Should a boycott come to pass, who knows what disasters could beset the humble borough.
The next thing they’ll be doing is calling for an end to circumcision. And the first thing you have to do is have all these guys who are circumcized demand it back, go to the hospital, and have it sewn back on. That’ll make them complete pricks, instead of the pricks that they are, O.K.?
What pains Mr. Dershowitz as much as anything is, being a native son, this is happening in his own hometown, and he will not stand for it.
I have a particular interest in Brooklyn, because that’s where I’m from, and I will be there to make sure that the people who start this will pay a heavy price. We can’t allow good and decent people to think this is the right thing. This is the wrong thing.
And let’s be clear. It’s not happening in Brooklyn. It’s happening in what’s the neighborhood again? [The Observer: Park Slope] It’s happening in Park Slope, and Park Slope is not Brooklyn. That’s like San Francisco.
For extra context from the Observer on the Park Slope Food Co-op boycott debate check out "Soy Vey! Could a Hummus Fight Kill the Co-op?"
BDS seems to be humming along at record pace. Omar Barghouti writes in Al Jazeera on Israel's anti-boycott law and the growth of the BDS movement:
While expressing alarm at this latest repressive attempt by Israel to crush Palestinian peaceful resistance and support for it among conscientious Israelis, a BNC statement conveyed confidence that this law will bolster the spread of BDS even faster among liberal communities the world over. Hind Awwad, coordinator with the BNC, reacted: "This new legislation, which violates international law, is testament to the success of the rapidly growing global BDS movement and a realization within political elites inside Israel that the state is becoming a world pariah in the way that South Africa once was."
Mr. Dershowitz can rest assured there is nothing, absolutely nothing in there about calling for an end to circumcision.
However, BDS does call for the cutting off of the Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Seriously, this clown get’s funnier and funnier every time he writes something.
he could have been shooting off at the mouth.
What else does Dershbag do but shoot off at the mouth?
I’d say more deranged.
I only hope that an end to genital mutilation of babies for non-medical purposes — of either sex — comes to pass soon. It is long overdue.
Add to that routine sex assignment of intersex babies.
Absolutely, edwin. If there is no medical necessity, I agree completely.
I didn’t know anything about this until you mentioned it and I googled it. Barbaric stuff.
I don’t get it. Whats Douchowitz worried about? It would open a whole new field of law for him.
But for us poor bastards, the late night advertisments for Dewey, Cutim & Howe might get a little irritating.
Is not genital mutilation of children currently illegal in all of New York? I didn’t find the reference to this barbaric practice anywhere in the article, although I am prepared to not be surprised about anything concerning the Hersh.
Hej!
did you open the link at the top? titled First They Came for the Penises: Dershowitz Fears BroBos’ Circumcision Boycott?
Think about this:
Human sacrifice.
If Christ died in a transaction with God, according to Gods plan, isn’t at least one whole religion based on the worship of human sacrifice?
Circumcision seems so insignifigant next to that.
“Is not genital mutilation of children currently illegal in all of New York?”
No. I assume that female genital mutilation is illegal everywhere in the US. But male genital mutilation is still, sadly, legal.
So another effect of BDS would be banning circumcision. Go!
Dersh doesn’t know his arguments any more. He cannot lead a case any more. Let us enjoy his demise.
Dershowitz: there’s no end to THAT prick!
Poppycock. What BDS has to do with circumcision is anybody’s guess. Except that many of the Christian Islamophobes who have unleashed “anti-Shariah” measures have had a lot of Zionist help. And, unfortunately, many of these “anti-Shariah” measures are beginning to turn into “anti-Halakha” measures too. In the end, Mr. Dershowitz should look in the mirror and ponder how much his own actions have brought about things like this.
I bet most of the Christizio Islamophobes would be shocked to know there were already religious courts in the USA, Canada, UK, etc – the Beit Dins!
Awesome headline, Annie. But hats off also to the Dersh for his astonishing ability to conjure up existential threats out of the most unlikely circumstances. In this case a Brooklyn food co-op boycott that not just imperils Israel but all Jewish males. Scary stuff indeed. That said, I can’t help thinking he may have scored an own goal here. Perhaps I’ll be proved wrong but, irrespective of one’s views on BDS, I can’t believe his unfortunate anatomical association will help sales of Israeli hummus.
I think that blotchy rash on his face has been caused by neurotic worries such as this. My guess is he’s seeing a dermatologist and it’s not helping.
Cuba? CUBA?! he has the nerve to bring up Cuba, the nation south of us that we have been beating over the head with sanctions for decades?
and then Armenians? the “no one remembers the Armenians, especially Israel” Armenians? i’m starting to understand just why Finkelstein loves cutting this guy a new one. what chootspa!
i thought nonviolent BDS was the work of *islamic* terrorists, and we are the unwitting (or knowing) terrorist helpers.
does dershodick realize that muslims ALSO practice circumcision?
probably not, as he just collates false-logic hasbara all day long, and does not know a factually correct thing about muslims on my reading. that smug ass makes me sick whenever i see him, in person or on youtube. in print i just laugh.
anonymouscomments:
Agreed!
I was on the point of saying this about Islam. For a Harvard professor, Dersh is remarkably ignorant about the world?
The obligation to circumcise is less clear in Islam than in Judaism .
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to circumstitions.com
From Wikipedia (which is not always reliable) 30% of males are circumcised and 68% of the circumcised males are Muslim.
Here’s some data on neonatal male circumcision rate trend in the USA over the years: link to circs.org
Nothing says “Amercian sheeple” like the continued lucrative routine snipping off of human male foreskins for no logical health reason at all. Not to mention the loss of such a huge bunch of erotic cells & natural lubrication; the literal maiming of a natural sexual organ. But there’s hope, the AMA pirates has at long last decided not to sell the idea any longer, something that happened long ago in every Western civilized European country, where the practice of snipping is nonexistent and, unlike on Seinfeld, the girls find the uncut penis very attractive and a cut one, a denuded joke.
The practice was pushed in the USA in the 19th Century, originally the PTB said it would prevent the horror of masturbation, then it pushed health hoaxes of all sorts. Very belatedly compared to the UK, and even more so Europe generally, the American Academy of Pediatrics now proclaims there is no significant medical benefit to be gained.
As a religious matter, unlike in the Jewish community, the Muslim community does not require circumcision; for them it’s just a cultural leftover from the tribes roaming the Arabian sands, and the Muslims today usually get it snipped by the time their lucky boys reach age 8.
In the following essay discussing the constitutional issues involved in non-religous neonatal routine circumcision of males in the USA under the proposed San Francisco Circumcision ban by referendum, it says as of 2005, about 56% of all newborn American boys, and about 31% of those born in the Western states, were circumcised–and in the Midwestern states, the fraction was nearly 75%; about 90% of circumcisions in the USA are not religiously based:
link to volokh.com
The rabbi next door to me told my housemate that he had a solution to the “demographic problem” – castration.
As if you need any more fodder to discredit him, above where Dersh says
“It’s happening in Park Slope, and Park Slope is not Brooklyn. That’s like San Francisco.”
What he means by that is ‘Gays live there’. Thats what he means. Locally Park Slope is known for its LGBT community.
Well, this thread is kinda fun and all, but its really got no foundation in reality.
We’re waaaaaay too busy waging our War On Christmas to spend any time or effort on the War On Circumcision.
Dershowitz appears to be referring to the movement to ban circumcision in San Francisco, which was supposed to be on the ballot in November until it was thrown off by a judge recently. He sees this, BDS, and withdrawals of invitations to him to speak as manifestations of an outbreak of worldwide anti-Semitism. I’m not sure if he’s an idiot, a child, a bully, or a liar – probably generous helpings of all.
The female judge toss the proposed ban off the ballot, saying it was preempted by state law. This means whoever got the needed signatures regarding banning the very painful snipping of newborn baby’s penis*in SF would need to get enough signatures or whatever else it takes to apply to the whole state of Calfornia to remain on any future ballot, I guess.
*It’s customary in both non-religious newborn baby snipping and Jewish snipping of their own–to not use any sort of pain killers. Too dangerous to the life of the baby.
Interesting that the Christian groups defend the right of a fetus to live outside the womb, but ignore the extremely traumatic almost immediate painful follow up that awaits the baby boy–routine giant pain to a helpless baby is acceptable to those righteous Christians. Gee, what would JC say? That’s right, he was a Jew so it was not an issue with him.
RE: “And the first thing you have to do is have all these guys who are circumcized demand it back, go to the hospital, and have it sewn back on.” ~ Alan Morton Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
MY SNARK: Actually Professor Dershowitz, I was considering hiring you to sue my parents for having subjected me to circumcision and thereby causing me a lifetime of PTSD. That way I can take everything my parents have, and notwithstanding their wills leave absolutely nothing for my snotty, manipulative sisters.
What do you think? Am I a legal genus or what?
Am I a legal genus or what?
genus or genius?
I’m glad you asked that question. Please give me a few hours to formulate a suitable answer.
Thanks for your cooperation in this matter.
P.S. That damn secretary!
ATTENTION!!! ATTENTION!!! COMMENT REVISION!
RE: “And the first thing you have to do is have all these guys who are circumcized demand it back, go to the hospital, and have it sewn back on. That’ll make them complete pricks, instead of the pricks that they are, O.K.?” ~ Alan Morton Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
MY SNARK: Actually Professor Dershowitz, I was considering hiring you to sue my parents for having subjected me to circumcision and thereby causing me to suffer a lifetime of debilitating PTSD. That way I can take everything my parents have, and leave absolutely nothing for my snotty, manipulative sisters (notwithstanding my parents’ wills).
What do you think? Am I a legal genius or what? And please, whatever you decide, don’t “rush to judgment”!
NOTICE: The posting of this revision is in no way an admission of any error(s) in the original.
darn it, i thought the concept of a legal genus was quite appealing.
;)
a sue-y genus perhaps? but surely lawyering isn’t genetic.
This entire argument is sue genus. That’s legal talk.
I really can’t say if circumcision has affected my sex life. There’s no doubt however, that it took a big percentage off my IQ.
I have no love for this repulsive and regugnant Israel Firster, but did it occur to anyone that perhaps this is parody? Something that ought to have been sent in to The Onion?
The part about sewing back the foreskin can’t possibly be serious,even with AD’s well-known divorce from reality and total avoidance of the truth.
The sound of it sure rings true though, which is the sign of s first-rate parody.
“The part about sewing back the foreskin can’t possibly be serious,even with AD’s well-known divorce from reality and total avoidance of the truth.”
I think he is serious. Many of the pro-male-genital-mutilation folks are wholly ignorant of what the foreskin is anatomically, what it contains, etc. They demean the science by pretending that it is just a bit of skin, when it is infact highly specialized tissue which you can’t just “sew back.” (I think that moron Boteach pushed this ignorant idea not too long ago on Huffington Post.)
I think that they do it because they don’t want to face the reality that they are mutilating infants and cutting out important tissue, and want to pretend that that is not what they are doing. A similar, and similarly disgusting self-delusion is the claim, often made by the pro-mutilation folks, that the baby doesn’t feel anything. When THAT claim is made, someone should kick the speaker in the crotch and say, “Did you feel that??? That didn’t even break the skin.”
It is sad and disgusting that these innocent babies are tortured in this barbaric ritual.
“It is sad and disgusting that these innocent babies are tortured in this barbaric ritual.”
It is sad and disgusting that you call something you don’t understand “barbaric.” Would it be OK for me to pick out parts of your culture that I don’t like and call them “barbaric?”
Circumcision and female genital mutilation are in no way comparable. FGM is much more invasive, much more painful, and much more tied to the subjugation of women in societies in which it is practiced. It is also a major health issue; FGM can lead to serious infection, increase the risk of HIV, and inhibit childbirth. None of these things are true about male circumcision, and more importantly, there is no movement in the Jewish community to ban it, as there is a number of the African communities where FGM is practiced.
The movement to ban circumcision consists mostly of secular people who think they know what is best for everyone else and who would be the first to reject these kinds of culturally paternalistic social restrictions in almost any other context.
There is a long history of linkage between attempts to ban circumcision and antisemitism.
Moreover, there are a number of health benefits, not the least of which is that circumcision greatly reduces the risk of HIV.
“It is sad and disgusting that you call something you don’t understand ‘barbaric.’”
I do understand it. You take an eight-day old child and amputate a part of its body for no medical reason, permanently depriving him of the ability to exercise personal autonomy in that area and robbing him permanently of the bodily integrity and sexual satisfaction and stimulation that the tissue is, in part, designed to provide. Again, for no good reason.
“Would it be OK for me to pick out parts of your culture that I don’t like and call them ‘barbaric?’”
If they actually were barbaric, then certainly. I would be fine with that; I would invite you to.
Just because a practice is part of someone’s “culture” or “religion” doesn’t mean that it is okay or that it is not barbaric or that it should be free of examination. It used to be part of American culture to hold slaves. Should that practices have been held off limits to criticism because they were cultural?? It was part of European culture and religion to discriminate against, oppress and force the conversion of Jews. Should that practice have been held off limits to criticism because they were religious/cultural practices?
“Circumcision and female genital mutilation are in no way comparable.”
They are comparable. They are both mutilations of the genitalia of infants for no good reason.
“FGM is much more invasive, much more painful,”
Most forms of it are, yes. But some, for example, the symbolic pricking of the clitoral hood, to produce a drop of blood is much less invasive and painful than slicing off of the male foreskin. (The pinprick, by the way, is, I believe, illegal in the US, while cutting off foreskin is not. Go figger.)
“…and much more tied to the subjugation of women in societies in which it is practiced.”
But, wait, isn’t this a cultural issue for them???? Why is it that it is okay for you to criticize someone else’s cultural practice, but it is not okay for me to criticize yours???
Be less of a hypocrite and, like me, condemn them both as barbaric and inhumane practices.
“It is also a major health issue; FGM can lead to serious infection, increase the risk of HIV, and inhibit childbirth.”
Again, in most forms of FGM, this is absolutely true. There is no medical reason for either FGM or MGM, so the results of the procedure are secondary to the fact that the mutilation, in both forms, FGM and MGM, are done on minors without their consent for no good reason.
“None of these things are true about male circumcision, and more importantly,”
Not true. Male ritual genital mutilation can lead to serious health issues. You may be ignorant of them, but they do exist. Not too long ago I read an article in the newspaper about a man who’d spent his entire life institutionalized with the mind of a child because, back in the 1970s he developed an infection from his circumcision with went to his brain. These things exist.
“…there is no movement in the Jewish community to ban it, as there is a number of the African communities where FGM is practiced.”
Then that is an indictment of the Jewish community.
“The movement to ban circumcision consists mostly of secular people who think they know what is best for everyone else and who would be the first to reject these kinds of culturally paternalistic social restrictions in almost any other context.”
No, if it is mostly secular people, they are people who says that any adult who chooses to cut off his foreskin for religious reasons should be fully and legally entitled to do so. What should be illegal is to do it to a child without his consent when there is no medical necessity to do so.
“There is a long history of linkage between attempts to ban circumcision and antisemitism.”
So what? Most people who call for an end to this practice are not antisemites, they just don’t think people should be permitted to permantly mutilate another’s genitalia without that other’s consent.
Call someone who disagrees with you a bigot because your arguments suck is kind of lame.
“Moreover, there are a number of health benefits, not the least of which is that circumcision greatly reduces the risk of HIV.”
Not better than washing and condoms. Besides, so what? There would be a number of health benefits to infantile prophylactic double mastectomies, including preventing the deaths of tens of thousands of women each year in the US alone. Is that a good enough reason take an 8-day old baby girl and slice off her breasts???
The AMA and baby doctor’s principle organization in the USA have stated that neonatal routine circumcison of male babies has no health justification. They have finally joined the medical profession on this in Europe, much belatedly.
If there “is a long history of linkage between attempts to ban circumcision and antisemitism,” there is also the established fact that beginning in WW2, which era commenced the jump in US male circumcision after it was dying out due to demolishing of hoax justifications, the US doctors community had a considerable Jewish component, and accordingly a key reason behind the American scene for pushing US circumcision across the board once again was that nobody would be able to tell if one was Jewish by having them drop their pants, as was done by the Nazis. Read up on the history of circumcision in the US, hophmi. You need it.
“here is also the established fact that beginning in WW2, which era commenced the jump in US male circumcision after it was dying out due to demolishing of hoax justifications, the US doctors community had a considerable Jewish component, and accordingly a key reason behind the American scene for pushing US circumcision across the board once again was that nobody would be able to tell if one was Jewish by having them drop their pants, as was done by the Nazis.”
Citation?
Jews are not giving circumcision, chief. Live with it.
when you say “Jews are not giving circumcision” do you mean in context to the cited paragraph?
Should be “Jews are not giving up circumcision”
that’s what i thought you meant. you might be right wrt most jews but again, i don’t think you can speak for all of them.
There’s a bunch of articles here about the growing Jewish anti-circumcision movement in the USA: link to intactnews.org
American Bias
Because the United States circumcises so many of its male infants, circumcision is often said to be an American cultural value, and it is accepted as “normal.” Cultural bias on this issue may be most obvious when considering the practice of female circumcision in Africa. Americans regard the practice with horror, the way Europeans, who do not cut the genitals of male or females, regard American circumcision.[1]
American bias in favor of circumcision could be attributed to a number of different factors. The history of circumcision in America goes back at least a century, when it began as a way to curb masturbation in boys and men.[2] Thereafter American doctors began on a quest to medicalize the practice of circumcision as a preventor of a myriad of diseases, and that endeavor continues to this day.
As a result of the long history of doctors condemning the presence of the foreskin and expounding the virtues of circumcision, curriculum regarding the foreskin and its function remain largely absent from American medical literature. Information on the proper development of the foreskin is largely absent, diagrams of male genitalia present the penis as circumcised, and if the foreskin is mentioned at all, it is in the context of circumcision. In short, most of what is taught in American medicine regarding the foreskin is how to cut it off.
Another factor that plays a role in instilling bias in favor of circumcision in America is the local media. American television and theater treats the presence of the foreskin with ridicule and disdain, and praises circumcision as “clean” and “healthy,” and news outlets are always ready to publish the latest “study” (usually conducted by American “researchers”) that shows circumcision might have some kind of “benefit.” link to circleaks.org
See Alan F. Guttmacher, “Should the baby be circumcised?”, Parents Magazine 16, September 1941, 26, 76-78
Prevention of masturbation was the second of five reasons Guttmacher gave as to why the baby should be circumcised:
“It [circumcision] does not necessitate handling of the penis by the infant’s mother, or the child himself in later years, and therefore does not focus the male’s attention on his own genitals. Masturbation is considered less likely.”
Compare Brian Morris: “The fact that such excessive attention to a penis to relieve the irritation might have led to arousal … ” “Excessive attention”??! — how very Victorian!
Guttmacher, the son of a rabbi, was the creator of Planned Parenthood, and Dr Spock bought his spiel about why cutting off baby foreskins was a great thing to do. The doctors all agreed it didn’t cause the baby any pain; too bad they didn’t pay attention to the baby’s reaction–it’s now established fact the pain is immense.
“There’s a bunch of articles here about the growing Jewish anti-circumcision movement in the USA: link to intactnews.org”
It does appear to be a movement of some sort, albeit represented by the usual left-wing suspects who based their views on something other than Judaism.
As a matter of Jewish law, circumcision is an important precursor for joining the Jewish community, no matter what its opponent pretend. No rabbi I know of would say otherwise.
For the vast, vast, majority of Jews, observant and not, circumcision is not an issue and certainly does not disturb the mother-child bond. Attempts to ban it are not going to garner widespread support, and given its history, there is ample reason to question the motives of its proponents.
Mostly, the attempt to ban male circumcision is an attempt by secular fundamentalists to take a shot at organized religion.
So the Seinfeld show was lying about that, eh, hophmi? They are out of the business? Soon they will have a market again as American hospital SOP catches up with scientific & medical community routine circumcision of infants is a definitve negative.
Hophmi, I see you retract your original statement and now diss jews who are anti-circumcsion as not really jews and “left-wing suspects.” Anybody can read the articles I hot-linked; if you do, see if hophmi caputures the traditional jewish spirit in them that does not divorce ethics from spirituality.
“Hophmi, I see you retract your original statement and now diss jews who are anti-circumcsion as not really jews and “left-wing suspects.””
Well, again, I think it matters whether people are against circumcision because of politics or whether they genuinely believe it’s against Jewish practice. These folks appear to simply hold this view among others that fit their political outlook, and appear not to care much about what Jews who actually practice the religion believe.
“see if hophmi caputures the traditional jewish spirit in them that does not divorce ethics from spirituality.”
Please. No one is divorcing ethics from spirituality. The only people who are are those who believe it’s ethical to force others to don’t believe as they do to practice as they do, whether it’s secular fundamentalists advocating an end to circumcision or Christian conservatives advocating a ban on homosexuality.
Ah, Woody, don’t be so tough on Hophmi. Some people know what is good for them, and Hophmi is one of them.
“I do understand it. You take an eight-day old child and amputate a part of its body for no medical reason, permanently depriving him of the ability to exercise personal autonomy in that area and robbing him permanently of the bodily integrity and sexual satisfaction and stimulation that the tissue is, in part, designed to provide. Again, for no good reason.”
I think there are good reasons, both religious and medical, and your argument about sexual satisfaction is not supported by medical research.
“Just because a practice is part of someone’s “culture” or “religion” doesn’t mean that it is okay or that it is not barbaric or that it should be free of examination. It used to be part of American culture to hold slaves. ”
So you compare circumcision with slavery and antisemitism? Besides the absurdity of the comparison, the difference is that Jews are not calling for an end to circumcision.
“But, wait, isn’t this a cultural issue for them???? Why is it that it is okay for you to criticize someone else’s cultural practice, but it is not okay for me to criticize yours??? ”
Because FGM and male circumcision aren’t remotely comparable.
“Not true. Male ritual genital mutilation can lead to serious health issues. You may be ignorant of them, but they do exist. Not too long ago I read an article in the newspaper about a man who’d spent his entire life institutionalized with the mind of a child because, back in the 1970s he developed an infection from his circumcision with went to his brain. These things exist. ”
Great, and I’m sure that happens all the time. Complications are exceedingly rare with male circumcision.
“There is no medical reason for either FGM or MGM, so the results of the procedure are secondary to the fact that the mutilation, in both forms, FGM and MGM, are done on minors without their consent for no good reason.”
You appear to be ignoring the HIV evidence.
“So what? Most people who call for an end to this practice are not antisemites, they just don’t think people should be permitted to permantly mutilate another’s genitalia without that other’s consent.
Call someone who disagrees with you a bigot because your arguments suck is kind of lame.”
I haven’t called anyone a bigot. I’ve simply noted the history of the argument as one targeted at Jews.
“Not better than washing and condoms. Besides, so what? There would be a number of health benefits to infantile prophylactic double mastectomies, including preventing the deaths of tens of thousands of women each year in the US alone. Is that a good enough reason take an 8-day old baby girl and slice off her breasts???”
Again, a stupid comparison. Slicing off breasts is not the same thing as slicing off foreskin, and there is no religious group that supports the practice.
How about you respect the First Amendment and let me practice my religion as I see fit?
It is established fact, now even way belatedly in the USA, that routine neonatal circumcision of males has no health justification. See the statements of any and all relevant physician organizations. It’s also scientific fact that the foreskin is absolutely loaded with erotic nerve cells, and the foreskin’s function in addition to arousal, and pleasure enhancement is to provide natural lubrication and protection of the glans. Live with it, or in your case hophmi–without it.
“It is established fact, now even way belatedly in the USA, that routine neonatal circumcision of males has no health justification.”
I don’t believe it’s an established fact.
“See the statements of any and all relevant physician organizations. ”
Feel free to cite them.
“It’s also scientific fact that the foreskin is absolutely loaded with erotic nerve cells, and the foreskin’s function in addition to arousal, and pleasure enhancement is to provide natural lubrication and protection of the glans. Live with it, or in your case hophmi–without it”
I live without it just fine. I can also live without people who don’t understand the difference between advocating a view and forcing it on the rest of us.
funny you should frame letting people make their own choice about their own bodies as ‘force’. i suppose you don’t think female genital mutilation on teens is ‘forced’ either if the parents want it?
what about parents who convert and then demand their 6 yr old son be circumcised by his 13th birthday. would opposing that procedure also fall under ‘forcing parents’ to follow someone else’s demands?
and what about the life of a child once they are born. i am pro abortion but once the child is no longer an early fetus i don’t support the woman’s choice. i think it is quite reasonable the state have laws preventing choosing whether the child shall live of die. i’ve been in a hospital during a childs circumcision, they scream. in fact i have never heard of a baby not screaming while a portion of their penis is cut off. have you? it is a religious ritual a person can make on their own. it doesn’t hurt a baby any more than it would hurt an adult, so why not postpone it since according to you it is no big deal and not harmful?
“funny you should frame letting people make their own choice about their own bodies as ‘force’. i suppose you don’t think female genital mutilation on teens is ‘forced’ either if the parents want it?”
Eh? I think I made it clear that I oppose FGM, and that part of the reason is that this ban is endorsed by the societies where FGM is practiced.
Banning male circumcision is not something most Jews or other practitioners of male circumcision desire. Its ban would be coercive and a restriction on my religion, again, a restriction exceedingly few people in my community support. Because of the highly disproportionate effect such a ban would have on Jews and Muslims, I think it’s fair to question the motives of those who favor such bans.
“i am pro abortion but once the child is no longer a fetus i don’t support the woman’s choice.”
Yeah, that’s pretty interesting given your views on circumcision. You’re for therapeutic abortion but not for male circumcision.
“i’ve been in a hospital during a childs circumcision, they scream. in fact i have never heard of a baby not screaming while a portion of their penis is cut off. have you?”
Babies scream when you put them in a bathtub too. Should we stop doing that as well?
“it is a religious ritual a person can make on their own. it doesn’t hurt a baby any more than it would hurt an adult, so why not postpone it since it is no big deal and not harmful?”
Because that’s against my religion, and because you don’t get to decide what I observe.
it’s obvious your desperate for a fight.
Circumcision is not necessary any longer. Citizen is correct.
“routine neonatal circumcision of males has no health justification”
deal with it and snip you kids if it makes you feel more Jewish.
Pick a real argument next time, not discussions about getting snipped.
“I think I made it clear that I oppose FGM, and that part of the reason is that this ban is endorsed by the societies where FGM is practiced.”
So are you suggesting that if the people in those societies did not want to stop slicing off clitorises, that you would be fine with that???
“Because of the highly disproportionate effect such a ban would have on Jews and Muslims, I think it’s fair to question the motives of those who favor such bans.”
Baloney. The vast majority of circumcisions in the United States are done for non-religious reasons, by Christians. Any effect a ban would have on Jews and Muslims would be incidental, in connection with the generally applicable law.
“…you don’t get to decide what I observe.”
We don’t get to decide what you believe. But society can, and should, decide what you are permitted to inflict on innocent babies.
Hey hophmi, a person born blind lives without eyesight fine too. Born with only one good eye, even better! I’m glad you support not forcing circumcision on others; with such support we may yet catch up to Europe in this matter in another hundred years.
“the difference between advocating a view and forcing it on the rest of us.”
Exactly, you tell ‘em Hophmi! So people just don’t know the difference between advocating circumcision and forcing it on eight-day-old babies.
Sure, I know Hophmi, that’s what Jewish baby boys cry about for the first seven days of their life: “Waaah! How come you haven’t circumcised me yet? What the hell are you waiting for? My God, this foreskin is killing me!”
Hmmm, there’s that raw sexual fear smell again from Hophmi. It sort of smells like flop-sweat, but more musky.
Please explain what the ‘good’ religious reason for it is?
”I think there are good reasons, both religious and medical,”
And your subjective views on this are fine if you want to cut your own foreskin off. Those subjective views don’t give you any right to cut off someone else’s, especially a baby’s.
“and your argument about sexual satisfaction is not supported by medical research.”
False. Besides, my argument was about sexual stimulation which is unquestionably reduced by the removal of massive numbers of highly sensitive nerve endings. But, even if you were correct, it still wouldn’t matter. The ultimate issue is about personal autonomy and respect for the baby you’re mutilating. Male genital mutilation is wrong because you’re disfiguring a baby who has not given consent nor is capable of giving consent.
“So you compare circumcision with slavery and antisemitism?”
To the extent that the fact that something is a cultural or religious practice should not shield that practice from criticism, yes.
“the difference is that Jews are not calling for an end to circumcision. “
Some are. But, again, for those who are not, it is an indictment against them.
“Because FGM and male circumcision aren’t remotely comparable.”
Sure they are. Again, they’re both mutilation of genitalia on nonconsenting babies. And some forms of FGM are less destructive and less disfiguring than male genital mutilation.
“You appear to be ignoring the HIV evidence.”
No, I’m not. It provides perhaps a marginal benefit in certain circumstances not applicable anywhere in the Industrialized World, but nowhere near the benefit in HIV prevention as basic hygiene and condom use. Further, HIV is a sexually transmitted disease, there is no purpose to circumcise infants, who are in no way capable of benefiting from this marginal benefit. So if the HIV evidence is enough to substantiate the circumcision, it would only be applicable to adult circumcision, which is a voluntary, consented-to act. Wait until the person is capable of deciding for themselves whether they wish to use circumcision or condoms to minimize HIV transmission.
But that evidence is besides the point. You cite to this marginal advantage solely as an excuse. You, yourself, repeatedly state that your consideration is cultural and religious. If it provided no medical advantage, you would still be opposed to banning the practice because of religion. So the HIV issue is an excuse, a red herring, a smokescreen at best.
“I haven’t called anyone a bigot. I’ve simply noted the history of the argument as one targeted at Jews.”
Not outright, but there is no reason to raise antisemitism if you accept that there are valid non-antisemitic arguments for banning the process.
“Again, a stupid comparison. Slicing off breasts is not the same thing as slicing off foreskin,”
No, but if you are positing that it is okay to override the personal autonomy of infants and make unnecessary, permanent mutilations, based on marginal benefits, then we why shouldn’t we do a unnecessary, permanent mutilations to see major benefits?
“and there is no religious group that supports the practice.”
So what? If a religious group supported the practice of cutting off the last digit a child’s left pinky, should they be permitted to do it?
“How about you respect the First Amendment and let me practice my religion as I see fit?”
How about your respect the rights of these children to grow up without being mutilated and disfigured? Practice your religion however you want as long as you don’t interfere with anyone else’s rights, especially their right not to have parts of their body chopped off without their consent. If you, as an adult, want to chop off your own foreskin for religious reasons, go ahead. That’s your choice. Respect children enough to give them the choice of what they want to do with their bodies.
“And your subjective views on this are fine if you want to cut your own foreskin off. Those subjective views don’t give you any right to cut off someone else’s, especially a baby’s.”
I expect you’re against baptism too, since that entails pouring water over a baby’s head, and the baby cannot consent. In addition, I expect that you would be against making a child study the catechism (or Torah or Qu’ran) because this is not a decision made by the child, may cause long-lasting psychological damage, and cause a child to play less than doctors say he should.
“Sure they are. Again, they’re both mutilation of genitalia on nonconsenting babies. And some forms of FGM are less destructive and less disfiguring than male genital mutilation.”
And most are not. And I assume you would also be opposed to any cosmetic surgery on a baby, such as, say, scar removal after medically necessary surgery, since it is not medically necessary and the baby cannot consent. And perhaps you oppose ear-piercing for children under 16 or 18, since children cannot legally consent to this sort of “mutilation” either. Or, maybe you’re against giving a child braces, because that’s not medically necessary either.
“Not outright, but there is no reason to raise antisemitism if you accept that there are valid non-antisemitic arguments for banning the process. ”
I don’t accept it, since it is one of many, many decision parents make on behalf of children, and since there is little evidence that men suffer ill-effects from circumcision, I’m opposed to banning it because some group of secular fundamentalists with nothing to lose find it repulsive.
“No, but if you are positing that it is okay to override the personal autonomy of infants and make unnecessary, permanent mutilations, based on marginal benefits, then we why shouldn’t we do a unnecessary, permanent mutilations to see major benefits? ”
The “personal autonomy of infants?”
We override the “autonomy of infants” all the time, and we don’t always need a medical reason to do so.
“So what? If a religious group supported the practice of cutting off the last digit a child’s left pinky, should they be permitted to do it? ”
You still cannot make an argument with resorting to ad absurdum tactics. Nobody wants to cut off a child’s pinky.
“How about your respect the rights of these children to grow up without being mutilated and disfigured?”
Again, what you look at as “mutilation and disfigurement” I look at as an important religious practice that the vast majority of my co-religionists wish to continue and which the vast majority of those who have had it done have no problem with it. And of course, as someone who knows that the law is without question on my side.
“Practice your religion however you want as long as you don’t interfere with anyone else’s rights, especially their right not to have parts of their body chopped off without their consent.”
A foreskin is not a body part. It’s a piece of skin.
“If you, as an adult, want to chop off your own foreskin for religious reasons, go ahead. That’s your choice. Respect children enough to give them the choice of what they want to do with their bodies.”
My religion mandates that circumcision take place on the eighth day, not when I am an adult. If you don’t like that, nobody is forcing you to be a Jew. Those who are Jews prefer to practice their religion, not the version you approve of.
“I expect you’re against baptism too, since that entails pouring water over a baby’s head, and the baby cannot consent.”
If baptism resulted in a permanent disfigurement and removal of a body part, yes, I would oppose it.
“In addition, I expect that you would be against making a child study the catechism (or Torah or Qu’ran) because this is not a decision made by the child, may cause long-lasting psychological damage, and cause a child to play less than doctors say he should.”
If studying religious books resulted in permanent disfigurement and removal of a body part, yes, I would oppose it.
“And I assume you would also be opposed to any cosmetic surgery on a baby, such as, say, scar removal after medically necessary surgery, since it is not medically necessary and the baby cannot consent.”
Scar revision is most always medically advised, because it is correcting a disfigurement, unlike male genital mutilation, which creates a disfigurement. But I would oppose cosmetic surgery on infants for trivial reasons, like those given for non-medically-indicated circumcisions.
”And perhaps you oppose ear-piercing for children under 16 or 18”
I do.
“Or, maybe you’re against giving a child braces, because that’s not medically necessary either.”
Braces are usually medically indicated because they correct disfigurement or improve function and are temporary. If parents were to want to remove their children’s teeth because of religious reasons or otherwise (the equivalent to circumcision), I would oppose that.
“I don’t accept it, since it is one of many, many decision parents make on behalf of children, and since there is little evidence that men suffer ill-effects from circumcision, I’m opposed to banning it because some group of secular fundamentalists with nothing to lose find it repulsive.”
If you can’t see that there are non-antisemitic reasons to oppose cutting off a part of a child’s anatomy then that says more about you than anything else.
“The ‘personal autonomy of infants?’”
Yes, as in, everyone has the right to have their bodily integrity respected, even if that person is an infant and even if the person desiring to mutilate the child is the child’s parent. Especially in that case.
“You still cannot make an argument with resorting to ad absurdum tactics. Nobody wants to cut off a child’s pinky.”
Because modern religions, by and large, have stopped mandating human blood sacrifices. Point to another situation where parents are permitted to permanently disfigure their infants for something as trivial as religion and we can use that as a point of reference. Otherwise, I have to use analogy.
“Again, what you look at as ‘mutilation and disfigurement’ I look at as an important religious practice that the vast majority of my co-religionists wish to continue and which the vast majority of those who have had it done have no problem with it.”
Regardless of how you choose to look at it, (or, more realistically, how much you lie to yourself about what it really is), it is still mutilation and disfigurement, regardless of who does or does not have a problem with it.
“And of course, as someone who knows that the law is without question on my side.”
For now. That is why people are working to change the law.
“A foreskin is not a body part. It’s a piece of skin.”
Again, you can lie to yourself in order to avoid looking at the reality, but the foreskin is more than just a piece of skin. It is a body part. But even if it was just a piece of skin, so what? The pads of the feet and the palms of the hand are just pieces of skin. Would you say it was okay for a parent to slice off the pads of the feet and the palms of their infants because they think god told them to??
“My religion mandates that circumcision take place on the eighth day, not when I am an adult. If you don’t like that, nobody is forcing you to be a Jew. Those who are Jews prefer to practice their religion, not the version you approve of.”
And yet the right to practice religion is not absolute. If someone’s religion tells them to pour acid on the backs of their children, they should be stopped by the force of law, regardless of their religious beliefs. Same here.
And while no one is forcing me to be a Jew, you are, in fact, forcing the infant to undergo a traumatic, disfiguring amputation of the foreskin, on behalf of a religious belief that he may, in adulthood, believe is nonsensical superstition. Don’t kid yourself that there is no coercion here.
Hophmi can’t win this argument. I think because it identifies one as a Jew is the reason he’s for it. There’s certainly no reason for the health of a child to do it in today’s hygienic world.
“I expect you’re against baptism too, since that entails pouring water over a baby’s head, and the baby cannot consent.”
Hophmi, do you have any idea how explicitly you are exposing your fear of sexual inferiority from circumcision? You couldn’t be any more obvious if you tried.
Really scares the crap out of you that people might stop, so other men don’t have the same handicap as you.
“If you can’t see that there are non-antisemitic reasons to oppose cutting off a part of a child’s anatomy then that says more about you than anything else.”
I can see non-antisemitic reasons for personally opposing it, not for banning it.
“For now. That is why people are working to change the law. ”
Fortunately, we have a First Amendment.
“Because modern religions, by and large, have stopped mandating human blood sacrifices. ”
Again, an ad absurdum analogy.
“Again, you can lie to yourself in order to avoid looking at the reality, but the foreskin is more than just a piece of skin. It is a body part.”
No, a penis is a body part. A foreskin is a piece of skin.
“And yet the right to practice religion is not absolute. If someone’s religion tells them to pour acid on the backs of their children, they should be stopped by the force of law, regardless of their religious beliefs. Same here.”
This is not pouring acid, and nobody is advocating the pouring of acid. This is circumcision. The right to practice religion includes the right to practice circumcision, and that will not change.
i think anyone who wants to should be allowed to be circumcised. but forced circumcision should not be allowed, even by parents. that goes for boys and girls. it is child abuse.
It’s my religion, Annie, and the vast, vast majority of males who have been circumsized do not view it as child abuse. I’ll politely ask that you be more respectful of my faith.
i am not making efforts to have it banned hophmi but i have a right to my opinion as much as you do. just because i do not have faith in a religion doesn’t mean you don’t have to respect my opinion anymore than i am supposed to respect yours. if i think it is child abuse why don’t you respect that and what would the difference between your lack of respect for my opinion and what you allege as mine?
i ask you a question up thread out of curiosity, not knowing (having no idea) it was against your religion to postpone a circumcision. i ask why not wait and let the child choose. you responded you don’t get to decide what I observe. i didn’t know in the jewish faith children were not permitted to make a choice regarding their religious practice. it was my understanding christian children go thru some kind of commitment process wrt the church in adolescence. so i assumed apparently wrongly, this process didn’t need to be performed on an infant.
you didn’t answer my question btw, you skipped over that part and requested i respect your religion. i asked you why it could not be postponded and your answer was because i did not get to decide. that’s not really an answer. I’ll politely ask that you be more respectful of my opinion and my sincere questions to you. if you don’t want to answer fine, but don’t expect respect when you can’t offer it in kind.
btw, there are lots of rituals in different faiths that get altered thru time
I find it difficult to believe that you do not know that a circumcision is supposed to take place when a boy is eight days old, but now you know. Postponement is only permitted in cases where the child is sick or otherwise unable to have a circumcision. Rituals do get altered over time. This one has been pretty much the same for thousands of years.
“I’ll politely ask that you be more respectful of my faith.”
Yeah, gosh darn it, don’t you have any sympathy for a guy who’s been sexually maimed?
I find it difficult to believe that you do not know that a circumcision is supposed to take place when a boy is eight days old
excuse me? and why pray tell would i know this kind of trivia? do you imagine i stay up at night googling jewish circumcision?
you don’t have to answer that. thanks for responding to my earlier inquiry.
“I can see non-antisemitic reasons for personally opposing it, not for banning it.”
So the moral imperative one feels to protect innocent infants from mutilation is inherently anti-Semitic? That’s an insight into mental pathology…
“Fortunately, we have a First Amendment.”
Yes, which has been interpreted as permitting the prohibition on religiously mandated activities where the ban is generally applicable, which this would be.
“Again, an ad absurdum analogy.”
Not really. Ritual genital mutilation for religious reasons is a blood sacrifice whether you call it that or call it “a token of covenant.” Give up the flesh or lose out on the god’s promise, is a blood sacrifice to appease the god, whatever you call it.
“No, a penis is a body part. A foreskin is a piece of skin.”
LOL. The limitlessness of your self-delusion is amazing. Pathological, but amazing.
“This is not pouring acid, and nobody is advocating the pouring of acid. This is circumcision.”
Yes, it’s circumcision, which is as evil and abusive as any similar traumatic disfigurement made on an infant, whether by blood or knife.
Posit, instead, a person’s religious belief which mandates that, on day 8, the shape of a tiny cross had to be cut into the flesh of a child over his heart and the stitched up, even without any excision of the flesh, so as to symbolize the new covenant of Christ’s death and resurrection. Would you oppose permitting parents to cut up their child like that?
“The right to practice religion includes the right to practice circumcision, and that will not change.”
We will see. The law changes all the time.
hophmi: “I can see non-antisemitic reasons for personally opposing it, not for banning it.”
I agree, if Jehovah’s Witnesses get to refuse emergency blood transfusions, then Jews or Muslims should get to cut off baby foreskins for religious or tribal reasons. However no insurance company should provide coverage for routine neonatal circumcision except for policy holders who pay an extra premium for such a service. And no government funds should be allowed to
fund such circumcisions. All hospitals should be required to inform expectant parents of the negatives of circumcision, and get their consent of approval anyway.
Hophmi, I want to thank you for being so clear about the psychological and physical damage done by circumcision. You have been very honest about it, and I for one, think you are very brave for being so explicit about the moral damage done by it.
You couldn’t be clearer about it if you tried.