Despite the fact that this isn’t a “ban” – merely a required postponement until children are older – it hasn’t stopped the Jewish and Muslim communities declaring the measure “an affront to our basic religious and human rights.”
“This is the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust,” declared chief rabbi of Moscow Pinchas Goldschmidt (apparently no stranger to hyperbole). “Circumcision represents the basis for belonging to the Jewish community. It has been practiced for 4,000 years and cannot be changed.”
While Europe – and Germany especially – is incredibly sensitive to accusations of discrimination and prejudice against the Jewish community, there are many who argue that this restriction should be rolled out even wider, and all elective circumcisions banned until children are old enough to make the decision for themselves.
Likewise, religious tradition relating to circumcision has been under intense scrutiny recently, especially after 11 babies in New York became infected with a life-threatening strain of herpes following circumcisions performed by ultra-Orthodox Jews. Two died and two developed brain damage following metzitzah b’peh, a ritual in which the mohel sucks blood from a circumcised infant’s penis with his mouth.
In America alone, more children die as a result of complications from circumcision than from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), but while the message “back is best” is pounded home to new parents to prevent SIDS, circumcision is still promoted by doctors as a legitimate medical “procedure” despite the risks.
What do you think? Is restricting circumcision really an affront to religious freedom? Or do the freedoms of infant boys, and the principle of “genital integrity” outweigh those considerations?
“This is the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust,” declared chief rabbi of Moscow Pinchas Goldschmidt (apparently no stranger to hyperbole). “Circumcision represents the basis for belonging to the Jewish community. It has been practiced for 4,000 years and cannot be changed.”
While Europe – and Germany especially – is incredibly sensitive to accusations of discrimination and prejudice against the Jewish community, there are many who argue that this restriction should be rolled out even wider, and all elective circumcisions banned until children are old enough to make the decision for themselves.
Likewise, religious tradition relating to circumcision has been under intense scrutiny recently, especially after 11 babies in New York became infected with a life-threatening strain of herpes following circumcisions performed by ultra-Orthodox Jews. Two died and two developed brain damage following metzitzah b’peh, a ritual in which the mohel sucks blood from a circumcised infant’s penis with his mouth.
In America alone, more children die as a result of complications from circumcision than from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), but while the message “back is best” is pounded home to new parents to prevent SIDS, circumcision is still promoted by doctors as a legitimate medical “procedure” despite the risks.
What do you think? Is restricting circumcision really an affront to religious freedom? Or do the freedoms of infant boys, and the principle of “genital integrity” outweigh those considerations?
To me this is an atach on religouse freedoms. Yes, in all things there is a bit of risk. But this is the life sytle as it has been for thousands of years. It is a life all are raised to embrace. Although, all children may not choose to follow, no would like to see the poles of how many now adults regreat that their parents had it done. I doubt, there would be many objections.
I'd rather see greater oversight of the process and conditions under which the practice is performed rather than banning it (safety/health issues). Granted, I'm circumcised so I have no basis of comparison, but I certainly don't feel like I've lost out on anything in life without a foreskin. Male circumcision is a way different creature than female "circumcision" (which removes the entire clit and surely fucks up ability to orgasm and is clearly designed to restrain women socially).
There is so much disinformation... and editorializing... here.
Goldschmidt is not hyperbolizing. Throughout history, Jews (and tehir oppressors) always considered the circumcision rite to be at the core of Judaism, alongside Sabbath and the calendar.
"There are many who argue," is, to use WikiPedia's description for it, a weasel. There are not that many, just some vocal, agenda-driven opinions, their numbers dwarfed by those who disagree (some of whom are agenda-driven, some of whom are not). Do your research. Don't forget, news slants towards the new, the sensational, the unusual opinion, skewing things towards "equal time" for all opinions.
The NYC metzitza b'peh cases are also controversial for both sides. There were not 11 cases -- there were six, spread out over a decade. None of those cases have been demonstrated to be caused by the mohel, but the health department does not want to consider a thorough examination. (Doesn't help that the subjects feel under attack, and therefore don't cooperate.) In the most recent case, the family of the dead child has gone to a community newspaper and stated that the health department willfully misconstrued the case, and ignored the fact that an an older brother (a toddler) is the likely source of infection, having been known to be shedding during the time of transmission.
No offense to other countries or religions, but I've done my research long before this article came about & have made the choice to never circumcise our little boy (if we ever have one.) There is no medical reason, so there is no reason I will put my child through that. If they want it done, We'll PAY for the anesthesia once they make that decision and instead of choosing for them and having it done with no pain meds or anesthesia