yuck!

[Danzig]

http://news.msn.com/us/us-court-revi...rcumcision-law

it's time to end some of this neanderthal behavior in the name of religion. we decry others doing female genital mutilation and forced circumcision of males-and we allow this?!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://news.msn.com/us/us-court-revi...rcumcision-law

it's time to end some of this neanderthal behavior in the name of religion. we decry others doing female genital mutilation and forced circumcision of males-and we allow this?!

Well, when you come down to it, the vast majority of circumcisions are forced as a baby can't give consent. I wouldn't say we're decrying them (I think half of baby boys in the US are still routinely circumcised, though it's becoming less common. It's not common in Europe.).

That said, I agree wholeheartedly that when babies die from a practice, it's time for a population to take a look at a practice. In this case, what makes it really crazy is that there's no ban proposed, just requiring parents to be informed that the procedure could potentially be risky. Just informed consent; that's all the law is asking. But apparently informed consent is a violation of religious freedom? What does that say about a religion?

I read somewhere that it's speculated that up to 80 percent of the population have Type 1 herpes (the cold sore one), it's just that over half of people who have it don't know because they never display symptoms (though they can still pass on the virus to others). This law is much milder than where I'd go, which is to require men performing this procedure to be on Valtrex, regardless of whether they know their infection status or not.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Well, when you come down to it, the vast majority of circumcisions are forced as a baby can't give consent. I wouldn't say we're decrying them (I think half of baby boys in the US are still routinely circumcised, though it's becoming less common. It's not common in Europe.).

That said, I agree wholeheartedly that when babies die from a practice, it's time for a population to take a look at a practice. In this case, what makes it really crazy is that there's no ban proposed, just requiring parents to be informed that the procedure could potentially be risky. Just informed consent; that's all the law is asking. But apparently informed consent is a violation of religious freedom? What does that say about a religion?

I read somewhere that it's speculated that up to 80 percent of the population have Type 1 herpes (the cold sore one), it's just that over half of people who have it don't know because they never display symptoms (though they can still pass on the virus to others). This law is much milder than where I'd go, which is to require men performing this procedure to be on Valtrex, regardless of whether they know their infection status or not.

except this isn't just circumcision, the rabbis removing blood from the baby with their mouth-good lord.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

except this isn't just circumcision, the rabbis removing blood from the baby with their mouth-good lord.

Back in the day, it was believed that saliva had a disinfectant effect. Nowadays we know that's not true, but very conservative beliefs are hard to eradicate.

Leetle history of the snip snip in Judaism:

http://www.kveller.com/baby_and_todd...he-Mohel.shtml

I, of course, believe that religious beliefs should take a back seat to public health (I don't believe in religious exemptions for vaccines, either) so I don't approve, but I'm not a politician and so wooing certain blocks of voters is not my problem.