Genital mutilation of children (was: Ve
The Cutter
bit...
I witnessed a 7 y/o boy forcibly circed in Australia in 1981. He was a Brit,
and was taken to OZ by his adoptive parents. Both were pro-circ. The boy was
tricked into the snip. His personality changed, he started wetting the bed.
He asked me why I was uncut. If James had been circed at birth, all of this
saddness would have been avoided. I was really affected by his op. If the UK
had never dropped routine circs. If you are going to cut, please do it at
birth. Thank you.
I was invited to a post natal circ by the nanny of a British baby boy
(Oliver). Oliver was circed in an atmoshpere of love and kindness; such a
difference from James' circ. He showed no signs of trauma during or after the
op (with Plastibell). Boys should be circed at birth. It is much kinder and
please, try to make it part of the love for your sons. Jewish bris' seem to
have this family atmosphere.
To girls. I have witnessed a number of girl circs around the world. I have
seen girls begging, pleading, screaming to be like the other girls. I have
seen teenage girls go to the doctor for a circ as their parents have refused
to allow them to be like other girls. I have seen girls proudly announce that
they are circed. I do oppose any attempt to drive either the girl or boy op
underground. That is when real problems start.
Most girls who have sampled cut and uncut cocks prefer the cut variety.
Parents have rights too and they need to be protected. Please bring back
routine free circs for boys in the UK. How much does it really cost to attach
a Plastibell? Surely the safest way of circing a boy. And safe circs for
girls who want them.
I have collected some images of circumcisions, please let me know if I can
mail them to you.
Snip, snip,
James
P.S. Flames auto-trashed, netcops and other self-opinionated types "hacked"
to death... You have been warned.
Iain Hotchkies
> Please bring back
> routine free circs for boys in the UK. How much does it really cost to attach
> a Plastibell? Surely the safest way of circing a boy.
I don't think routine free circs were discontinued for financial
reason (odd, I know) but because they were no longer deemed
medically needed.
--
Iain Hotchkies MBChB
ambition: polymath
currently: jack of all trades
corollary: master of none
Jeremy Henderson
: I have collected some images of circumcisions, please let me know if I can
: mail them to you.
No thanks, but I understand that some folk post gifs of soiled underpants, so
you may yet find some takers.
--
Jeremy.
Alan J Holmes
The Cutter <ep...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>As somone who has witnessed a number of circ of boys and girls let me add my
>bit...
Lots of absolute garbage deleted:-
>Parents have rights too and they need to be protected.
So do children, but you choose not to grant them the
right not to be mutilated.
> Please bring back
>routine free circs for boys in the UK. How much does it really cost to attach
So far as I am aware there has never been 'routine'
mutilations for boys in this country.
>I have collected some images of circumcisions, please let me know if I can
>mail them to you.
No thank you, I don't want to view this sort of porn.
Alan
Malcolm McMahon
Stephen Chadfield <s...@swindon.gpsemi.com> wrote:
>
>These girls have been brainwashed by an irrational, superstitious cult.
>They need psychiatric help not barbaric mutilation.
>
>
We have all been "brainwashed by an irrational superstituous cult." Just
not the same one. When it's _your_ irrational superstitious cult it's called
"moral education".
Not that I approve of F.G.M. (which is an entirely different matter than
male circumcision) but I can see why it might have been addaptive in the
kind of culture in which it arrose in which a woman's only ability to
control her surroundings is dependant on her influence on men through
sexuality. Presumably a woman is more in control of her sexuality if she
gets no sexual pleasure herself. I doubt it can be erradicated in isolation
from the transformation of the whole man/woman balance in the societies in
which it is common. This change will, as usual, be triggered not by
philosophies and politicians but by technological advance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm McMahon -
views expressed do not necessarilly represent the unanimous view of all parts
of my mind.
I love the smell of rats - | See the happy moron! / He doesn't give a damn
(Feynman) | I wish I were a moron / My God! Perhaps I am
Stephen Chadfield
> To girls. I have witnessed a number of girl circs around the world. I have
> seen girls begging, pleading, screaming to be like the other girls. I have
> seen teenage girls go to the doctor for a circ as their parents have
> refused to allow them to be like other girls. I have seen girls proudly
> announce that they are circed. I do oppose any attempt to drive either
> the girl or boy op underground. That is when real problems start.
These girls have been brainwashed by an irrational, superstitious cult.
They need psychiatric help not barbaric mutilation.
--
Stephen R Chadfield Bipolar CAD (Swindon), GEC Plessey Semiconductors,
s...@swindon.gpsemi.com Cheney Manor, Swindon, United Kingdom SN2 2QW
Alan J Holmes
>> To girls. I have witnessed a number of girl circs around the world. I have
>> seen girls begging, pleading, screaming to be like the other girls. I have
>> seen teenage girls go to the doctor for a circ as their parents have
>> refused to allow them to be like other girls. I have seen girls proudly
>> announce that they are circed. I do oppose any attempt to drive either
>> the girl or boy op underground. That is when real problems start.
I don't beleive one word of this, there have been studies and
films made of this mutilation, and in each case the girl was
being held down screaming and the mutilation was performed against the
girls wishes. The mulitation is always done by women who always
seem to be the old crones.
It is a barbaric practice and should be stopped.
It is the same barbaric practice when performed upon male
infants.
>These girls have been brainwashed by an irrational, superstitious cult.
>They need psychiatric help not barbaric mutilation.
These girls have in no way been brainwashed, they are given no
oportunity to object. They are phyically forced into the
situation.
Alan
Matthew P Wiener
>>> To girls. I have witnessed a number of girl circs around the
>>> world. I have seen girls begging, pleading, screaming to be like
>>> the other girls. I have seen teenage girls go to the doctor for a
>>> circ as their parents have refused to allow them to be like other
>>> girls. I have seen girls proudly announce that they are circed. I
>>> do oppose any attempt to drive either the girl or boy op
>>> underground. That is when real problems start.
>I don't beleive one word of this, there have been studies and films
>made of this mutilation, and in each case the girl was being held
>down screaming and the mutilation was performed against the girls
>wishes.
Yes. And there's propaganda everywhere you look.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Parents have rights too and they need to be protected.
>So do children, but you choose not to grant them the right not to be
>mutilated.
Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
Jacob Love
Helen Arias <hel...@vpadmin.corp.sun.com> wrote:
>In article 7...@netnews.upenn.edu, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>
>> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>
>
Why? Because you say so? I took the trouble to look it up in the
dictionary, and I don't see any resemblance between the dictionary's
view of the word and yours.
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
Helen Arias
> In article <434peg$b...@jethro.corp.sun.com>,
> Helen Arias <hel...@vpadmin.corp.sun.com> wrote:
> >In article 7...@netnews.upenn.edu, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> >>
> >> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
> >
> >
> >Unfortunately, it is.
>
> Why? Because you say so? I took the trouble to look it up in the
> dictionary, and I don't see any resemblance between the dictionary's
> view of the word and yours.
Not surprising since the dictionary does not list every incident of
mutilation, does it. BTW, the definition in MY dictionary is
"to deprive of limb or other "essential" part".
Apparently, the dictionary DOES agree with me (IMNSHO)!
I have a right to my opinion as do you. We'll just have to agree to
disagree on how you and I differ on what is considered mutilation
and what is not.
Unfortunately, male cicumcision *IS* mutilation.
H.
Helen Arias
> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
> -Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Unfortunately, it is.
H.
"Thank GOD I'm agnostic"
-Earl P. Campbell
1914-1990
I never met a chocolate I didn't like
> This installment of the eternal crossposted circumcision flamewar
> brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>In article <8107404...@chemvine.demon.co.uk>,
>>The Cutter <ep...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>>Parents have rights too and they need to be protected.
>
>>So do children, but you choose not to grant them the right not to be
>>mutilated.
>
> --
> -Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Many of us think that it is. If slicing off a healthy body part of an
unconsenting individual without anesthetic isn't mutilation (much less
torture), what is??
Debbie
Wayne Hampton
>This installment of the eternal crossposted circumcision flamewar
>brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <4377tq$l...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, helena@vpadmin (Helen Arias) writes:
>>In article 7...@netnews.upenn.edu, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>>Unfortunately, it is.
>Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>--
>-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Unfortunately it is.
Matthew P Wiener
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <4342cg$7...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
> Many of us think that it is. If slicing off a healthy body part of an
>unconsenting individual without anesthetic isn't mutilation (much less
>torture), what is??
If you wish to know, check the dictionary. You don't need USENET to find
out the basic meaning of words.
Jacob Love
> Many of us think that it is. If slicing off a healthy body part of an
>unconsenting individual without anesthetic isn't mutilation (much less
>torture), what is??
Typical lie from a political fanatic. An infant consents through
his parents. That's what parents are for.
David Boothroyd
In article <439ehi$g...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, Jacob Love writes:
>In article <1995Sep13.144858.1@stosc>,
>> Many of us think that it is. If slicing off a healthy body part of an
>>unconsenting individual without anesthetic isn't mutilation (much less
>>torture), what is??
>
>Typical lie from a political fanatic. An infant consents through
>his parents. That's what parents are for.
So if the parents say the child gets boiled in oil, the child consents
to that? Obviously not. A line must be drawn, and most people would
draw that line before you get to permanent alteration of someone's body
(even if it is purely cosmetic).
--
\/ David "electionibo" Boothroyd. I wish I was in North Dakota. Get Down, Shep!
It's more complicated than that. US Senate R 53 D 46 V 1.House R 233 D 201 I 1.
http://nyx10.cs.du.edu:8001/~dboothro/home.html for elections and email to MPs.
The House of Commons now : C 327, Lab 270, L Dem 24, UU 9, PC 4, SDLP 4, SNP 4,
UDUP 3, Ind C 1, Ind UU 1, Spkrs 4. Conservative majority now 7. 0181 372 5288.
David Barnett
|>......A line must be drawn, and most people would
|>draw that line before you get to permanent alteration of someone's
body
|>(even if it is purely cosmetic).
And what about permanent alteration of someone's mind (i.e. upbringing)?
David Barnett
David Barnett
d>David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
|>|>......A line must be drawn, and most people would
|>|>draw that line before you get to permanent alteration of someone's
|>body
|>|>(even if it is purely cosmetic).
d>And what about permanent alteration of someone's mind (i.e.
upbringing)?
To elaborate on my rhetorical question:
If we bring up our children to believe in Judaism and don't do a brith,
the child will come and ask, "why didn't you do it when I was 8 days
old as G-d commanded? Was I sick until now? Or am I not really
Jewish? Did you adopt me and I am not really your son?"
David Barnett
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>>> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>>>Unfortunately, it is.
>>Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>Unfortunately it is.
Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <439ehi$g...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, Jacob Love writes:
>>Typical lie from a political fanatic. An infant consents through
>>his parents. That's what parents are for.
>So if the parents say the child gets boiled in oil, the child consents
>to that? Obviously not. A line must be drawn, and most people would
>draw that line before you get to permanent alteration of someone's body
>(even if it is purely cosmetic).
I think not.
I think the line is drawn at things that no reasonable person would
ever do for themselves.
Boiling yourself in oil is illegal, last I checked.
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article 4...@netnews.upenn.edu, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>> >> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>> >Unfortunately, it is.
>> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>Unfortunately, it is.
Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
David Boothroyd
In article <43b0j9$p...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, David Barnett writes:
>David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>|>draw that line before you get to permanent alteration of someone's
>|>body (even if it is purely cosmetic).
>
>upbringing)?
>If we bring up our children to believe in Judaism and don't do a brith,
>the child will come and ask, "why didn't you do it when I was 8 days
>old as G-d commanded? Was I sick until now? Or am I not really
>Jewish? Did you adopt me and I am not really your son?"
That is a problem caused by the inflexibility of religion - one
which it is for Judaism to sort out.
What if the son converts from Judaism and decides that he did not want
to be circumcised? The foreskin does not grow back. But if the son
decides to take up the religion, there is nothing preventing him from
having a circumcision later on. The only thing preventing it is the
nature of all religions to prescribe an arbitrary policy.
David Barnett
|>
|>In article <43b0j9$p...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, David Barnett writes:
>>And what about permanent alteration of someone's mind (i.e.
>>upbringing)?
>>If we bring up our children to believe in Judaism and don't do a brith,
>>the child will come and ask, "why didn't you do it when I was 8 days
>>old as G-d commanded? Was I sick until now? Or am I not really
>>Jewish? Did you adopt me and I am not really your son?"
>
|>That is a problem caused by the inflexibility of religion - one
|>which it is for Judaism to sort out.
In other words, it is none of your business.
>
|>What if the son converts from Judaism and decides that he did not want
|>to be circumcised? The foreskin does not grow back.....
Surgical restoration has been done since ancient times. Hellenised
Jewish athletes sometimes did this because some Greeks would taunt the
circumcision (they competed naked).
|>...... But if the son
|>decides to take up the religion, there is nothing preventing him from
|>having a circumcision later on.......
Later on there is more likely to be scaring and healing takes longer.
|>......The only thing preventing it is the
|>nature of all religions to prescribe an arbitrary policy.
So what it comes down to is you object to our passing our culture
on to our children.
David Barnett
Jacob Love
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>So if the parents say the child gets boiled in oil, the child consents
>draw that line before you get to permanent alteration of someone's body
>(even if it is purely cosmetic).
I agree in part. If you'd been reading the thread in its entirety,
you'd know that. I do not take the position that a parent can do
anything to a child. We are speaking about one of the safest procedures
ever humanly devised. If it weren't so, there would be far fewer of my
people to make a fuss about it. As for the business about cosmetic
surgery, you're either lying or stupid. Just try to outlaw such
cosmetic procedures and you'd be so quickly hooted out of the
legislative chamber of any western democracy that you wouldn't know
what happened. You have only one hope in attempting to prohibit Jewish
circumcision, and that lies in antisemitism carrying the day.
I never met a chocolate I didn't like
> David Barnett <bar...@textb.ph.utexas.edu> wrote:
> |>|>......A line must be drawn, and most people would
> |>|>draw that line before you get to permanent alteration of someone's
> |>body
> |>|>(even if it is purely cosmetic).
> d>And what about permanent alteration of someone's mind (i.e.
> upbringing)?
>
> To elaborate on my rhetorical question:
>
> the child will come and ask, "why didn't you do it when I was 8 days
> old as G-d commanded? Was I sick until now? Or am I not really
> Jewish? Did you adopt me and I am not really your son?"
>
Or this real-life scenario (mine): "Why did you force your religion down
my throat? I don't appreciate it, it's given me very low self-esteem because
of the way it treats women". If you haven't guessed by now, I was raised
Catholic. Point is, as the individual matures they think on their own.
Minds are not set in stone, they can be changed as the person's experiences
accumulate. One just has to be willing to keep it open.
Debbie
David Boothroyd
In article <43c818$4...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, Jacob Love writes:
>As for the business about cosmetic surgery, you're either lying or
>stupid. Just try to outlaw such cosmetic procedures and you'd be so
>quickly hooted out of the legislative chamber of any western democracy
>that you wouldn't know what happened.
You are deliberately misreading what I wrote. I did not say to outlaw
the procedure - I said that any serious operation should require the
consent of the patient and not the parents.
>You have only one hope in attempting to prohibit Jewish
>circumcision, and that lies in antisemitism carrying the day.
There it is again - a baseless allegation of anti-semitism.
I'm not attempting to prohibit Jewish circumcision, for two reasons.
1) I have never mentioned 'Jewish circumcision'. I couldn't give two
hoots which religion is involved or if none is. It is circumcision
by parents without the child's consent which I object to.
2) I'm not attempting to *prohibit* circumcision. People should be
allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies, but only if
they want to. So circumcision ordered by the parents without having
obtained the child's consent is wrong, but prohibiting circumcision
of someone who wants it is equally wrong.
David Boothroyd
In article <43co5r$4...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, David Barnett writes:
>David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>If we bring up our children to believe in Judaism and don't do a brith,
>>>the child will come and ask, "why didn't you do it when I was 8 days
>>>old as G-d commanded? Was I sick until now? Or am I not really
>>>Jewish? Did you adopt me and I am not really your son?"
>>
>|>which it is for Judaism to sort out.
>
>In other words, it is none of your business.
Well, precisely. It's a problem which Judaism causes for itself and not
something I have any responsibility for.
>|>What if the son converts from Judaism and decides that he did not want
>|>to be circumcised? The foreskin does not grow back.....
>
>Surgical restoration has been done since ancient times. Hellenised
>Jewish athletes sometimes did this because some Greeks would taunt the
>circumcision (they competed naked).
Does anyone know whether these races are staged nowadays? It sounds fun
to watch.
>|>......The only thing preventing it is the
>|>nature of all religions to prescribe an arbitrary policy.
>
>So what it comes down to is you object to our passing our culture
>on to our children.
No, I object to you and anyone else performing unneccessary surgical
operations on children without their consent. You could classify
anything as 'cultural' and defend it similarly.
Jacob Love
No I'm not.
>I did not say to outlaw
>the procedure - I said that any serious operation should require the
>consent of the patient and not the parents.
Then you have to agree to forbid any cosmetic surgery on any minor. A
minor by definition cannot provide consent. Even an early teenager
likely lacks the capacity to truly understand the costs/benefits of
such surgeries. There are many conditions which are easily correctable
while a child is very young. These conditions are not life threatening,
and are merely disfiguring (as we westerners tend to see things).
Therefore, you either have to carry your theory to its logical
conclusion, or bail out.
>There it is again - a baseless allegation of anti-semitism.
It is not at all baseless. Antisemites have called attention to the
practice which they have labelled a "barbarous superstition" since the
days of the Roman emperor Hadrian. (Odd, isn't it that a people which
thought little of scheduling fights between other human beings and
famished wild game could level such charges?) You can tell the
difference between an antisemite and other health maniacs from the test
in the paragraph above. A person who has formed an opinion that
employing the almost absurdly safe practice of circumcision, a practice
which has acknowledged benefit and little or no risk should be outlawed,
but would permit parents to decide to perform far riskier forms of
cosmetic surgery is obviously exercising a prejudice. Now I agree that
that prejudice can come from other sources than antisemitism, but most
people when exposed to the breath of the argument do agree with
position I've articulated here (as evidenced by the fact that all
attempts to outlaw juvenile circumcision in western countries have
failed). If you continue to deny a very straightforward and logical
rationale, then I have a right to suspect that antisemitism is at least
one possible cause.
Keith A Rothschild
cure for acne would be for acme, or diaper rashe.
Both are perfectly natural, and scientifically
"pure" creations that G-d must have intended when
creating the human body.
Would you insinuate that either of these should be
left alone? Would you argue that parents have no right
to use medications to remove them?
Similarly if a child is born with six fingers, would
you suggest that the parents leave it on, which could
lead to many health problems(calcium and nerve blocks
for example) or would you have them remove it, without
the childs consent.
If you can tell me that circumcision does not and never
did prevent any ailness, and then prove that, I might
consider your point. The problem is Cancer may be caused
by this, the foreskin alows for more microscopic rips in
the skin, and in turn makes it easier to transmit STD's,
If you want to tell me that a little bit of pleasure makes
a life worth of difference, please see a psychiatris.
The only person who would be able to say if uncirrcumcised
sex is better than circumsised sex would be a man who was
uncircumcised and became circumcised later in life. If he
were to be circumcised later in life it would probably be
for devout religous reasons (or health which is a totally
different case) and would probably not discuss comparitive
sexual pleasure. (His wife may not enjoy the new look of
his penis, or may be uncomfortable with the idea of later
circumcision and may not be performing as usual, or he may
have gone under a stress which has changed the way he
thinks, the brain is a marvelous thing which we barely
understand.)
Any other discussion is a pedantic brawl of "I am better in
bed than you".
Please
-Kalonomas Anschel ben Yitzak
I never met a chocolate I didn't like
>>So if the parents say the child gets boiled in oil, the child consents
>>to that? Obviously not. A line must be drawn, and most people would
>>draw that line before you get to permanent alteration of someone's body
>>(even if it is purely cosmetic).
>
> I think not.
>
> I think the line is drawn at things that no reasonable person would
> ever do for themselves.
Does that mean you would consent to a piece of your body being torn off
without anesthetic? Speak for yourself; I'd rather bathe.
> Boiling yourself in oil is illegal, last I checked.
No, just stupid. It is illegal to boil someone else in oil.
> -Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Debbie
I never met a chocolate I didn't like
> ke...@stsci.edu (I never met a chocolate I didn't like) wrote:
>
>
>
> -> Or this real-life scenario (mine): "Why did you force your religion down
> ->my throat? I don't appreciate it, it's given me very low self-esteem because
> ->of the way it treats women". If you haven't guessed by now, I was raised
> ->Catholic. Point is, as the individual matures they think on their own.
> ->Minds are not set in stone, they can be changed as the person's experiences
> ->accumulate. One just has to be willing to keep it open.
>
> Point is, a person's life can be irrevocably affected by their upbringing.
> Recent wailing on the net aside, the record of estern Civilisation shows more
> harm and permanent unhappiness due to religious upbringing (including both
> your variety and mine) than to religious circumcision. Are you as dead-set
> against that?
In my case, I wasn't permanently unhappy. I simply decided I no longer
wished to have anything to do with my religion, and aside from family strife
resulting from that decision, I was much happier. If I'd had some bodily
alteration because of that religion, I would have been extremely angry and
resentful. I think religious upbringing is fine, so long as the parents
realize that the child may someday have different beliefs (or lack thereof)
than themselves, and respect that child's decision.
Debbie
Phil Hunt
jl...@engin.umich.edu "Jacob Love" writes:
> In article <1995Sep13.144858.1@stosc>,
> > Many of us think that it is. If slicing off a healthy body part of an
> >unconsenting individual without anesthetic isn't mutilation (much less
> >torture), what is??
>
> his parents. That's what parents are for.
Infants are non-sentient and are therefore not capable of consenting
to anything. So your usage "an infant consents" is just an inaccurate
way of stating your opinion that circumcision is OK.
So, what if an infant was circumcised *without* the consent of its
parents? Would that be OK?
What if its parents stubbed out cigarettes on it, or sold one of
its kidneys?
--
Phil Hunt
ec...@snow.csv.warwick.ac.uk
-> Or this real-life scenario (mine): "Why did you force your religion down
->my throat? I don't appreciate it, it's given me very low self-esteem because
->of the way it treats women". If you haven't guessed by now, I was raised
->Catholic. Point is, as the individual matures they think on their own.
->Minds are not set in stone, they can be changed as the person's experiences
->accumulate. One just has to be willing to keep it open.
Point is, a person's life can be irrevocably affected by their upbringing. Recent
wailing on the net aside, the record of estern Civilisation shows more harm and
permanent unhappiness due to religious upbringing (including both your variety and
mine) than to religious circumcision. Are you as dead-set against that?
->Debbie
David Barnett
|>
|>In article <43co5r$4...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, David Barnett writes:
>>So what it comes down to is you object to our passing our culture
>>on to our children.
>
|>No, I object to you and anyone else performing unneccessary surgical
|>operations on children without their consent. You could classify
|>anything as 'cultural' and defend it similarly.
One has to use a little common sense. Exposing surplus female children
is obviously objectionable, but the Jewish brith is a trivial operation
with no demonstrable adverse consequence. As I have pointed out,
it is not even cosmetically irreversible.
What gets put into a childs mind is immeasurably more important to
his well-being thoughout life than minor physical differences from
his neighbours. A child's entire upbringing is without his consent.
I suggest a little perspective.
David Barnett
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>In article <43c818$4...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, Jacob Love writes:
>>As for the business about cosmetic surgery, you're either lying or
>>stupid. Just try to outlaw such cosmetic procedures and you'd be so
>>quickly hooted out of the legislative chamber of any western democracy
>>that you wouldn't know what happened.
>You are deliberately misreading what I wrote. I did not say to outlaw
>the procedure - I said that any serious operation should require the
>consent of the patient and not the parents.
You are being overly obtuse yet again. Jack was discussing "such
cosmetic procedures"--he was referring to children who cannot give
informed consent.
As it is, circumcision is not a "serious operation".
>>You have only one hope in attempting to prohibit Jewish
>>circumcision, and that lies in antisemitism carrying the day.
>There it is again - a baseless allegation of anti-semitism.
>I'm not attempting to prohibit Jewish circumcision, for two reasons.
>1) I have never mentioned 'Jewish circumcision'. I couldn't give two
> hoots which religion is involved or if none is. It is circumcision
> by parents without the child's consent which I object to.
>2) I'm not attempting to *prohibit* circumcision. People should be
> allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies, but only if
> they want to. So circumcision ordered by the parents without having
> obtained the child's consent is wrong, but prohibiting circumcision
> of someone who wants it is equally wrong.
In other words, you *are* trying to ban Jewish circumcision: it's day 8.
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <43co5r$4...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, David Barnett writes:
>>|>That is a problem caused by the inflexibility of religion - one
>>|>which it is for Judaism to sort out.
>>In other words, it is none of your business.
>Well, precisely. It's a problem which Judaism causes for itself and not
>something I have any responsibility for.
No, it's no problem. We're quite happy with things as they are.
>>|>......The only thing preventing it is the
>>|>nature of all religions to prescribe an arbitrary policy.
>>So what it comes down to is you object to our passing our culture
>>on to our children.
>No, I object to you and anyone else performing unneccessary surgical
>operations on children without their consent. You could classify
>anything as 'cultural' and defend it similarly.
It's necessary. Parental consent suffices.
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <43c999$4...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> Does that mean you would consent to a piece of your body being torn off
>without anesthetic? Speak for yourself; I'd rather bathe.
I have had several cavities filled with no anesthetics.
>> Boiling yourself in oil is illegal, last I checked.
> No, just stupid. It is illegal to boil someone else in oil.
It is illegal in the US.
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <439ehi$g...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>
> jl...@engin.umich.edu "Jacob Love" writes:
>> Typical lie from a political fanatic. An infant consents through
>> his parents. That's what parents are for.
>Infants are non-sentient and are therefore not capable of consenting
>to anything. So your usage "an infant consents" is just an inaccurate
>way of stating your opinion that circumcision is OK.
No, it's standard English.
>So, what if an infant was circumcised *without* the consent of its
>parents? Would that be OK?
Probably not.
>What if its parents stubbed out cigarettes on it, or sold one of
>its kidneys?
I believe these are illegal.
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <43b0j9$p...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, David Barnett writes:
>>And what about permanent alteration of someone's mind (i.e.
>>upbringing)? If we bring up our children to believe in Judaism and
>>don't do a brith, the child will come and ask, "why didn't you do it
>>when I was 8 days old as G-d commanded? Was I sick until now? Or
>>am I not really Jewish? Did you adopt me and I am not really your
>>son?"
>That is a problem caused by the inflexibility of religion - one
>which it is for Judaism to sort out.
There is no problem. We will simply ignore your suggestions. Day 8 is
the day. What David was merely doing was pointing out the contradiction
between your sound-good philosophy and Judaism, something you seem to be
unaware of.
>What if the son converts from Judaism and decides that he did not want
>to be circumcised? The foreskin does not grow back.
So what?
> But if the son
>decides to take up the religion, there is nothing preventing him from
>having a circumcision later on.
The son doesn't _decide_. He is born Jewish. And like most adult male
Jews, he is probably very glad that it was done and over with.
Tell me--how, in your scheme of things--does a son decide to retroactively
have his bris on the 8th day?
> The only thing preventing it is the
>nature of all religions to prescribe an arbitrary policy.
So what?
Mark Ira Kaufman
David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk>
db> In article <43f042$h...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, Jacob Love writes:
jl> It is not at all baseless. Antisemites have called attention to the
jl> practice which they have labelled a "barbarous superstition" since the
jl> days of the Roman emperor Hadrian. (Odd, isn't it that a people which
jl> thought little of scheduling fights between other human beings and
jl> famished wild game could level such charges?) You can tell the
jl> difference between an antisemite and other health maniacs from the test
jl> in the paragraph above. A person who has formed an opinion that
jl> employing the almost absurdly safe practice of circumcision, a practice
jl> which has acknowledged benefit and little or no risk should be outlawed,
jl> but would permit parents to decide to perform far riskier forms of
jl> cosmetic surgery is obviously exercising a prejudice. Now I agree that
jl> that prejudice can come from other sources than antisemitism, but most
jl> people when exposed to the breath of the argument do agree with
jl> position I've articulated here (as evidenced by the fact that all
jl> attempts to outlaw juvenile circumcision in western countries have
jl> failed). If you continue to deny a very straightforward and logical
jl> rationale, then I have a right to suspect that antisemitism is at least
jl> one possible cause.
db> I've quoted the above in its (one paragraph) entirety to give people the
db> opportunity to examine it closely and actually relate it to what I have
db> said. The above says, in essence, that anyone who argues that parents
db> should not have the right to perform a needless operation on their
db> children without consent must be anti-semitic. The only evidence for
db> anti-semitism against me actually provided is that I oppose forced
db> circumcision.
Your whole premise is predicated on the assumption that the Brit Milah is
"a needless operation." Yet the Jewish people are commanded by their Bible
to perform this rite. As such, to the Jewish people it is not needless. And
since the Brit Milah is a vital part of Judaism, opposition to it is clearly
anti-semitic.
But that is irrelevant. Anti-semites like you, who oppose a vital part
of Judaism while lacking the spine to admit to their own bias, are a dime a
dozen.
What IS relevant is your crusade against a practice that is embraced by
those who you claim to protect. I am 47 years old. I have travelled all over
the world, and have met thousands of Jews in my lifetime. Yet in all of my
47 years I have yet to meet any Jewish man who has expressed the slightest
objection to having been circumcised.
You are an obnoxious little man who tries to mask his anti-semitism behind
a fake concern for children.
You are absurd.
Dr J A K Cave
ke...@stsci.edu (I never met a chocolate I didn't like) writes:
>I think religious upbringing is fine, so long as the parents
>realize that the child may someday have different beliefs (or lack thereof)
>than themselves, and respect that child's decision.
First, a decision is more than selecting an option. It is not clear
to me, as one who studies human decisions, that unconstrained choices
are more respectable in any absolute sense.
More generally, I was not being clear enough.
Religious upbringing can and does have irrevocable effects,
and not infrequently interferes with the capacity for future happiness.
By your logic, this is to be opposed, too.
As I read it, you're saying that a parent should recognize that his child may
grow up to resent choices made for him. I agree.
It has been pointed out that this choice (religious circ at 8 days) cannot
be offered to a person, and *is* his father's choice.
We *all* sacrifice things belonging to others throughout our lives. Through
our nations, we sacrifice our young in droves, to little purpose other than
suffering. Through our schools and corporations, we use or shape the lives
of many more.
In our daily lives, we do things that affect those we love.
"For each man kills the thing he loves."
The farther away these sacrifices are, the easier they are to make.
That's one reason for uniforms, and much military doctrine and discipline.
That's why we fight wars by proxy nowadays.
That's also why I believe we ought to feel the effect
of our choices on others - in everything we do.
When my son was circumcised at my behest, I think it did me good to be
reminded of the moral force of that sacrifice.
I think it not insignificant that I remember my choice, while he does not.
I think it not insignificant that I remember his pain, while he does not.
I believe that if all those whose decisions result in the sacrifice of others
remembered these things, then some of their decisions would be different,
and some (maybe others!) would be better.
I know that he may come to resent my decision.
I hope he will not; I believe he will come to feel as I do.
The decision itself creates the need in me to explain my faith to him.
If it does for him what it does for me, I hope further that he will share
my faith. If it does not, he will not share my faith for any reason of mine.
I believe the risk is small.
I believe the benefits to both of us are real.
I believe I can affect his reaction by talking with him,
about what each of us believes, and why.
I believe this is a good thing in itself.
I hope that's a bit clearer.
Jonathan
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I've quoted the above in its (one paragraph) entirety to give people
>I have said. The above says, in essence, that anyone who argues that
>parents should not have the right to perform a needless operation on
>their children without consent must be anti-semitic.
I would say, very hateful of children, at the least.
> The only evidence
>for anti-semitism against me actually provided is that I oppose forced
>circumcision.
That, and the hypocrisy with which you choose to apply your principle.
David Boothroyd
I've never mentioned the "Brit Milah" - I don't even know what it means.
I'm talking about forced circumcision, no matter who does it.
>Yet the Jewish people are commanded by their Bible to perform this rite.
That is their problem.
>As such, to the Jewish people it is not needless. And since the Brit Milah
>is a vital part of Judaism, opposition to it is clearly anti-semitic.
I am an activist in the lesbian and gay direct action group, OutRage!, in
London. In this last year I have been campaigning against many religions
(not Judaism, though), most particularly against the Islamic fundamentalists
in Hizb ut Tahrir but also against the Church of England.
The Bible says (Leviticus ch. 20 v. 13) that I should be murdered with my
boyfriend and that it would be my fault if I was. I think any book which
says that ought to be denounced.
What this all means is that opposition to some aspect of religion is based
on what the religion does, not what it thinks. It is typical religious
twaddle and really rather stupid for religious people to claim that
any opposition to anything they do must be based on prejudice.
> But that is irrelevant. Anti-semites like you, who oppose a vital part
>of Judaism while lacking the spine to admit to their own bias, are a dime a
>dozen.
I am in no sense an anti-semite. I have nothing against Judaism or jewish
people and politically I ally with the strongly pro-Zionists and against
the pro-Palestinians. My objection is to forced circumcision whoever does
it. Frankly, your claim that anyone who opposes forced circumcision must
be anti-semitic is so ludicrous that it makes your whole case look
incredibly weak.
> What IS relevant is your crusade against a practice that is embraced by
>those who you claim to protect. I am 47 years old. I have travelled all over
>the world, and have met thousands of Jews in my lifetime. Yet in all of my
>47 years I have yet to meet any Jewish man who has expressed the slightest
>objection to having been circumcised.
They should still have the choice themselves. Not everyone brought up in
the Jewish faith retains it.
> You are an obnoxious little man who tries to mask his anti-semitism behind
>a fake concern for children.
You cannot argue the issues, so you must brand your opponent as prejudiced
(however absurd) in order to justify your stand. That is pathetic.
> You are absurd.
A little bit of projection is going on here.
David Boothroyd
In article <43k7b6$j...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Matthew P Wiener writes:
>
>This installment of the eternal crossposted circumcision flamewar
>brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
Except it wasn't - oh well.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <95091520...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
<david@election writes:
>>In article <43b0j9$p...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, David Barnett writes:
>
>>>And what about permanent alteration of someone's mind (i.e.
>>>upbringing)? If we bring up our children to believe in Judaism and
>>>don't do a brith, the child will come and ask, "why didn't you do it
>>>when I was 8 days old as G-d commanded? Was I sick until now? Or
>>>am I not really Jewish? Did you adopt me and I am not really your
>>>son?"
>
>>That is a problem caused by the inflexibility of religion - one
>>which it is for Judaism to sort out.
>
>There is no problem. We will simply ignore your suggestions. Day 8 is
>the day.
Why? Justify it objectively, ie without reference to arbitrary
prescriptions. If you can't, everyone will be able to draw their own
conclusions.
>>What if the son converts from Judaism and decides that he did not want
>>to be circumcised? The foreskin does not grow back.
>
>So what?
Their right to a free choice about whether they are circumcised has been
abridged, which is a bad idea.
>Tell me--how, in your scheme of things--does a son decide to retroactively
>have his bris on the 8th day?
He can't (mind you, one of my fundamentalist Christian friends did get
'born again' while I was at university, so perhaps some liberal Jewish
scholar could provide an equivalent). But that's not really my problem.
>> The only thing preventing it is the
>>nature of all religions to prescribe an arbitrary policy.
>
>So what?
You make the problems for yourself then you want me to solve them? Why
bother creating the problem in the first place?
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
In article <95091717...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd <david@election writes:
>In article <43g32e$9...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, David Barnett writes:
>>One has to use a little common sense. Exposing surplus female children
>>is obviously objectionable, but the Jewish brith is a trivial operation
>>with no demonstrable adverse consequence. As I have pointed out,
>>it is not even cosmetically irreversible.
>It may be trivial with no demonstrable adverse consequence (when done
>right), but it also has no definite provable benefit.
False.
> Reversing it is
>possible but difficult and expensive. Arguing this way is not however
>a justification for circumcision, but a plea in mitigation.
We don't owe you any justifications. As you noted, it isn't a problem.
>>What gets put into a childs mind is immeasurably more important to
>>his well-being thoughout life than minor physical differences from
>>his neighbours. A child's entire upbringing is without his consent.
>But society does get a look in and prevents parents from doing things
>that are not demonstrably in the childs' interest without consent.
Since when? TV watching is not demonstrably in the child's best interests,
yet it gets allowed in droves.
>>I suggest a little perspective.
>How about the perspective of individual choice?
Parents choose for their children all the time. That's life.
Grace Boockholdt
}In article <95091600...@election.demon.co.uk>,
}>You are deliberately misreading what I wrote.
}
}
}>I did not say to outlaw
}>the procedure - I said that any serious operation should require the
}>consent of the patient and not the parents.
}
}minor by definition cannot provide consent. Even an early teenager
}likely lacks the capacity to truly understand the costs/benefits of
}such surgeries. There are many conditions which are easily correctable
}while a child is very young. These conditions are not life threatening,
}and are merely disfiguring (as we westerners tend to see things).
}Therefore, you either have to carry your theory to its logical
}conclusion, or bail out.
Tell me, Jack--was there a *ban* on routine
tonsillectomy? One can still have a tonsillectomy--yes?
However...note that they are no longer *routinely*
done. That is, there is now a CLEAR medical diagnosis
for the procedure before it is done. This is how *routine*
infant circ should go.
}
}>There it is again - a baseless allegation of anti-semitism.
}
}It is not at all baseless. Antisemites have called attention to the
}practice which they have labelled a "barbarous superstition" since the
}days of the Roman emperor Hadrian. (Odd, isn't it that a people which
}thought little of scheduling fights between other human beings and
}famished wild game could level such charges?) You can tell the
}difference between an antisemite and other health maniacs from the test
}in the paragraph above. A person who has formed an opinion that
}employing the almost absurdly safe practice of circumcision, a practice
}which has acknowledged benefit and little or no risk should be outlawed,
}but would permit parents to decide to perform far riskier forms of
}cosmetic surgery is obviously exercising a prejudice. Now I agree that
}that prejudice can come from other sources than antisemitism, but most
}people when exposed to the breath of the argument do agree with
}position I've articulated here (as evidenced by the fact that all
}attempts to outlaw juvenile circumcision in western countries have
}failed). If you continue to deny a very straightforward and logical
}rationale, then I have a right to suspect that antisemitism is at least
}one possible cause.
Doing anything TO someone else...whether
there is some noble "justification" or not, and
that procedure causes harm or pain is a barbaric
form of tyranny. You are lying if you claim that
Jewish circs are "absurdly safe" with the false
implication that nothing EVER goes wrong in
a Jewish brit/bris. There have, indeed, been
many cases where dire complications have
arisen due directly to this procedure even when
done by a mohelim.
Furthermore, most of us aren't against it
for "maniacle health" reasons. It has always
been stated as a matter of *choice*. No
hidden agenda here at all. It's certainly not
anti-semitic as the religion could still circ
its members (no pun intended) at the *choice*
of the individual.
Grace Boockholdt
I never met a chocolate I didn't like
> This installment of the eternal crossposted circumcision flamewar
> brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>In article <43c999$4...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>
>> Does that mean you would consent to a piece of your body being torn off
>>without anesthetic? Speak for yourself; I'd rather bathe.
>
> I have had several cavities filled with no anesthetics.
That's your prerogative. I prefer the anesthetics, I'm a pain weenie.
>
>>> Boiling yourself in oil is illegal, last I checked.
>
>> No, just stupid. It is illegal to boil someone else in oil.
>
> It is illegal in the US.
So what are they gonna do, arrest you? Assuming there's anything left to
arrest? Worst they can do is lock you in the loony bin. Do it to someone
else and it's assault/murder/attempted murder, depending on the outcome.
> --
> -Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Debbie
Marie Quick
Arias) writes:
>
>In article 4...@netnews.upenn.edu, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
(Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>> >> >> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>>
>> >> >Unfortunately, it is.
>>
>> >> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>>
>> >Unfortunately, it is.
>>
>> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.>Unfortunately, it is.
>
>H.
Gee, how many times are we going to repeat ourselves here? This could
conceivably go on forever: is someone going to be an adult and stop
trying to get the last word?
Unfortunately, I doubt it.
Charles Reindorf
>Unfortunately, I doubt it.
Fortunately, I don't doubt it.
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <43k5aa$n...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, Mark Ira Kaufman writes:
>>Yet the Jewish people are commanded by their Bible to perform this rite.
>That is their problem.
What problem??? Other than anti-semites trying to interfere?
>The Bible says (Leviticus ch. 20 v. 13) that I should be murdered with my
>boyfriend and that it would be my fault if I was. I think any book which
>says that ought to be denounced.
So denounce it. Meanwhile, have you in all your gay activism faced mobs of
foaming Jews planning to stone homosexual men? Or maybe you find others
more of a problem?
>What this all means is that opposition to some aspect of religion is based
>on what the religion does, not what it thinks. It is typical religious
>twaddle and really rather stupid for religious people to claim that
>any opposition to anything they do must be based on prejudice.
We don't _care_ what it's based on.
>I am in no sense an anti-semite.
Only in the sense of being opposed to a fundamental aspect of Judaism.
> I have nothing against Judaism or jewish
>people and politically I ally with the strongly pro-Zionists and against
>the pro-Palestinians. My objection is to forced circumcision whoever does
>it.
Indeed.
> Frankly, your claim that anyone who opposes forced circumcision must
>be anti-semitic is so ludicrous that it makes your whole case look
>incredibly weak.
Since there isn't one good reason to oppose circumcision, to engage in
such a blanket attack--please, tell us where it will end--is antisemitic.
>> What IS relevant is your crusade against a practice that is
>>embraced by those who you claim to protect. I am 47 years old. I
>>have travelled all over the world, and have met thousands of Jews in
>>my lifetime. Yet in all of my 47 years I have yet to meet any
>>Jewish man who has expressed the slightest objection to having been
>>circumcised.
>They should still have the choice themselves. Not everyone brought up
>in the Jewish faith retains it.
So what?
>>You are an obnoxious little man who tries to mask his anti-semitism behind
>>a fake concern for children.
>You cannot argue the issues, so you must brand your opponent as prejudiced
>(however absurd) in order to justify your stand. That is pathetic.
The only issue is how are you going to deal with the fact that we are going
to continue to circumcize on day 8, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY?
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <95091823...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd <david@election writes:
>In article <43k7b6$j...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Matthew P Wiener writes:
>>This installment of the eternal crossposted circumcision flamewar
>>brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
>Except it wasn't - oh well.
Yes it was.
It was his article that took a uk.* squabble and crossposted it to
innumerable newsgroups.
>>In article <95091520...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
><david@election writes:
>>>In article <43b0j9$p...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, David Barnett writes:
>>>That is a problem caused by the inflexibility of religion - one
>>>which it is for Judaism to sort out.
>>There is no problem. We will simply ignore your suggestions. Day 8 is
>>the day.
>Why? Justify it objectively, ie without reference to arbitrary
>prescriptions. If you can't, everyone will be able to draw their own
>conclusions.
We don't *need* to justify it. It's a solid foundational part of our
religion, pure and simple. You can draw whatever conclusions you like.
>>>What if the son converts from Judaism and decides that he did not want
>>>to be circumcised? The foreskin does not grow back.
>>So what?
>Their right to a free choice about whether they are circumcised has been
>abridged, which is a bad idea.
What right? Are you just making this up as you go along, or what?
>>Tell me--how, in your scheme of things--does a son decide to retroactively
>>have his bris on the 8th day?
>He can't (mind you, one of my fundamentalist Christian friends did get
>'born again' while I was at university, so perhaps some liberal Jewish
>scholar could provide an equivalent). But that's not really my problem.
How *convenient*. As long as it's somebody else's problem.
>>> The only thing preventing it is the
>>>nature of all religions to prescribe an arbitrary policy.
>>So what?
>You make the problems for yourself then you want me to solve them? Why
>bother creating the problem in the first place?
*What* problem? We circumcize on day 8. What of it?
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <43kbg3$j...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>> In article <1995Sep16.163938.1@stosc>, kenny@stsci (I never met a chocolate I didn't like) writes:
>>>In article <43c999$4...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>> Does that mean you would consent to a piece of your body being torn off
>>>without anesthetic? Speak for yourself; I'd rather bathe.
>> I have had several cavities filled with no anesthetics.
> That's your prerogative. I prefer the anesthetics, I'm a pain weenie.
I answered your question.
(Actually, I prefer the anesthetic, so long as the dentist knows how to
adminster it correctly. Most are in a hurry, and do not wait until the
stuff takes full effect, and then you get waves of pain shooting on and
off. I find that more bothersome than the straight pain.)
>>>> Boiling yourself in oil is illegal, last I checked.
>>> No, just stupid. It is illegal to boil someone else in oil.
>> It is illegal in the US.
> So what are they gonna do, arrest you? Assuming there's anything left to
> arrest? Worst they can do is lock you in the loony bin. Do it to someone
> else and it's assault/murder/attempted murder, depending on the outcome.
Quit being a retard. I don't make the laws. As it is, such a law does
serve a technical point: it allows conspiracy and accessory charges to
be brought in various cases. And as you are conveniently forgetting, I
was answering David Boothroyd's suggestion about where to draw the line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <43c999$4...@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|In article <95091423...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd <david@election writes:
|>In article <439ehi$g...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, Jacob Love writes:
|>>Typical lie from a political fanatic. An infant consents through
|>>his parents. That's what parents are for.
|>So if the parents say the child gets boiled in oil, the child consents
|>to that? Obviously not. A line must be drawn, and most people would
|>draw that line before you get to permanent alteration of someone's body
|>(even if it is purely cosmetic).
|I think not.
|I think the line is drawn at things that no reasonable person would
|ever do for themselves.
|Boiling yourself in oil is illegal, last I checked.
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article 4...@netnews.upenn.edu, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>> >>>> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>> >>>Unfortunately, it is.
>> >>Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>> >Unfortunately it is.
>> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>Unfortunately, it is.
Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
Helen Arias
You know, Jonathan, I found your
posting quite eloquent. I'm against circumcision of any kind but
I would be dishonest if I didn't admit that your posting
moved me. It was filled with an undeniable love you have for
your son. Although I still disagree with ALL circ's, you HAVE
let me in on the other side to listen to your opinion WITHOUT hostility.
I don't think I have ever read anything move touching on this subject
even though you and I are on the opposite sides of the fence.
I am most willing to agree to disagree with you. I respect the
choice you have made.
H.
Helen Arias
> In <43ka6q$6...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> hel...@vpadmin.corp.sun.com (Helen
> Arias) writes:
> >
> >In article 4...@netnews.upenn.edu, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
> (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> >> >> >> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
> >>
> >> >> >Unfortunately, it is.
> >>
> >> >> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
> >>
> >>
> >> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
> >> --
> >> -Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
> >
> >
> >H.
> Gee, how many times are we going to repeat ourselves here?
I don't know, Marie. How many?
>This could
> conceivably go on forever:
Delete it Marie.
is someone going to be an adult and stop
> trying to get the last word?
Nope.
>
> Unfortunately, I doubt it.
Unfortunately, you're right.
H.
Helen Arias
> >> >>>> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>
> >> >>>Unfortunately, it is.
>
> >> >>Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>
>
> >> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>
> >Unfortunately, it is.
>
> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
Unfortunately, male circumcision *IS* mutilation.
H.
Marie Quick
Arias) writes:
>
>In article i...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com, duka...@ix.netcom.com (Marie
Quick ) writes:
>> In <43ka6q$6...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> hel...@vpadmin.corp.sun.com
(Helen
>> Arias) writes:
>> >
>> (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>> >> >> >> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>> >>
>> >> >> >Unfortunately, it is.
(tiresome repetitions snipped)
>> Gee, how many times are we going to repeat ourselves here?
>
>I don't know, Marie. How many?
I'm not involved in this fascinating little give and take, so you tell
me.
>
>>This could
>> conceivably go on forever:
>
>Delete it Marie.
Nah, I think I'll sit back and watched, bemused, as two adults play the
"did not! did too!" game that one generally sees only young children
playing.
>
>is someone going to be an adult and stop
>trying to get the last word?
>
>Nope.
Now why does *that* not surprise me?
>> Unfortunately, I doubt it.
>
>Unfortunately, you're right.
>
As usual.
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article f...@netnews.upenn.edu, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>> >> >>>> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>> >> >>>Unfortunately, it is.
>> >> >>Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>> >> >Unfortunately it is.
>> >> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>> >Unfortunately, it is.
>> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
>Unfortunately, male circumcision *IS* mutilation.
Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
Grace Boockholdt
}to perform this rite. As such, to the Jewish people it is not needless. And
}since the Brit Milah is a vital part of Judaism, opposition to it is clearly
}anti-semitic.
Are the JEWS who oppose this anti-semitic??
} But that is irrelevant. Anti-semites like you, who oppose a vital part
}of Judaism while lacking the spine to admit to their own bias, are a dime a
}dozen.
I know several Jews who either have not
circ'd their sons or will not circ their sons.
They are hardly "lacking the spine". It is
quite clear also that they feel that the ritual
is barbaric and have said so to
Grace Boockholdt
}This installment of the eternal crossposted circumcision flamewar
}brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
}------------------------------------------------------------------------
}>In article <43g32e$9...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, David Barnett writes:
}
}>>One has to use a little common sense. Exposing surplus female children
}>>is obviously objectionable, but the Jewish brith is a trivial operation
}>>with no demonstrable adverse consequence. As I have pointed out,
}>>it is not even cosmetically irreversible.
}
}>It may be trivial with no demonstrable adverse consequence (when done
}>right), but it also has no definite provable benefit.
}
}False.
Another lie. The medical field has stated outright
that there is no medical benefit....THEY could not
prove otherwise.
Grace Boockholdt
Albert -Al
>>that there is no medical benefit....THEY could not
>>prove otherwise.
> The Academy of Pediatrics has stated that circumcision ``has
> potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages
> and risks,'' but it has not recommended routine circumcision.
>So your second sentence is an outright lie.
>They go on to say:
> It is impossible to be dogmatic about the value of circumcision
> because of the many variables, such as race, social and economic
> status, education, and climate, that make a large, prospective,
> long-term study difficult to do...
>further proving that your statement is a propagadist lie, plain and simple.
>Now, do you need me to translate all that into smaller syllables?
>>Grace Boockholdt
>//jbaltz
>jerry b. altzman
Jerry,
Your as dumb as a stick! *Exactly* what medical benefit
did this report say circumcision had?
Griptyte Thin
> In message <43ndrf$g...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> - gra...@wolfclan.Corp.Sun.COM
> (Grace Boockholdt) writes:
>
> :> Another lie. The medical field has stated outright
> :>that there is no medical benefit....THEY could not
> :>prove otherwise.
>
> Yet another lie. You should know better Grace.
No its not.
> In 1989 the American Academy of Pediatrics revised its policy on
> circumcision, stating "newborn circumcision has potential medical
> benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks."
>
> And in 1990, the American Academy of Family Physicians issued the
> following postition statement on circumcision: "Current medical
> literature regarding neonatal circumcision is controversial and
> conflicting. Proponents cite potential benefits in regard to penile
> cancer, cervical cancer in the male's partner, sexually transmitted
> diseases including HIV infection, and neonatal urinary tract
> infections and their sequelae. Conversely, other physicians are not
> convinced of these relationships and argue that optimal hygiene
> affords as much protection as circumcision. The potential benefits
> must be weighed against the potential risks."
>
> "The decision to perform neonatal circumcision should be based on
> the informed consent of the parents and requires objective, factual
> couseling of parents by the family physician."
>
> The medical field has taken a neutral stand on neonatal circumcision
> and decided that parents should make an informed choice for their child.
I think that should read the *US* medical field have taken a neutral
stance.
Penile cancer is incredibly rare and the connection with circumcision
is unproven. Similarly with many of those other diseases listed, comparison
with statistics from countries outside of the US where the male population
is largely uncircumcised show little or no correllation. Compare incidence
of cervical cancer in the US, where >50% of males are circumcised with the UK
where <20% (and falling) males are circumcised. It is on this basis that
the British National Health Service have stated that they will NOT carry out
routine circumcision without it being a medical neccessity on children. This
position has been endorsed by the British Medical Association.
GT
GT
Stuart Brown
(Grace Boockholdt) writes:
:> Another lie. The medical field has stated outright
:>that there is no medical benefit....THEY could not
:>prove otherwise.
Yet another lie. You should know better Grace.
In 1989 the American Academy of Pediatrics revised its policy on
circumcision, stating "newborn circumcision has potential medical
benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks."
And in 1990, the American Academy of Family Physicians issued the
following postition statement on circumcision: "Current medical
literature regarding neonatal circumcision is controversial and
conflicting. Proponents cite potential benefits in regard to penile
cancer, cervical cancer in the male's partner, sexually transmitted
diseases including HIV infection, and neonatal urinary tract
infections and their sequelae. Conversely, other physicians are not
convinced of these relationships and argue that optimal hygiene
affords as much protection as circumcision. The potential benefits
must be weighed against the potential risks."
"The decision to perform neonatal circumcision should be based on
the informed consent of the parents and requires objective, factual
couseling of parents by the family physician."
The medical field has taken a neutral stand on neonatal circumcision
and decided that parents should make an informed choice for their child.
:>Grace Boockholdt
-- Stuart Brown
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The people who really run organizations are usually found several
levels down, where it is still possible to get things done.
-- (Terry Pratchett)
Patrick Draper
>I would be interested in knowing what your
>cure for acne would be for acme, or diaper rashe.
These are diseases, or something wrong. There is nothing wrong with the
foreskin.
>Would you insinuate that either of these should be
>left alone? Would you argue that parents have no right
>to use medications to remove them?
Removing zits won't have the possibility of turning your little boy into a
little girl.
>Similarly if a child is born with six fingers, would
>you suggest that the parents leave it on, which could
>lead to many health problems(calcium and nerve blocks
>for example) or would you have them remove it, without
>the childs consent.
Six fingers is not the normal condition, but a foreskin is. Evolution put
it there, and hasn't decided to remove it.
>If you can tell me that circumcision does not and never
>did prevent any ailness, and then prove that, I might
>consider your point. The problem is Cancer may be caused
The studies about cancer are now debunked. The AMA has issued statements
that they find no reason to circumcise anymore. Tell me this: How is a
bunch of extra skin going to cause cancer? If extra skin causes cancer,
then I guess people with big noses and ears better stay out of the sun!
>by this, the foreskin alows for more microscopic rips in
>the skin, and in turn makes it easier to transmit STD's,
The STD thing is bogus too. It makes as much sense as the notion that AIDS
is a plague on the drug users from God.
And if you think about it, a tight skin is much more likely to tear than a
loose one. Some people who are circumcised very tightly can get tears in
the skin from a normal sized woody!
>If you want to tell me that a little bit of pleasure makes
>a life worth of difference, please see a psychiatris.
Why? My penis needs a foreskin, not my brain!
People in the rest of the world are amazed at the silly things that
Americans do. It's almost as if everyone walked around the country holding
a potted plant and an old dog leash, because all the doctors said that if
you hold a potted plant and a dog leash, then the cancer goblins won't bite
you. But at the same time, billions of people have decided that it's a
royal pain in the ass to carry around potted plants and dog leashes all day
long.
>The only person who would be able to say if uncirrcumcised
>sex is better than circumsised sex would be a man who was
>uncircumcised and became circumcised later in life. If he
>were to be circumcised later in life it would probably be
>for devout religous reasons (or health which is a totally
>different case) and would probably not discuss comparitive
>sexual pleasure. (His wife may not enjoy the new look of
You're new to this aren't you? There's been plenty of testimonials from men
on the subject. I have a whole bookful of them (*The Joy of Uncircumcising*
by Jim Bigelow)
>his penis, or may be uncomfortable with the idea of later
>circumcision and may not be performing as usual, or he may
>have gone under a stress which has changed the way he
>thinks, the brain is a marvelous thing which we barely
>understand.)
There's a lot of "may be" and "probably" and "which we barely understand"
How about there's a lot about human sexuality that we don't understand, so
what makes us so smart that we can just nip off whatever pieces we don't
like?
>Any other discussion is a pedantic brawl of "I am better in
>bed than you".
I recognize this rhetorical technique as a variant on the ever popular
(hands go on ears at this point) "I'm not listening I'm not listening blah
blah blah OH SAY CAN YOU SEE" which is often practiced by children.
>Please
>-Kalonomas Anschel ben Yitzak
/\/\ |Patrick Draper Mr. Order, he runs at a|
/ /_.\|Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc. good pace, but old |
\ /./|e-mail: pd...@ctp.com Mother chaos is |
\/\/ |Amsterdam, The Netherlands winning the race. |
Dr. Shlomo (Sean) Engelson
Keith A Rothschild <ka...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Would you insinuate that either of these should be
>left alone? Would you argue that parents have no right
>to use medications to remove them?
Removing zits won't have the possibility of turning your little boy into a
little girl.
Neither does circumcision, idiot.
>Similarly if a child is born with six fingers, would
>you suggest that the parents leave it on, which could
>lead to many health problems(calcium and nerve blocks
>for example) or would you have them remove it, without
>the childs consent.
Six fingers is not the normal condition, but a foreskin is. Evolution put
it there, and hasn't decided to remove it.
For this individual, with this particular genome, 6 fingers *is*
normal. You have a gene that gives you a foreskin. He has a gene
that gives him an extra pinkie. What's the difference? When will you
twits realise that the "natural law" argument has been discredited
already for centuries?
>The only person who would be able to say if uncirrcumcised
>sex is better than circumsised sex would be a man who was
>uncircumcised and became circumcised later in life. If he
You're new to this aren't you? There's been plenty of testimonials from men
on the subject. I have a whole bookful of them (*The Joy of Uncircumcising*
by Jim Bigelow)
So what? This is a scientific sample? I culd get you a whole bok
filled with testimonials of people who've seen Elvis in the local
supermarket. So?
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article n...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, aa...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>} Your whole premise is predicated on the assumption that the Brit
>}Milah is "a needless operation." Yet the Jewish people are
>}commanded by their Bible to perform this rite. As such, to the
>}Jewish people it is not needless. And since the Brit Milah is a
>}vital part of Judaism, opposition to it is clearly anti-semitic.
> Are the JEWS who oppose this anti-semitic??
Yes.
The usual phrase is "self-hating Jew".
>} But that is irrelevant. Anti-semites like you, who oppose a vital part
>}of Judaism while lacking the spine to admit to their own bias, are a dime a
>}dozen.
> I know several Jews who either have not circ'd their sons or will
>not circ their sons. They are hardly "lacking the spine".
As in, have they admitted to being self-hating Jews?
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article j...@netnews.upenn.edu, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>}>It may be trivial with no demonstrable adverse consequence (when done
>}>right), but it also has no definite provable benefit.
>}False.
> Another lie. The medical field has stated outright that there is
>no medical benefit....THEY could not prove otherwise.
You're flat out lying. The AAP knows of numerous prophylactic benefits
resulting from circumcision. The question is whether these overweigh
the risks and cost of routine circumcision, and at the moment, the AAP's
stance--on purely medical grounds--is that is too close to call.
Matthew P Wiener
>Keith A Rothschild <ka...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>>cure for acne would be for acme, or diaper rashe.
>These are diseases, or something wrong. There is nothing wrong with
>the foreskin.
There is no need for it either.
>>Would you insinuate that either of these should be left alone? Would
>>you argue that parents have no right to use medications to remove
>>them?
>Removing zits won't have the possibility of turning your little boy into a
>little girl.
Neither will circumcision.
>>Similarly if a child is born with six fingers, would you suggest
>>that the parents leave it on, which could lead to many health
>>problems(calcium and nerve blocks for example) or would you have
>>them remove it, without the childs consent.
>Six fingers is not the normal condition, but a foreskin is. Evolution put
>it there, and hasn't decided to remove it.
So what? Evolution has also given us bad teeth, vermiform appendices,
bald spots, and a host of other "normal" items.
>The studies about cancer are now debunked. The AMA has issued statements
>that they find no reason to circumcise anymore.
The AAP is neutral regarding the medical reasons.
> Tell me this: How is a
>bunch of extra skin going to cause cancer? If extra skin causes cancer,
>then I guess people with big noses and ears better stay out of the sun!
Presumably it would be greater chance of contracting a venereal virus that
perhaps carries an oncogene. The foreskin provides a bigger target.
>>by this, the foreskin alows for more microscopic rips in
>>the skin, and in turn makes it easier to transmit STD's,
>The STD thing is bogus too. It makes as much sense as the notion that AIDS
>is a plague on the drug users from God.
It is not bogus. Deal with it.
>And if you think about it, a tight skin is much more likely to tear than a
>loose one.
Not really.
>People in the rest of the world are amazed at the silly things that
>Americans do.
So what?
>>The only person who would be able to say if uncirrcumcised sex is
>>better than circumsised sex would be a man who was uncircumcised and
>>became circumcised later in life. If he were to be circumcised later
>>in life it would probably be for devout religous reasons (or health
>>which is a totally different case) and would probably not discuss
>>comparitive sexual pleasure. (His wife may not enjoy the new look of
>You're new to this aren't you? There's been plenty of testimonials from men
>on the subject. I have a whole bookful of them (*The Joy of Uncircumcising*
>by Jim Bigelow)
And there have been plenty of testimonies the other way too. Duh.
>How about there's a lot about human sexuality that we don't understand, so
>what makes us so smart that we can just nip off whatever pieces we don't
>like?
Who does that?
Louis Epstein
: In article 4...@netnews.upenn.edu, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
: > >>>> Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
: >
: > >>>Unfortunately, it is.
: >
: > >>Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
: >
: > >Unfortunately it is.
: >
: > Fortunately, male circumcision is not mutilation.
: Unfortunately, it is.
On the contrary,it's as essential to the birth process in a male as
cutting off the umbilical cord...and leaving the foreskin attached would
be just as gross as leaving the child with a cord dangling from the navel.
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <43mjfg$f...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Matthew P Wiener writes:
>>In article <95091823...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
><david@election writes:
>>>In article <43kbj4$j...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Matthew P Wiener writes:
>>>>The comparison with Dr Crippen was completely uncalled for.
>>>I didn't compare you with Dr. Crippen. I compared your attitude to the
>>>use of the word 'mutilation' with that held by Dr. Crippen over the use
>>>of the exact same word.
>>_That_ comparision with Dr Crippen was completely uncalled for.
>Why? You object to the word 'mutilation' because you have already
>defined your actions as not being mutilation.
False. I object because the dictionary has already defined "mutilation"
in a way that rules out circumcision, so the use of this word here is
nothing but propaganda and slander. You might have noticed.
> Dr. Crippen did exactly
>the same.
He obviously chose a convenient transparently self-serving definition.
You will not find a "doctor exemption" clause in any dictionary.
There is obviously no comparison between the two. You made it for no
other reason than propaganda and slander against those who circumcize.
Lesley Harkin
>
>In article <gt-2009951106150001@mac_f113_107.dcs.gla.ac.uk> g...@bloodknock.neddy.seagoon.com (Griptyte Thin) writes:
>
>>Penile cancer is incredibly rare and the connection with circumcision
>>is unproven. Similarly with many of those other diseases listed, comparison
>>with statistics from countries outside of the US where the male population
>>is largely uncircumcised show little or no correllation. Compare incidence
>>of cervical cancer in the US, where >50% of males are circumcised with the UK
>>where <20% (and falling) males are circumcised. It is on this basis that
>>the British National Health Service have stated that they will NOT carry out
>>routine circumcision without it being a medical neccessity on children. This
>>position has been endorsed by the British Medical Association.
>
>you mean that doctors will count "at the request of the parent" as not
>routine and therefore perform the operation? Or do you mean that
>doctors will not carry out the operation, even at the request of the
>parents?
>
As the National Health Service is government funded and operations carried
out under it are "free" (read tax funded), I believe this means that the
NHS will only pay for circumcisions if they are individually medically
indicated. Parents who want it done otherwise will have to have it done
privately.
Lesley
Alison Wyld - SunSoft ICNC
Its worth pointing out than in Britain, other than in the unusual cases
where there is a specific medical reason to circ. a specific boy, the
vast majority of circs. are done for religious reasons on Muslim and Jewish
boys. These are not done in NHS hospitals by doctors, but rather by the
competant religous authorities. So the scenario of parents requesting a
hospital to circ. their son is pretty unusual.
(For the sake of completeness, female circumcision is illegal in the UK
and has been since the early 80s).
Cheers
Alsion
jonathan edelstein
: The Bible says (Leviticus ch. 20 v. 13) that I should be murdered with my
: boyfriend and that it would be my fault if I was. I think any book which
: says that ought to be denounced.
Do you realize that, as a gay male and an atheist, there are large
numbers of people who would consider your actions and beliefs immoral,
barbaric, unnatural and just plain wrong, and seek to ban them? I'm not
one of these, but they are common enough that I am sure you are aware of
their existence - and they have exactly as much on which to base their
prejudices as you do.
I would think that, as a member of not one but two persecuted groups,
that you would be the last one to try to impose your moral code on
others. Evidently, however, this is not so.
Jonathan I. Edelstein in The Bronx, NY
"Who is wise? He who learns from all."
-Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1
David Boothroyd
In article <43pver$i...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Matthew P Wiener writes:
>In article <95092019...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
<david@election writes:
>>You object to the word 'mutilation' because you have already
>>defined your actions as not being mutilation.
>
>False. I object because the dictionary has already defined "mutilation"
>in a way that rules out circumcision, so the use of this word here is
>nothing but propaganda and slander. You might have noticed.
I don't care what the dictionary says. People define words, dictionaries
merely record the definitions people use. Forcibly removing some part
of the body for no good reason would come under mutilation in most people's
minds.
>> Dr. Crippen did exactly the same.
>
>He obviously chose a convenient transparently self-serving definition.
>You will not find a "doctor exemption" clause in any dictionary.
Nor will you find a circumcision exemption.
>There is obviously no comparison between the two. You made it for no
>other reason than propaganda and slander against those who circumcize.
I made it for the one reason that the furious and irrelevant opposition
to the use of the word 'mutilation' was common to both
--
\/ David "electionibo" Boothroyd. I wish I was in North Dakota. Get Down, Shep!
It's more complicated than that. US Senate R 53 D 46 V 1.House R 233 D 201 I 1.
http://nyx10.cs.du.edu:8001/~dboothro/home.html for elections and email to MPs.
The House of Commons now : C 327, Lab 270, L Dem 24, UU 9, PC 4, SDLP 4, SNP 4,
UDUP 3, Ind C 1, Ind UU 1, Spkrs 4. Conservative majority now 7. 0181 372 5288.
David Boothroyd
In article <43q0hv$i...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Matthew P Wiener writes:
>In article <95092019...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
<david@election writes:
>>>
>>>We don't *need* to justify it. It's a solid foundational part of our
>>>religion, pure and simple.
>
>>have to justify inflicting your opinion on other people.
>
>Since it causes no harm to anyone, there is no reason whatsoever to
>interfere with it. Period.
It does cause harm - it infringes personal choice.
David Boothroyd
In article <43q0df$i...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Matthew P Wiener writes:
>In article <95092019...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
<david@election writes:
>>>Have you in all your gay activism faced mobs of
>>>foaming Jews planning to stone homosexual men? Or maybe you find others
>>>more of a problem?
>>
>>No, that was precisely the point I was making (I'm amazed you missed it).
>
>I was ignoring your point. I was showing the hypocrisy of your complaint.
This attempt was a complete failure - it showed me that you were either
stupid or deliberately ignorant.
>>It is that I don't object to one religion more than any other. I object
>>to what some religions *do* in infringing individual choice.
>
>So, like I asked, what have Jews *DONE* to infringe you in your gayness?
Nothing at all, which is my point. If I was, as you claim, anti-semitic
I would have attacked Judaism over this.
>>You claim my opposition comes from anti-semitic
>>prejudice when in fact it comes from objective factors of opposition
>>to restriction of personal choice.
>
>We point that out separately.
So what? I'm not having you making the almost-certainly libellous claim
that I am anti-semitic unchallenged.
Binyamin Dissen
:>In article h...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu, jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) writes:
:>}In article <95091600...@election.demon.co.uk>,
:>}David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>}>You are deliberately misreading what I wrote.
:>}
:>}No I'm not.
:>}
:>}>I did not say to outlaw
:>}>the procedure - I said that any serious operation should require the
:>}>consent of the patient and not the parents.
:>}
:>}Then you have to agree to forbid any cosmetic surgery on any minor. A
:>}minor by definition cannot provide consent. Even an early teenager
:>}likely lacks the capacity to truly understand the costs/benefits of
:>}such surgeries. There are many conditions which are easily correctable
:>}while a child is very young. These conditions are not life threatening,
:>}and are merely disfiguring (as we westerners tend to see things).
:>}Therefore, you either have to carry your theory to its logical
:>}conclusion, or bail out.
:>
:> Tell me, Jack--was there a *ban* on routine
:>tonsillectomy? One can still have a tonsillectomy--yes?
:>However...note that they are no longer *routinely*
:>done. That is, there is now a CLEAR medical diagnosis
:>for the procedure before it is done. This is how *routine*
:>infant circ should go.
:>
:>
:>}
:>}>There it is again - a baseless allegation of anti-semitism.
:>}
:>}It is not at all baseless. Antisemites have called attention to the
:>}practice which they have labelled a "barbarous superstition" since the
:>}days of the Roman emperor Hadrian. (Odd, isn't it that a people which
:>}thought little of scheduling fights between other human beings and
:>}famished wild game could level such charges?) You can tell the
:>}difference between an antisemite and other health maniacs from the test
:>}in the paragraph above. A person who has formed an opinion that
:>}employing the almost absurdly safe practice of circumcision, a practice
:>}which has acknowledged benefit and little or no risk should be outlawed,
:>}but would permit parents to decide to perform far riskier forms of
:>}cosmetic surgery is obviously exercising a prejudice. Now I agree that
:>}that prejudice can come from other sources than antisemitism, but most
:>}people when exposed to the breath of the argument do agree with
:>}position I've articulated here (as evidenced by the fact that all
:>}attempts to outlaw juvenile circumcision in western countries have
:>}failed). If you continue to deny a very straightforward and logical
:>}rationale, then I have a right to suspect that antisemitism is at least
:>}one possible cause.
:>
:> Doing anything TO someone else...whether
:>there is some noble "justification" or not, and
:>that procedure causes harm or pain is a barbaric
:>form of tyranny. You are lying if you claim that
:>Jewish circs are "absurdly safe" with the false
:>implication that nothing EVER goes wrong in
:>a Jewish brit/bris. There have, indeed, been
:>many cases where dire complications have
:>arisen due directly to this procedure even when
:>done by a mohelim.
:>
:> Furthermore, most of us aren't against it
:>for "maniacle health" reasons. It has always
:>been stated as a matter of *choice*. No
:>hidden agenda here at all. It's certainly not
:>anti-semitic as the religion could still circ
:>its members (no pun intended) at the *choice*
:>of the individual.
:>
But the proper time is the eighth day! There is no justification to
delay.
G-d wants man to improve himself. That is the purpose of the world. He
has given us ways. If you do not believe in G-d, you will not accept
this, but then, as well, your opinion is meaningless to me.
:>Grace Boockholdt
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
bruce forest
> Another lie. The medical field has stated outright
> that there is no medical benefit....THEY could not
> prove otherwise.
Wrong as usual. The AUA and AAP both issued statements last year that say
' the decision not to circumcise a newborn must be accompanied by a
lifetime committment to scrupulous genital hygiene to reduce the risk of
UTI and cancer." There are many studies that suggest there is a link
between UTI, pyelonephritis and cancer, however rare. It boils down to
this...you want to risk your son's life, go ahead. I don't think I'll take
that chance, thanks. He was circ'ed with no problems at all. And for the
record, I know of no Jew who regrets his own circumcison.
--
bruce forest...
bfo...@bliss.demon.co.uk
bfo...@bliss.co.uk
bl...@ibm.net
10013...@compuserve.com
PGP pubkey on your friendly neighborhood keyserver.
"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" -David Hume-
ec...@137.205.65.145
wrote:
>From my perspective, each individual should be free to make their own
>covenant with whatever god they chose. It would appear that your god
>is, by suggesting that the covenant you make should also include male
>members of your family etc is suggesting that each individual doesn't
>get to make their own covenant, but has it made for them on the eighth
>day of their life. Is this the way you view the covenant or is there
>something I'm missing, as I don't have a full understanding of the
>Jewish faith.
The covenant was with Abraham. You may recall that G-d also asked him to
sacrifice his son as a test of faith, but sent an angel to prevent this at
the last moment. The parallel with modern civilised society was
eloquently made by Wilfred Owen in comparing Abraham to those responsible
for WWI. Quoting in part, and from memory:
"And the Angel spake unto Abraham, saying
'Lay not thy hand upon the youth,
neither do anything to him.'
But the old man would not so,
and slew his son
and half the seed of Europe
one by one."
Perhaps we have not come so very far.
Perhaps we have mistaken the direction.
Jonathan
I never met a chocolate I didn't like
> In article <43p4ei$8...@concorde.ctp.com> pd...@ctp.com (Patrick Draper) writes:
>
> Keith A Rothschild <ka...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Would you insinuate that either of these should be
> >left alone? Would you argue that parents have no right
> >to use medications to remove them?
>
> Removing zits won't have the possibility of turning your little boy into a
> little girl.
>
Nice guy. Try being a bit more informed before you call someone names.
These ought to get you started; I have more:
Lerner, Ben L., MD
Amputation of the Penis as a Complication of Circumcision Medical Record
and
Annals (Houston)
vol. 46 no. 9 September 1952 pp. 229-231.
Money, John
Ablatio Penis: Normal Male Infant Sex-Reassigned As A Girl
Archives of Sexual Behavior (New York)
vol. 4 no. 1 January 1975 pp. 65-71
Gluckman, Gordon R; Marshall L. Stoller; Mark M. Jacobs: Barry A. Kogan.
Newborn Penile Glans Amputation During Circumcision and Successful
Reattachment
Journal of Urology (Baltimore)
vol. 153 no. 3 Part 1 March 1995 pp. 778-779.
Audry G; Buis J; Vazquez MP; Gruner M.
Amputation of Penis After Circumcision -- Penoplasty Using Expandable
Prosthesis
European Journal of Pediatric Surgery (Stuttgart)
vol. 4 no. 1 February 1994 pp. 44-45.
Stefan, H
Reconstruction of the Penis Following Necrosis from Circumcision Used High
Frequency Cutting Current
Sbornik Vedeckych Praci Lekarske Fakulty Karlovy Univerzity (Hradci
Kralove)
vol. 35, no. 5 (Suppl) 1992, pp. 449-454.
Kural, Sidika, MD
Iatrogenic Penile Gangrene: 10-Year Follow-Up
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Baltimore)
vol. 95 no. 1 January 1995 pp. 210-211.
Sotolongo, Jr., Jose R., & Saul Hoffman, Michael E. Gribetz
Penile Denudation Injuries After Circumcision
Journal of Urology (Baltimore)
vol. 133 no. 1 January 1985 pp. 102-103.
Gearhart, John P; John A Rock.
Total Ablation of The Penis After Circumcision With Electrocautery: A
Method
Of Management and Long-term Followup
Journal of Urology (Baltimore)
vol. 142 no. 3 September 1989 pp. 799-801
Izzidien, Asal Y.
Successful Replantation of a Traumatically Amputated Penis in a Neonate
Journal of Pediatrics (St. Louis)
vol. 16 no. 2 April 1981 pp. 202-203
Sterenberg, N., & J. Golan, N. Ben-Hur
Necrosis of the Glans Penis Following Neonatal Circ
umcision
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Baltimore)
vol. 68 no. 2 August 1981 pp. 237-239.
Hanash, Kamal A.
Plastic Reconstruction Of Partially Amputated Penis At Circumcision
Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)
vol. 18 no. 3 September 1981 pp. 291-293
Yilmaz, AF
Rare Complication of Circumcision: Penile Amputation and Reattachment
European Urology (Basel)
vol. 23 no. 3 1993 pp. 423-424.
Du Toit, D.F., & W.T. Villet
Gangrene Of The Penis After Circumcision
South African Medical Journal (Cape Town)
vol. 55 no. 13 March 24 1979 pp. 521-522
Woodside, Jeffrey R.
Necrotizing Fasciitis After Neonatal Circumcision
American Journal of Diseases of Children (Chicago)
vol. 134 no. 3 March 1980 pp. 301-302
Woodside, Jeffrey R.
Circumcision Disasters
Pediatrics (Springfield, Illinois)
vol. 65 no. 5 May 1980 pp. 1053-1054.
Marie Quick
(snip of other examples)
There is much more to being a girl than the lack of a penis.
Marie
Gwen A Orel
surgeries, the surgery itself is a failure? Because such examples
exist for every surgery known to man.
Gwen
Patrick Draper (pd...@ctp.com) wrote:
: enge...@bimacs.cs.biu.ac.il (Dr. Shlomo (Sean) Engelson) wrote:
: > Removing zits won't have the possibility of turning your little boy into a
: > little girl.
: >Neither does circumcision, idiot.
: Name calling just makes you look bad.
: Within the past couple years a boy lost his penis to a "safe" circumcision
: because the cauterizing tool that was being used burned the shit out of it.
: The doctor bandaged the penis up and a couple days later, the whole thing
: sloughed off.
: Sexual reassignment surgery was performed, then the little boy was
: henceforth a little girl.
: I will provide references to this if you want.
: >For this individual, with this particular genome, 6 fingers *is*
: >normal. You have a gene that gives you a foreskin. He has a gene
: >that gives him an extra pinkie. What's the difference? When will you
: You've got a strange definition of normal. As an example of normal, I hold
: to the court 5.5 billion people with 5 fingers on each hand. And everyone
: knows that 5.5 billion people can't be wrong! How many people can you
: present with 6 fingers?
: >twits realise that the "natural law" argument has been discredited
: >already for centuries?
: When will you read a genetics book?
: > >The only person who would be able to say if uncirrcumcised
: > >sex is better than circumsised sex would be a man who was
: > >uncircumcised and became circumcised later in life. If he
: >
: > You're new to this aren't you? There's been plenty of testimonials from men
: > on the subject. I have a whole bookful of them (*The Joy of Uncircumcising*
: > by Jim Bigelow)
: >So what? This is a scientific sample? I culd get you a whole bok
: >filled with testimonials of people who've seen Elvis in the local
: >supermarket. So?
: Tell me how I didn't answer the question? The person I was talking to said
: that the only person who knows is the one who's been circ'd as an adult and
: knows both experiences. I said that there exists such people, and those
: people have given their statements about the subject.
: He wasn't asking for a scientific sample. Where does he ask for that? WAKE
: UP! You're falling asleep in class here. Try to keep up with the rest of
: the class, and don't be afraid to ask questions if you're getting confused.
: /\/\ |Patrick Draper Mr. Order, he runs at a|
: / /_.\|Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc. good pace, but old |
: \ /./|e-mail: pd...@ctp.com Mother chaos is |
: \/\/ |Amsterdam, The Netherlands winning the race. |
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
David Boothroyd
In article <43pnal$6...@news.ios.com>, jonathan edelstein writes:
>David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Why? Justify it objectively, ie without reference to arbitrary
>: prescriptions. If you can't, everyone will be able to draw their own
>: conclusions.
>
>All right, let me take a stab at it.
>
>The way I see it, there are three types of actions that parents can take
>with regard to their children: beneficial, harmful and neutral.
[material cut (ahem) to save space]
>Thus, circumcision falls into the third category of parental activity -
>actions which are neither beneficial nor harmful in a material way. Add
>to that the *intangible* benefits of circumcision - the religious
>benefits - and you will see that there is no reason for any outside
>interference in the process.
>
>Is that objective enough?
Yes, and I thank you for it. But I have to disagree with you on the issue
contained in this last paragraph.
I agree that circumcision is a 'neutral' action as you describe it - it's
not fundamentally harmful. It is however practically irreversible, and
it would be wrong for any other individual to make an irreversible decision
for someone else, except if it was utterly necessary. The right of the
individual to free choice about what happens to their own body does not
mean that the individual has the right *to object*, it means the individual
must *consent* first.
>How do you justify permanently removing the freedom of the
>child to fulfill the tenets of his faith (whether or not you disagree
>with those tenets) by having a brit milah at eight days of age?
Because the child has not yet had the opportunity to determine whether
it really is his faith by eight days, and without such affirmation
it is not appropriate to assume a positive response.
David Boothroyd
In article <43rp74$f...@news.ios.com>, jonathan edelstein writes:
>David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: boyfriend and that it would be my fault if I was. I think any book which
>: says that ought to be denounced.
>
>Do you realize that, as a gay male and an atheist, there are large
>numbers of people who would consider your actions and beliefs immoral,
>barbaric, unnatural and just plain wrong, and seek to ban them?
Yes. I don't think it's possible to be unaware of that in my position.
>I'm not
>one of these, but they are common enough that I am sure you are aware of
>their existence - and they have exactly as much on which to base their
>prejudices as you do.
I am not, however, prejudiced over circumcision.
>I would think that, as a member of not one but two persecuted groups,
>that you would be the last one to try to impose your moral code on
>others. Evidently, however, this is not so.
I'm not trying to impose my moral code on others. I have nothing against
circumcision. I do however have something against *forced* circumcision.
My point is that the individual being circumcised must consent to the
operation.
Gwen A Orel
: I agree that circumcision is a 'neutral' action as you describe it - it's
: not fundamentally harmful. It is however practically irreversible, and
: it would be wrong for any other individual to make an irreversible decision
: for someone else, except if it was utterly necessary. The right of the
: individual to free choice about what happens to their own body does not
: mean that the individual has the right *to object*, it means the individual
: must *consent* first.
A child does not *consent* to his parents. One simply has them.
: Because the child has not yet had the opportunity to determine whether
: it really is his faith by eight days, and without such affirmation
: it is not appropriate to assume a positive response.
We feel differently. Our children are "born into" this faith. Of
course we assume a positive response. What would be wrong is to assume
there is some doubt, as failure to carry out Brit Milah would imply.
Until you understand this, that ours is not merely a "persuasion," there
is little point on your ranting to this newsgroup. At best you will
provoke scorn and bafflement, at worst outrage and disgust. You will
not further your point.
Gwen
Jeff Morgan
: "And the Angel spake unto Abraham, saying
: 'Lay not thy hand upon the youth,
: neither do anything to him.'
: But the old man would not so,
: and slew his son
: and half the seed of Europe
: one by one."
And all this time I thought it was:
God said to Abraham: "kill me a son" and Abe said:
"God, you must be puttin' me on!"
--
J. S. Morgan <jmo...@csn.net>
Patrick Draper
>On the contrary,it's as essential to the birth process in a male as
>cutting off the umbilical cord...and leaving the foreskin attached would
>be just as gross as leaving the child with a cord dangling from the navel.
Gross?
Here's a man who has been influenced by a culture of mutilation to think
that the natural body is gross.
It's a sick culture. Garbage pail kids and people blowing up on the screen
aren't gross to Americans, but the natural beatuful human body has
grossness to it?
Wow.
p.s. Culture of Mutilation - I am not speaking of Jewish culture here. I am
speaking of American culture as a whole. I don't believe that Jewish
culture teaches that the human body is gross, so if anyone wants to attempt
to pick up that point with me, be clear on that at least if you please.
Patrick Draper
>Neither does circumcision, idiot.
M.S. Robb
Go away please.
matt
--
There is no excuse.
There is no accusation.
Patrick Draper
>In article <43ndrf$g...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, gra...@wolfclan.Corp.Sun.COM wrote:
>Wrong as usual. The AUA and AAP both issued statements last year that say
>' the decision not to circumcise a newborn must be accompanied by a
>lifetime committment to scrupulous genital hygiene to reduce the risk of
>UTI and cancer." There are many studies that suggest there is a link
You forgot to include the paragraph just below that one which reads:
'the decision not to remove the breasts of a newborn infant girl must be
accompanied by a lifetime committment to get them squished painfully in an
X-ray machine to reduce the risk of cancer."
Patrick Draper
>(snip of other examples)
>Marie
Please take a look at the reference I've left in the followup. The child is
being raised as a girl, so that much more is presumably being taught to IT.
Patrick Draper
>Are you seriously suggesting that because there are examples of botched
>surgeries, the surgery itself is a failure? Because such examples
>exist for every surgery known to man.
No, just that surgery is totally unnecessary for the health of an infant.
To claim that boys should have their foreskin excised for health reasons is
an evil thing.
Gwen A Orel
: No, just that surgery is totally unnecessary for the health of an infant.
: To claim that boys should have their foreskin excised for health reasons is
: an evil thing.
But you are using health reasons and botched surgeries as your main
justification for attempting to ban this operation, which has tremendous
ritual significance to us. By justifying the "danger" by using such
examples you suggest that the examples prove something, when statistically,
they don't! There are freak examples of death during tonsillectomies
and liposuctions too. *I* didn't bring in the health/danger dialectic, you
did, and now you want to resort to a moral high ground.
Basically, when you can't win morally, you try to use science; when that
doesn't work, you attempt a philosophical ("evil thing") position.
You can't seem to make a good case on either.
I for one think it is an "evil thing" for people like you to attempt to
interfere with the religious practices of others.
Gwen A Orel
occurrences) and danger so you revert to a moral high ground ("evil thing.")
You can't win on a moral high ground (your viewpoint is hardly universal)
so you attempt to use medical statistics.
Face it, Patrick, you can't win. But the least you could do is stick to
one strategy at a time.. *You* aare the one trying to prove it is
wrong; the burden is on you.
Our position, by contrast, has taken one clear strategy: it is our religious
duty. We don't agree that there is a loss of pleasure or other danger.
And we are not interested (unlike you) in trying to force anyone
else to our position.
Gwen
Patrick Draper (pd...@ctp.com) wrote:
: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) wrote:
: >Are you seriously suggesting that because there are examples of botched
: >surgeries, the surgery itself is a failure? Because such examples
: >exist for every surgery known to man.
: No, just that surgery is totally unnecessary for the health of an infant.
: To claim that boys should have their foreskin excised for health reasons is
: an evil thing.
: /\/\ |Patrick Draper Mr. Order, he runs at a|
: / /_.\|Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc. good pace, but old |
: \ /./|e-mail: pd...@ctp.com Mother chaos is |
: \/\/ |Amsterdam, The Netherlands winning the race. |
Jacob Love
Grace Boockholdt <gra...@wolfclan.Corp.Sun.COM> wrote:
> Tell me, Jack--was there a *ban* on routine
>tonsillectomy? One can still have a tonsillectomy--yes?
A tonsillectomy is *always* an optional procedure, unless there is
something life threatening about the condition of the tonsils (and I
have never heard of such a case). The doctors recommended that we
remove my daughter's tonsils because having had three or more
infections per year for two years, they felt it was likely that she
would continue to miss an unacceptable number of days of school. I am
quite certain that if we fully explained the pain that she would
experience (and did following the procedure), she would have refused.
So, the point remains. You either have to agree that we were just as
"evil" for subjecting our daughter to the "needless" cruelty of
elective surgery in this case and agree that all such elective surgery
be prohibited, or you must agree that your position on circumcision is
based in at best illogical concepts and at worst antisemitic bigotry.
In the interests of my time, and not for any fear of losing this
debate, I'm going to curtail my responses.
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
bruce forest
> bfo...@bliss.demon.co.uk (bruce forest) wrote:
>
> >In article <43ndrf$g...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>,
gra...@wolfclan.Corp.Sun.COM wrote:
>
> >Wrong as usual. The AUA and AAP both issued statements last year that say
> >' the decision not to circumcise a newborn must be accompanied by a
> >lifetime committment to scrupulous genital hygiene to reduce the risk of
> >UTI and cancer." There are many studies that suggest there is a link
>
>
> You forgot to include the paragraph just below that one which reads:
>
> 'the decision not to remove the breasts of a newborn infant girl must be
> accompanied by a lifetime committment to get them squished painfully in an
> X-ray machine to reduce the risk of cancer."
How pathetic. They can't stand evidence, so they belittle it with ridicule.
Sigh. There is absolutely no health benefit to removing breasts, lungs or
bowel to prevent cancer, as you anti-circ folks love to suggest. All would
cause severe health problems. Removing the foreskin does not. Besides,
your statement shows your inaccurate information. Mammography has been
discredited in preventing breast cancer. The difference is, there is
controversy on both sides of the circ debate, and after looking at the
data on both sides,I choose to believe the AUA and AAP, among others. If
you want to gamble with your son's life, that's fine. Don't ask me to do
the same just to be trendy. The incidence of penile cancer in the UK in
1993 was 1 in 100,000. 100% of the cases were uncircumcised (Channel4
Right to Reply, 23 Sept 1995) "Oh, but that's so remote..." The same
people play the lottery at 1 to 14,000,000 and genuinely think they have a
chance to win. That means you are 140 times as likely to get penile cancer
(if you're uncircumcised,) than you are of winning the lottery.
What would you say to your son if, God forbid, he developed penile cancer?
"Gee, I was told it was rare. Yes, I could have prevented it, but who
knew? Sorry about that, son."
Have a nice day..
jodie
>Y'know, I just don't understand what this debate is all about. I mean, >didn't EVERYBODY grow up with a good recipe for marinating=
children? >Here's what my mom did:
>
>* Take one 15 oz. can of tomato sauce;
>* Select two children -- FRESH only. Trim off brown spots;
>* Pour sauce in a deep dish;
>* Add children;
>* Soak for one hour;
>* (Optional) Rotate children, using basting-brush to coat thoroughly;
>* Remove when children are tender.
>
>Now, isn't that simple?
>
>Really, people. Next thing you know, you'll be telling the Italians how to live.
> <*grumble*>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>r...@gvsu.edu real name: Roger A. Hunt
> real home: Grand Valley State University,
> Allendale, MI
>---> "Cruising the Information Superhighway at 35 miles per hour,
> in the passing lane... with a hat on."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger,
Forgive me for not having a sense of humor, but we all know that the
Information Superhighway is a breeding ground for misinformation.
Aside from the fact that putting tomato sauce on something does not
constitute a marinade :-), a posting like this could very easily end up
in some sort of Neo-Nazi or G-d-knows-what-else kind of newsgroup as
actual testimony from an actual Jew. Or it could be "read into". I can
just see it now. They would say something like "Brown Spots" refers to
our hatred of the entire African Race.
Do you really want to be personally responsible for furthering the
centuries-old blood libel myth that has caused the Jewish people so much
anguish? Why give anyone cannon-fodder?
There is, of course, a great deal of difference between caution and
paranoia. But I don't think that anything of this nature should be
committed to writing in this medium without serious thought to the
consequences.
Jodie Horowitz
jo...@netvision.net.il
Matthew P Wiener
brought to you courtesy of Phil Hunt <phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <95092123...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd <david@election writes:
>In article <43pver$i...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Matthew P Wiener writes:
>>In article <95092019...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
><david@election writes:
>>>You object to the word 'mutilation' because you have already
>>>defined your actions as not being mutilation.
>>False. I object because the dictionary has already defined "mutilation"
>>in a way that rules out circumcision, so the use of this word here is
>>nothing but propaganda and slander. You might have noticed.
>I don't care what the dictionary says.
You lied about what I objected to regarding people's use of "mutilation".
I was merely pointing this out.
> People define words, dictionaries
>merely record the definitions people use.
Yes. And I go by the recorded definition of "mutilation"
> Forcibly removing some part
>of the body for no good reason would come under mutilation in most
>people's minds.
Parental choice is a good reason.
>>> Dr. Crippen did exactly the same.
>>He obviously chose a convenient transparently self-serving definition.
>>You will not find a "doctor exemption" clause in any dictionary.
>Nor will you find a circumcision exemption.
There's no need. It doesn't fit the definition. In contrast, Dr Crippen's
actions fit the definition precisely, and he was making up a self-serving
escape clause.
>>There is obviously no comparison between the two. You made it for no
>>other reason than propaganda and slander against those who circumcize.
>I made it for the one reason that the furious and irrelevant opposition
>to the use of the word 'mutilation' was common to both
Opposition was common. In Dr Crippen's case, it was lying. In our case,
it's because the facts are what they are. You have now admitted to using
words as you see fit, not as the dictionaries record them being used. I'd
say you fit in the Dr Crippen category of shameless lying.
--
The only good Brit is a Brit Milah.
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)