Circumcision

[Winter]

The fight in San Francisco is heating up over the right for people to choose circumcision for their infants with an anti-Semitic comic titled "Foreskin Man". It's pretty bad! What are your thoughts on circumcision? Mine are pretty set in stone since it's a mark of the covenant between G-d and the Jews. But seriously, check out this comic!

Anti-Circumcision Group Publishes "Anti-Semitic" Comic

The San Francisco group attempting to make infant circumcision a misdemeanor crime has published a comic strip the ADL and others are calling anti-Semitic. Titled "Foreskin Man," the comic pits a blond hair, blue eyed superhero (Foreskin Man, pictured below) against characters such as "Dr. Mutilator," "Mohel Man" (pictured right) and a gun-wielding Orthodox Jewish man named Jorah.

 

[Gary]

I think it should be the choice of the parents to have the procedure done or not.

It shouldn't be up to some anti-Semetic agenda to populate the world with ant eaters. It's a choice parents have the right to make for their children according to their personal beliefs and preferences.

 

[BukeyeJackson]

I think it should be the choice of the parents to have the procedure done or not.

It shouldn't be up to some anti-Semetic agenda to populate the world with ant eaters. It's a choice parents have the right to make for their children according to their personal beliefs and preferences.

Brother Gary from what I've read they want to remove that right from the parents. Those pushing it believe it's a "overkill" over the parents right when it steps up to genital mutilation. So they want the age moved to 18 or something I don't think I could make that decision.

 

[Gary]

Brother Gary from what I've read they want to remove that right from the parents. Those pushing it believe it's a "overkill" over the parents right when it steps up to genital mutilation. So they want the age moved to 18 or something I don't think I could make that decision.

I'm aware of that. Bro. Winter asked my opinion, and I gave it. What it boils down to is "Those pushing it" are slamming a religion to get their point across.

"Overkill" is when legislation trumps parental authority. Parent's should have the right to choose.

 

[FamilyMan]

"Overkill" is when legislation trumps parental authority. Parent's should have the right to choose.

So Mote it Be!

 

[Casey]

Dead set against. It serves no medical purpose whatsoever- the studies claiming it lowered the rate of penile cancer have been discredited due to small sample size and poor study technique.

My main problem is that while I respect it as a religious ritual, I disagree with it being performed on infants. What if the child grows up to reject the parents' religion? I was born, raised, baptized and confirmed Catholic. I left the church at 15, and I'm now simply Deist. That ritual is specific to a religion I no longer practice.

In a number of religions, baptism isn't performed on infants. Why? They can't understand the religion, so they can't belong to it. I think circumcision should be viewed in the same light and reserved for those old enough to actually understand and desire that religious connection.

 

[Winter]

Regardless of the infant's innability to understand the significance, every male Jewish child is obligated to bear the mark of the Covenant.

 

[Gary]

So, because you don't like it and or you are no longer associated with a religion that supports it, you think it's OK to legislate the choice of others?

Circumcision wasn't solely done to prevent cancer. It also reduced the risk of certain infections. It is not only a religious custom, it is also a cosmetic preference for some families. Regardless of the reason, parents have rights.

 

[Casey]

So, because you don't like it and or you are no longer associated with a religion that supports it, you think it's OK to legislate the choice of others?

Circumcision wasn't solely done to prevent cancer. It also reduced the risk of certain infections. It is not only a religious custom, it is also a cosmetic preference for some families. Regardless of the reason, parents have rights.

They certainly do. That does not obligate me to agree with it.

 

[Winter]

In a number of religions, baptism isn't performed on infants. Why? They can't understand the religion, so they can't belong to it. I think circumcision should be viewed in the same light and reserved for those old enough to actually understand and desire that religious connection.

Circumcision is so important that even non-observant Jews keep these laws. It was the first Law that was specific to Jews. And if some people choose not to engage in the practice, regardless of their faith, then that is absolutely their choice. But by what right are they attempting to tell Jews that one of our most important practices, the sign of the Covenant itself, is wrong?

[Edit] Here is more detailed info about how important the praqctice is to us.
http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm#Brit

 

[CoachN]

...In a number of religions, baptism isn't performed on infants. Why? They can't understand the religion, so they can't belong to it. I think circumcision should be viewed in the same light and reserved for those old enough to actually understand and desire that religious connection.

As I understand it, infants are "Christened", not "baptized." It's most unfortunate that these two words are often used interchangeably. They actually mean two different things, depending upon what Christian culture you come from. The act is not so much for the benefit of the kid as it is for the parents. It tells them that the child is symbolically immersed in the Faith and that they are responsible to maintain that symbolic immersion through constant attention to its tenants and instruction thereof. The infant does belong to the Faith, until it chooses differently.

It's also unfortunate that circumcision is viewed solely as a religious hold over. One doesn't have to be "Jewish" to pursue this direction. Whatever the reasons, they are personal and almost always in the hands of the parents.

 

[Gary]

They certainly do. That does not obligate me to agree with it.

Bro. Casey, We are in agreement. You have a choice also.

 

[CoachN]

Adulthood is that time when we recover from our childhoods and hopefully don't visit upon our next generation those actions that we disagree with.

 

[Casey]

Bro. Casey, We are in agreement. You have a choice also.

Aye.

Apologies for the above if there was any offense. Having performed/observed/assisted on a number of them, circumcision is one of my hot button issues.

 

[Gary]

Aye.

Apologies for the above if there was any offense. Having performed/observed/assisted on a number of them, circumcision is one of my hot button issues.

Nah, no offense. Each is entitled to their own view. We differ in opinion, but the point is that we shared, and did so with respect.

 

[jason]

. So they want the age moved to 18 or something I don't think I could make that decision.

I hope not. I did not walk for almost a year after I was done.

I also wonder if they are against parents who allow their daughter to get breast enhancements before 18. Or if they believe the mother has the right to decide if she wants to still carry a child or not.

I know a set of twins, one had it done, one did not. The reason was health issues, the doctor ordered it. Would they be ok with that? If so, what is to stop people from asking their doctor to order it?

Just another group who wants people to conform to their ideals.

 

[FamilyMan]

Having had the procedure done as an adult, I can say without a doubt, that I would have preferred the procedure have been done as a young'n before I could form memories. Taking two weeks off from work, pain, ripping the stitches out in the middle of the night as I slept, and other details I won't share on a public forum, not something I'd visit on an adult.

I am familiar with the AAP's statements of '75 and '83, and on that joint AAP/OBGYN report in 2000 (?) that said there is no medical reason for routine circumcision.

That being said, this is not whether it is a medical necessity. This is about the government trying to legislate such that shouldn't be legislated. There is no need for a law: if people do not believe in circumcision, they should not have it done to themselves or their children.

To quote Time: "they are fighting, they say, for 'genital autonomy' and 'male-genital-integrity rights.'"

But then again, this is the same body that tried to outlaw the sales of all pets (I'm sorry, "companion animals") except fish because a $600 dog is an impulse buy.

 

[mdonahue66]

As I understand it, infants are "Christened", not "baptized." It's most unfortunate that these two words are often used interchangeably. They actually mean two different things, depending upon what Christian culture you come from. The act is not so much for the benefit of the kid as it is for the parents. It tells them that the child is symbolically immersed in the Faith and that they are responsible to maintain that symbolic immersion through constant attention to its tenants and instruction thereof. The infant does belong to the Faith, until it chooses differently.

It's also unfortunate that circumcision is viewed solely as a religious hold over. One doesn't have to be "Jewish" to pursue this direction. Whatever the reasons, they are personal and almost always in the hands of the parents.

Roman Catholic infants are baptized. Many believe that it relieves the child from "original sin", and without that baptism, the child would not gain access to heaven should he or she die before receiving the sacrament. When they reach an age of responsibility, usually early teens, they are then confirmed. At confirmation, they take vows very similar to those their godparents took on behalf of them when they were an infant. I had never heard the term "Christening" used within the catholic faith, but had heard it used amongst protestant friends. I had always taken the two words as interchangeable. It is my understanding that Baptists will only baptize an individual when they have reached an age of understanding, but I really no little about their faith.

 

[Winter]

You cannot equate the practice of baptism with circumcision. The removal of the foreskin in a ritual manner affirms our covenant. It has nothing to do whatsoever with sin.

 

[asgard]

To Gary:
Ant eaters? I never heard that one, albeit it's a bit funny. I was born in Europe where circumcision is not the norm, except for Jews and Muslims. So I guess I'm a 'Skinhead.'
I've never heard of anyone getting penile cancer, let alone diseases from having a tusk, since most people these days bathe or shower daily.
These silly beliefs are mostly U.S. idiocincracies and customs, no different really from the difference in refusal to adopt metric conversions.