Regretting circumcision of children

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Dave Allen

unread,
Jun 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/16/99
to

Forwarded messages from restoring fathers apologizing to sons for
allowing them to be cirked.

____________________Begin Message Excerpts______________

> Dear Brothers:
> I need your advice, Over the fourth my Sons will all be home, and I plan on
> having a talk with them. I feel that I need to apologize for letting them be
> mutilated. I tried to not let them be cut, but the Doctor had all the
> arguments that we all heard, "After all you would not want him to look
> different from you?" " I said that that was fine if he was intact," "Well, we
> just do it. it's better this way." He said. Being young I went with it. I
> have always felt guilty for having him done. When the second boy came along,
> I tried again. " you don't want him to look different from his brother?"
> Needless to say he too was mutilated. My mind was made up that if our last
> one was a boy he would be left intact. Once again the DR talked us into it.
> Now I am madder than a wet pole cat.
> What I need from all of you is some of your kind and loving wisdom. I know
> that the boy's will understand, as we have always been open with each other.
> I raised them that's it's OK to have feelings, not to hide things inside. I
> just want them to know that they have the information and support of other
> guys that have been mutilated, and be able to restore.
> Sometimes I wonder just how deep our cirk: scars really are.
> Thanks, You are all a wonderful bunch of Brothers.

>T____

Hi T____

I too had allowed my sons to be mutilated as neonates. Believing all
the crap I was fed both by my mother and by the doctors who delivered
my four sons.

I have apologized to each of my sons. I have encouraged them to
restore, but being young and full of themselves, they have yet to
believe what will happen as they age. My youngest was 14 when I
apologized to him. He collapsed into my arms as we both cried - that
was [a few] years ago. He changed in a few days from a silly child to
a wonderful young man. I truly believe that our talk and tears helped
him get somewhat over the trauma he had carried from his mutilation.

All four of my boys accepted what had been done to them. All [ ] of my
children are firmly against circumcision. So I believe that my hoped
for grandsons will grow up Intact.

B___

_______________________End Excerpts___________________


coontail

unread,
Jun 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/16/99
to
In article <37804608...@netnews.netreach.net>,

First let me say I am anti-circ, but golly how could you let a doctor
talk you into it that many times, if you'd studied the issue or even if
you'd agreed to not do this. Doctors are pople not Gods you know. They
can and often do have their own pro-circ agendas. Some of them moonlight
as mohels etc..
Yes, they belong in jail or worse, but the public is too apothetic for
anything to happen to them. Even parents who have had kids circed
without consent, have had trouble getting settlements from American
pro-circ and doctor intoxicated juries.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Dave Allen

unread,
Jun 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/16/99
to
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:23:57 GMT, coontail <coon...@my-deja.com>
wrote:


>. Doctors are pople not Gods you know. They
>can and often do have their own pro-circ agendas. Some of them moonlight
>as mohels etc..
> Yes, they belong in jail or worse, but the public is too apothetic for
>anything to happen to them. Even parents who have had kids circed
>without consent, have had trouble getting settlements from American
>pro-circ and doctor intoxicated juries.

That's true, there are still some hospitals who appear to have almost
calculated that they make more money strongly pushing circumcision and
if necessary, wrongfully circumcising, contrary to the wishes of the
parents, weighing the risk, that a parent may sue. They will bill
for the circumcision claiming the child benefited. And the chance of
a large jury settlement for the parents is small in many
jurisdicitons, for the few who cannot dissuaded from suing.

So what can be done about this?

Even when parents consent, in many cases it was really only caving-in
under incredible pressure.

That's the way people are, especially after the MD has delivered the
baby. The parents are grateful. Are they in any position to argue
with him or displease him at that point, balance-of-power-wise, right
after a birth?

I read a letter from a mother a few years ago, who from the early
part of her pregnancy had listened to and accepted all of the
arguments against cirk, and had every intention of not having her son
circumcised.

After the OB delivered the child, he turned to the father, and said,
"You want him circumcised, don't you?" And the young father just
nodded in agreement to the older doctor, despite what his wife had
wanted. The child was circumcised, and the mother was very
distraught. The point is, unless parents are prepared for this sort
of pressure, even though they would prefer to leave the child intact,
many will just cave under it. For some suggestions see:

http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/protection/


Dave A.

P.S. There is currently a related project under way. I don't have a
lot of information about this, I don't know whether the material will
be posted here. If anyone else knows more about it and wants to share
that for individuals who might want to participate, they might want to
consider posting it or contact information on this thread.

Georga Hackworth

unread,
Jun 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/16/99
to
I had a new thought today reguarding the circ debate. This is something new, and I
don't think that anyone has considered it (and maybe it needs some
condsideration). I am interesting in your thoughts on this, so please give it some
serious thought because I am being totaly serious.

Once again, my beliefs aside here. What would happen if circumcision became
illegal? Think about it for a minute. What happened when women wanted abortions
back when they were illegal? They would go to back alley doctors who would use
unclean instruments. These women would get infections that either prevented them
from ever having children when they were ready or it would kill them. Then there
were the women that bled to death. There were also cases where women would use
metal coat hangers and attempt to preform aboritions on themselves. Reguardless of
how I feel about abortion, this is why it needs to remain legal, to prevent stuff
like that from ever happening again. I am not saying that abortion is right, I am
just saying that without it other bad things can happen.

Do you all think that if circumcision became illegal (I know that there are people
out there that think that it should be) people would resort in taking children to
the same kinds of doctors who would do it in secreate and not always use sterile
equiptment or, if desperate, try to perform circ themselves? I know that people in
general can be irrational. (This may not be a good example but it is the only one
that I can think of at the moment) I used to work for a vet who refused to do
things like cat declaws and ear docking and tail croping in dogs. There was one
client who called the vet that I worked for, after calling everyone else in the
phone book and having them refuse to dock a litter of puppies. The vet that I
worked for told him that he wouldn't do it either. This guy on the phone got
really beligerent and told him if he didn't do it he would do it himself. Needless
to say the vet docked the puppy tails (and boy did the puppies cry) just to prevent
anything from happening to the puppies from some idiot trying to do the surgery
himself. The point to this is that people will attempt to do radical things that
they are not qualified to do if they can not find someone to do it for them. Do
you think that this kind of mindset would be a problem (think about the history of
abortion) if circ became illegal?

Georga

Dave Allen wrote:

> Forwarded messages from restoring fathers apologizing to sons for
> allowing them to be cirked.
>

> ____________________Begin Message Excerpts______________
>
> > Dear Brothers:
> > I need your advice, Over the fourth my Sons will all be home, and I plan on
> > having a talk with them. I feel that I need to apologize for letting them be
> > mutilated. I tried to not let them be cut, but the Doctor had all the
> > arguments that we all heard, "After all you would not want him to look
> > different from you?" " I said that that was fine if he was intact," "Well, we
> > just do it. it's better this way." He said. Being young I went with it. I
> > have always felt guilty for having him done. When the second boy came along,
> > I tried again. " you don't want him to look different from his brother?"
> > Needless to say he too was mutilated. My mind was made up that if our last
> > one was a boy he would be left intact. Once again the DR talked us into it.
> > Now I am madder than a wet pole cat.
> > What I need from all of you is some of your kind and loving wisdom. I know
> > that the boy's will understand, as we have always been open with each other.
> > I raised them that's it's OK to have feelings, not to hide things inside. I
> > just want them to know that they have the information and support of other
> > guys that have been mutilated, and be able to restore.
> > Sometimes I wonder just how deep our cirk: scars really are.
> > Thanks, You are all a wonderful bunch of Brothers.
>

Craig Wagner

unread,
Jun 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/16/99
to
In the example you cite, the difference between abortion and circumcision
would be too obvious for people to do and rest assured of getting away
with.

A woman seeking an abortion is not physically marked for life as having
had an abortion.

A boy who's been circumcised will always, obviously, bare the scars of his
circumcision, and could always be reported after-the-fact by any
pediatrician or other doctor.

In article <37680CFD...@worldnet.att.net>,

Georga Hackworth

unread,
Jun 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/16/99
to
A botched abortion does leave scars that any decent doctor can detect when a woman
goes to a doctor to find out why she can not have children, or if there is some kind
of infection. Granted, no one can just look at someone and tell that they have had
an abortion, just as no on can look at a man on the street and tell if he is circ'd
or not. If you look hard enough at a woman medically (if something went wrong)
there are clues that would cause a doctor to raise eyebrows. The way that things
are done now, we all know that a lot of women who go to abortion clinics are
harrassed by protesters at the door. There are also records that are kept about
those who were at the clinics so there is "evidence" left that can be traced.

My question to you is this, do you think that getting caught is actually a
deterent? In all honesty, it is enough for someone who wants to hide something to
do so. People are capable of hiding child abuse and neglect real well, as of late
teenagers have become real apt at hiding pregnancies. When abortion was illegal,
this was not a womans first thought when she went to find someone that would do
one. Getting caught does not stop people from robbery, rape or murder. Would the
possibility of getting caught really deter someone who was desperate from finding
someone to perform the operation (keeping in mind that reguardless of if RIC were
illegal drs. would still probably know how to do the surgery in case of those
medical instances were it is warrented)?

Thoughts?
Georga

Craig Wagner

unread,
Jun 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/16/99
to
In article <37683772...@worldnet.att.net>,
The.Ha...@worldnet.att.net wrote:

> A botched abortion does leave scars that any decent doctor can detect...

Agreed. A botched one does. ALL circumcisions leave visible scars, however.


> Granted, no one can just look at someone and tell that they have had
> an abortion

That was PART of my point.


> just as no on can look at a man on the street and tell if he is circ'd
> or not.

It's not "just as." It's obvious to ANYONE who shares a locker room with
a circumcised man, or any doctor who gives him an exam.


> If you look hard enough at a woman medically (if something went wrong)
> there are clues that would cause a doctor to raise eyebrows.

Whereas, if one GLANCES at a man in the nude, it's obvious. Your example
requires a medical examination.

I assert that reasonable people do not equate a glance with a medical
examination.


> The way that things are done now, we all know that a lot of women who
> go to abortion clinics are harrassed by protesters at the door.
> There are also records that are kept about
> those who were at the clinics so there is "evidence" left that can be traced.

And if circumcision is relegated to similar clinics, the same will be true
then. If it's eliminated (as though who oppose abortion propose), this
line of reasoning is irrelevant.


> My question to you is this, do you think that getting caught is actually a
> deterent?

In a case such as circumcision: yes, I do. Just as it would be for any
other obvious physical alteration, be it braces, casts, or a butterfly
tattoo on one's left buttock. In the end, it can't be hidden by society
without the cooperation of the individual upon whom it was imposed.


> In all honesty, it is enough for someone who wants to hide
> something to do so.

I bought a house a decade ago. How do I hide it? Without the cooperation
of the house (and an ability for it to disappear), I cannot.


> People are capable of hiding child abuse and neglect real well

until visible manifestations become obvious to casual observers.


> as of late teenagers have become real apt at hiding pregnancies.

This is irrelevant to to the fact that one CANNOT HIDE a CIRCUMCISION
unless the male upon whom it was performed NEVER undresses or urinates
(barring any bizarre contortions) in front of anyone. And THAT is highly
unusual in US society.


> When abortion was illegal, this was not a womans first thought when she
> went to find someone that would do one.

Right. Desperation was. Are you suggesting that parents are DESPERATE to
circumcise? For other than religious reasons, I find this hard to
believe. And re: religious reasons, I submit that one will never
eliminate the existence of mohels and others like them.


> Getting caught does not stop people from robbery, rape or murder.

Right. They hope the evidence -- both of the event, and of it pointing to
them --is never discovered. In the case of circumsion, the evidence is
obvious, as is the direction of the arrow "pointing to" the parents.


> Would the possibility of getting caught really deter someone who
> was desperate from finding someone to perform the operation (keeping
> in mind that reguardless of if RIC were illegal drs. would still
> probably know how to do the surgery in case of those
> medical instances were it is warrented)?

No. If someone were truly desperate, in fact, they would perform the
surgery themselves, and deal with the consequences later.

The same is true of adultery, bank robbery, murder, speeding, drunk
driving, and other forms of child abuse. If we eliminated laws pertaining
to ALL things which people are going to engage in whether we legislate
them or not, we'd have very few laws.

Anarchy, anyone?

wadi

unread,
Jun 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/17/99
to

Craig Wagner <cwa...@his.com> wrote in message
news:cwagner-1606...@pm9-188.his.com...

> In article <37683772...@worldnet.att.net>,
> The.Ha...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > A botched abortion does leave scars that any decent doctor can detect...
>
> Agreed. A botched one does. ALL circumcisions leave visible scars,
however.
>
>
I see wagner is still on about his "scar"
LOL

Joseph Hertzlinger

unread,
Jun 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/17/99
to
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:45:51 -0400, Georga Hackworth
<The.Ha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Once again, my beliefs aside here. What would happen if circumcision
>became illegal? Think about it for a minute. What happened when women
>wanted abortions back when they were illegal? They would go to back
>alley doctors who would use unclean instruments. These women would get
>infections that either prevented them from ever having children when
>they were ready or it would kill them. Then there were the women that
>bled to death. There were also cases where women would use metal coat
>hangers and attempt to preform aboritions on themselves. Reguardless of
>how I feel about abortion, this is why it needs to remain legal, to
>prevent stuff like that from ever happening again. I am not saying that
>abortion is right, I am just saying that without it other bad things can
>happen.

Speaking as a pro-circ, I think that's not a very good argument. The
abortion rate in the U.S. immediately after abortion was legalized was
much less than a decade later. Banning abortion did save some lives.

I have noticed many of the anti-circs are pro-choice on abortion. They're
opposed to genital mutilation. Whole-body mutilation is okay by them.

humm...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/17/99
to
In article <37804608...@netnews.netreach.net>,

Was the Dr. Jewish ? - What was his name ?

humm...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/17/99
to
In article <37680CFD...@worldnet.att.net>,
The.Ha...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> I had a new thought today reguarding the circ debate. This is
something new, and I
> don't think that anyone has considered it (and maybe it needs some
> condsideration). I am interesting in your thoughts on this, so
please give it some
> serious thought because I am being totaly serious.
>
> Once again, my beliefs aside here. What would happen if circumcision
became
> illegal? Think about it for a minute. What happened when women
wanted abortions
> back when they were illegal? They would go to back alley doctors who
would use
> unclean instruments. These women would get infections that either
prevented them
> from ever having children when they were ready or it would kill
them. Then there
> were the women that bled to death. There were also cases where women
would use
> metal coat hangers and attempt to preform aboritions on themselves.
Reguardless of
> how I feel about abortion, this is why it needs to remain legal, to
prevent stuff
> like that from ever happening again. I am not saying that abortion
is right, I am
> just saying that without it other bad things can happen.
>

America made female genital mutilation illegal in 1995:

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/legisl/US/federal.html

I haven' heard of any cases where people did it themselves !

How would you feel if someone had mutilated your as a child ?

If it did become illegal then doctors wouldn't be able to talk people
into it and people woul;d maybe think about WHY it is illegal !

htfcars

unread,
Jun 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/17/99
to

>
> Was the Dr. Jewish ? - What was his name ?
>
>

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.


another anti-semitic comment from the anti-circumcision camp.

Jesus was a Jew and you shall perish in everlasting fire for
your attacks on His people.
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).


Reuven Singer

unread,
Jun 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/17/99
to
If circumcision became illegal, Jews would continue to circumcise their
sons. By and large mohels probably do a better job than doctors anyway. The
royal family of Britain for example for many years has used mohels instead
of doctors to circumcise their children.
It would just be another tyrannical anti-Jewish law that Jews would ignore-
even at the risk of death.

Georga Hackworth <The.Ha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:37680CFD...@worldnet.att.net...

humm...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/17/99
to
In article <Et9a3.10594$Xr4....@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,

"htfcars" <htf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Was the Dr. Jewish ? - What was his name ?
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
> another anti-semitic comment from the anti-circumcision camp.
>
> Jesus was a Jew and you shall perish in everlasting fire for
> your attacks on His people.

I asked if he was jewish to see if he may have had any religous bias
in pushing the people into circumcising their sons. How can you say
that this is anti-semitic ? I have absolutely NOTHING against the
Arabs:

Main Entry: 1Se搶it搏c
Pronunciation: s&-'mi-tik also -'me-
Function: adjective
Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite Semite, probably from
New Latin Semita, from Late Latin Semitic Shem
Date: 1813
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic
language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic , and Amharic
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites

Geoffrey T. Falk

unread,
Jun 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/17/99
to
In article <37680CFD...@worldnet.att.net>,

Georga Hackworth <The.Ha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Once again, my beliefs aside here. What would happen if circumcision
>became illegal?

First of all, let me state that I do not advocate making an explicit
law at this point. That is not very realistic. Education and a
shift in public attitudes would have to happen first.

An explicit law may not even be necessary: Now that routine
circumcision has practically been declared a useless medical procedure
by the AAP, it technically runs afoul of existing laws against
unnecessary surgery. And now that the AAP has recommended that
anesthesia always be used, a strong case could be made that
60-75% of circumcisions performed today in fact violate existing
child abuse statutes.

This just needs to be recognized, and public attitudes are changing
fast. (See http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/brigman/ for some legal
analysis.) A successful criminal prosecution for male circumcision
may not be far off, even if the first few would be exceptional cases
(a botched job, a mohel who was on parole for child molestation,
someone practicing medicine without a license, etc.) it would be a
start.

For the same reason I don't feel we should need discriminatory laws
that only protect girls from GM. But if a court accepted that the
general assault provisions applied to FGM, they'd also have to accept
that they apply to MGM. They aren't willing to let this happen yet.

But, back to your question: What would happen if forcible circumcision
of boys was made explicitly illegal? People who want to do it for
religious reasons would be very upset. Everyone else could easily get by.
You would have to give people time to get used to the fact that there
were more intact men about. But as already almost everyone has friends
who are intact men and boys---even if they don't know they are---and
who are fine people, that shouldn't be very hard to accept. It would
be fine.

Regards
g.

--
I conceal nothing. It is not enough not to lie. One should strive
not to lie in a negative sense by remaining silent. ---Leo Tolstoy
ADDRESS ALTERED TO DEFLECT SPAM. UNSOLICITED E-MAIL ADS BILLED $500
Geoffrey T. Falk <gtf(@)cirp.org> http://www.cirp.org/~gtf/

Georga Hackworth

unread,
Jun 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/17/99
to
Thanks for the imput.
Just for the record though, I don't think that I specified male circ or FGM.
I tend to lump the two of them together as "the same thing" (I guess, for all
practical purposes they are).
Georga

NTSS80

unread,
Jun 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/17/99
to
Georgia wrote:

>What would happen if circumcision became
>illegal?

there would be a huge backlash and a huge exodus of jews and moslems from this
country.

>What happened when women wanted abortions
>back when they were illegal?

>There were also cases where women would use


>metal coat hangers and attempt to preform aboritions on themselves.

"NO WIRE HANGERS, -EVER!!!!!!!

>Do you all think that if circumcision became illegal (I know that there are
>people
>out there that think that it should be) people would resort in taking
>children to
>the same kinds of doctors who would do it in secreate and not always use
>sterile
>equiptment or, if desperate, try to perform >circ themselves?

No, they would just accept it, or they'd go to a doctor who'd perform them
underground but used clean equipment.

NTSS80

unread,
Jun 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/17/99
to
>From: jher...@ix.netcom.com (Joseph Hertzlinger)
wrote:

>
>I have noticed many of the anti-circs are pro-choice on abortion.

HER body, HER choice.

>They're
>opposed to genital mutilation. Whole-body mutilation is okay by them.

Once the baby is born, it is OWED the RIGHT to a whole body. If the baby is
still inside her, it is part of HER body, to a point ( I think its the first
trimester but I'm not sure. I think any abortions past the 1st trimester are
digusting and should only be allowed for medical reasons).
Some babies NEED to be aborted like in the case of Tubal Ligations where it
could kill the mother.

>Speaking as a pro-circ, I think that's not a very good argument.

May I ask hy are you pro-circ, mr. HERTZLINGER?

NTSS80

unread,
Jun 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/17/99
to
>From: "htfcars" <htf...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>another anti-semitic comment from the anti-circumcision camp.

get off this 'anit-circ = anti semite" shit! i hate it! Its nothing more than a
pro-circ campaign to malign the anti movement!

>Jesus was a Jew and you shall perish in everlasting fire for
>your attacks on His people.

Christ's people are the people who ACCEPT HIM as their savior, not the people
he was born amoungst.

htfcars

unread,
Jun 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/18/99
to

>
> I asked if he was jewish to see if he may have had any religous bias
> in pushing the people into circumcising their sons. How can you say
> that this is anti-semitic ? I have absolutely NOTHING against the
> Arabs:
>
> Main Entry: 1Se搶it搏c
> Pronunciation: s&-'mi-tik also -'me-
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite Semite, probably from
> New Latin Semita, from Late Latin Semitic Shem
> Date: 1813
> 1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic
> language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic , and Amharic
> 2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
>
>

under that logic I suppose Hitler wasn't anti-semitic in your view.

looks like another poster child for anti-circ = anti-semite.

you are all a bunch of Nazis..

ye shall all perish in Hell Fire with your friends from Germany
and the 2 guys from Columbine High School!

Reuven Singer

unread,
Jun 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/18/99
to
Why dont you give us the dictionary definition of "anti-Semite". That's
seems to fit you.

<humm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7kbfk0$r23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...


> In article <Et9a3.10594$Xr4....@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
> "htfcars" <htf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Was the Dr. Jewish ? - What was his name ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> >

> > another anti-semitic comment from the anti-circumcision camp.
> >

> > Jesus was a Jew and you shall perish in everlasting fire for
> > your attacks on His people.
>

> I asked if he was jewish to see if he may have had any religous bias
> in pushing the people into circumcising their sons. How can you say
> that this is anti-semitic ? I have absolutely NOTHING against the
> Arabs:
>

> Main Entry: 1Semitic


> Pronunciation: s&-'mi-tik also -'me-
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite Semite, probably from
> New Latin Semita, from Late Latin Semitic Shem
> Date: 1813
> 1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic
> language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic , and Amharic
> 2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
>
>
>

humm...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/18/99
to
In article <7kd77m$hls$4...@news.netvision.net.il>,

"Reuven Singer" <reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote:
> Why dont you give us the dictionary definition of "anti-Semite".
That's
> seems to fit you.
>

Look I have nothing against jews - why should I or anybody else
for that matter - I put the semite definition in there out of sheer
frustration at your comment that I may somehow be 'anti-semitic' (your
definition). The person said that their doctor pushed them into
circumcising their youngster - the reasoning he gave them went against
the American Acedemy of Pediatrics refuting of those arguments. I
asked if the Dr. was jewish to see if maybe there may have been
another reason for having made those recommendations since jews
circumcise their males - just to see if their was a personal bias -
nothing else. OK ?

humm...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/18/99
to
In article <19990617221032...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
jtjt...@aol.com (JTJThomp) wrote:
> How do you know that you have lost sexual pleasure by being
circumcised? Is
> there any studies out there that can prove the loss of sexual
pleasure? And if
> this is the main reason for not to circumcise, then ya'll have why to
much time
> on your hands to even bother to debate over the issue.
> Jennifer
>

This is what is lost:

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/irrevers.htm
http://www.circumcision.org/adults.htm
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/tookaway.htm
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/garcia/
http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/mgm/facts.html

humm...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/18/99
to
In article <7kb6u9$evq$3...@news.netvision.net.il>,

"Reuven Singer" <reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote:
> If circumcision became illegal, Jews would continue to circumcise
their
> sons. By and large mohels probably do a better job than doctors
anyway. The
> royal family of Britain for example for many years has used mohels
instead
> of doctors to circumcise their children.
> It would just be another tyrannical anti-Jewish law that Jews would
ignore-
> even at the risk of death.
>

Female circumcision is already against the law .. it's only a matter
of time .. :

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/legisl/US/federal.html

Norma Anderson

unread,
Jun 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/18/99
to

humm...@yahoo.com wrote in message <7ke370$omv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
:In article <19990617221032...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,

: jtjt...@aol.com (JTJThomp) wrote:
:> How do you know that you have lost sexual pleasure by being
:circumcised? Is
:> there any studies out there that can prove the loss of sexual
:pleasure? And if
:> this is the main reason for not to circumcise, then ya'll have why to
:much time
:> on your hands to even bother to debate over the issue.
:> Jennifer
:>
:

Jennifer, do you feel the same callousness towards females who have had
their clitoris removed, and are therefore unable to feel sexual
satisfation?

Norma

: This is what is lost:

:
:
:Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

htfcars

unread,
Jun 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/18/99
to

>
> >another anti-semitic comment from the anti-circumcision camp.
>
> get off this 'anit-circ = anti semite" shit! i hate it! Its nothing more than a
> pro-circ campaign to malign the anti movement!
>

Look, you scrawny little Nazi! Your foreskin-loving kamerade
has admitted that he is an anti-semite. why don't you admit it,
too. Most of the parents who read this news group should
understand that the anti-circ movement is trying to recreate
HitlerYouth in America. This shall not be done!

Centure33

unread,
Jun 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/18/99
to
>Subject: Re: Regretting circumcision of children
>From: "Norma Anderson" <shm...@msn.com>
>Date: Fri, 18 June 1999 03:42 PM EDT
>Message-id: <#xhf6Mcu#GA.232@cpmsnbbsa03>

>Jennifer, do you feel the same callousness towards females who have had
>their clitoris removed, and are therefore unable to feel sexual
>satisfation?
>
>Norma

Norma, are you claiming that the severe forms of female circumcision, are
equivalent to male ric? Are you claiming that a woman that has her clithood
trimmed, can't experience sexual satisfaction?

Eric Boyd

unread,
Jun 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/18/99
to
In article <rpxa3.11528$Xr4....@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
"htfcars" <htf...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> Look, you scrawny little Nazi! Your foreskin-loving kamerade
> has admitted that he is an anti-semite. why don't you admit it,
> too. Most of the parents who read this news group should
> understand that the anti-circ movement is trying to recreate
> HitlerYouth in America. This shall not be done!

Two points:

1.Please don't delete the headers of quoted text you're responding to.
People coming into the thread might not understand what's going on.

2.I doubt that you have any evidence linking the anticircumcision
activists and anti-Semitic groups. I have made a partial survey of US
anti-Semitic groups and have found no group that mentions opposition to
circumcision as a part of their platform. Oddly enough, many anti-Semitic
groups claim to be the geniuine "Chosen People" and that the Jews have
appropriated this role for their dastardly ends. This strange viewpoint
entails that they actually *like* many of the elements of the Jewish
tradition.

While it is true that hatred of circumcision, and I believe that anything
short of hating it is a sign of bad moral character, tends to make one
view Jews and Muslims negatively; this dislike is dissimilar to
conventional anti-Semitism. In fact, I hold my own ethnic group
Anglo-Americans to be almost as tainted by the evil of circumcision as
Jews, Muslims, and Xhosa are. Gven this, it is unfair to characterize me
as anti-Semitic because I am opposed to circumcision.

-seric

--
The sum total of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges.
W.V.O. Quine, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"

Joseph Hertzlinger

unread,
Jun 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/18/99
to
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:58:27 -0400, Craig Wagner <cwa...@his.com> wrote:

>Whereas, if one GLANCES at a man in the nude, it's obvious. Your example
>requires a medical examination.
>
>I assert that reasonable people do not equate a glance with a medical
>examination.

In other words, enforcing anti-circumcision laws will require policeman
asking men to drop their pants.

I think that counts as a real violation of privacy (not a mere "penumbra"
this time).

>This is irrelevant to to the fact that one CANNOT HIDE a CIRCUMCISION
>unless the male upon whom it was performed NEVER undresses or urinates
>(barring any bizarre contortions) in front of anyone. And THAT is highly
>unusual in US society.

Society can change. Society will have to change for anti-circ laws to be
passed.

>The same is true of adultery, bank robbery, murder, speeding, drunk
>driving, and other forms of child abuse. If we eliminated laws pertaining
>to ALL things which people are going to engage in whether we legislate
>them or not, we'd have very few laws.
>
>Anarchy, anyone?

That is the logical conclusion of the more rational arguments against
anti-abortion laws.

Craig Wagner

unread,
Jun 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/18/99
to

> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:58:27 -0400, Craig Wagner <cwa...@his.com> wrote:
>
> >Whereas, if one GLANCES at a man in the nude, it's obvious. Your example
> >requires a medical examination.
> >
> >I assert that reasonable people do not equate a glance with a medical
> >examination.
>
> In other words, enforcing anti-circumcision laws will require policeman
> asking men to drop their pants.

This does not logically follow. The remainder is, therefore, irrelevant.

Dawson William

unread,
Jun 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/18/99
to

htfcars wrote:

> >
> > I asked if he was jewish to see if he may have had any religous bias
> > in pushing the people into circumcising their sons. How can you say
> > that this is anti-semitic ? I have absolutely NOTHING against the
> > Arabs:
> >

> > Main Entry: 1Se搶it搏c


> > Pronunciation: s&-'mi-tik also -'me-
> > Function: adjective
> > Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite Semite, probably from
> > New Latin Semita, from Late Latin Semitic Shem
> > Date: 1813
> > 1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic
> > language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic , and Amharic
> > 2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
> >
> >
>

> under that logic I suppose Hitler wasn't anti-semitic in your view.
>
> looks like another poster child for anti-circ = anti-semite.
>
> you are all a bunch of Nazis..

You obviously don't know what a Nazi is.

>
>
> ye shall all perish in Hell Fire with your friends from Germany
> and the 2 guys from Columbine High School!

Because you say so?

Gee I guess I missed the part where God had something to say about


humm...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
In article <rpxa3.11528$Xr4....@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,
"htfcars" <htf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > >another anti-semitic comment from the anti-circumcision camp.
> >
> > get off this 'anit-circ = anti semite" shit! i hate it! Its nothing
more than a
> > pro-circ campaign to malign the anti movement!
> >
>
> Look, you scrawny little Nazi! Your foreskin-loving kamerade
> has admitted that he is an anti-semite. why don't you admit it,
> too. Most of the parents who read this news group should
> understand that the anti-circ movement is trying to recreate
> HitlerYouth in America. This shall not be done!
> --

This is nonsense - not worthy of a reply.

NTSS80

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
>From: "htfcars" <htf...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Look, you scrawny little Nazi!

(looks around.) who me? Oh ok

>Your foreskin-loving kamerade
>has admitted that he is an anti-semite.

ok

>why don't you admit it,
>too.

I'm not. I just resent how jews push circ on gentiles.

>Most of the parents who read this news group should
>understand that the anti-circ movement is trying to recreate
>HitlerYouth in America.

Ok there buddy. Go take your pills and come back when you get a brain.

Hugh Young

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 06:37:15 GMT, d_a...@eudoramail.com (Dave Allen)
said:

>
>Forwarded messages from restoring fathers apologizing to sons for
>allowing them to be cirked.
>
>____________________Begin Message Excerpts______________
>
>> Dear Brothers:
>> I need your advice, Over the fourth my Sons will all be home, and I plan on
>> having a talk with them. I feel that I need to apologize for letting them be
>> mutilated.

>I have apologized to each of my sons.

I would go easy on the apologising before I had some idea how they
felt about it. If they think being circumcised is just great, I'd say
"Thank heavens for that, but if you ever want to find out more about
it, or restore, I have access to materials and I'm happy to talk. The
door's open."

Don't just pour out the whole of the apology you wish you had had from
your fathers, whether they want to hear it or not.


--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand
http://www.Geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/7712/
Intactivism at http://www.circumstitions.com
I designed: http://home.xtra.co.nz/greytownhotel
http://homepages.at.the.net.nz/~kimsaffron/
http://members.xoom.com/nz_soc_queer/

Hugh Young

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:45:51 -0400, Georga Hackworth
<The.Ha...@worldnet.att.net> said:

>I had a new thought today reguarding the circ debate. This is something new, and I
>don't think that anyone has considered it

There's nothing new under the sun.

> What would happen if circumcision became

>illegal? Think about it for a minute. What happened when women wanted abortions


>back when they were illegal? They would go to back alley doctors who would use
>unclean instruments.

>Do you all think that if circumcision became illegal (I know that there are people


>out there that think that it should be) people would resort in taking children to
>the same kinds of doctors who would do it in secreate and not always use sterile

>equiptment or, if desperate, try to perform circ themselves? I know that people in
>general can be irrational. (This may not be a good example but it is the only one
>that I can think of at the moment) I used to work for a vet who refused to do
>things like cat declaws and ear docking and tail croping in dogs. There was one
>client who called the vet that I worked for, after calling everyone else in the
>phone book and having them refuse to dock a litter of puppies. The vet that I
>worked for told him that he wouldn't do it either. This guy on the phone got
>really beligerent and told him if he didn't do it he would do it himself. Needless
>to say the vet docked the puppy tails (and boy did the puppies cry) just to prevent
>anything from happening to the puppies from some idiot trying to do the surgery
>himself. The point to this is that people will attempt to do radical things that
>they are not qualified to do if they can not find someone to do it for them. Do
>you think that this kind of mindset would be a problem (think about the history of
>abortion) if circ became illegal?
>
>Georga

A doctor in a local hospital told me in about 1983 that they refused
to perform circumcisions, but Polynesian (Samoan and Tongan) parents
said "if you don't, we will" and then the hospital reluctantly did
them lest worse befall. It's a real worry and calls for a long
education campaign. The same is true of FGM. This is probably how it
will be with ritual circumcision, but how wedded are USAmericans to
their "medical" RIC? I can't see non-Jewish, non-Muslim parents
threatening to do it themselves - it'd be contrary to the idea of it
being "hygienic", wouldn't it? The worst-case scenario would be the
ritualising of RIC into a kind of gentile Bris (like that of Rosie
O'Donnell's unfortunate adopted son, Parker). USAmerican customs can
become hallowed traditions very quickly: check out the oath of
allegiance, a mid-20th century "tradition".

Hugh Young

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 06:43:00 GMT, "htfcars" <htf...@hotmail.com>
said:

>under that logic I suppose Hitler wasn't anti-semitic in your view.

Godwin's law: when you call your opponents Nazis, the game is over.

>looks like another poster child for anti-circ = anti-semite.

Only 18 million Jews circumcise, compared to 250 million USAmericans
and 1 billion Muslims.

>you are all a bunch of Nazis..

Bzzzt! Thank you for playing.

Hugh Young

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 19:49:43 GMT, "htfcars" <htf...@hotmail.com>
said:

> Most of the parents who read this news group should
>understand that the anti-circ movement is trying to recreate

>HitlerYouth in America. This shall not be done!

Huh? Circumcision has been virtually abolished here, and there is
still a distinct shortage of blond youths in lederhosen.

Dave Allen

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 19:49:43 GMT, "htfcars" <htf...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>>
>> >another anti-semitic comment from the anti-circumcision camp.
>>
>> get off this 'anit-circ = anti semite" shit! i hate it! Its nothing more than a
>> pro-circ campaign to malign the anti movement!
>>
>

>Look, you scrawny little Nazi! Your foreskin-loving kamerade
>has admitted that he is an anti-semite. why don't you admit it,
>too. Most of the parents who read this news group should

>understand that the anti-circ movement is trying to recreate
>HitlerYouth in America. This shall not be done!

Sheesh! The tone of your pro-mutilation messages sounds far more like
that of a Nazi than any of the anti-cirk posts. Listen to yourself,
get some help, or take your medication.


humm...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
In article <rpxa3.11528$Xr4....@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com>,

"htfcars" <htf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > >another anti-semitic comment from the anti-circumcision camp.
> >
> > get off this 'anit-circ = anti semite" shit! i hate it! Its nothing
more than a
> > pro-circ campaign to malign the anti movement!
> >
>
> Look, you scrawny little Nazi! Your foreskin-loving kamerade
> has admitted that he is an anti-semite. why don't you admit it,
> too. Most of the parents who read this news group should
> understand that the anti-circ movement is trying to recreate
> HitlerYouth in America. This shall not be done!
> --
> Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
> Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
>
>

Why was it that the germans were so aginst the jews anyway ? Maybe the
reasoning should be reanalyzed .....

wadi

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to

Joseph Hertzlinger <jher...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7kelr3$e...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com...

> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:58:27 -0400, Craig Wagner <cwa...@his.com> wrote:
>
> >Whereas, if one GLANCES at a man in the nude, it's obvious. Your example
> >requires a medical examination.
> >
> >I assert that reasonable people do not equate a glance with a medical
> >examination.
>
> In other words, enforcing anti-circumcision laws will require policeman
> asking men to drop their pants.

There will be no shortage of volunteers for that job around here.
What you say George?


> I think that counts as a real violation of privacy (not a mere "penumbra"
> this time).

Is that too much to ask
for the protection of the humble 4skin?
LOL

wadi

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to

htfcars <htf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rpxa3.11528$Xr4....@c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com...

>
> >
> > >another anti-semitic comment from the anti-circumcision camp.
> >
> > get off this 'anit-circ = anti semite" shit! i hate it! Its nothing more
than a
> > pro-circ campaign to malign the anti movement!
> >
>
> Look, you scrawny little Nazi! Your foreskin-loving kamerade
> has admitted that he is an anti-semite. why don't you admit it,
> too. Most of the parents who read this news group should
> understand that the anti-circ movement is trying to recreate
> HitlerYouth in America. This shall not be done!
> --

Well I guess the pressure is off Islam for the moment.
I guess that is because the Jews have been a "target" for so long it kind of
comes naturally to these guys.
And this anti-Semitism is brought about through the fate of the 4skin.
Pathetic.

Dave Allen

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:14:15 GMT, humm...@yahoo.com wrote:

>In article <7kd77m$hls$4...@news.netvision.net.il>,


> "Reuven Singer" <reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote:
>> Why dont you give us the dictionary definition of "anti-Semite".
>That's
>> seems to fit you.
>>
>
> Look I have nothing against jews - why should I or anybody else
>for that matter - I put the semite definition in there out of sheer
>frustration at your comment that I may somehow be 'anti-semitic' (your
>definition). The person said that their doctor pushed them into
>circumcising their youngster - the reasoning he gave them went against
>the American Acedemy of Pediatrics refuting of those arguments. I
>asked if the Dr. was jewish to see if maybe there may have been
>another reason for having made those recommendations since jews
>circumcise their males - just to see if their was a personal bias -
>nothing else. OK ?
>

Don't bother explaining, it won't matter to some people. All gentiles
are antisemites to the ignorant who misuse the term.

The absurd willingness of some to fling the "antisemitic" epithetet
at anyone they disagree with, has tended to have the same effect on
the word, as the boy who cried "wolf" on that. One of the later
Seinfeld episodes even poked fun at the overuse and misuse of the term
by ignorant fundamentalist Jews.

Any reasonable individual realizes the validity of such a question,
about the religion of a too-willing-to-circumcise US doctor,
particularly if one looks at some of the web pages on the internet of
mohels (mohelim) mohel MD's and Jewish doctors who are extremely
over-willing to circumcise regardless of current medical society
proscriptions against routine circumcision .

It is interesting how hypocritical some people can be. Jews have
insisted that just about all references to Christ and Christianity be
removed from almost all aspects of non-religious American life.

Do they expect to replace the images and references with something
more American like "Mohels" or "circumcision"? They certainly are
very ready to insist on the one hand that it is integral and special
to their religion and cannot be criticised, while out of the other
side of their mouths, they vociferiously scream "antisemite" at anyone
who asks if an overzealous tendency towards circumcision is based on
a religious bias.

Sheesh. Talk about wanting to keep your cake and eat it too.

Dave A.

Reuven Singer

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
Here in Israel, we usually see adults whose main regret is that they werent
circumcised as infants because they grew up in a repressive society like the
former Soviet Union. They have to go through the considerably greater trauma
of an adult circumcision.

Dave Allen <d_a...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:380022bd....@netnews.netreach.net...


> On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 19:49:43 GMT, "htfcars" <htf...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>

> >> >another anti-semitic comment from the anti-circumcision camp.
> >>
> >> get off this 'anit-circ = anti semite" shit! i hate it! Its nothing
more than a
> >> pro-circ campaign to malign the anti movement!
> >>
> >
> >Look, you scrawny little Nazi! Your foreskin-loving kamerade
> >has admitted that he is an anti-semite. why don't you admit it,
> >too. Most of the parents who read this news group should
> >understand that the anti-circ movement is trying to recreate
> >HitlerYouth in America. This shall not be done!
>

Reuven Singer

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
It wouldnt be the first time that a repressive society has tried to stamp
out circumcision among Jews. The Greeks under Antiochus tried it too. The
Jewish festival of Chanukah celebrates our victory over them. Will we have
another festival in the future to celebrate a victory over the repression of
the foreskin fetishists of today?

<humm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7ke3s1$p0f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7kb6u9$evq$3...@news.netvision.net.il>,


> "Reuven Singer" <reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote:
> > If circumcision became illegal, Jews would continue to circumcise
> their
> > sons. By and large mohels probably do a better job than doctors
> anyway. The
> > royal family of Britain for example for many years has used mohels
> instead
> > of doctors to circumcise their children.
> > It would just be another tyrannical anti-Jewish law that Jews would
> ignore-
> > even at the risk of death.
> >
>
> Female circumcision is already against the law .. it's only a matter
> of time .. :
>
> http://www.fgmnetwork.org/legisl/US/federal.html
>
>
>

Reuven Singer

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
Mohels probably do a better job than doctors. Here in Israel, almost all
circumcisions of infants are done by mohels. The traditional bris is a
joyous occasion. I have never heard an infant cry for more than a minute or
two after the bris. By then he is asleep. But the difference is he is not
strapped down but held by a loving relative during the procedure. It would
be hard to believe that the infant experiences anywhere the amount of trauma
that he would experience in the act of being born. I have not heard the
foreskin fetishists call for universal Caesarian section to protect the
infant from "birth canal abuse".


Don <D...@see.address.below> wrote in message
news:3798b56d...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net...


> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:45:51 -0400, Georga Hackworth

> <The.Ha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Once again, my beliefs aside here. What would happen if circumcision
became
> >illegal?
>
> Georga:
>
> I think that in the case of the average American parent,
> circumcision would not be sought. The circ rate would drop to
> almost nothing just as it has in those countries where they just
> stopped doing it. (And, BTW, before my adversaries claim
> otherwise, it is of no import to me whether infant male
> circumcision is or is not legal, does or does not drop to zero.)


>
> >Think about it for a minute. What happened when women wanted abortions
> >back when they were illegal?
>

> Ah yes, but we are talking about something which is of far more
> consequence than is routine infant circumcision (RIC).


>
> >They would go to back alley doctors who would use

> >unclean instruments. These women would get infections that either
prevented them
> >from ever having children when they were ready or it would kill them.
Then there
> >were the women that bled to death. There were also cases where women
would use
> >metal coat hangers and attempt to preform aboritions on themselves.
Reguardless of
> >how I feel about abortion, this is why it needs to remain legal, to
prevent stuff
> >like that from ever happening again.
>
> I believe that only those who feel that they must circumcise for
> religious reasons would seek out back-alley circumcisions for
> their children. And this would not be good, although there are
> trained Mohels around who would probably do it in some cases.
> (Note: What adults might do with regard to themselves is of no
> concern to me.)
>
> [snip]
>
> Don
>
> ---------
> Sorry for the inconvenience, but in an effort to eliminate spam,
> I do not post my e-mail address in the header. To e-mail me,
> reassemble the following into a normal e-mail address:
> secular at earthling dot net
> [please note that it is earthling, not earthlink]
> --------

Dawson William

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to

Reuven Singer wrote:

> Here in Israel, we usually see adults whose main regret is that they werent
> circumcised as infants because they grew up in a repressive society like the
> former Soviet Union. They have to go through the considerably greater trauma
> of an adult circumcision.

Because of religious reasons, not medical necessity, and therein lies the
difference, it is a religious choice that they willingly made.


Hugh Young

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
On 18 Jun 1999 23:47:47 GMT, jher...@ix.netcom.com (Joseph
Hertzlinger) said:

>In other words, enforcing anti-circumcision laws will require policeman
>asking men to drop their pants.

In that case, enforcing anti-FGM laws will require policewomen
to ask women to drop their pants. We have an anti-FGM law, it doesn't.
You have one too. Does yours?

>Society can change. Society will have to change for anti-circ laws to be
>passed.

This is true. Talk of specific anti-circ laws is just inflammatory.


--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand
http://www.Geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/7712/
Intactivism at http://www.circumstitions.com

I designed: http://home.xtra.co.nz/hosts/greytownhotel
http://homepages.at.the.net.nz/~kimsaffron/
http://members.xoom.com/nz_soc_queer/

Craig Wagner

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
In article <7kgtr5$8ik$3...@news.netvision.net.il>, "Reuven Singer"
<reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote:

> Mohels probably do a better job than doctors. Here in Israel, almost all
> circumcisions of infants are done by mohels. The traditional bris is a
> joyous occasion. I have never heard an infant cry for more than a minute or

> two after the bris. By then he is asleep....

What is it about having one's genitals modified with surgical instruments
that would cause one to get sleepy?

William DeWitt

unread,
Jun 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/19/99
to
I have been assiduously avoiding entrance into this thread but, you finally
got my thoughtful attention. I am not familiar with Mohels and the Jewish
tradition, not being Jewish and all that. But, I can relate to a horrible
experience we had when our dear son was about 22 months old [and not
particularly good at verbal communication because he was a slow to talk
talker, for which he has made up ten fold....] To make the long story
short, we thought he had ingested a desert rose flower. These are in the
oleander family and highly poisonous. Off to the ER we went. Both husband
and I were shook up but we were handling it and Alexander pretty well until
the doc and a team of staff in white entered the treatment room with a board
that had straps attached to it and kicked us out. Alexander's stomach was
pumped, activated charcoal was given, but he was not with us, all the people
doing this to him were strangers and they were not making him particularly
comfortable with the whole thing, to put it mildly. I cried in the waiting
area, and he yelled and screamed and cried in the treatment cubicle. Then,
he and I spent the next four or five hours cuddled together on the gurney
while we waited for test results, etc. Fortunately, the docs found that he
probably did not ingest the flower. But, what a traumatic event for such a
little boy. I have often wondered if things would have been better if we
had made it a point to defy the request that we loving parents desert our
child in his moment of need. When he was going through all sorts of
horribly painful foot pricks when he was only days old [infantile jaundice
that required rehospitalization at age five days], I held and comforted him
throughout. I might have been ready to weep, but that was done later, when
it wouldn't further traumatize him. I think it may have made a world of
difference....So, a long bit of typing to suggest that I believe that you
have a point there.

- Aula

Reuven Singer <reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote in message
news:7kgtr5$8ik$3...@news.netvision.net.il...


> Mohels probably do a better job than doctors. Here in Israel, almost all
> circumcisions of infants are done by mohels. The traditional bris is a
> joyous occasion. I have never heard an infant cry for more than a minute
or

coontail

unread,
Jun 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/20/99
to
In article <7kgtr5$8ik$3...@news.netvision.net.il>,
"Reuven Singer" <reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote:
> Mohels probably do a better job than doctors. Here in Israel, almost
all
> circumcisions of infants are done by mohels. The traditional bris is
a
> joyous occasion.


Is it a joyous occasion for the baby.. doubtful.. Why don't you forget
the mohel.. and just get drunk?

I have never heard an infant cry for more than a
minute or
> two after the bris. By then he is asleep. But the difference is he is
not
> strapped down but held by a loving relative during the procedure. It

Excuse me, but did it ever occur to you the pain and stress were too
much for the baby and it passed out? I don't think the so called sleep
you describe is peacful or normal. It makes no sense at all that the
pain of such a vicious cut would just go away immediately...

>
> foreskin fetishists call for universal Caesarian section to protect

If we are fetishers.. you are twice a circumcision fetisher. It works
both ways..


--
NOCIRCVT
http://www.uvm.edu/~gdavis/nocircvt.htm
The inhumanity of a stone age blood rite in our
time

Eric Boyd

unread,
Jun 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/20/99
to
In article <7kgtr5$8ik$3...@news.netvision.net.il>, "Reuven Singer"
<reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote:

> It would
> be hard to believe that the infant experiences anywhere the amount of trauma
> that he would experience in the act of being born. I have not heard the
> foreskin fetishists call for universal Caesarian section to protect the
> infant from "birth canal abuse".

Pain is not a relevant issue. Most of us would be opposed to circumcision
even if it could be made completely painless. Circumcision is absurd,
unnatural, and gravely evil.

OTOH, birth is normal, natural, and cannot properly be characterized as
evil. There is some evidence that the deformation of the skull duing birth
is sometimes helpful to the normal of those bones.

Eric Boyd

unread,
Jun 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/20/99
to
In article <7kgtr4$8ik$2...@news.netvision.net.il>, "Reuven Singer"
<reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote:

> It wouldnt be the first time that a repressive society has tried to stamp
> out circumcision among Jews. The Greeks under Antiochus tried it too. The
> Jewish festival of Chanukah celebrates our victory over them. Will we have
> another festival in the future to celebrate a victory over the repression of
> the foreskin fetishists of today?

I do not believe in the foreskin, so I cannot be a fetishist. To believe
in the foreskin is to have circumcised in the mind. I am free of this sin.

I often think that if I could go back in time and alter history, I would
assure that Antiochus was successful. He wasn't as oppressive as he's made
out to be and owed his successes to working with his subject cultures. The
Maccabee revolt was as much a revolt against the assimilated Jews in
charge of things as it was against the Greeks.

The failure of this revolt would have precluded the rise of Christianity
and Islam. Talk about killing three birds with one stone. I think it quite
likely that the an Eastern monotheistic religion would have become popular
in Western Europe. "The Lamb of Mercy" from _Cannibals and Kings_ argues
this well. In this case it would probably be an import from the
whole-penis respecting (though they had their eunuchs) Persians.

Read soc.history.what-if for alternative history.

Centure33

unread,
Jun 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/20/99
to
>Subject: Re: Regretting circumcision of children
>From: se...@hypercon.com (Eric Boyd)
>Date: Sat, 19 June 1999 10:55 PM EDT
>Message-id: <seric-19069...@77.222.nas1.ippool.hypercon.com>

>OTOH, birth is normal, natural, and cannot properly be characterized as
>evil. There is some evidence that the deformation of the skull duing birth
>is sometimes helpful to the normal of those bones.

Thats why you claimed abortion is a usefull medical procedure.

wadi

unread,
Jun 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/20/99
to

Eric Boyd <se...@hypercon.com> wrote in message
news:seric-19069...@77.222.nas1.ippool.hypercon.com...

> Pain is not a relevant issue. Most of us would be opposed to circumcision
> even if it could be made completely painless. Circumcision is absurd,
> unnatural, and gravely evil.
>

No that's more like our Boyd.
You were almost starting to sound sane.

wadi

unread,
Jun 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/20/99
to

Eric Boyd <se...@hypercon.com> wrote in message
news:seric-19069...@77.222.nas1.ippool.hypercon.com...

>


> I often think that if I could go back in time and alter history, I would
> assure that Antiochus was successful.

You want to alter history to be more 4skin friendly?

You are a fucking lunatic!!

wadi

unread,
Jun 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/20/99
to

<humm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7kflu0$nl0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

>
> Why was it that the germans were so aginst the jews anyway ? Maybe the
> reasoning should be reanalyzed .....
>

Here we go.
They difference will be that the "old" Nazis didn't commit genocide on the
basis of their having a 4skin fetish.
Your "new" Nazis will no duobt correct that.


George Hill

unread,
Jun 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/20/99
to

Reuven Singer <reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote in message
news:7kgtr4$8ik$2...@news.netvision.net.il...

> It wouldnt be the first time that a repressive society has tried to stamp
> out circumcision among Jews. The Greeks under Antiochus tried it too. The
> Jewish festival of Chanukah celebrates our victory over them. Will we have
> another festival in the future to celebrate a victory over the repression
of
> the foreskin fetishists of today?


What will you say when Jews voluntarily stop because of the injury to their
children?

http://www.circumcision.org/spectator.htm

George

George Hill

unread,
Jun 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/20/99
to

Reuven Singer <reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote in message
news:7kgtr7$8ik$4...@news.netvision.net.il...

> Here in Israel, we usually see adults whose main regret is that they
werent
> circumcised as infants because they grew up in a repressive society like
the
> former Soviet Union. They have to go through the considerably greater
trauma
> of an adult circumcision.


Reports from Israel indicate that about fifty percent of Jews in Israel from
the former Soviet Union refuse to be circumcised because of the loss of
their sexual pleasure which would result even though the pressure from the
rabbis is immense.


George

George Hill

unread,
Jun 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/20/99
to

Reuven Singer <reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote in message
news:7kgtr5$8ik$3...@news.netvision.net.il...

> Mohels probably do a better job than doctors. Here in Israel, almost all
> circumcisions of infants are done by mohels. The traditional bris is a
> joyous occasion. I have never heard an infant cry for more than a minute

or
> two after the bris. By then he is asleep. But the difference is he is not
> strapped down but held by a loving relative during the procedure. It would

> be hard to believe that the infant experiences anywhere the amount of
trauma
> that he would experience in the act of being born. I have not heard the
> foreskin fetishists call for universal Caesarian section to protect the
> infant from "birth canal abuse".


Dear Reuven:

Medical reports from Israel indicate that the mohels cause a lot of urinary
tract infection. Here is one of four such reports.


http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/goldman/


George

George Hill

unread,
Jun 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/20/99
to

Craig Wagner <cwa...@his.com> wrote in message
news:cwagner-1906...@pm8-247.his.com...
> In article <7kgtr5$8ik$3...@news.netvision.net.il>, "Reuven Singer"

> <reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote:
>
> > Mohels probably do a better job than doctors. Here in Israel, almost all
> > circumcisions of infants are done by mohels. The traditional bris is a
> > joyous occasion. I have never heard an infant cry for more than a minute
or
> > two after the bris. By then he is asleep....
>
> What is it about having one's genitals modified with surgical instruments
> that would cause one to get sleepy?


This is nonsense. The infant goes into shock from the pain, stress, and
trauma. Once the shock sets in the baby withdraws and becomes passive.
Lay persons have confused this passive state with sleep.

http://www.cirp.org/library/birth/emde/

"It seemed to us that two different theories offered explanations as to how
stressful stimulation would prolong sleep, and that they led to mutually
incompatible predictions. One theory was relevant to the general effects of
stimulation. It considers REM sleep to serve the primary function of
processing and programming information which has been taken in during the
wakeful period prior to sleep (5). This theory led us to the prediction of
an increase in REM sleep after a large amount of stimulation. A second
theory is relevant to the effects of stressful stimulation (6,7). A second
theory is relevant to the effects of stressful stimulation (6,7). It
postulates two basic physiologic response patterns to such stimulation, one
consisting of increased vigilence with mobilization of activity
(fight-flight pattern), and the other consisting of a reduction of incoming
stimulation by alteration of sensory thresholds with a decline of activity
(conservation-withdrawal pattern). Our a assumption was that the immature
human infant, who has a limited capacity actively to avoid stressful
stimulation, would be likely to respond to such stimulation with the
conservation-withdrawal pattern. This led us to predict an increase in
non-REM sleep after such stimulation, since this form of infant sleep has
been described as a low point on an arousal continuum, a condition in which
thresholds to sensory stimulations are high and motoric activity is low
(8,9).

"Routine hospital circumcision, done without anesthesia, was chosen as a
potential stressor which might be expected to produce prolonged bombardment
of pain pathways. Two studies, one without polygraphic manipulation and one
with EEG and polygraphic manipulation and one with EEG and polygraphic
recording, resulted in similar findings. Circumcision was usually followed
by prolonged, non-REM sleep. Effects of circumcision were demonstrable in
terms of an increase in the amount of non-REM sleep (p&lt;0.01) and a
decrease in latency to the onset of non-REM sleep (P&lt;0.05). Infants were
used as their own controls and were compared with non-circumcised males for
statistical analysis. Postcircumcision increase in non-REM sleep was also
reflected in an increased total number of non-REM sleep periods and an
increased number of extremely long non-REM sleep periods. "


George

Eric Boyd

unread,
Jun 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/20/99
to
In article <19990619233709...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
cent...@aol.com (Centure33) wrote:

No. I claimed that abortions are highly useful to those seeking them out.
This high utility in contrast to circumcision's low utility is why
violence against circumcision could succeed where violence against
abortion has failed. Neither procedure is part of health care in most
cases.

Dave Allen

unread,
Jun 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM6/20/99
to
On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 23:02:36 +0300, "Reuven Singer"
<reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote:

>Mohels probably do a better job than doctors.

Not according to the botches that have been reported. Mohels seem to
have developed a specialty. They amputate the glans. A Seinfeld
episode a while back made fun of Mohels, who many people elevate to
the same level as butchers. They are a pretty pathetic lot in many
people's minds.. Seinfeld was calling the Mohel "Butcherboy" and
"Shakey the Mohel" after the mohel cut Seinfeld's finger. Okay that
was black comedy, but black comedy often represents a safe way of
presenting underlying attitudes. And the show was written and acted
by Jews, primarily.

It's pretty difficult not to question the psychological makeup of
someone who wants to make a career out of manipulating and mutilating
the penises of little babies while they torture them without
appropriate anesthesia.

See

>Here in Israel,

Israel?

Interesting. I've had a few e-mail exchanges with Israeli men
interested in foreskin restoration. A good number of the Soviet Jews
there are very happy to keep their normal penises intact, I
understand. And so are their wives;).

Here in the US there was a web page, I don't have the URL handy, from
the son of a Soviet Jew whose father left him intact and did not have
his foreskin amputated. He was very thankful for that, as almost all
males are who are allowed to keep their foreskins (even if they live
in a mutilating culture) .

> almost all
>circumcisions of infants are done by mohels. The traditional bris is a
>joyous occasion.

I think the Nazis and Serbs felt that way too.

>I have never heard an infant cry for more than a minute or
>two after the bris.

And the Nazis and Serbs told similar stories of how their victims only
screamed for a minute or two and were happy to go to their deaths.
Would you call that denial?

>By then he is asleep.

No it's shock, sometimes semi-coma, but you're probably too busy
stuffing your face to notice and care about the little fellow, aren't
you? Lying to yourself that you weren't a victim yourself. makes it
easier to forget by becoming an abuser, doesn't it?

I suppose you're one of those who like to get up real close to watch,
probably get an erection too, don't you?

>But the difference is he is not
>strapped down but held by a loving relative during the procedure.

A "loving relative" holding the child as he's being sexually mutilated
and tortured. A very pretty picture you create. You sound like a
real fine person, bet you even smirked as you wrote that, didn't you?

> It would
>be hard to believe that the infant experiences anywhere the amount of trauma
>that he would experience in the act of being born.

That's a good rationalization you've come up with, for doing
something unnecessary, cruel, and barbaric to another human being.
And trying to suggest it's as necessary as childbirth, too. That's
good.

You seem to have been taught all of the arguments to tell yourself
that your barbarism isn't really what it is. I wonder what that must
do to your whole value system.

Maybe you should have a similar party for little girl babies too.
Can't let them feel left out of all that fun and celebration, can you?

> I have not heard the
>foreskin fetishists call for universal Caesarian section to protect the
>infant from "birth canal abuse".

Now you're really showing what a wise guy you are, trying to equate
the invasive mutilation of an infant's penis with something
non-invasive and normal like natural childbirth. But you just can't
see why intelligent caring people view your kind of thinking as worse
than pathetic, can you?

That's a step though, at least you realize what an empty argument you
have, if you have to use ad hominem against those who won't accept
your rationalizations.

Dave A.