Infant Contracts Herpes Through Orthodox Jewish Circumcision Ritual

[Askold]

Now that I got over my rage after hearing this I'd like to know how that one professor feels about this method. You know, this one:
http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=3874.0

I mean if the kid hadn't gotten herpes in this occasion his arguments would fit right in.

And now I have to go unleash this new fit of rage.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I guess it's too much to ask for male genital mutilation to be illegal, but is it really too much to ask to make it illegal to suck on baby penises?

Apparently part of religious freedom entails being able to put a baby's wang in your mouth. Who knew?

Hey, if it can honestly and without any sense of irony entail cutting up someone else's wang, putting said doodle in your mouth seems like a rather minor concern in comparison.

But at least there are medical benefits to circumcision, right? Supposedly it lowers the risk of HIV infection for heterosexual males, and also reduces the risk of cervical cancer and other problems in female partners.

[ThunderWulf]

It still baffles me that such an archaic form of circumcision is still practiced to this day, even if by a minority of Jews.

[Art Vandelay]

I guess it's too much to ask for male genital mutilation to be illegal, but is it really too much to ask to make it illegal to suck on baby penises?

Apparently part of religious freedom entails being able to put a baby's wang in your mouth. Who knew?

Hey, if it can honestly and without any sense of irony entail cutting up someone else's wang, putting said doodle in your mouth seems like a rather minor concern in comparison.

But at least there are medical benefits to circumcision, right? Supposedly it lowers the risk of HIV infection for heterosexual males, and also reduces the risk of cervical cancer and other problems in female partners.

I'm sure cutting off their finger tips would reduce the risk of nailbed infections. Or a double mastectomy would eliminate the chance of breast cancer. However, I doubt many would consider that a valid reason to permanently remove a body part from someone who's incapable of consenting to it.

[clockworkgirl21]

Also a good place to say that medical associations all over the world disagree with the AAP's stance that circumcision is beneficial at all.

http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Nieuws/Nieuwsarchief/Nieuwsbericht-1/International-physicians-protest-against-American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-policy-on-infant-male-circumcision.htm#.UWKD9aPgits.facebook

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I guess it's too much to ask for male genital mutilation to be illegal, but is it really too much to ask to make it illegal to suck on baby penises?

Apparently part of religious freedom entails being able to put a baby's wang in your mouth. Who knew?

Hey, if it can honestly and without any sense of irony entail cutting up someone else's wang, putting said doodle in your mouth seems like a rather minor concern in comparison.

But at least there are medical benefits to circumcision, right? Supposedly it lowers the risk of HIV infection for heterosexual males, and also reduces the risk of cervical cancer and other problems in female partners.

I'm sure cutting off their finger tips would reduce the risk of nailbed infections. Or a double mastectomy would eliminate the chance of breast cancer. However, I doubt many would consider that a valid reason to permanently remove a body part from someone who's incapable of consenting to it.

Yeah, chopping off fingers is totally analogous there, Art

Also a good place to say that medical associations all over the world disagree with the AAP's stance that circumcision is beneficial at all.

http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Nieuws/Nieuwsarchief/Nieuwsbericht-1/International-physicians-protest-against-American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-policy-on-infant-male-circumcision.htm#.UWKD9aPgits.facebook

Thanks for at least posting something of substance. This, at the very least, suggests there is an ongoing debate on the benefits of circumcisions. I do know that the CDC acknowledged that complications certainly occurred, they just downplayed them as rare enough to not be a valid criticism of the practice.

[Art Vandelay]

I guess it's too much to ask for male genital mutilation to be illegal, but is it really too much to ask to make it illegal to suck on baby penises?

Apparently part of religious freedom entails being able to put a baby's wang in your mouth. Who knew?

Hey, if it can honestly and without any sense of irony entail cutting up someone else's wang, putting said doodle in your mouth seems like a rather minor concern in comparison.

But at least there are medical benefits to circumcision, right? Supposedly it lowers the risk of HIV infection for heterosexual males, and also reduces the risk of cervical cancer and other problems in female partners.

I'm sure cutting off their finger tips would reduce the risk of nailbed infections. Or a double mastectomy would eliminate the chance of breast cancer. However, I doubt many would consider that a valid reason to permanently remove a body part from someone who's incapable of consenting to it.

Yeah, chopping off fingers is totally analogous there, Art

Finger tips, not the whole finger.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I guess it's too much to ask for male genital mutilation to be illegal, but is it really too much to ask to make it illegal to suck on baby penises?

Apparently part of religious freedom entails being able to put a baby's wang in your mouth. Who knew?

Hey, if it can honestly and without any sense of irony entail cutting up someone else's wang, putting said doodle in your mouth seems like a rather minor concern in comparison.

But at least there are medical benefits to circumcision, right? Supposedly it lowers the risk of HIV infection for heterosexual males, and also reduces the risk of cervical cancer and other problems in female partners.

I'm sure cutting off their finger tips would reduce the risk of nailbed infections. Or a double mastectomy would eliminate the chance of breast cancer. However, I doubt many would consider that a valid reason to permanently remove a body part from someone who's incapable of consenting to it.

Yeah, chopping off fingers is totally analogous there, Art

Finger tips, not the whole finger.

Thank you, that distinction makes your analogy only slightly less ridiculous.

EDIT: To clarify what my opinion on circumcision actually is, I'll say that I'm more or less undecided but I lean towards what the existing body of research currently says on the subject. The CDC asserts that studies demonstrate that it lowers risk of HIV/STD infection in heterosexual partners, and if that is actually the case then I don't see why circumcision is a big deal--especially since I had that at birth and have suffered no ill effects from it. Now, if someone can conclusively prove the opposite then I would say that the procedure is arbitrary, archaic and unnecessary. But just trying to say it's like lopping off other body parts and not trying to make a scientific argument isn't going to, and shouldn't, convince anyone of anything.

[Sleepy]

EDIT: To clarify what my opinion on circumcision actually is, I'll say that I'm more or less undecided but I lean towards what the existing body of research currently says on the subject. The CDC asserts that studies demonstrate that it lowers risk of HIV/STD infection in heterosexual partners, and if that is actually the case then I don't see why circumcision is a big deal--especially since I had that at birth and have suffered no ill effects from it. Now, if someone can conclusively prove the opposite then I would say that the procedure is arbitrary, archaic and unnecessary. But just trying to say it's like lopping off other body parts and not trying to make a scientific argument isn't going to, and shouldn't, convince anyone of anything.

You didn't suffer ill effects from it. Doesn't mean others haven't. And it's removal of a part without the person's consent. I can see why someone would be angry about it.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

EDIT: To clarify what my opinion on circumcision actually is, I'll say that I'm more or less undecided but I lean towards what the existing body of research currently says on the subject. The CDC asserts that studies demonstrate that it lowers risk of HIV/STD infection in heterosexual partners, and if that is actually the case then I don't see why circumcision is a big deal--especially since I had that at birth and have suffered no ill effects from it. Now, if someone can conclusively prove the opposite then I would say that the procedure is arbitrary, archaic and unnecessary. But just trying to say it's like lopping off other body parts and not trying to make a scientific argument isn't going to, and shouldn't, convince anyone of anything.

You didn't suffer ill effects from it. Doesn't mean others haven't. And it's removal of a part without the person's consent. I can see why someone would be angry about it.

I already said that ill effects do happen, and it doesn't seem to be widespread to my knowledge. And yeah it's the removal of a body part but, I just personally can't bring myself to get that worked up over a foreskin. I think I'd be more upset if I had lost my pinky toe at birth. Again, that's just my personal thoughts as the subject applies to me--if anyone who was circumsized at birth feels violated and angry, they have every right to do so; I'm not going to tell people what to feel.

[Sleepy]

I understand, I was just responding to the "I don't see why circumcision is a big deal" portion. It's fine that you're not angry over loss of your foreskin, but you have to be able to acknowledge that it's quite acceptable for people to be angry over it. The part I just quoted seemed to imply otherwise. And even if it's merely removal of the foreskin, it's still a procedure done without consent, and that's wildly unreasonable, to me.

[Art Vandelay]

And even if it's merely removal of the foreskin, it's still a procedure done without consent, and that's wildly unreasonable, to me.

Ayup. That's about the crux of the issue.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

And even if it's merely removal of the foreskin, it's still a procedure done without consent, and that's wildly unreasonable, to me.

Ayup. That's about the crux of the issue.

If it's a procedure that carries medical benefits with it, then I personally feel that outweighs the issue of consent on the part of an infant. After all, and I realize that this is not a perfect analogy, I might have grown up to be an anti-vaxxer and, as such, be angered that I received vaccinations without my consent. We know the vast benefits of immunizations (which makes the case far more concrete here) and so we recognize that even though the infant did not consent, the medical reasons for vaccinations outweigh the consent issue. It's different in the circumcision case because A) you actually lose a part of you, however small, during this procedure and B) the medical benefits appear to be hotly contested by both sides. So, like I said before, if there are medical benefits to having your child circumsized (and I have to empathize with parents such as my own who made the decision based on the advice of medical doctors) then they may very well outweigh the rights of an infant who may, in the future, disagree with his parent/guardian's decision to have him circumsized. All in all, for me it's a matter of medical benefits as opposed to consent.

[Art Vandelay]

And even if it's merely removal of the foreskin, it's still a procedure done without consent, and that's wildly unreasonable, to me.

Ayup. That's about the crux of the issue.

If it's a procedure that carries medical benefits with it, then I personally feel that outweighs the issue of consent on the part of an infant. After all, and I realize that this is not a perfect analogy, I might have grown up to be an anti-vaxxer and, as such, be angered that I received vaccinations without my consent. We know the vast benefits of immunizations (which makes the case far more concrete here) and so we recognize that even though the infant did not consent, the medical reasons for vaccinations outweigh the consent issue. It's different in the circumcision case because A) you actually lose a part of you, however small, during this procedure and B) the medical benefits appear to be hotly contested by both sides. So, like I said before, if there are medical benefits to having your child circumsized (and I have to empathize with parents such as my own who made the decision based on the advice of medical doctors) then they may very well outweigh the rights of an infant who may, in the future, disagree with his parent/guardian's decision to have him circumsized. All in all, for me it's a matter of medical benefits as opposed to consent.

But you said yourself that the supposed medical benefits not exactly agreed upon by the medical community. Not to mention, there are a whole host of complications and other problems it can cause besides the loss of sensitivity. I really don't see how it's justifiable to leave something as personal and permanent as removing a body part up to the whims of the parents (who'll happily do it for reasons as asinine as "a boy should look like his father") when the only arguments in favour are some rather minor and unproven medical benefits. In fact, the only reason there's even controversy over it in the first place is because it's culturally accepted.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

And even if it's merely removal of the foreskin, it's still a procedure done without consent, and that's wildly unreasonable, to me.

Ayup. That's about the crux of the issue.

If it's a procedure that carries medical benefits with it, then I personally feel that outweighs the issue of consent on the part of an infant. After all, and I realize that this is not a perfect analogy, I might have grown up to be an anti-vaxxer and, as such, be angered that I received vaccinations without my consent. We know the vast benefits of immunizations (which makes the case far more concrete here) and so we recognize that even though the infant did not consent, the medical reasons for vaccinations outweigh the consent issue. It's different in the circumcision case because A) you actually lose a part of you, however small, during this procedure and B) the medical benefits appear to be hotly contested by both sides. So, like I said before, if there are medical benefits to having your child circumsized (and I have to empathize with parents such as my own who made the decision based on the advice of medical doctors) then they may very well outweigh the rights of an infant who may, in the future, disagree with his parent/guardian's decision to have him circumsized. All in all, for me it's a matter of medical benefits as opposed to consent.

But you said yourself that the supposed medical benefits not exactly agreed upon by the medical community. Not to mention, there are a whole host of complications and other problems it can cause besides the loss of sensitivity. I really don't see how it's justifiable to leave something as personal and permanent as removing a body part up to the whims of the parents (who'll happily do it for reasons as asinine as "a boy should look like his father") when the only arguments in favour are some rather minor and unproven medical benefits. In fact, the only reason there's even controversy over it in the first place is because it's culturally accepted.

Wait, wait, full stop. What do you mean "look like his father"? Parents want the dicks of fathers and sons to look alike? I feel like I'm missing something.

EDIT: And before you say it, I mean more than just my foreskin.