Infant's death at Maimonides Hospital linked to circumcision

And this is yet another reason to get rid of religion all together.

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
www2.jehovahs-witness.net...

i'd rather be goyim!

Found this link, a little graphic I warn- but it gives some pretty good details on the history of the procedure and the religious significance... Why would anyone want to ruin the pleasure of sex for a man and woman- God/Nature/whatever makes man, makes sex feel good.... why ruin that?!

Chazal clearly state that one who has sexual relations with an uncircumcised man finds it difficult to leave him; this seems to me to be the most compelling reason for circumcision." According to the greatest of religious arbiters, one of the reasons for circumcision is the desire to reduce sexual ability and enjoyment for Jewish men …

Circumcision, Talmud Style

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by el1jah

 

And that is religion: it is okay to mutilate (and therefore reduce pleasure from sex for both men and women) but it is not okay to eat pork or shellfish despite modern sanitation. Go figure.

A bit off topic but are you familiar with where shellfish live? On the sea floor. So when all the other fish are swimming above them leaving there feces behind to sink to the bottom, what then do you think those shellfish eat on the bottom of the sea floor? Shiite. As the saying goes "you are what you eat" With that being said I avoid Shellfish entirely.

How about pork? Well it clogs the arteries and is a huge cause for heart disease....Suddenly that book with all it's 'rules' are making some sense. Modern sanitation can't take away the fact that shellfish eat shiite and pork causes heart disease. So maybe this circumcision has a reason other than 'mutilation' to which has yet to be realized much like the dangers of pork were not realized till modern times....

To each his own. Free will is a good thing.

BTW: I'm circumcised and sex actually feels really good and my fiance would agree so I don't know where you get that it reduces pleasure?

edit!

It reduces pleasure. It does not eliminate it. And the amount it is reduced depends on how much skin is removed, and which type of skin it is. The lighter colored skin is the sensitive skin that is supposed to be on the inside of the skin sheath. If you have a lot of lighter colored skin, you got to keep more of the sensitive skin. If your scar is near the glans, with very little lighter colored skin, you got the bad kind of cut. There is also a band of connective tissue that is called the frenulum, which is another highly sensitive area. It looks like a little band of skin coming down from the glans on the bottom side. Sometimes this is spared (yay!) and sometimes not (boo!). My personal opinion is that every man should have a right to decide for himself if he wants to have a chunk of his penis cut off. It is his penis. Not his mom and dad's. Not his church's. Not the government's. The only reason they say to do it is because it is a billion dollar a year industry for the hospitals, and they use the tissue for cosmetic and medical products. The tissue is used to make tegaderm and other bandage-type products. It goes into skin care lotions. They sell it for product testing and for experimentation. That's why circumcision is "good" for you!

But go ahead, be a damn fool and let them cut off your baby's dinkies.

reply to post by el1jah


this is why I will never circumcise my children.

You can always get your foreskin back by stretching the skin. It'll take some time but it'll happen. Always seemed weird to me that parents would mutilate their children, but I guess it is what it is...

Originally posted by mosheh24

The fact that there is blood tells me they aren't doing it right to begin with because if they did it on the 8th day like mandated in Torah there should be no blood unless it is because they cut more foreskin than mandated by Torah or did it after 8 days.

This morning when i woke up i couldn't stop thinking about this topic, hoping i would find more answers and explanations about the oral aspect of this all. Unfortunately it is exactly how they described it to be. This being the first time ever i heard such a thing i must say it is a very shocking and disturbing practice.

The thing that makes me angry are views/explanations and reply's like the quoted one above. You sir, are downplaying this whole issue on purpose when you of all people should be condemning such practices. It is not an atheist's place to explain to the religious people why something is wrong, you should know better and change the outdated and barbaric aspects of your own religion, making your own religion better and more humane, more appropriate in 21st century.

When a human gets a skin cut they bleed, no matter if they are 8 or 800 days old so stop quoting old folktales, you should know better.

that....sucks...

i notice that when couples have kids they always think 'oh the nurse said to do circumcision, we should go do that'
As if it was like a cool trend or some thing, i would never do that to my kid

Disgusting vile pedos, bet this is similar to old sacrificial rituals where the babies blood is giving them magic powers. Bit like raping and sacrificing a baby.

Originally, in the Old Testament, circumcision was just a ritualized little snip, removing only a tiny amount of skin. It was a gesture of obedience to god, not a medical procedure. When Jews encountered the Greeks and Romans, they were jealous of their unmutilated peers and embarrassed by their "exposed" members. In those days, athletes competed nude, and an exposed glans was considered to be an amusing sight, because it indicated sexual arousal. So the Jewish men began to wear these weighted metal penile sheaths to stretch the skin back over the glans. Well, this ticked off the Jewish religious leaders, who instituted a new kind of circumcision in which all the skin of the penile sheath is removed. In this procedure, the skin is crushed by the little clampy thing, sliced off and then the mohel sucks on the baby's penis to collapse the blood vessels. It was done to make sure no Jewish man could later uncircumcise himself by stretching the skin. There just wasn't enough skin left to get ahold of and stretch.

Circumcision came to America around the 1900's. It was introduced by a quack doctor named John Harvey Kellogg (yes, the inventor of corn flakes). People believed back then that masturbation drained the body of its life force and caused insanity, laziness and even physical illnesses like TB and whatnot. Kellogg wrote: "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." They also burned off the clitorises of little girls with acid for the same offense.

Eventually, female circumcision waned in popularity, but male circumcision has been prevalent in the USA since WWII, when the Army hyped it up as protective against STDs (it's not). It is good money for the hospitals. It is done to children, so men grow up thinking their altered anatomy is normal, and they have the same thing done to their children. In the end, the only thing circumcision really prevents is a doctor's wallet from being empty.

If you have a lot of patience, you can uncircumcise yourself by gently stretching the skin, but you have to apply traction for several hours every day, and it takes at least two years to grow the two to four linear inches of skin that is required to put the hood back on your hotrod. Google "foreskin restoration" for the details. There are even forums and support groups for men who are in the process of doing this, and foreskin restoration devices are sold on ebay and on various related websites.

reply to post by rodredux


Thank you for that disturbing bit of information, you seem well informed. I did not know it was possible to re-stretch the foreskin. It sounds like a painful ordeal. Furthermore I can only assume most men would be embarrassed to talk about doing it, partially because it's their 'hot rod' and also because they might feel cheated by the fact they had no choice in the matter, and would rather accept it as 'just', so the trend continues generation to generation... Are there any REAL benefits to circumcision? They say it prevents HIV so it is very popular throughout Africa (both male and female), and because they are told it prevents HIV men usually go on having unprotected sex since they are so mis-informed, spreading the virus even more. Female circumcision I had heard about years ago, its very disturbing, I dont know how people can go through with doing this to a baby, I believe it is far more dangerous than male circumcision.

some comedic relief-
When I was in highschool I was dating a jewish girl, her mother just remarried and she explained how her step dad had to get circumcized as an adult.... lets just say our relationship did no last much longer.

reply to post by el1jah


Circumcision has more benefits than not doing circumcision. There is a risk of everything you are doing. You could die doing nearly anything and people die doing nearly .... everything. Circumcision should be done by a professional not some moron who doesn't even keep his instruments clean.

Pain
Risk of bleeding and infection at the site of the circumcision
Irritation of the glans
Increased risk of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis)
Risk of injury


That is the risk faced with circumcision. Pain is also much greater if you wait till adult hood and it takes 5 minutes as a young child and about an hour as an adult to get circumsized.

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

That is just some very basic information. I am sorry , but circumsizing an infant is way easier than an adult and studies have shown that there are some of the benefits.
--------------
Dec. 14, 2006 -- Male circumcision may cut a man's risk of contracting HIV in half, according to two new studies.

The preliminary finding is based on two studies of men living in the African nations of Kenya and Uganda, in areas where heterosexual transmission of the virus is common.

Because of the promising results, the studies were halted early to give all participants the option of getting circumcised.

"Circumcision is now a proven, effective prevention strategy to reduce HIV infections in men," says Robert Bailey, PhD, in a University of Chicago news release.

Bailey, a University of Chicago epidemiology professor, worked on one of the African studies.

However, he cautions, "Circumcision cannot be a stand-alone intervention" against HIV transmission.

www.webmd.com...

reply to post by milkyway12


I'm just not buying it- sorry but too many conflicting stories to tell me that one should adjust what is natural.
Furthermore, many people stand to benefit from this practice for me not to see something fishy about it.

It looks like there is just as many studies 'promoting' as there are 'refuting'. I'll stick to trusting what nature gave me. I've never had ANY of the problems mentioned promoting circumcision, not even a bladder infection..... not that I rememebr anyways. And practicing safe sex is a given, whether you are cut or not.

Here are some links

Male circumcision and the HIV/AIDS myth
More circumcision myths you may believe: Hygiene and STDs

Initially, when reading, "oral suction", I had a good giggle because I assumed it was either a typo or an error.

To my horror, I hadn't misread. Seriously? I feel like part of my soul died as I read that. So a mohel can suck the blood from a babies penis and it not be a sex crime? What the hell? Oh, yeah, right, because it's "tradition".

Complete and total bullsnip.

reply to post by ofNight


yeah you can see in my inital posts I thought it was obviously not what I thought.... butttt it is.

According to other posters this is rarely still practiced, and those who do practice this use a glass tube of sorts... So the number who still mouth it is probably very small. Doesnt make it any more right but its a little bit of a relief, I thought this was a giant conspiracy.

This is why the baby (and their twin brother) most likely died, the Mohel directly passed herpes to the children orally.

Check this out for more info- Circumcision, Talmud style

Originally posted by el1jah
reply to post by ofNight

 

yeah you can see in my inital posts I thought it was obviously not what I thought.... butttt it is.

According to other posters this is rarely still practiced, and those who do practice this use a glass tube of sorts... So the number who still mouth it is probably very small. Doesnt make it any more right but its a little bit of a relief, I thought this was a giant conspiracy.

This is why the baby (and their twin brother) most likely died, the Mohel directly passed herpes to the children orally.

Check this out for more info- Circumcision, Talmud style

Thank you for the information! I had skimmed through the thread and was a bit too horrified to read every response, so you provided a great summary and helpful information.

What parent would let their child get circumcised in such a way? Even with a glass tube, I'd be petrified. A grown man has no business sucking the blood from a child's genitalia -- tradition or not. Just because he's a mohel makes it legal? That's ridiculous. If anyone else was engaging in such a horrific act, they'd be deemed a sexual predator and wouldn't be allowed to come near children.

There are those who legitimately believe that what the mohel does isn't sexual. To that I say: that's ridiculous. Who's to say it isn't sexual? If I walk in on a man engaging on such an act with a child, or anyone for that matter, it'd be pretty interesting to hear their view that it wasn't sexual.

Not being circumcised has more risks then being circumcised. You have your objections to the practice but that doesn't mean you can infringe on a persons religious beliefs, nice try Obama. While I don't agree with the practice of metzizah b’ peh, it is clear that this particular priest has herpes. Up to four infants have contracted herpes from his procedure.

reply to post by CaptainNemo


obama?

How about we stop religious beliefs from infringing on the childs freedom to choose. Like I said before, start a religion, chop of people tongues I couldn't care less, just let them choose as adults.

And the proof not being circumcised is riskier can be refuted.