect the rights of all children to genital integrity. If, as adults, they wish to cut into and discard part of their genitals for whatever reason including religion then that should be their decision, about their own body.

First and foremost protect the rights of children.

Comment by James Loewen on 6/06/11 at 10:05 pm

And the baby boy says:  “Waaaa I want to be a Jew now and not be cut when I’m 18!”  THAT would be cruel and painful!!
Any Jewish parent not giving a son a bris cuts instead all connection with the Jewish People. Instead of kiddish we must say kaddish.

Comment by abbushuki on 6/06/11 at 10:16 pm

Many conscientious Jewish parents are choosing to welcome their sons without cutting them. They are still considered Jews because of the mother being Jewish. And they get to have their whole penis. Win-win situation. Google “alternate bris.”

Comment by James Loewen on 6/06/11 at 10:25 pm

Jim: “considered Jewish” just as messianics call themselves Jews. It’s simple: cut the kid or be cut off from Jews. If U don’t affiliate anyway, you’ve already made the choice, so it’s no loss to you or the Jews.

Comment by abbushuki on 6/06/11 at 10:40 pm

@abbushuki: In America we have something called religious freedom.  How is it that it is still legal to cut someone else’s body in the name of *your* religion?  Jews are intelligent people who have already abandoned other cruel and archaic traditions such as animal sacrifice, why not human sacrifice?  You know as well as I do that a bris is a form of human sacrifice in Judaism.  Why hasn’t a peaceful alternative already been adopted- bris shalom- that way no one has to be cut off (no pun intended) from the Jewish community?

Comment by JollyHolly on 6/07/11 at 12:29 am

BS"D Baruch ha-tov v’ha-meitiv!  I am the one who found Foreskin Man on the internet months ago and tried to get the word out. A couple of us contacted the Anti-Defamation League, to no avail.  What finally broke the story was e-mailing the link to Foreskin Man to Abby Porth of the San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council, who must have sent it out to Debra Saunders at the San Francisco Chronicle and others.  Everything from there is history.  What concerns me is that this vile hate was out there for six months or so, and others saw it and did nothing, or even approved of it—including at least six comic book reviewers.  What have we learned from the Shoah?  Had I not acted ...

Comment by Stephen Mendelsohn on 6/07/11 at 12:57 am

She says “ninety-five percent of people aren’t doing it for religious reasons”.

If so, and this bill has a non-religious intent and is about children’s rights, why not simply impose a ban on circumcision with a religious exemption?

The answer is obvious, but the question remains.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/07/11 at 4:14 am

A religious exemption would put a major hole in our argument.  Why is there no religious exemption for FGM, even for a ceremonial pin prick?  Its because we recognize that female circumcision is cruel.  In America, we might have freedom of religion, but that freedom cannot trump someone elses freedom.  (i.e. human sacrifice as the ultra extreme example)  What are we saying about ourselves if we believe that this is a children’s rights case, but yet Jewish children do not receive the same rights as everyone else?

Comment by Jim on 6/07/11 at 6:04 am

Femal genital mutilation and male circumcision are not equivalent. FGM mutilates the genitalia by removing the clitoris or scarring the labia such to make intercourse near impossible (without a further cutting) or painful. There is no health benefit and potential harm. Whereas, male circumsion may actually enhance sexual activity but at the very least has several health benefits, improves personal hygiene for the individual, nearly eliminates risk of childhood urinary tract infection, eliminates risk of penile cancer, reduces risk of transmiting STDs particularly HIV. It’s a painless procedure for the infant, but not so for an older child and an adult.

Comment by GaryV on 6/07/11 at 7:26 am

FGM rituals vary in severity from a pinprick to draw blood, with no tissue excised, to a minuscule sliver of flesh taken from the clitoral prepuce, to excision of the clitoral prepuce, to excision of part or all of the clitoris, to total excision of all external female genitalia and infibulation, sewing up the entrance to the vagina. Some of these are far less invasive than male foreskin excision and some are more invasive.

Comment by James Loewen on 6/07/11 at 7:52 am

Male genital mutilation (circumcision) also has its varying degrees of severity. Some men have had so much skin removed that erection is painful and the friction of sex causes the penis to chafe and sometimes bleed.

In some cultures male genital mutilation rituals have included flaying the penile skin totally, slicing open the urethra on the underside of the penis all the way down to the base and even partial castration (removal of one testicle.)

The distinct similarity between FGM and MGM euphemistically called circumcision is that they are always forced upon infants or children, or coerced upon young adults. They are always an attack on the body’s ability to perceive pleasure.

Comment by James Loewen on 6/07/11 at 7:54 am

In Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, Catherine Bell writes that ritual is motivated by five things: power, control, authority, manipulation and domination. To that extent male and female genital cutting forced upon children or coerced upon young adults is exactly the same thing.

Comment by James Loewen on 6/07/11 at 7:55 am

Gary I hate to tell you, but that is wrong to the point of throwing me softballs. 

1st Even the most ardent of anti circumcision activists will tell you that the equivalent of male circumcision would be the removal of the labia. 

2nd It turns out that American’s typically overstate the effects of female circumcision.  Don’t get me wrong, its still awful, but it turns out that most women who are victims quietly admit to enjoying sex, and even having orgasms.  My info is coming from fgmnetwork.org, and I highly doubt they have an anti woman bias.  There was also a study I came across awhile ago that showed a reduction in the transmission of AIDS in circumcised women.

Comment by Jim on 6/07/11 at 8:07 am

Enhancing sexual activity is wrong Sexasnatureintendedit.com is a good starting point for that.  (character limit)

I can go through all of the “health benefits” if you wish, but the short version is that they are all bunk and have gone in and out of style for decades.  (circumcision is a solution looking for a problem)  For example the evidence of a reduction in penile cancer is suspect at best, and penile cancer really isn’t a big problem among the general population anyway. 

I can’t even believe you went for the pain route.  There is information everywhere about that, but for starters CNN did a study on this, but couldn’t finish for ethical reasons.

Comment by Jim on 6/07/11 at 8:09 am

Do you want to ban ear piercing too?
Has it occurred to you that penile cancer rates are low because so many men in this country are circumcised?
As to pain, I have been to countless brit milot and the babies displayed minimal, if any, distress. My own sons are circumcised and I can assure you are glad I did it when they were babies.
If this practice is so vile, where are the complaints from the millions of men in this country who were circumcised?
Also, I happen to know Gary and he is a physician who specializes in medical research.

Comment by Jill D on 6/07/11 at 8:56 am

Yes ban all piercing and cutting of children.

Ear piercing and genital cutting are two different types of body modifications with huge differences in severity. The key words here are choice, consent and autonomy. Let’s let every child grow up and decide for themselves if they want their bodies pierced or cut.

Comment by James Loewen on 6/07/11 at 9:01 am

Ear piercings are technically reverseable if you simply let the hole clear up, and it is almost always done when the child at least has some say in the matter, even if it is usually before 18.  There isn’t any controversy about its effect on hearing like there is about circumcision and its effects on sex. 

The penile cancer argument doesn’t make sense, especially as I am comparing circumcised with intact, and penile cancer rates from the US to Europe are not statistically significant despite a huge difference in circumcision rates. 

As to pain I will defer to heart rate, chocking, difficulty breathing, and stress hormones, over your observations.

Comment by Jim on 6/07/11 at 9:04 am

Jim: what i am trying to understand is,
you are saying that your worried about the child’s rights, and he should make his own decision, but your OK with parents making the decision to kill their fetus in the name of abortion because that night of fun wasn’t about responsibility, and the kid never even has a chance to decide anything in life?
or what about the parents who drag their kids on these peace and loving trips to Africa or Asia, does the kid have a choice in that?
so killing is OK and ruining his summer and or making him him eat seeweed is ok, but circumcision which depends which doctor you ask, may be good for your health, you oppose,, please advise

Comment by To JIM on 6/07/11 at 9:19 am

Since you are having trouble understanding a simple and logical concept, the idea that a child has basic human rights to bodily integrity lets keep it simple and not mix in abortion and eating seaweed with this discussion.

Comment by James Loewen on 6/07/11 at 9:23 am

I don’t know where you got the idea that I am for abortions.  I believe that the child’s right to live takes precedence over your right to avoid consequences. 

Diet/Trips are part of normal living.  This part gets tough as at some point you have to say what is in the normal part of human judgement.  Diet is pretty easy.  The kid has to eat something, and there are many theories about what is and what is not healthy for the kid.  I think we would agree however that parents do not have the right to starve the baby.  I think we also have to say that location falls into the category of normal parenting.

Comment by Jim on 6/07/11 at 9:29 am

ok the seaweed and trips are not important, but it helps my point, by saying that parents dont give a kid many choices, yu educate and mold the child how you would like them to live with your standards and morals
but my main point was about abortion, when a baby is aborted his body is wrangled and sucked out, was he involved in the decision to abort,, please tell me the difference, is the fact that the baby has a heartbeat and a brain not enough for the parent and talk it over with the child? its a living organ in the most simple way of putting it.
so maybe what it comes down to, it is something your uncomfortable with and your imposing your ideas onto other people

Comment by To JIM on 6/07/11 at 9:32 am

As a followup, I am pretty libertarian leaning.  I don’t trust the government at all. However I think that the most fundamental role of government is to protect private property and that includes the body.  Now it is obviously unreasonable to wait until the kid is 18 to decide upon his diet, but I do think the choice should be his regarding any type of body modification.

Comment by Jim on 6/07/11 at 9:36 am

Ummmmmmm….......I guess I didn’t make it clear in the previous comment, but I’m pro-life.  I’m not sure why everyone always assumes that intactivists are pro-choice.  I’ve never actually met anyone who has both views.

Comment by Jim on 6/07/11 at 9:39 am

just out of curiosity, do you take your views of anti abortions to the message boards as much as strongas your doing on this topic,,, anyways, should doctors not be allowed to put any growth hormones and any operations on kids growing bones that are growing wrong, but isn’t life threatening, or how about all the pain by the dentist to fix their overbite , we should ban anything until the kid is 18,, my point is, to religious Jews and Muslims having a circumcision is more important to them being connected to their tribe then these other medical practices which happen all for cosmetic reasons

Comment by To JIM on 6/07/11 at 9:48 am

I really don’t understand what the fuss is. This bill, and any other bill like it, no matter what the supporters claim is nothing more than abunch of religous zealots who want to tell everyone else how to live and have no respect for other ways of thinking or religion. Law or no law, my son had and would have been circumcised. Just as his father was, and my father and his father and so on. It was never a problem for me and has not been for my son. We are Jewish and this is our heritage. There is no harm and it does not take anything away from a baby boy. The people who are making this out to be barbaric are hiding behind that to mask their real agenda which is anti Jewish.

Comment by Brian Dworkin on 6/07/11 at 9:56 am

Lets keep this discussion focussed. Some parents allow children to make choices about what they eat, “Would you like broccoli, corn or carrots as your vegetable this evening?” and others force feed their children insisting the child eat what the parent says.

Some parents cut off part of a child’s genitals organ and others say that the child’s body belongs to that child and they will make such decisions about themselves when they are grown.

Comment by James Loewen on 6/07/11 at 9:58 am

While I feel passionately about FGM and abortions I don’t take to the message boards as much.  I feel that both subjects have enough advocates as it is.  (Ill post more thoughts later, but a coworker came that needs assistance.  (I know I’m a bad employee)

Comment by Jim on 6/07/11 at 10:00 am

As for an excellent discussion about abortion and circumcision see the YouTube video On Abortion and Circumcision uploaded by eequlsfb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgUmnooti_g

Comment by James Loewen on 6/07/11 at 10:00 am

The anti-circumcision people here make ‘rational’ arguments against ‘imposing mutilation to an 8 days old’ They call medical and religious circumcision a barbaric ritual equal to vaginal or genital mutilation, something not fitting for ‘rational’ people, like Jews, or Western-trained doctors, especially if they are educated conscious and caring parents of the 21st century.

Comment by VCPB on 6/07/11 at 10:18 am

bottom line,  if you believe in the torah(bible) then you would continue doing circumcision but prefer it being legal, and if you don’t believe , or think its archaic law, then i see why you are trying to make sense of something you don’t have a feeling or belief for, your searching for answers you can never get unless you believe
so in conclusion, let the “religious zealots” to do it in peace, without being told whats “good for them” and besides there are more doctors who say that if they had to choose if its bad or good for your health, they would lean good, that should be good enough for you to let it be “To believers there are no questions, to non-believers there are no answers”

Comment by To JIM on 6/07/11 at 10:22 am

Any valid point the non-circumcision movement may have is lost in these false educated-moral-non-religious arguments and most especially in their intent to IMPOSE their will and views with a MANDATE to CRIMINALIZE their faith and decisions, telling those who oppose this mandate not only that they are jail-worth wrong, but savages.

Comment by VCBP on 6/07/11 at 10:22 am

Oh, no, they never called the other a savage or jail-worth wrong, they are ‘rational’ not ‘passional’
And if the person wants it they can get it when they chronological age in the time and society they live in indicates that they are non-children anymore (cause that doesn’t change over time and from person to person)
From that herd of oxymorons, they want a ‘rational’ dialogue like “normal” people SHOULD.
Yeah, right

Comment by VCBP on 6/07/11 at 10:28 am

To try to bring this away from antisemitism, if you look at the history if it, its rather frightening.  Just look at some Kellogg quotes.  Even though this type of movement would tend to attract Jew haters, given the abundance of attacking Kelloggs quotes about circumcision and the relative lack of complaining about Jews despite the connection I think it is a mistake to say that most people involved with this just hate Jews.  Most men who are against this were circumcised themselves for secular reasons, and hate it.  As a result they attack the reasons that they were circumcised.

Comment by Jim on 6/07/11 at 11:30 am

Foreskin is an HIV receptor. Get rid of it so you can shtup around..

Comment by Fred on 6/07/11 at 12:20 pm

if this ballot was just to raise awareness of the “possible” complications later in life, and give a religious exemption, i would say the creators of this ballot truly care about other peoples kids, but when they create comic books depicting pious religious men as monsters, and want to throw people into prison for doing a commandment,that has been tradition for thousands of years, then what should i call them? atheist who impose themselves onto others? or “anti Jewish tradition”... anything but calling a spade a spade,, not directed at you personally of course

Comment by To JIM on 6/07/11 at 1:01 pm

I highly doubt that this measure would pass.  I really never expected it to at all.  The good that was going to come would be from the conversation that it would start.  Being frank its kinda weird to start up a topic about penises whether with online anonymity or not.  I don’t know if Hess is antisemitic.  In issue #1 he made a doctor appear just as evil as the Jew in issue #2.  All the same it was a huge lapse of judgement and it makes us all look like bigots.

Comment by Jim on 6/07/11 at 1:13 pm

lapse in judgement or true colors,,, i wouldn’t call him an anti Semite, people don’t like being labeled, but i would say he doesn’t respect other peoples freedom for religion and rights, not just Jewish religion,
he would like everyone to live the way he wants them to live, which is “do whatever makes you feel good at any given moment” which honestly is the main reason we are a morally corrupt decaying society, which cant last, if you let people do what their religion or culture has been doing for centuries, called “tradition”, that is what makes humanity beautiful, living in peace and tranquility without being told your traditions will get you thrown into prison

Comment by To JIM on 6/07/11 at 1:35 pm

To To JIM: Times change. Traditions that once seemed beautiful, like the singing of castrati, may be perceived as a human rights violation by later generations. Genesis 17 commands that slaves be circumcised. For nearly 2000 years, metzitzah b’peh was an integral part of Brit Milah. Now it - and the keeping of slaves - is widely regarded as abhorrent. As has been said many times now, my freedom to practise my religion ends where your body begins, so when it comes to “respect for other peoples freedom for religion and rights” this ban would have enhanced that - for the one person most directly concerned.

Comment by Hugh7 on 6/07/11 at 2:37 pm

Hugh7: do you believe the torah and that its message and teaching is eternal? then this is a fundamental part of our connection to g-d.
regarding the circumcision of slaves,it was done so the slaves would be considered equals with their masters who were circumcised. we don’t have slaves now so that doesn’t apply.
and regarding metzitzat b’peh it still does happen with a variation, b/c the there needs to be a drawing to complete the act.

Comment by To JIM on 6/07/11 at 3:42 pm

I support these bans. I’m Jewish and did not circumcise my sons. It is not my right to permanently alter their bodies in the name of my religion. They can decide for themselves when they are consenting adults what to do with their own bodies based on their own beliefs. That is their right and no one else’s. Many Jews are actually keeping our sons whole these days. A number of our friends and relatives have made similar decisions and the movement to keep Jewish boys whole is quite a growing movement.

Comment by Kelev on 6/07/11 at 4:15 pm

http://www.beyondthebris.com
http://www.JewsAgainstCircumcision.org
“In the 613 mitzvos, we are commanded to:
(N 41) Not imprinting any marks on our bodies (Lev. 19:28)
(N 45) Not making cuttings in our flesh (Deut. 16:1)

Identity

Being circumcised is not a condition of being Jewish. Girls do not need to be circumcised to receive the gifts of covenant, i.e., being bat-mitzvahed. A boy is Jewish if his mother is Jewish from the moment he is born. In fact:
A boy may be excused from circumcision permanently if his health would be endangered by it (ex hemophilia).
Jewish boys in countries where routine circ is not common, such as Holland, may be left intact and yet remain Jews in good standing.

Comment by Greg on 6/07/11 at 4:18 pm

reg: sorry to point out, these “rabbis” who oppose circumcision are probably the same “progressive” rabbis who perform weddings to none Jews, or if you’d like make pork kosher, hey you can quote anyone if you’d like, doesn’t make worth being quoted, such is the life of Wikipedia….

Comment by To JIM on 6/07/11 at 4:21 pm

I think we benefit when we challenge what we know. Sadly, counter efforts to this made Jena Troutman stop proceeding. We are all the less when told to shut up. So continuing education see youtube Leonard Glick “Circumcision”.

Comment by Frank McGinness on 6/07/11 at 4:23 pm

anyway you all i am gonna sign off here, it is getting close to time where we celebrate Shavuot, it is a time that we all go to synagogue and we hear g-d giving us the 10 Commandments at mount Sinai ,, so i would like to wish all of you folks, a happy holiday and if you get a chance try to study some torah tomorrow and maybe just maybe you might internalize it and apply it to your daily life.
Chag Samaeach

Comment by To JIM on 6/07/11 at 4:42 pm

A ritual/religious pin-prick on a baby girl’s genitals, to draw one drop of blood, is called Type 4 female genital mutilation (FGM) and has been illegal since March 1997. All forms of FGM - equal to or less invasive then male circumcision are illegal for ANY reason - including religion. However, a parent can remove a baby boy’s foreskin for ANY reason. These include, “just because” and “I think it looks better”. This is not equal rights under the law and a violation of the, “Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th Amendment, the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, adopted by the United Nations and the Canadian Charter, to name a few.

Comment by DaveS on 6/07/11 at 5:31 pm

Ben Plonie said: ^^ why not simply impose a ban on circumcision with a religious exemption?
The answer is obvious ^^

Friend Ben, you’re not stupid.  Stop your paranoid dreaming and wake up to reality.  The reason we can’t “ban something harmful, EXCEPT in the case of Jewish families” is that chidren of Jews don’t have inferior human rights.  The 14th amendment requires that we can’t fail to protect someone just because of his family’s faith.

Comment by Ron Low on 6/07/11 at 7:14 pm

I’m certain that if we did succeed at passing a bill that banned all but Jewish circumcision it would be struck down on constitutional grounds.  Ironically, only a Jew would have standing to sue the government over it.  And I know several who would, but the only one who could succeed would be one born and mutilated after the ban took effect. 

If the law was worded properly so the religious exemption was tacked on at the end, the constitutional challenge could leave the rest of the law (and thus Jewish babies and all others) intact.

Comment by Ron Low on 6/07/11 at 7:14 pm

When McGill University medical ethicist Dr. Margaret Somerville suggested a ban on infant and child circumcision, but with an exception for Jews, she was trounced by young Jewish men at the conference at Oxford she was speaking at. The Jewish men there were outraged that she wouldn’t stand up for all children, including boys of Jewish parents.

Comment by James Loewen on 6/07/11 at 7:37 pm

It is a shame that the local bill will not go forward, but the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) & Federal FGM Bill already make it a federal crime in the US to alter the genitals of a minor, regardless of ‘custom or ritual’.

Thank G-d my sons had parents who do not keep slaves (that are commanded to be circumcised), stone adulterers, or mutilate children. I pray for those children whose parents lack the moral courage to discard what is now known to be ethically abhorrent.

Those that would be enslaved by statutes in Deuteronomy are now protected from genital mutilation. When will our sons be likewise protected?

Comment by Susan Blustein on 6/09/11 at 6:11 pm

Breaking news- threats were made against the author of the petition and her children.

A comic book is a comic book (abhorrent to me as the images were, at least I spoke openly about my opinion when it was published instead of waiting, like others did, to use it for the publicity against the SF Bill); threatening someone’s children is obscene. 

Whomever made the threats, may you rot (and may the FBI find you & mete out the punishment you deserve). For shame!

Comment by Susan Blustein on 6/09/11 at 6:28 pm

So, is what the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles telling us is that the essential basis of the Jewish religion is mutilating baby boys on the eighth day following their birth?  If that is he essence of Judaism, then as this truth becomes known I expect that anti-semitism will soon have a new birth in America, the likes of which have only been seen before in Europe with its endemic anti-semitism.

Comment by tabrizkeshan on 6/09/11 at 7:10 pm

I am having trouble understanding why it is FINE and DANDY to KILL the same child just months BEFORE the circumcision, but hey, don’t you dare CUT the kid.

HYPOCRITICAL FREAKS!

Comment by Hypocritical on 6/11/11 at 4:30 pm

Classic case of putting words in my mouth.  No one here mentioned anything about abortion.  I’m pro life thank you very much.

Comment by Jim on 6/11/11 at 4:38 pm

Hypocritical said: ^^ it is FINE and DANDY to KILL the same child just months BEFORE the circumcision, but hey, don’t you dare CUT the kid. HYPOCRITICAL FREAKS!  ^^

Appropriate user name choice for you.  I would say the hypocrit is the one who insists a child has a right to be born, but no righ to keep his whole healthy normal perfectly-evolved body.

Comment by Ron Low on 6/11/11 at 6:15 pm

Try a more optimistic view tabrizkeshan, look on the bright side. Another alternative is that as all people (Jews included) look more closely at this issue, which we are now doing, and fully understand circumcision for what it is; taking a new mother’s most precious belonging, her baby, away from the mother’s natural protective embrace, forcing her to override her natural protective instinct while the men sexually wound the child’s penis to match their own wounds, and deeply repressed need to perpetrate that wound, then circumcision will evolve again, and ultimately, in a fair and just society, end.

Comment by James Loewen on 6/11/11 at 6:30 pm

Circumcision is anywhere from innocuous to beneficial, and as such left by American medicine to the discretion of parents. Complications are vanishingly rare and all avoidable. It is called a surgical vaccination with maximum benefits obtained from early application. There is no equivalent procedure for females. And since it is mandatory for Jews, a ban upon it constrains religious freedom. Despite the ineffective hype, an uncircumcised Jewish male is not considered a Jew, and he will not be accepted into a practicing Jewish community, school, or marriage.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 1:51 am

Complications from forced genital cutting (infant and childhood circumcision) are obviously not “avoidable” and according to Dr. Christopher Fletcher of St Vincent’s Hospital in New Mexico, not rare at all. Fletcher has studied the complications of circumcisions forced upon infants and found that when one takes into account poor cosmetic results the complication rate is over 50%.

Tell the grieving parents of a dead baby, or a man whose penis has been so badly damaged from this atrocity that the complications are rare. For people seriously harmed by this abuse that is an insult.

Comment by James Loewen on 6/12/11 at 6:22 am

Greg
(N 41) Not imprinting any marks on our bodies (Lev. 19:28)
(N 45) Not making cuttings in our flesh (Deut. 16:1)

You are quite correct on these quotes. Circumcision is the exception that proves the rule. No other body modification for males, females or animals is permitted by Jewish law. As I have stated, no intactivists have anything to say about the epidemic of piercing and tattooing including on infants and minors and including spaying, docking, cropping, declawing and branding of animals. A token “Well, harrumph, I certainly oppose blah blah blah” is not enough.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 6:25 am

DaveS
I stand with you in opposing all body modification and mutilation with the exception of circumcision for Jews. That is a requirement for citizenship in the Jewish nation, and not subject to the Universal Declaration of Canadian Charter, and is furthermore optional to those who do not wish to join or have their children remain with the Jewish nation.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 6:29 am

James
As stated here early and often, all complications of circumcision are avoidable with competent and trained practitioners. Most circumcisions are not performed by competent and trained practitioners. Most unregulated piercings are performed at the mall by gum-chewing dropouts with purple hair.

According to every available statistic, complications are a fraction of a percent, and if banned except for Jews would be statistically zero. I support that. The social and legal consequences for uncircumcised Jews who wish to practice in a community are beyond insulting, they are devastating.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 6:37 am

Complications of genital mutilation forced upon infants and children are not avoidable after then happen.

Those who are steeped in superstition will continue to do this no matter how harmful the consequences. Those who question (is’t questioning an essence of Judaism?) and are rational will be able to see this for what it is, genital mutilation and abandon the heinous practice of forcing it upon children.

Comment by James Loewen on 6/12/11 at 6:50 am

Ron Low
In line with my answer to Greg, I don’t see why you cannot achieve your purported goal with education campaigns minus the lies and exaggerations that you employ of course. We Jews think our great-grandfathers had it right, and so can you. How about - “Wear the foreskin with pride, like your great-grandfather did!”.

Or “Hey hey, ho ho, World Health Organization’s got to go!”, or “Smegheads of the world, unite!” Well maybe not those.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 6:51 am

In light of Dr. Morris’ (not a Jew or religious) pioneering work in public health epidemiology calling for universal circumcision for all males, perhaps the superstition is on the part of those who deny the facts of the positive health benefits of circumcision. I can foresee a day when doctors will be sued for failure to properly educate parents on those benefits. You have your work cut out for you, har har.

Nevertheless, I disagree with Dr. Morris if only on political grounds as I oppose coercion.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 7:23 am

The Morris you refer to, who calls for universal genital cutting of everyone, is NOT a doctor, he shows, (to put it politely) all the signs of a lunatic sociopath.

Morris’ particular fetish for cutting the genitals of children is never far removed from cir-cum-fetish websites that cater to the most depraved adults who sexually enthuse about sexual surgery on children.

Comment by James Loewen on 6/12/11 at 8:32 am

Ben Plonie said: ^^ I don’t see why you cannot achieve your purported goal with education campaigns minus the lies and exaggerations ^^

I don’t lie.  I certainly state the case in the strongest possible terms, because forced amputations are a non-trivial human rights violation. 

20% of anti-circumcision activists are Jewish.  I can’t support a law that would leave some people unprotected. 

Our society is failing our children. 

(continued)

Comment by Ron Low on 6/12/11 at 10:45 am

Ben Plonie said: ^^ I don’t see why you cannot achieve your purported goal with education campaigns minus the lies and exaggerations ^^

Both male and female non-therapeutic amputations have always been illegal - fitting the definition of malicious wounding, wanton mayhem, aggravated battery, mal-practice, etc. - and society just looks the other way, like we do for motorists going 5 mph over the limit. It’s an enforcement issue.

You can see this illegality easily by just imagining the result if any other healthy normal body part was amputated without a diagnosis of defect or disease, and with no less-drastic remedies tried before resorting to amputation.

Comment by Ron Low on 6/12/11 at 10:46 am

James
Morris is a microbiologist who was out in front of the Langerhans cell as a host for STD’s years before the World Health Organization systematically hammered the science out in the Africa studies.

But you are wasting our time with that kind of objection. We both know that if Morris was a Nobel Prize winning M.D., your closed mind would not be convinced by his expertise or credentials, not when the great whatsisname in the since-closed St. Vincent’s Hospital says whatever.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 7:45 pm

James
Oops, premature submit. I meant to remind you that Morris feels that people like you are the ones with the fetish. In the face of clear and overwhelming evidence of medical benefits vs negligible cost on a societal level, Morris has no patience with emotional obsessions such as

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 7:56 pm

James continued
Recall his characterization as a kind of vaccination. Suppose on a public health, statistical level you knew for a fact that a vaccination program will definitely save a million, and definitely kill a hundred. That is enough to advocate for it, particularly if participation is voluntary. Circumcision is even less onerous as with proper administration there need not be even one negative outcome (although on a statistical basis we assume there may be).

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 7:57 pm

Ron Low
You say that twenty percent of anti-circ activists are Jewish, but neglect to say that only 20 millionths of a percent of Jews are anti-circ activists. Jews on the whole are satisfied that the specialized pleasure-receptive benefits of being a Jew in good standing far outweigh the 20,000 specialized pleasure-receptive nerve endings.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 9:10 pm

Ron Low continued
Not to mention that the majority of intact, uncut males in the world are not having a better time than Jews. According to the Gallup-Healthways Well Being Index, American Jews are the happiest group (including atheists) in America, and their happiness is in direct proportion to their religiosity. By definition, your Jewish anti-circ activists are neither religious nor happy (not a coincidence).

Can’t support the law? Me neither. Eff the law. Why don’t you go play with your 20,000 nerve endings if you think that makes you happier than us?

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 9:11 pm

Ben Plonie said: ^^ Morris feels that people like you are the ones with the fetish ^^

Morris is your God, be honest. 

There is no such thing as a foreskin fetish. 

A fetsih is sexualizing something that is NOT normally part of sex.

Comment by Ron Low on 6/12/11 at 10:16 pm

Ben Plonie said: ^^ a kind of vaccination ^^

What sort of rational evidence would you not reject to debunk this nonsense?

Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth.  Europe has scarce circumcision and 1/3 the HIV incidence the US has.  In half the nations in Africa it is the CIRCUMCISED who have markedly higher HIV incidence. 

Besides, Wawer/Gray reported in 2009 that circumcising Ugandan men made them 50% MORE likely to infect their female partners.  The M-F effect washes even the most rosey estimates of teh F-M effect.

Comment by Ron Low on 6/12/11 at 10:20 pm

Unfortunately for your theory, Jews have lived and died by circumcision for thirty-seven centuries, before Morris’ time. We are not obsessed with circumcision, we just do what we have to do and trust in God; and God comes through. OTOH, Morris makes the point that people like you are often homosexual pedophiles with an obsession with the foreskin. Not you necessarily but we have no reason to doubt it.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 10:31 pm

Your pseudo-statistical associations are easily debunked. Even assuming you are not making them up, if most US men with AIDS were circumcised it was because most US men are circumcised in the first place. Maybe Europe in the period of the study had fewer vectors for AIDS. Your Africa statistics are either bogus or aberrant, as the major conclusions of the WHO studies and recommendations have never beenrefuted.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 10:31 pm

Ben Plonie said: ^^ Morris makes the point that people like you are often homosexual pedophiles with an obsession with the foreskin ^^

Morris is your God. 

And the “homosexual pedophile” is the one saying leave the genitals alone?  Not by chance the one who can’t stand to leave it alone?  Very odd logic your god has.

Comment by Ron Low on 6/12/11 at 10:40 pm

Ben Plonie said: ^^ the major conclusions of the WHO studies and recommendations have never been refuted ^^

You’re wrong.  They based their 2007 advice about adult voluntary circumcision in places with rampant HIV and poor condom uptake on Bailey (Kenya) and on Wawer/Gray (Uganda).  But the WHO has not yet incorporated Bailey 2010 (Kenyans no less likely to have HIV if cut) and Wawer/Gray 2009 (Ugandan men MORE likely to infect partners if cut). 

You can’t just wish for good evidence for your case when it’s not there.

Comment by Ron Low on 6/12/11 at 10:44 pm

Ben Plonie said: ^^ Your pseudo-statistical associations are easily debunked ^^

Association is not causation, but association is proof that circumcison is neither necessary nor sufficient to thwart AIDS.

Comment by Ron Low on 6/12/11 at 10:45 pm

But we don’t get circumcised to thwart AIDS. That’s just a fringe benefit. We do it because God told Abraham to do it and continue doing it. This was later confirmed as necessary if not sufficient to citizenship in the Jewish nation. We have it on faith and experience that God’s instructions are always beneficial to us. Nobody in he entire world but the Jews is required by God to do it, and we are not selling or promoting the idea.

Now quote me where the WHO has reversed its policies and recommendations regarding circumcision in light of Wawer/Gray 2009.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 10:53 pm

The gorilla in the room is that you are working overtime to convince and coerce me and the Jews what to do, and nobody is trying to convince you what to do. As for the gay thing, whether or not you are gay or aware of whether or not you are, this whole thing has a lot in common with the gay marriage debate also taking place here. Gay people seem to care more about what the rest of us think and hat we have to be forced to accept them than about their own lifestyle choices.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/12/11 at 11:09 pm

^^ nobody is trying to convince you what to do. ^^

I’m standing here, a 49 year-old married father of 2, WHO WAS CIRCUMCISED AT BIRTH.  Babies grow up, and form their own views of the world.  They have a basic human right to be left whole.  Circumcision closes the door on a choice that could just as easily wait for his own rational informed input. 

By telling parents they have right to mutilate their children, you’re telling ME I don’t have a right to decide for myself. 

Girls are protected from even a pin-poke to draw one ceremonial drop of blood.  The 14th amendment demands equal protection.  I demand equal protection.

Comment by Ron Low on 6/13/11 at 8:37 am

Well, that explains your craziness on the topic. If you are Jewish you are shyte out of luck, but if not I suggest you track down the insane perverted beasts who did this to you and if they were not acting on proper information and criteria as of 1962 you can still sue your parents, the doctor, the nurse, the hospital, the medical association, the medical instrument manufacturers etc. I caution you that actually killing them will negatively impact your lawsuit.

Please understand that God, the Bible, the Jews and the Rabbis had no designs on your prepuce, may it rest in peace.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/13/11 at 10:37 am

If it helps, the story of Julius Lester and the studies of the majority of African and Korean men should help reassure you that your real or imagined dysfunction and hangups cannot be traced to your circumcision.

You may also take comfort from the reference from the American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement:
“A survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men”
(Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW Circumcision in the United States. JAMA. 1997; 277:1052-1057)

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/13/11 at 10:37 am

As well from the policy statement of the American Academy of Family Physicians:
The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown… many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. Opinions differ about how this decreased sensitivity, which may result in prolonged time to orgasm, affects sexual satisfaction. An investigation of the exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination of the glans of circumcised and uncircumcised men found no difference on comparison. (24) No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction.”

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/13/11 at 10:38 am

I could find more. However in light of the fact that 30% of men globally are circumcised, with 68% of those being Muslim and .06% of those being Jews, if there were definite significant problems we would know it by now. You cite studies that circumcision actually increases injury, discomfort, disfigurement, STD transmission etc. For some reason nobody else is worried about these problems and everybody cites the opposite finding.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/13/11 at 10:39 am

While no medical society recommends routine circumcision, neither do they discourage it in context of religious or cultural norms for the prospective circumcisee. As opposed to any other body modification aside from circumcision. Naturally, they recommend having it done by a competent practitioner, which is pretty much the same as saying “Don’t be an idiot and don’t be circumcised by an idiot”.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/13/11 at 10:40 am

^^ neither do they discourage it ^^

Except Australia, Canada, UK, whose polices call it a violation of the baby’s rights, and Holland which says doctors must “actively and insistently” discourage families from circumcising due to the “absence of medical benefits and danger of complications.”

Just Google “Queens toddler dies from circumcision” or “Baby boy dies after circumcision at London synagogue” and see one of the complications, even when a mohel is in charge.

Comment by Ron Low on 6/13/11 at 8:49 pm

Ben Plonie, you obviously have not yet watched “Functions of the Foreskin” which is available at YouTube and elsewhere, or you would not so flippantly and heartlessly dismiss the symptoms of a forced amputee. 

While you’re looking up studies about comparative sensation, have a look at the ONLY one to date to actually measure the nerve laden foreskin instead of just the surviving parts.  Google “Circumcision Removes the Most Sensitive Parts of the Penis” to find the Sorrells study.

Comment by Ron Low on 6/13/11 at 8:55 pm

To JIM: “do you believe the torah and that its message and teaching is eternal?” What I believe is neither here nor there. The question is what the man believes who has had his foreskin cut off without his consent. While you or I may be certain, we get no guarantee that he will be. “Free exercise of religion” includes the freedom to change one’s religion, a freedom the US Constitution grants to everyone, whatever their parents may have believed.

Comment by Hugh7 on 6/13/11 at 9:50 pm

Ron
And you have obviously missed my comment regarding the reason we Jews circumcise our males. We don’t care about the nerve endings and the purported function of the foreskin.

Let’s use an analogy. We eat kosher food. We do it because we understand that it is God’s prescription and will for us, and that it is furthermore good for us, in a way we may not necessarily understand today. I accept in principle that non-kosher animals and recipes may be or are even definitely more delicious and nutritious than kosher food. But I will gladly choose a dry tuna sandwich on stale bread over the most fabulous non-kosher filet steak personally prepared by Paul Prudhomme.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/13/11 at 9:58 pm

You can call that crazy, but we look down on people captivated by sensual and materialistic priorities. Don’t get me wrong; we like food and we like sex. You don’t have to sell it to us. If we really had to eat dry tuna all the time and have numb, boring sex, then it would be more of a challenge. However, none of us feel that way, and over time we experience the benefits of a life of spiritual discipline. We fast several times a year, we deny ourselves bread over Passover, we don’t swing in every direction. It’s not necessarily the most fun we might have, but neither is flossing and mounting a treadmill, and anyone obsessing on how difficult it is comes off like a shallow moron.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/13/11 at 10:02 pm

As for complications, they are vanishingly rare in spite of the ability of Google to find a needle in a haystack. I told you to Google the complications of piercings and tattoos and routine elective tonsillectomies and other plastic surgery, even on children, and you will find far, far more and more severe complications from those than from circumcision.

But the obvious solution for people like you is to focus on other people like you, not on Jews who have entirely different reasons. I have no reason to think that I would seek to be circumcised if I was not Jewish. But it appears that the decision is not that big a deal according to our American associations.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/13/11 at 10:07 pm

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is when an individual harms another, usually under their care. Attention and self-glorification are achieved through their victim’s subsequent medical treatment.
Violence and abuse are often common in families, passed down.
Munchausen Syndrome in Collective Transmission occurs when such practices become an acceptable part of society often eventuating into full acculturation. In this way societies attach themselves to self-glorification with various explanations of justification. (Dr. Richard L. Matteoli The Munchausen Complex”)

Comment by Frank McGinness on 8/16/11 at 12:03 am

dryer wrote:: ^^ if there were definite significant problems we would know it by now. ^^

We DO KNOW.  “...absence of medical benefits and danger of complications.”

http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

Comment by Ron Low on 8/16/11 at 9:11 am

Ben said: ^^ We don’t care about the nerve endings and the purported function of the foreskin. ^^

I can’t make you care and wouldn’t try. 

The point is you have no moral right to decide on behalf of someone else that THEY don’t care. 

HIS body, HIS decision. 

The government has an interest in protecting people’s individual liberty to be free of such harmful interference, and has created laws to protect every other gender, and every other body part from forcible harm at every other age; excpept in the case of male infant circumcision.

Comment by Ron Low on 8/19/11 at 11:08 am

I used to get excited when I’d hear fellow Jews reaching high political and editorial places.  Then, came Obama and the so called Jews surrounding him, who turn out to be more anti-Israel than our Arab foes.  The NY Times is so anti-Israel that I could care less if she bought the company.  I’ll reserve my enthusiasm until I see a drastic change in their attitude towards Israel. http://www.pelletmillplant.com

Comment by pellet mill on 8/26/11 at 1:27 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

Blog Archive

• By Month
• Categories

• By Month
• Categories