U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/)
-   -   German court outlaws circumcision for boys (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/german-court-outlaws-circumcision-for-boys-214092.html)

maycocksean 08-29-2012 09:31 PM

^Good point.

Jive Turkey 08-29-2012 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caleb8844 (Post 7562483)
It's probably too personal, but I'd be incredibly interested to see if this argument falls right along the lines of those who are circumcised arguing for it vs. those who aren't arguing against it.

I don't think it's too personal, but I just don't want to be the first one to post a picture

maycocksean 08-29-2012 09:40 PM

:lol:

Irvine511 08-29-2012 09:42 PM

Most American males born in the late 1970s were circumcised.

I do agree that most men also dont want to say anything negative about their genitalia.

Jive Turkey 08-29-2012 09:42 PM

;)

And by the way, those people giving you a hard time about your son are straight up assholes

Irvine511 08-29-2012 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maycocksean
My son was circumcised as a part of surgery to correct hypospadias when he was about two.

Circumcision was not a "given" for us, but they used the skin from the circumcision to reconstruct his penis so that the opening of his penis was on the tip rather than on the underside of the shaft. At least that's my understanding.

At any rate the whole process of having our child under major surgery was very hard for us. It wasn't made any easier by the anti-circumcision zealots I came across when researching my son's condition who maintained that even repairing of hypospadias amounted to mutilation. THAT made me angry.



This sounds like an entirely medically necessary procedure and that you did what was right for your son's health.

Much different from a bris.

maycocksean 08-30-2012 05:13 PM

That's how I felt.

But, I also can't say that we wouldn't have had him circumcised if he hadn't had the condition.

Our second son is due in November, and right now, I think we will probably have him circumcised. With our first we weren't really committed either way until he was born and we found out about his condition. But now that the one is circumcised it just feels right to have our youngest circumcised as well.

deep 08-30-2012 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maycocksean (Post 7562977)

Our second son is due in November, and right now, I think we will probably have him circumcised.

Why not just wait until he is 12 years old?

Why deny him the opportunity to decide for himself or the opportunity for his older brother to call him, "dog dick, dog dick".

Danny Boy 08-30-2012 05:59 PM

It's considerably more risky and expensive at 12. It would be done in an OR under general anesthesia.

deep 08-30-2012 06:03 PM

But is it fair to do it to an 8 day old that never even had a chance to play with it?

Danny Boy 08-30-2012 06:37 PM

Who said anything about fair? I'm talkin' 'bout saving some cash.

Liesje 08-30-2012 09:19 PM

Sean congrats!!:applaud:

Moonlit_Angel 08-30-2012 09:30 PM

Seconding that. Wonderful news to hear, Sean :)!

maycocksean 08-31-2012 07:51 PM

Thank you! :D We are excited! :hyper:

BonosSaint 08-31-2012 08:04 PM

Congratulations!

MrsSpringsteen 09-04-2012 09:55 AM

I never heard of that ritual

abcnews.com

Sep 3, 2012 1:47pm
Rabbis Will Defy Law on Circumcision Ritual


Ultra-Orthodox rabbis in New York City say if a proposed law requiring parental consent for a circumcision ritual linked to two infant deaths is enacted they will defy it.

During the ritual, called metzitzah b’peh, a mohel removes the foreskin and uses his mouth to stop the bleeding. At least 11 New York infants are thought to have contracted herpes from the practice, two of whom died and two of whom have irreversible brain damage, according to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

But rabbis insist 5,000-year-old ritual is safe, and say they refuse to tell parents there are any health risks.

“This is the government forcing a rabbi practicing a religious ritual to tell his congregants it could hurt their child,” said Rabbi David Niederman, executive director of the United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg. “If, God forbid, there was a danger, we would be the first to stop the practice.”

Niederman said the research linking metzitzah b’peh to infant deaths is “full of holes,” adding that the ritual is performed safely “tens of thousands of times a year” worldwide, and that babies who aren’t circumcised can also acquire herpes shortly after birth.

“We are convinced that the data is flawed and there’s no risk whatsoever,” he said, adding that “safeguarding the life of an infant” is one of the Torah’s most important principles.

Most modern mohels remove the blood with a sterile pipette. But about two-thirds of boys born in New York City’s Hasidic communities, who are ultra-Orthodox, are circumcised in the oral suction manner, Rabbi David Zwiebel, executive vice president of the Orthodox Jewish organization Agudath Israel of America, told ABC News in March.

The Department of Health argues parents should be informed of the risks before making a decision. Since 2004, it has received “multiple complaints from parents who were not aware that direct oral suction was going to be performed as part of their sons’ circumcisions,” according to a public notice.

The law would require mohels to explain the oral suction procedure and its risks, including the possible transmission of herpes simplex virus, and have parents sign a waiver.

Niederman said the government should “do what they feel is right” and advise against the ritual if they think there’s a risk.

“But don’t put it on the mohel,” he said. “Don’t force parents to sign something that is against their religious beliefs.”

The city’s Health Department is scheduled to vote on the proposed law Sept. 13. But Niederman worries a vote to enact the law would force rabbis, who are “among the most law-abiding citizens,” to put their religious beliefs first.

“When it comes to the law, we are all there – it’s our obligation, according to our religion. But not when the law goes against our religion,” he said.

BEAL 09-04-2012 01:15 PM

I like the idea that because one has a religious belief, that the law should not apply to them.

I'm not sure how anyone could consider putting one's mouth over a child's penis is OK and acceptable in any situation or culture.

I get culture, and I may not understand other socities and their practices. What I do think should be universally accepted is that if any act is deemed hurtful or dangerous to another person, especially a child, then it's immoral to go through with it.

If there was no religous tone to this story, I think nearly 100% of us would consider it disgusting and wrong.

MrsSpringsteen 09-04-2012 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BEAL (Post 7564647)
I'm not sure how anyone could consider putting one's mouth over a child's penis is OK and acceptable in any situation or culture.

I don't understand that either. I guess they would say there's nothing sexual about it whatsoever, that other people are putting their own "perversions" on it. I would imagine this ritual has existed for a very long time in ultra Orthodox Judaism.

I didn't even know there was such a thing as ultra Orthodox, I just knew about Orthodox.

Pearl 09-04-2012 02:54 PM

I do find that part disturbing even if it isn't supposed to have any sexual meaning to it. Just get yourself a pedophile rabbi and then you have a big problem there.

I don't know if I would get any of my boys circumcized, if I have one. I probably won't because I'm not Jewish and I don't see the need.

Jive Turkey 09-04-2012 03:28 PM

"Oh, you've been sucking on little baby penises for 5000 years? My bad! As you were"


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com