Not yet a member? Register now.
Username
Password

February 9, 2010 4:32 am PST

Advertise | Subscribe | Email Newsletter | Archive Search | |

	NIF fracas: Defending Israel or destorying democracy? ‘Savior’ of Tel Aviv, Goel Ratzon, accused of enslaving women Clinton: Iran, N. Korea pose gravest threats Report: Yishai moves to legalize Jewish ownership of East Jerusalem building Abbas reportedly agrees to indirect peace talks Costa Rica elects Jewish VP Israel’s high court frees pro-Palestinian activists on bail German Jewry’s top leader to step down Reassign Jerusalem reporter, N.Y. Times’ public editor says Britain logs record number of anti-Semitic incidents

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback.

Privacy Policy

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

I must say that Michael Chabon exhibits a distinct lack of guts and integrity to allow anyone to mutilate his children in the absence of a good reason.

I document some of those good reasons in the Cicrumcision Wars that you reference above, as for example

I offer you http://www.circinfo.net/index.html run by a non-Jewish medical doctoral professor and researcher in genital cancer virology, molecular biology and other areas, with many medical interests and causes. He feels that circumcision is almost a medical necessity today. He makes a case that the nutty anticirc people are led by pedophiles with foreskin fetishes here http://www.circinfo.net/anti_circumcision_lobby_groups.html which includes a point-by-point FAQ refuting all of the arguments they flog in every forum they infest.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/04/09 at 11:03 pm

just scanning that Ben, a lot of the arguments look childish, but i do believe there are legitimate reasons, especially the reduction of sexually-transmitted diseases.

Comment by Proton Soup on 8/05/09 at 2:25 am

I am sincerely curious as to which of the arguments you found childish. Mine or the doctor’s? And please point out any childinh points I bring up in this post as well.

If you scanned http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/circumcision_wars_christians_opt_for_jewish_bris_20080820/, you will have noted that for Jewish Jews who want to be part of the Jewish people and participate in Jewish practices to carry out the Jewish god’s will and commandment, those other things are secondary. Jews are not ‘pro-circ’. They are pro-Jewish.

In other words, suppose it could be proven that circumcision actually increased the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. But that following the lifestyle and social relations prescribed in the Torah eliminated the spread of sexually transmitted diseases; why, the Jews would still perform circumcision. Just as someone might say that a kosher deli meat and fried food diet is not as physically healthy as eating lean organic pork or as delicious as seafood. It’s just not on our radar screen.

It happens to be a plus that circumcision is protective. Not surprising for a people who believe in a loving god whose instructions in the largest sense are beneficial and at least benign, but good to know for those who don’t.

Back to matters of science and principle, did Chabon discuss his views and concerns on navel and nip and tongue and even ear piercing, or the infectious complications of transsexual surgery and hormone treatments and extensive tattoos, let alone Brazilian waxing? Of course not. If one is a true ‘intactivist’ as they like to be called, there would be activism on these fronts. There would be activism at least with regard to Muslim circumcison which is at least a hundred times more numerous than Jewish circumcision.

The total number of circumcision procedures for the purpose of Jewish citizenship requirements is very tiny - Jews are one in five hundred and Jewish males are one in a thousand of the population. Once again, by sheer coincidence the progressive stance is against Jewish practice among Jews, and uninterested in similar and larger offences globally.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/05/09 at 4:19 am

Ben Plonie said “....Did Chabon discuss his views and concerns on navel and nip and tongue and even ear piercing, or the infectious complications of transsexual surgery and hormone treatments and extensive tattoos, let alone Brazilian waxing?”

Navel and nip and tongue and even ear piercing, transsexual surgery and hormone treatments, extensive tattoos, or Brazilian waxing are not forced on nonconsenting minors compared to genital mutilation on minor children. There is a big difference.

Comment by Henry on 8/05/09 at 9:21 am

Ben Plonie said “It happens to be a plus that circumcision is protective.”

We should all remember that the “benefits” of circumcision are thus far only perceived benefits, not scientifically prove. The latest studies done in Africa have very serious experimental flaws that put the conclusions in serious jeopardy. The studies were done in Africa instead of Europe or America for a reason.

Comment by Henry on 8/05/09 at 9:29 am

well, let’s look at this thing about wanting to paint all those opposed to circumcision as pedophiles. http://www.circinfo.net/anti_circumcision_lobby_groups.html

“Interestingly, one of these individuals was a pediatrician from Brisbane. Most pediatricians are well-intentioned. However, clearly this specialty would attract male medical graduates with a sexual predilection for children.”

and now let’s flip that around and argue it from the other side.  Clearly, being a Rabbi is a specialty that would attract males with a sexual predilection for children.  they get to be close to children, touch boys’ penises, and perhaps even put their mouths on them.

also, it’s a little funny wanting to see the lack of foreskin as ‘manly’.  well, some cultures might not look at it quite that way.  for them, the appearance of the glans might represent sexual arousal, and therefore be considered lewd.  what could be more exciting to a pedophile priest than the sight of a sexually ‘aroused’ child?

i am not opposed to circumcision fwiw, but i don’t think those unsophisticated arguments are going to help your cause.  quite the opposite.

Comment by Proton Soup on 8/05/09 at 10:24 am

Henry
You say “...not forced on nonconsenting minors compared to genital mutilation on minor children.

Let’s just agree or admit that all of the elective barbaric procedures I name have a much higher rate of complication than circumcision.

You are making a point, but not the point you think you are making. The Jewish view is quite the opposite. Rather than mutilation, the exision of the foreskin is considered to be a completion or perfection. The statistics on the multiple across-the-board benefits of circumcision bear this out. Obviously the earlier in life this takes place the better for the health outcome of the recipient. To skip this procedure would be a form of neglect and abuse.

Similar benefits accrue of course to non-Jewish males, but as in so many areas it is not the job of the Jewish people to force people to do things for their own good but to serve as an object lesson to illustrate God’s guidance to humanity, which they are free to take or leave. I really have no idea why anyone who is not a Jew would perform a circumcision on an infant. Nor do I care to be honest. As far as I am concerned I wish the Muslims would give up circumcision, and perhaps through the courageous efforts of Michael Chabon they will. Haha.

I don’t even know why I bother to give you the respect of a rational person. The studies in Africa were so unmistakable that they had to be discontinued because to delay circumcision in the control group would mean condemning them to an earlier death. They were done in Africa because the HIV/AIDS rate in Africa is exploding.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/05/09 at 7:02 pm

Proton Soup
You are just using this forum as a form of amusement. The website you are quoting is loaded with medical/scientific documentation. Because the case against circumcision is irrational, the owner of the website can be forgiven for any disagreement you may have as to speculation about the reason for such opposition. You may also want to acknowledge that that aspect of the issue is peripheral. The page whose link you provided has abundant backup to its premise.

On the other hand, the ‘rabbis’ reference is bogus. For a procedure deemed by Jews to be of paramount importance, somebody has to do it. The important thing to realize is that I have no cause as such. Therefore I do not require ‘arguments’, other than sufficient documentation to refute the efforts of those who really have no business in the matter.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/05/09 at 7:28 pm

don’t complain about a link that you provided.  the guy is demonizing people in a way that you would be absolutely livid about were it done that way to you.

Comment by Proton Soup on 8/05/09 at 7:40 pm

Ben Plonie said: ”Let’s just agree or admit that all of the elective barbaric procedures I name have a much higher rate of complication than circumcision.” Besides infant circumcision, what other elective barbaric procedure forced on normal, healthy, non-consenting minors has a higher complication rate than circumcision?”

Ben Plonie said: “The Jewish view is quite the opposite. Rather than mutilation, the exision of the foreskin is considered to be a completion or perfection.” I have heard this from my Jewish friends and colleagues many times. They, however, agree that this is not a “rational” view.

Ben Plonie said: “The statistics on the multiple across-the-board benefits of circumcision bear this out. Obviously the earlier in life this takes place the better for the health outcome of the recipient.”  A quick review of the medical literature reveals that circumcision has been medically justified for a variety of reason, including, but not limited to prevention or cure of epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental retardation, insanity, urinary tract infection, cervical cancers, penile cancer, and now HIV infection. While in training to become a pathologist, I remember attending a seminar in which we scientifically evaluated the research done to support the claims made. We quickly found out that there either there was never real research performed or the research protocols/conclusions drawn from the research projects were seriously flawed. The newest research on HIV infection and circumcision in several African countries as a preventative measure is also not holding up against the scrutiny by the scientific community. The research is so bad that it took some arm twisting for Lancet to publish the results of these studies, after initially flat out refusing to do so.

Comment by Henry on 8/06/09 at 4:26 pm

Ben Plonie said: “To skip this [circumcision] procedure would be a form of neglect and abuse.”
The various ethic groups engaging in female circumcision sometimes come to the same conclusion. That, however, does not make it a valid medical argument. In fact, many medical groups in various countries vehemently disagree and are trying to outlaw both male and female nonmedical circumcision of minors.

Ben Plonie said: “Similar benefits accrue of course to non-Jewish males, but as in so many areas it is not the job of the Jewish people to force people to do things for their own good but to serve as an object lesson to illustrate God’s guidance to humanity, which they are free to take or leave. I really have no idea why anyone who is not a Jew would perform a circumcision on an infant. Nor do I care to be honest. As far as I am concerned I wish the Muslims would give up circumcision, and perhaps through the courageous efforts of Michael Chabon they will. Haha.”  If circumcision is the best thing for males, why in God’s name would you begrudge gentiles from engaging in this procedure?

 

Ben Plonie said: “I don’t even know why I bother to give you the respect of a rational person. The studies in Africa were so unmistakable that they had to be discontinued because to delay circumcision in the control group would mean condemning them to an earlier death. They were done in Africa because the HIV/AIDS rate in Africa is exploding.”  It seems to me that you have little or no training in basic or medical research, but take whatever is published about circumcision on the web that seems to support your claims as valid information. I find it actually kind of ironic since it were the ancient Jews who first allowed questioning accepted teaching and thereby advanced science tremendously. The studies on circumcision and HIV performed in Africa are so tremendously flawed that no valid conclusion can be drawn from them up to this point. If you had research experience you would know that studies are sometimes discontinued not because it is unethical to continue them but of fear that data collected later will negate your hypothesis, a real blow for people who have spent much time and effort to set it up. The real reason why the HIV/circumcision studies were/are done in Africa is that the researchers would have never been able to pull these of in Europe or America because of procedural restrictions and the fact that people are on average much more educated.

Comment by Henry on 8/06/09 at 4:27 pm

Proton Soup
I have no reason to complain about the link I provided. You are being either careless, dishonest or both. In any case non-serious. I have looked at that link again, and the lengthy page it references is rational and well-developed, and cannot be summarized with your out-of-context quote.

The core of the argument is that anti-circumcision advocates are so irrational and their vehemance so out-of-proportion to the imagained issues that there is something else going on, i.e. an unhealthy agenda such as pedophilia. It makes sense if we are seeking to explain the nonsensical aspect of the debate,and the doctor provides backup for that theory. If you have a better theory that explains the bizarre and extreme examples of denial of the anti-circ activists, then have at it. Whether you are right or wrong about the motivation does not alter the facts.

As regards Jews, we practice circumcision because the creator of the universe, god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob commanded it of them and unto all their generation forever and aye, Amen. The proper way to answer this is: There is no god. Or, there is but he is some other god. Or, the Bible is false or at least non-authoritative. Or, Abraham et al are just legends. Or, they are real but the Jews are not real. Whatever.

In light of those factors, everything else is somewhere between secondary and irrelevant.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/06/09 at 11:24 pm

ben, offhand i can think of two types of anti-circ people i’ve run across.  one seems to be of an atheist, anti-religious persuasion.  the others are mostly hysterical whinging vaginas.  what percentage of either of those might also be pedophiles, i have no idea, there are some in every population.

i’m actually not against circumcision if that’s not clear.  i think it’s neither here nor there.  my point, which you still don’t seem to get, is that your accusations are wreckless.  i would have hoped that by reversing the situation you would be able to have empathy for when other peoples are demonized unfairly, but you seem especially resistant to such an ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.

Comment by Proton Soup on 8/07/09 at 11:28 am

There is at least one other anti-circumcision group, the one consisting of people who are genuine in their belief that inflicting unnecessary, permanent, nonmedical body modifications (male and female circumcision procedures, facial scarring, head binding, foot binding, tattooing, etc.) on minors are wrong, immoral, and/or unethical. Many here in the US and elsewhere in the developed world feel these types of procedures should be illegal.

Comment by Henry on 8/07/09 at 1:42 pm

Proton Soup
You have become hopelessly tangled up in your efforts to refute the irrefutable. Read back and you will see that I have not accused anybody of anything. The doctor on the http://www.circinfo.net/ website did, and he is not Jewish and there is nothing about Jews, God or religion on his whole site that I noticed. If he associates anti-circ activism with pedophilia it is for him to say, and don’t discount the possibility that he right, based on the evidence he provides and the care he takes in documentation of his materials. Since it seems I have to underscore the point, he is not saying that pediatricians are pedophiles, he is saying that those obsessed with the topic may well be. That is where your analogy fails. Jews are not obsessed with circumcision, but it is a gatekeeper of their identity.

My own experience with anti-circ is that it comes from antisemites, sometimes Jewish ones who demonize everything about Judaism as a form of therapy or in revenge for whatver hang-ups they may have as being of Jewish origin. I have never seen an anti-circ activist agitate against Muslims or Native Americans or Australian Aborigines who practice circumcision. I have never heard of ‘intactivists’ agitating against any other form of neck-lengthening, tooth-filing, tongue-forking etc.

Jews have circumsized themselves for ages based on spiritual and secular terms; spiritualy it is a requirement for bearing the covenant of Abraham, and secularly it is a requirement for citizenship in the Jewish nation. While we feel good about it, we don’t ask for permission or approval or understanding, and we don’t seek to justify it. We don’t care if anyone else does it, and are not activists in its cause. There is no significant Jewish opposition to circumcision including author Chabon; it is the single most universally observed Jewish practice of all and in many periods of history Jews have risked their lives to have it performed. Not because it prevents cancer and STD’s but for the reasons above.

For the sake of those with no religious affinity or knowledge, who are legitimately concerned, it is useful to point out that it is a minor and brief procedure that is at least innocuous and increasingly shown to be beneficial. And to come full circle, people like Chabon are cowardly to perform circumcision on their children if they really think it is mutilation with no justification.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/08/09 at 10:53 pm

Henry,
It is not possible to counter your posts with a straight face. Any idiot can Google web and news using -
Africa circumcision
or
AIDS circumcision
or any other keywords and variation on the topic and decide whether or not the circumcision reasearch is flawed. The Africa data is the biggest threat imaginable to anti-circ activists, and their efforts have been funded by an anti-circ Texas millionaire.

On the other hand, the latest research has shown that aside from research showing that circumcision does not decrease sexual pleasure in males, the female sexual partners of circumsized males have greater sexual satisfaction and more esthetic pleasure in the cut partner. This was introduced at the 5th International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention (IAS 2009). With that kind of evidence, there are going to be customers for circumcision regardless of AIDS.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/08/09 at 11:49 pm

And just to save time, Henry, let me clarify once again that on purely political grounds I agree with you, Chabon and all the pro-smeghead forces. And not because I begrudge anyone the proven benefits of circumcision, but because the debate is a total non-seqiteur; apples vs. bananas. My interest is in the preservation and continuation of classical Jewish identity in the form it has taken for thrity seven centuries and will have thirty seven thousand centuries from now. I have a secondary interest in satisfying pests that it is no big deal (certainly as pertains to them) and to back off from bugging the Jews, who are at a statistical 100% in being content with the procedure and are coming from a different value system with proven superiority in every social and public health marker. And you may wish to acknowledge that as in so many areas circumcision for Jews is the exception that proves the rule on the religious ban on every other type of bodily modification.

While your ostensible interest is in promoting a natural ideal and non-coercion of minors, I have yet to see activism (websites, blogs, Yahoo Groups non-profit organizations etc.) or a record of accomplishment in combatting bodily modifications other than circumcision, ALL of which have morbidity and mortality rates far higher than circumcision and many of which are performed upon minors. So I wish you success in having circumcision and all other bodily modifications banned worldwide within the constraints of religious freedom.

Just out of curiosity, where do you stand on the kosher slaughter issue?

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/09/09 at 7:09 am

Ben Plonie said: “Any idiot can Google web and news using - Africa circumcision or AIDS circumcision or any other keywords and variation on the topic and decide whether or not the circumcision reasearch is flawed.”

This might be the case for many who are not educated in scientific research or medicine. Many of us in medicine and/or medical research though know that the reasons why the research flaws regarding circumcision are so easily found on Google are that they are so obvious, even to the untrained eye. Furthermore, we evaluate the pros and cons of circumcision, or any other medical topic for that matter, on their own merits, not whether they can be found on Google, in a newspaper, in a smut magazine, or in a reputable medical journal. For example, even you hint at the possibility that female sexual pleasure might be increased by a mere look at a pen!s that is different or unusual, in this case circumcised (“….more esthetic pleasure in the cut partner.”). The African studies suggesting that the female sexual partners of circumcised males have greater sexual satisfaction, did not contain this control group, which means that any voyeuristic change in the partner’s pen!s ( piercing, scarring, coverage with whipping cream, etc) could have resulted in a similar increase in sexual satisfaction. And then I wonder whether these same women would have found the same increase in sexual satisfaction, had they known of the study that suggests that women partners of circumcised men with HIV are 50% more likely to contract HIV. Thus, circumcision per se may have had little or nothing to do with it.

Ben Plonie said: “The Africa data is the biggest threat imaginable to anti-circ activists, and their efforts have been funded by an anti-circ Texas millionaire.” 

The medical scientific community is not threatened by any type of scientific data. However, it is very much concerned about which conclusions can validly be drawn from the studies. As I have stated before, some in the medical community have blatantly overstated and/or drawn absurd conclusions from “research” they performed so that medical journals ended up publishing reports of circumcision preventing/curing epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental retardation, insanity, urinary tract infection, cervical cancers, and penile cancer. Now there are reports that circumcision MAY prevent HIV infection in African tribes.  Although many in the medical research community have pointed out experimental flaws in the research performed, those who are in need of justifying routine infant circumcision, either their own or those of their children, have been quick to use the data for that purpose.

Ben Plonie said: “On the other hand, the latest research has shown that aside from research showing that circumcision does not decrease sexual pleasure in males, the female sexual partners of circumsized males have greater sexual satisfaction and more esthetic pleasure in the cut partner. This was introduced at the 5th International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention (IAS 2009). With that kind of evidence, there are going to be customers for circumcision regardless of AIDS.” 

Again, as already stated before, the research studies have many flaws that preclude us in the medical research community from reaching any kind of valid conclusion on this matter. If you had some research training, it would be worthwhile to elaborate.

Comment by Henry on 8/10/09 at 12:52 pm

Ben Plonie said: “And just to save time, Henry, let me clarify once again that on purely political grounds I agree with you, Chabon and all the pro-smeghead forces. And not because I begrudge anyone the proven benefits of circumcision, but because the debate is a total non-seqiteur; apples vs. bananas. My interest is in the preservation and continuation of classical Jewish identity in the form it has taken for thrity seven centuries and will have thirty seven thousand centuries from now.”  Does this mean you still perform animal sacrifices? It is my understanding that this religious activity has fallen by the wayside, but I may be wrong. If Judaism and Jewish identity is dependent on animal sacrifice and circumcision, then I think Judaism is in deep trouble. My Jewish friends and colleagues tell me that their Jewish identity stems from being born to Jewish mothers and that they and their uncircumcised children are just as Jewish as their circumcised counterparts. They are also quick to point out that the Jewish people did not always circumcise, that there are circumcision-free periods in Judaic history.
Ben Plonie said: “I have a secondary interest in satisfying pests that it is no big deal (certainly as pertains to them) and to back off from bugging the Jews, who are at a statistical 100% in being content with the procedure and are coming from a different value system with proven superiority in every social and public health marker.”    So you would be in favor of female circumcision, tongue excision, or other mutilations performed on minors, as long as it was done for religious reasons and the parents were content with it? What about parents who for religious reasons refuse life saving medical treatment for their children, e.g. blood transfusions, chemotherapy etc?  As a pathologist I often come across medical cases where our team cannot say “unremarkable circumcision,” that is to say that the pen!s was without question anatomically compromised. The affected individuals had to live their whole lives (minus eight days, of course) with abnormalities that surely must have impacted their lives. As someone who believes in “first do no harm” and takes that oath seriously, I also am concerned about those circumcised as minors who regret having been circumcised or even worse, having been injured beyond what may be considered a “normal” circumcision. And then I am obviously abhorred when someone dies as a result of circumcision, as did my neighbor’s nephew about 20 years ago. I believe that everyone has an inherent right to life and bodily integrity. However, if men or women of age seek to have body modifications done for religious or voyeuristic reasons, I have no problem with it, as long as society does not have to pick up the tab for the procedure or any costs as the result of any complications that may be incurred.

Ben Plonie said: And you may wish to acknowledge that as in so many areas circumcision for Jews is the exception that proves the rule on the religious ban on every other type of bodily modification.”  It would be best if the exception for circumcision was removed from this “rule.” It would save many boys, men and families much agony, and even some lives.

Comment by Henry on 8/10/09 at 12:53 pm

Ben Plonie said: “While your ostensible interest is in promoting a natural ideal and non-coercion of minors, I have yet to see activism (websites, blogs, Yahoo Groups non-profit organizations etc.) or a record of accomplishment in combatting bodily modifications other than circumcision, ALL of which have morbidity and mortality rates far higher than circumcision and many of which are performed upon minors.”  My interest is not necessarily the promotion of the natural ideal, but rather that of the bodily integrity of every human being. I would argue, for example, that a baby born with 6 fully functioning fingers and toes should not loose the extra digits simply to look normal or fit into the natural ideal. Even in these cases of abnormalities, “activism” has increased to let the afflicted choose later what medical procedure, if any, they want to have done. You once more stated without providing any specific examples that there are body modifications performed on minors that have morbidity and mortality rates far higher than circumcision. What nonmedical/medically elective procedures do you know that are routinely performed on nonconsenting minors and have higher complications than those observed following circumcision? Perhaps you can enlighten us.
Ben Plonie said: “I have never seen an anti-circ activist agitate against Muslims or Native Americans or Australian Aborigines who practice circumcision. I have never heard of ‘intactivists’ agitating against any other form of neck-lengthening, tooth-filing, tongue-forking etc.”  Many of my medical colleagues and I are against these and other body modifications, but then again I don’t think of myself and my colleagues as intactivists, but rather ethicists. Also, I am not aware of Native Americans practicing circumcision. In my experience, very few of them get circumcised.
Ben Plonie said: “Jews have circumsized themselves for ages…” If Jews circumcised themselves, I would not have any problem with it. It is forced on mostly 8 day-old boys without any real anesthesia and without any medical benefit that we can point to.
Ben Plonie said: “We don’t care if anyone else does it [circumcision], and are not activists in its cause.”  Did you not say earlier you wished Muslims would stop circumcisions? Are you not saying that all Jews should circumcise their children?
Ben Plonie said: “There is no significant Jewish opposition to circumcision….” I guess that depends on the definition of “significant” and “Jewish.”  If we can believe published figures, 60% of Swedish Jews do not circumcise. A significant number of my Jewish friends and colleagues had “naming ceremonies” for their children without circumcision.

Comment by Henry on 8/10/09 at 12:54 pm

Ben Plonie said: “For the sake of those with no religious affinity or knowledge, who are legitimately concerned, it is useful to point out that it is a minor and brief procedure that is at least innocuous and increasingly shown to be beneficial.”    Perhaps people should know that the inner layer of the foreskin in almost always still attached to the glans pen!s via the synechia and needs to be torn off before it can be cut off. It’s more like peeling an unripe orange. In addition the frenulum is cut. No anesthesia is given, although the inner layer of the foreskin and the frenulum are the most sensitive “skin” of the male body. In a hospital setting, the foreskin is crushed by a clamp, which is left in place for about 15 min to cause hemostasis in order to prevent bleeding when the foreskin is cut off. Again this an excruciatingly painful procedure as can be judged by the high blood cortisol levels of the baby. No medical organization recommends routine infant circumcision because of lack of medical benefits. To say that it is increasingly shown to be beneficial is rather disingenuous, to say the least. In addition, the medical literature reports a complication rate of 1 to 4% or so, including partial or full penile amputation and death, hardly innocuous in my opinion. At least it wasn’t in the case of my neighbor’s nephew’s case about 20 years ago. He is 100% dead and to this day, his parents have a very difficult time dealing with their decision to circumcise him. To say to those who suffered major complications that the procedure is minor and brief is no consolation. They are 100% affected for a whole lifetime.

Ben Plonie said: “And to come full circle, people like Chabon are cowardly to perform circumcision on their children if they really think it is mutilation with no justification.”  It sounds like that he and his wife came to the realization that circumcision is mutilation once their boys were older. They should be congratulated for educating themselves, even if it was too late to spare their children from unnecessary pain and harm. Perhaps it will be of benefit for their grandchildren.

Ben Plonie said: “Just out of curiosity, where do you stand on the kosher slaughter issue?” In my opinion, any slaughter of animals should ensure that there is minimal discomfort to the animals. Electrocution before exsanguination is perhaps the best method. For killing of animals in research studies I prefer injection with pentobarbital. I don’t know how that fits into Jewish kosher slaughter, I do believe that animals cannot be anesthetized before cutting their throats according to Muslim kosher laws.

Comment by Henry on 8/10/09 at 12:55 pm

Brad, my response to Henry ended up in spam and my notification to you didn’t make it because of a full mailbox.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 8/11/09 at 3:10 am

The doctor on the http://www.circinfo.net/ website did,
THE OWNER OF THAT WEBSITE, BRIAN MORRIS, IS NOT A DOCTOR BUT AN ACADEMIC VIROLOGIST. HIS VIEWS ARE NOT ENDORSED BY AUSTRALIAN DOCTORS OR PUBLIC HEALTH EXPERTS.
IN PARTICULAR, HE IS NO PEDIATRICIAN OR UROLOGIST.

If he associates anti-circ activism with pedophilia it is for him to say, and don’t discount the possibility that he right, based on the evidence he provides and the care he takes in documentation of his materials.
He is not saying that pediatricians are pedophiles, he is saying that those obsessed with the topic may well be.
WHAT HE CLAIMS IS TOO INFLAMMATORY AND CRIMINAL TO BE ALLOWED TO STAND AS A FAIR COMMENT. IN MY EXPERIENCE, ANTI-CIRC ACTIVISTS COME IN THREE FLAVOURS: MOTHERS, MEN ANGRY ABOUT BEING CIRCUMCISED AS INFANTS, AND GAY MEN WITH FORESKIN FETISHES. THE FIRST TWO GROUPS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF PEDOPHILIA.

THERE ARE INTACTIVISTS WHOSE MOTIVATION INCLUDES PLEASANT SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS WITH INTACT MEN. BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE FOR WHICH THIS IS THE CASE ONLY DESIRE PLEASURE FROM FULLY ADULT FORESKINS.

Jews are not obsessed with circumcision, but it is a gatekeeper of their identity.
IT IS SAD THAT WHAT IS IN MANY WAYS THE MOST SOPHISTICATED RELIGION ON EARTH GRANTS SUCH A CENTRAL ROLE TO THE MALE GENITALIA. TO FIXATE ON THE GENITALIA IN THIS FASHION IS A HALLMARK OF THE PRIMITIVE MIND.

My own experience with anti-circ is that it comes from antisemites, sometimes Jewish ones who demonize everything about Judaism as a form of therapy or in revenge for whatver hang-ups they may have as being of Jewish origin.
YOU ARE MISTAKEN. MANY INTACTIVISTS LIVE IN PARTS OF THE WORLD WHERE NO JEWS LIVE. THEY ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANTISEMITISM IN ANY FORM. JEWISH INTACTIVISTS CAN BE FAIRLY SECULAR, BUT THEY ARE ALSO PROUDLY JEWISH.

I have never seen an anti-circ activist agitate against Muslims or Native Americans or Australian Aborigines who practice circumcision. I have never heard of ‘intactivists’ agitating against any other form of neck-lengthening, tooth-filing, tongue-forking etc.
YOU ARE MISTAKEN ON ALL COUNTS. INTACTIVISM ALSO DENOUNCES FGM, SURGERY ON INTERSEX CHILDREN, AND THE FOOTBINDING FORMERLY PRACTICED IN CHINA. MUSLIM CIRCUMCISION IS ALSO DEPLORED.

...and secularly it is a requirement for citizenship in the Jewish nation.
THIS IS MISTAKEN. AND IF IT WERE TRUE, WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ASSERT IT? WHEN A MAN CLAIMING TO BE A JEW WANTS TO IMMIGRATE TO ISRAEL, THE ISRAELI AUTHORITIES DO NOT REQUIRE THAT HE BE CIRCUMCISED.

While we feel good about it, we don’t ask for permission or approval or understanding, and we don’t seek to justify it. We don’t care if anyone else does it, and are not activists in its cause. There is no significant Jewish opposition to circumcision including author Chabon;
WRONG. TALK TO RONALD GOLDMAN IN BOSTON. TO NORMAN COHEN IN DETROIT. TO LAURIE EVANS IN WESTCHESTER CO. TO JED DIAMOND AND MIRIAM POLLACK IN CALIFORNIA.

IT IS TRUE THAT FRUM JEWS HAVE PLAYED NO PART IN THE SPREAD OF CIRCUMCISION AMONG ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES. BUT I FEAR THAT SOME LIGHTLY RELIGIOUS JEWISH MEDICAL AUTHORITIES HAVE DONE THIS.

it is the single most universally observed Jewish practice of all and in many periods of history Jews have risked their lives to have it performed.
YOU SEE THESE FACTS AS PART OF JEWISH GLORY. FOR ME, THEY ADD TO THE TRAGIC SIDE OF JEWISH HISTORY. PRIDE GOETH BEFORE THE FALL. WHERE IS GOD’S LOVE? THE CONCERN FOR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS? ISRAEL AS A LIGHT UNTO THE NATIONS? THE GREAT JEWISH TRADITION OF USING THE MIND TO ADD TO THE STORE OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING?

..it is a minor and brief procedure that is at least innocuous and increasingly shown to be beneficial.
UNPROVEN.

And to come full circle, people like Chabon are cowardly to perform circumcision on their children if they really think it is mutilation with no justification.
RATHER, CHABON IS SCARED OF WHAT PEOPLE HOLDING ATTITUDES SUCH AS YOURS COULD DO TO YOUR BOYS WHEN THEY ARE OLDER.

MANY JEWISH MOTHERS HATE BRIS BUT HAVE BEEN WILLING TO OPEN UP ABOUT THIS ONLY IN THE LAST 20 YEARS. OFTEN, THESE WOMEN ARE AFRAID OF SPEAKING OUT UNLESS THEY ARE CONFIDENT THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE NOT WITHIN EARSHOT.

Comment by consa on 10/29/09 at 1:42 pm

you seem a little obsessed with the topic, consa.

Comment by Proton Soup on 10/29/09 at 2:05 pm

We agree for a change, Soup.

consa,
So what you are saying is that Brian Morris is a trained scientist and educator; a good combination for a science education website. Certyainly enough to understand all the pediatrics and urology he needs to know for an informed opinion.

And I don’t see why we need to credit your anonymous ‘experience’ on the topic. For all we know, you are a pedophile yourself, possibly in denial. As far as pleasure goes, the large-scale Africa data seems to indicate that the female partners of men circumsized for the survey found them to look and smell better after the procedure.

Neither is your opinion on the practices of the most sophisticate religion on earth. Genitalia certainly play a central role in all human social relationships, and it is an irrelevant religion indeed which does not incorporate that fact.

You must realize that simply contradicting me does not invalidate what I say. A little proof would be nice. Just for example, I said there is no significant Jewish opposition to circumcision. You say I am wrong because ‘RONALD GOLDMAN IN BOSTON. TO NORMAN COHEN IN DETROIT. TO LAURIE EVANS IN WESTCHESTER CO. TO JED DIAMOND AND MIRIAM POLLACK IN CALIFORNIA” oppose it. Who? As I said, there is no significant jewish opposition to circumcision. I suppose these people are pediatricians and urologists, unlike Brian Morris. What do you mean they are not pediatricians and urologists? I thought…

Nobody is forcing anyone to circumsize,not even Jews except perhaps by peer pressure and expectation. If Chabon can’t stand up to that, he is a pussy and cannot be taken seriously, along with ‘MANY JEWISH MOTHERS’, ‘RONALD GOLDMAN IN BOSTON. TO NORMAN COHEN IN DETROIT. TO LAURIE EVANS IN WESTCHESTER CO. TO JED DIAMOND AND MIRIAM POLLACK IN CALIFORNIA.’ Nobody is going to do anything to his children, except to decide whether their Jewish values match those of other Jews. The answer will of course be ‘No’.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 10/29/09 at 8:25 pm

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:
URL:

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