HERE'S something I was glad to see in my Facebook news feed today.
Baruch Hashem!
Link to the actual article in the Forward can be accessed here.
There are plenty of pro-circumcision "information resources." In this blog, I present what they leave out.
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Monday, January 15, 2018
Good News From Israel
HERE'S something I was glad to see in my Facebook news feed today.
Baruch Hashem!
Link to the actual article in the Forward can be accessed here.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Israel Ahead of New York in Recommending Against Metzitzah B'Peh
Following the deaths of two newborns as a direct result of herpes infection through metzitzah b'peh, an ultra-orthodox practice where a mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound of a newly circumcised newborn, and the infection of several others, the New York City Health Department issued a mandate that would require parents to sign a consent form before allowing a mohel to perform metztizah b’peh on their sons, as a measure to protect further boys from being infected.
Had the measure actually been implemented, the health commission would have imposed penalties at its own discretion. They would respond to public complaints and investigate the claims, and that repercussions would have ranged from a phone call or a formal warning letter, to fines of up to $2,000 for each violation.
The mandate was more of a gesture, because there was no actual ban or regulation of metzitzah b'peh, and mohels would face no penalties whatsoever if the waivers were not signed.
Despite the mandate having been essentially impotent, ultra-orthodox rabbis were intolerant of what they saw as an "unconstitutional, shocking governmental overreach." Rabbi William Handler, leader of Traditional Bris Milah, a self-proclaimed group formed to “protect Jewish ritual circumcision,” declared this mandate to be "the first step in completely taking away traditional bris milah from the Jewish people in New York City.”
To prevent this mandate from taking effect, several rabbis and Jewish organizations, including Agudath Israel of America and the International Bris Association, filed a lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Manhattan. They accused mayor Bloomberg of "blood libel," and the New York City Health Department of "trying to enforce erroneous opinions on the people of New York City." They claim the city lacked “any definitive proof” that metzitzah b’peh “poses health risks of any kind," despite the fact that the CDC found a total of 11 baby Jewish boys in NYC were infected with herpes.
Concerned Rabbis kept fighting to push back the date of the regulation's actual implementation, and after much ado, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio finally annulled the regulation enforced by the Bloomberg administration on the practice of Metzitzah B’peh last year.
Essentially, babies died of herpes infections, several others were infected, and it's as if nothing actually ever happened.
In Israel, on the other hand, the Israeli Health Ministry is planning to go as far and distribute a detailed document dealing with the risks and advantages of metzitsah b'peh to new parents.
According to the Jewish Press, many doctors say the practice increases by 350% the chance of infecting the newborn baby with herpes simplex.
Some members of the chief rabbinate were concerned that the move might harm mohels, the Jewish Press says.
And I ask, what, pray tell, about the babies?
Nonetheless, I must say, how interesting the turn of events. What the health ministry in New York couldn't do, they're actually doing in Israel.
Related Posts:
Friday, February 7, 2014
JERUSALEM: Baby Boy Rushed to the Hospital with Bleeding Complications
Advocates of circumcision often try to trivialize infant circumcision, saying it's "harmless" and "risk-free."
Well, yet another circumcision botch makes the news, this time in Israel. The last one that I know of happened in Pittsburgh, where a rabbi severed a child's entire penis during his bris. Not to mention the recent herpes infection due to metzitzah b'peh in New York.
Keep in mind these are complication cases that make the news; circumcision mishaps are often kept under wraps because there is a conviction to preserve a tradition that is ever under fire. Hospitals themselves may be obscuring these complications.
There is also financial incentive to hide or minimize circumcision complications; circumcision is a widespread practice in the United States. Annually, American doctors circumcise 1.2 million baby boys. At a dollar a pop, that's 1.2 million dollars; infant circumcision can cost anywhere between $100 up to $2,000 each. Therefore American doctors and medical facilities have incentive to hide or minimize complications due to circumcision, Jewish or secular.
Are these complications conscionable, given that infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery?
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Common Sense in Israel
In an earlier post, I commented on how a rabbinical court in Israel was forcing a divorced woman to facilitate the performance of a Jewish circumcision for her son, by fining her about $140 a day until she went through with her child's circumcision, in order to appease her ex-husband's wishes.
The woman has appealed to the High Court of Justice, and it looks like and the fine has been suspended.
It's kind of sad that this is the way it works in Israel, where rabbinical courts have legal jurisdiction over, marriage, divorce, and the rights of a child, and that the woman had to go through the trouble she did to protect her son's rights.
Where else but in Israel do religious authorities decry that the European Council is "infringing on religious freedoms," while they coerce a woman circumcise her son by fining her $140 daily.
Related Posts:
Friday, December 13, 2013
EUROPE: Israel MKs Turn Up the Heat
Earlier, I commented on the fact that the European Council finally dared to call a spade a spade and declare medically unnecessary circumcision on healthy, non-consenting children to be a human rights violation.
I also mentioned that, unsurprisingly, Jewish groups and even the State of Israel have vowed to make the European Council rescind.
The Jerusalem Post reports on the progress of Knesset initiatives:
The Knesset has made significant efforts to collect signatures from European parliamentarians on a counter-resolution it seeks to pass in April, reaching 102 signatures as opposed to 77 MPs who voted for the anti-circumcision measure.
The [Reuven] Rivlin-led delegation will meet with leaders of four of the Council of Europe’s five factions to convince them to put the Knesset’s counter-resolution on the PACE agenda for either late January or April. The Presidium, which consists of faction chairpeople, will set the agenda for those two meetings on December 15.
According to Rivlin, the anti-circumcision measure (Was it a definitive, binding measure, or a declaration?) “is not a legitimate decision, and it is a joint goal of Jews, Muslims and anyone who believes in freedom of religion and conscience to cancel it.”
Rivlin, Vaknin and Hoffman plan to meet with party leaders and members of the Council of Europe’s Presidium and present them with the 102 signatures from PACE members, aiming to show that the original measure was passed unfairly when only a small number of MPs were present.
“We want to make it clear to the Europeans that even if it’s legitimate for them to intervene in diplomatic or regional issues, it is not legitimate for them to be involved in Judaism and freedom of religion.” ~Reuven Rivlin
This "freedom of religion."
How far does it extend? Does it extend to religions whose followers circumcise girls and women? Perhaps it's illegitimate for Europeans to intervene with religions whose followers marry and have sex with little girls. Or does this "freedom of religion" only apply to Judaism when it concerns the forced genital mutilation of specifically male, newborn children?
"Freedom of religion" is a weak argument, and Jewish advocates of male infant genital mutilation know it, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to lecture Europeans on the so-called "medical benefits" of circumcision.
It must certainly be asked, since when do adherents of Judaism, where circumcision is considered divine commandment, care about "research" and "medical benefits?" And since when is it the jurisdiction of governing bodies, such as the Knesset, to make medical value judgements on surgical procedures?
It's not surprising that I'm seeing this happen, and as I've mentioned before regarding other attempts to ban infant genital mutilation, it will not be surprising when the Council of Europe caves to Jewish demands, rescinds their bold move, and offers some sort of "apology" for having dared to call infant circumcision the genital mutilation that it is.
The despair of religious circumcision advocates must be noted. So desperate are religious infant genital mutilation zealots that they go as far as feigning an interest in public health, and as far as citing "research" that may as well be published in tabloids at grocery store check-out lines.
From the Jerusalem Post:
"In addition, last month, The Journal of Sexual Medicine published a peer-reviewed study by researchers at the University of Sydney proving circumcision does not reduce sexual pleasure."
Had the authors paid any attention, they would have noticed that the "research" was actually published in August.
Not mentioned here is the fact that the "researchers" are none other than long-time circumcision zealot Brian Morris and his friends, and that the research doesn't actually "prove" anything. Brian Morris didn't conduct any "study," rather, the "research" is nothing more than Brian Morris giving his approval and disapproval for "studies" he himself hand-picked, yielding results he wants.
In short, yet another decidedly myopic opinion piece by a known circumcision enthusiast.
Notice that Knesset leaders are careful not to mention the fact that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that the "benefits" are not great enough.
In essence, Knesset MKs, along with Brian Morris, are taking an unfounded position against the most respected medical organizations in the west.
I will not be surprised.
I will not be surprised when and if the resolution put forth by the Council of Europe is replaced with the new dictum from Israel.
But I will also not be discouraged.
I have mentioned it numerous times on this blog already, that legislation is secondary and is not the end-all, be-all of the intactivist cause.
Whether governments ban or legalize the forced genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting infants means nothing.
Laws follow societal change, not lead it.
Even if the European Council succumbs to Israeli blackmail, it is ever clear that change is inevitable, and circumcision, no, infant genital mutilation, is finished.
The truth is out, and can be no longer hidden.
Related Posts:
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
ISRAEL: "Religious Freedom" a One-Way Street
In advance, I'd like to apologize to my readers for the bad quality of my latest posts. I barely have anytime to throw this one together. Please bear with me, forgive the recent hastiness with which I write, and forgive me where I could have expressed myself better.
On with my post...
Even in Israel, circumcision is being questioned, and there are Jewish parents who are choosing to forgo infant circumcision for their male newborns, in lieu of leaving the choice up to them when they are adults. This does not sit well with rabbinical authorities, however, and it looks like they're trying to make an example out of a dissenting woman.
To make a long story short, a rabbinical court in Israel (rabbinical courts have legal jurisdiction over religious questions, including marriage and divorce, concerning the country's Jewish majority), is forcing a divorced woman to facilitate the performance of a Jewish circumcision for her son.
As part of the divorce process, her ex-husband has asked the rabbinical court to compel her to circumcise her son, who is now 1 year old, and was never circumcised in accordance with Judaism.
A rabbinical court in
Netanya this week forced a divorced woman to facilitate the performance
of a Jewish circumcision for her son,
Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/
Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/
A rabbinical court in
Netanya this week forced a divorced woman to facilitate the performance
of a Jewish circumcision for her son
Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/
Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/
A rabbinical court in
Netanya this week forced a divorced woman to facilitate the performance
of a Jewish circumcision for her son
Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/
Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-rabbinical-court-forcing-divorcee-to-circumcise-son/2013/11/07/
The woman tried to argue that the rabbinical court does not have jurisdiction over her son, but her argument was rejected by the rabbinical judges, and the court is now fining her about $140 a day until she goes through with her child's circumcision, in order to appease her ex-husband's wishes.
The rabbinical judges claim the woman was opposing her son's circumcision as leverage to keep her husband from divorcing her, but this is strange, as, apparently, her husband didn't have a problem with their son not being circumcised until now that they're getting divorced. It would seem, at least to me, that it is quite the opposite; the man wants to use the child as leverage to keep the woman from leaving, if not permanently mark the child in his flesh as a means of retaliation against her for divorcing him.
While the rabbinical judges claim to simply be siding with the father, they have also referred explicitly to the growing debate around ritual male circumcision elsewhere in the world, and voiced their fear of a precedent that could be created if a Jewish Israeli succeeded in keeping her son whole.
Quoth the rabbinical judges:
“We have witnessed for some time now public and legal struggles against the brit milah in many countries in Europe and in the United States. The public in Israel has stood as one man (Really? Are they speaking for all of Israel?) against these trends, seeing them as yet another aspect of displays of anti-Semitism that must be combatted. How will the world react if even here the issue of circumcision is given to the discretion of any person, according to their own beliefs?”
Indeed, how would the world react if "religious freedom" was actually practiced in Israel, by those who expressly demand it in other parts of the world?
Meanwhile, in Sweden...
Meanwhile, in Sweden, a Jewish woman is claiming asylum in her own country, "for the right to live a religious life, to preserve our cultural identity, and to be who we are without fear of persecution." She protests that Jews are losing the right to practice their religious observances, namely kosher meat slaughter and, you guessed it, circumcision.
"This is the self-image—the reality—that Jewish children in Sweden grow up with: being Jewish means being under threat of harm from bad people. This is where we are at. One by one, our practices are being outlawed. Attacks on us are going unpunished. Politicians, journalists, and intellectuals describe us as barbarians."
I wonder what self-image the child in this case, what "reality," he'll have to grow up with; what threats HE has to live under. While a Jewish practice is being outlawed in Sweden, it is outright being forced in Israel. Is it any wonder that anyone describes Jews as "barbarians?"
"True: we are not being murdered, and we are not being physically driven out. But our religious observances are being interdicted, our persons are being threatened, our safety is being endangered, and—in short—our human rights are being violated."
Do tell, madam, do tell.
"Why do we put up with it? And why do pundits and politicians assure me that Jews in Sweden are perfectly safe when what they really mean is that we will be safe only so long as we agree to become invisible as Jews and cease to practice Judaism?"
Funny word she uses here... "invisible..." Here, it means a Jew who ceases to practice "Judaism," at least as she defines it, but in Israel, "invisible" means quite the opposite. (A good Israeli Jew is one who complies with all Jewish customs, including the one that says you must cut your children's genitals.)
"EU statutes provide that asylum be granted to persons with “well-founded reasons to fear persecution due to race; nationality; religious or political beliefs; gender; sexual orientation; or affiliation to a particular social group.” Jews in Sweden meet these criteria, and should be eligible for the same protection and support extended to non-natives."
I wonder if the woman in this divorce case meets these criteria and is eligible for this same protection and support... in her own country...
"And so today, November 18, I am legally filing for refugee status and asylum—not in America, not in Israel, but here in Sweden, my own country.Absurd?
Absurd? No doubt."
Let's hear what she has to say about this divorced woman in Israel.
To close:
So while in Sweden, a woman "files for asylum" because she demands the right to mutilate her (male) children in the name of "freedom," a religious court in Israel is forcing a woman to go against her own beliefs that her son should be free to make his own choice.
That's funny, because right now Israel's Knesset has sent evangelist MK's to Europe to try to get the Council of Europe to void their latest resolution declaring circumcision the violation of basic human rights that it is, on grounds that it violates "religious freedom."
While in Europe, Israeli officials are demanding "religious freedoms" be respected (nevermind the religious freedoms of the children involved), in Israel, rabbinical courts get to trample on the religious of both citizens AND their children.
Am I missing something?
Who should be filing for asylum here?
Just imagine if an Islamic court were forcing a divorcee to cut their daughter. Isn't Israel supposed to be like, the only democracy in the Middle East?
What would be the public outcry?
What utter shame and hypocrisy.
The very least the rabbinical judges in this case can do is grant this woman the freedom they claim they demand for Jews in other parts of the world.
If you want to help:
A Facebook group has been created dedicated to helping this woman out, to those who are interested.
"We're looking for help with this case, most urgently a way to donate money for the legal fees and the fines this mom is racking up. If we could piggyback on an existing charitable organization that would be great. All ideas are welcome."
UPDATE (11/27/2013):
An interview with Elinor, the mother in this case, can be read here.
Related Articles:
Haaretz
The Jewish Press
The Telegraph
+972
Mosaic
Sunday, November 24, 2013
EUROPE: Israeli MK Lectures PACE on the Medical Virtues of Ritual Circumcision
In the latest plea for the Council of Europe to reject their resolution, MK Meir Sheetrit tries argue that resolution is "medically unjustified." This is certainly a different tune than what Shimon Peres sent to Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjorn Jagland, arguing that infant circumcision is of "great importance" in Jewish and Muslim religious tradition, that it is a "fundamental element and obligation of Jewish tradition" that has been practiced by Jewish communities "for thousands of years."
The fact that Meir Sheetrit is choosing to argue "medical benefits" in lieu of "religious freedom" is interesting to say the least.
Is the argument for "religious freedom" so weak that it has to be propped up by a sudden interest in public health?
I will analyze excerpts of the Jerusalem Post article conveying this news:
"The committee said that circumcision is dangerous because 1.5 percent of children get infected," Sheetrit told The Jerualem Post Wednesday evening, "but infections can be taken care of."
...and completely unconscionable considering that they are caused by a needless operation on healthy, non-consenting children.
"Circumcised males are 60% less susceptible to HIV and it lowers the risk of penile and prostate cancer. Those are fatal diseases, as opposed to a passing infection."
Preventing HIV is not the reason Jews circumcise their children, is it?
Newborns are already at zero risk for sexually transmitted disease. Additionally, circumcision FAILS to prevent HIV, which is why even the most enthusiastic circumcision purporter in Africa cannot overstate the use of condoms enough.
Here is what the American Cancer Society has to say regarding penile cancer:
In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.
Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding HPV infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer.
80% of American males are circumcised from birth. Yet, according to the ACS, 1 in 6 US men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. If circumcision is supposed to prevent prostate cancer, I'm afraid it is not very effective.
"Opponents of circumcision raised the claim that the child should have autonomy.
However, there are two other ethical arguments for circumcision.
The first is that of "community and divinity," which fits with freedom of religion arguments, Sheetrit told the committee, citing University of Chicago cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder."
Does this include communities who believe it a religious rite to circumcise their daughters?
"The second is the "best interests standard," cited by Dr. Caroline McGee Jones of the University of Texas Health Science Center, explaining that it is ethical for parents to circumcise their son if they believe it will benefit him and his well-being."
What if parents believe female circumcision will benefit their daughter and her well-being?
It must be asked, what other non-medical procedure are doctors obliged to perform on children at their parents request, because they, the parents, believe it is "beneficial?"
"According to Sheetrit, PACE members from several countries approached him after the meeting to say he changed their mind, but Rupperecht remained unconvinced."
HAH!
Sure they did.
The fact is that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that the "benefits" are not great enough.
Does MK Meir Sheetrit intend to take an unfounded position against the most respected medical organizations in the west?
Is he seriously suggesting he knows more than the ombudsmen who signed the resolution?
Related Posts:
Sunday, November 17, 2013
ISRAEL: The Emperor's New Foreskin
The Council of Europe has declared the medically unnecessary circumcision of non-consenting minors to be a human rights violation and the responses have been predictable, from accusations of anti-Semitism by leaders of Jewish groups, to the Israeli president Shimon Peres sending a letter to Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjorn Jagland, asking for his intervention. Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Committee chairman Yoel Rozvozov has proposed that Jewish circumcision ceremonies be conducted at Israeli embassies.
Perhaps the biggest response to the Council of Europe, however, has been for the Knesset to send an envoy of MKs to Europe, in order to ask their counterparts to sign a new draft resolution written by Israel; the Knesset intends to replace the Council of Europe resolution with their own.
Up until now, Europeans, and perhaps most everyone else, have refrained from questioning circumcision. Even today, leaders and politicians have a tendency to pussyfoot around the issue. The politically correct thing to do is to either join the chorus and sing the praises of the "medical benefits" of circumcision, the only recourse being to simply circumvent the issue and hope it goes away.
In a recent post, one can see that Israel has Europe by the thick and curlies. In the past, any discussion questioning the ethics of forcibly circumcising, healthy, non-consenting minors could be abruptly truncated by having a Jewish person stomp, pout, point their finger and say "anti-Semite." These actions still have a similar effect, as one can clearly see Jagland pandering to Israeli president Shimon Peres, after having received a personal letter directly from him.
All arguments questioning the circumcision of minors, how ever well-reasoned, are trumped by the "anti-Semite" trump card.
How far is this to continue?
When can Europeans, and the world in general, expect to freely discuss the ethics of forcibly circumcising healthy, non-consenting minors?
Or are Europeans and the rest of the world to continue turning a blind eye and refuse to call it the mutilation and basic human rights violation that it is, in order to avoid political assassination?
Monday, October 14, 2013
MK Yoel Razvozov: Conduct Bris Milah at Israeli Embassies
In response to the declaration made by the Council of Europe that the circumcision of infants is a human rights violation, Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Committee chairman Yoel Rozvozov has proposed that Jewish circumcision ceremonies be conducted at Israeli embassies.
"No one can force us and Diaspora Jewry to follow certain religious values and not others. We should be allowed to observe all Jewish customs... If necessary, we will instruct embassies to hold circumcision ceremonies on their territory, which is Israeli sovereign territory." ~MK Yoel RazvozovNote, there is no ban on infant circumcision, yet.
European laws allow certain religious values and forbid others all the time. For example, female circumcision for whatever reason is strictly prohibited, and there is no exemption for religious practice. At this point in time, I'm not exactly sure where European laws stand on the marriage of children to other children, or even to adults. Someone please educate me, are bride burnings allowed in any country in Europe?
But I digress; let's stick to forced genital cutting.
What would be the political ramifications would that immigration ministries from countries where female circumcision is seen as an important cultural or religious rite, were to propose female circumcision ceremonies to be conducted at the embassies of their countries?
For example, female genital cutting is performed in Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Singapore and other countries, as a matter of religious and cultural custom, known there as "sunat."
What if the heads of immigration ministries in those countries were to propose having "sunat" ceremonies at their embassies in Europe?
Yes, I'm sure it sounds very poetic to say that "No one can force us to follow certain religious values and not others; we should be allowed to observe all of our customs."
Does it apply in all cases?
Or just with Judaism when it comes to male infant circumcision?
Related Posts:
Related Links:
Israel Hayom
New York Times - A Cutting Tradition
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
COUNCIL OF EUROPE: When Israel Says "Jump," Secretary General Says "How High?"
It's been only a few days since the Council of Europe declared the medically unnecessary circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, to be a human rights violation, and, as predicted, it has drawn non-stop fire from Jewish organizations.
Said Benjamin Albalas, President of the Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece:
"This is a sign of anti-Semitism."
The Jerusalem Post
If one reads the comments to these articles criticizing the Council of Europe for their stance, the argumentum at Hitlerem is never-ending.
Israel Gets Involved
Apparently, Israel has gotten involved, with President Shimon Peres, sending a letter to Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjorn Jagland, asking for his intervention.
Thorbjorn Jagland,
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
And, apparently, the Secretary General has complied, signaling that the Council of Europe has begun to backpedal.
According to a tweet from Jagland's press spokesman Daniel Holtgen, Jagland has expressed:
“Female genital mutilation violates human rights. Male circumcision does not.”
Poor Europe, stuck between a rock and a hard place; they must perform a delicate balancing act, wanting to protect basic human rights, while at the same time, appeasing Jews who hold the Holocaust ever over their heads.
Special Pleading
In his letter to the European Council Secretary General, Shimon Peres stressed that infant circumcision is of "great importance" in Jewish and Muslim religious tradition. (Since when does the Israeli President care about Islam?) He also noted that male circumcision has been practiced by Jewish communities for thousands of years and is a " fundamental element and obligation of Jewish tradition." Peres stressed that Jewish communities across Europe would be "greatly afflicted to see their cultural and religious freedom impeded upon by the Council of Europe," which Peres observed is "an institution devoted to the protection of these very rights."
Of course, Shimon Peres, and other advocates of circumcision that make these arguments are employing logical fallacies, either inadvertently, or quite deliberately.
Of course, where it is practiced, female circumcision has also been practiced "for thousands of years," and those who practice it see it as a "fundamental element" and obligation for their traditions. Communities across Europe who practice female circumcision are also "greatly afflicted" because their "cultural and religious freedoms" are infringed upon by the local government. But, apparently, while the Council of Europe is to condemn the forced genital mutilation of females, ad antiquitam should afford male genital mutilation special treatment.
Circumcision is Not Exclusive to Jews
Accusations of anti-Semitism are based on three assumptions:
1) That circumcision is exclusively Jewish
2) That circumcision is universal among Jews
3) That intactivists focus on stopping only Jewish circumcision
The fact is, circumcision is not exclusive to Jews.
Circumcision also happens to be Muslim practice. It is considered a rite of passage in the Philippines, and it is considered a rite of passage in many parts of Africa, where, as in female circumcision, boys and men of varying ages are forcibly circumcised in the wilderness using raw materials. Not to mention that in the United States, 1.2 million baby boys a year are circumcised, only about 3% or so, comprising of Jewish brisim.
A commenter on Facebook made the following observation:
Jews are 1.7% of the US population (5,425,000 out of 313,900,000) and only about 30% of American Jews have a bris; the remainder have their son circumcised in the hospital or doctor's office just like all other American boys or skip circumcision. By my math, 30% of 1.7% is just over one half of one percent, or one-sixth of your figure.
In Muslim tradition, boys are circumcised at later ages,
when they can remember. Here, a boy is being circumcised
at a medical facility in Turkey. Note his white circumcision outfit.
In Marikina, east of Manila, boys "receive" their "free" circumcisions.
Boy in Africa being circumcised.
In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes "sunat" to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.
Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons.
(Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")
(Only one of the above "traditions" should be a human rights violation, according to circumcision advocates. Can you guess which one?)
In addition, circumcision is not universal among Jews. There are Jews in Europe who have been leaving their children intact for years. A growing number of Jews are forgoing a traditional Bris Milah circumcision ceremony, and instead opting for a more peaceful, non-cutting Bris Shalom naming ceremony. Even in Israel, there is a growing number of parents who are not circumcising their children. A recent poll reveals that 1/3rd of Israeli parents question the practice.
And finally, it would be one thing if intactivists targeted the Jewish ritual of infant circumcision. The fact is that intactivists oppose the forced genital cutting of ALL minors, regardless of race or creed. Jewish bris is only one form of male infant genital mutilation. We're opposed to ALL of it.
It is dishonest for Jewish advocates of circumcision to pretend like they're being "singled out," when this clearly isn't the case. Little by little people are seeing through this smear tactic, as more and more people have the courage to speak out, despite the threat of being labeled Nazi-Germans.
Questions to consider:
For better or for worse, the forced genital mutilation of females has also existed "for thousands of years," and it is considered an important rite of passage where it is performed. In some tribes and communities, a woman who has not undergone genital cutting is seen as a social outcast.
Is declaring the forced genital cutting of girls to be a "violation of human rights" not "affliction" to those living in Europe who practice it?
Is being against the forced cutting of girls and women "anti" ethnic groups that do it? (e.g. anti-African, anti-Indonesian, anti-Malaysian, anti-Brunei, etc.?)
Is a ban on female circumcision not infringing on "religious" or "parental rights?"
If leaders of countries where female genital cutting is practiced were to write to the Council of Europe, would they be obliged to soften their stance against the forced genital cutting of girls?
Why the special treatment of only MALE forced genital mutilation?
When are world leaders going to cut the political pandering and call a spade a spade?
Related Posts:
Saturday, June 1, 2013
PEPFAR To Blow Millions on PrePex
PrePex had been running paid ads on high-end news outlets bidding for the WHO approval that would allow them to cash in on the African HIV/circumcision pie. They had a video on BBC, and ran dedicated articles on the Washington Post and the New York Times, as well as others.
Well, it looks like PrePex entrepreneurs have finally gotten their wish. According to the New York Times, the WHO has finally given their approval for the PrePex device, and PEPFAR leader Eric Goosby has already pledged to buy PrePex devices to circumcise as much as 20 million boys and men in Africa by 2015, under the ostensible pretense of "reducing HIV."
Grinning like a french poodle
In the New York Times, PrePex CEO Tzameret Fuerst said that the estimated price for each PrePex device would be an estimated $15 to $20 range. If PEPFAR pays for 20 million devices, that's a minimum of $300,000,000 a maximum of $400,000,000 American tax dollars that the program would spend on a dubious practice with speculative benefits, a waste of money considering that there are cheaper, less invasive, more effective ways of preventing HIV transmission.
No Demonstrable Scientific Proof Circumcision Prevents HIV
The sound bite that "circumcision reduces HIV 60%" is repeated over and over like a mantra, the WHO has given their blessing, and interested programs and manufacturers are promising to circumcise millions for foreign aid, but there is actually no scientifically demonstrable proof that circumcision does anything to prevent HIV transmission.
Close scrutiny of the so-called "research," however, reveals that there is actually no demonstrable scientific proof that circumcision does anything to prevent, or even "reduce the risk" of HIV at all, let alone by "60%." Circumcision promoters brush past this fact by distracting their listeners with the less-than impressive "60%" figure, and by mentioning how many men are "lining up to get circumcised." They need the money now, now, now.
There have been recent attempts to posit yet another hypothesis that attempts to explain "how circumcision prevents HIV," but they miss the mark, instead arriving at irrelevant conclusions, and not coming anywhere closer to furnishing the causal link for the so-called "effect" the much talked about "studies" were supposed to measure in the first place. Without a causal link, the "studies" are nothing more than statistics embellished with correlation hypothesis, and the efforts to circumcise millions in Africa are myth-based, not evidence-based.
African Men Not Buying into Circumcision for HIV Prevention
Despite the hyped up "mass circumcision" programs in Africa, it's been report after report of programs failing to meet their quota of circumcising boys and men in the past year.
Though they tried and tried, the much hyped Soka Unkobe program failed in Swaziland, where approximately 34,000 out of the expected 200,000 men (about 17%) were circumcised. Rather than abandon the strategy to mutilate the genitals of the men of Swaziland, American organizers are trying to figure out "what went wrong."Apparently, they feel they feel getting men to agree to have part of their penis cut off is simply a matter of "sending the right message." There is something wrong with an HIV prevention program that measures its progress by how many men they've circumcised, and not by how many they've educated about condoms and safe sex.
Three years into the 5 year program, only 80,000 of 1.2 million targeted men (about 6.7%) have been circumcised in Zimbabwe, and here too circumcision promoters are scratching their heads. Why aren't the men biting?
[There is no evidence that circumcising men in Zimbabwe has any effect against HIV.]
Click to enlarge
In Botswana, programs are also failing to convince men to cut off part of their genitals. One program circumcised only 685 out of an intended 10,000. In another program, promoters convinced only 360 out of 2560 men (approx. 14%) to get circumcised. Here too, promoters are dumbfounded and can't find the right people to blame. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that they're trying to convince men to undergo permanently altering surgery on their genitals, could it?
In Zambia, circumcision uptake has also been low.
In Kenya, Homabay district, only 11,000 men have been circumcised out of the estimated 42,000 since September 2008 when the program was initiated. Here too, circumcision uptake has been low, so coordinators are targeting children who are neither at risk for HIV, nor putting others at risk, not to mention the ethical dilemma of forcibly cutting off part of the genitals of healthy, non-consenting individuals. (So much for "Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision.")
The WHO may have given their coveted blessing to plunder African HIV funds to PrePex, and PEPFAR leader Eric Goosby may have pledged American money to pay for their devices, but it remains to be seen whether the devices will actually ever be used, or if they'll simply remain sitting in storage compartments unused.
While a failure to implementing PREPEX would be ironically heartening insofar as it shows that African men aren't buying into the circumcision propaganda, it remains disturbing that millions of dollars that could be providing more effective aid and advances in public health are being wasted and squandered by PEPFAR.
Real World Data Fails to Correlate with "Findings"
While the "60% reduction" claim is repeated, it fails to manifest itself in the real world.
It is interesting that PEPFAR is so eager to help circumcise millions of men in Africa, while circumcision has done America no favors in terms of HIV reduction.
80% of America's male population is circumcised from birth, yet AIDS rates in some US Cities rival hotspots in Africa. In some parts of the U.S., they're actually higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa. According to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Ethiopia, Nigeria or Rwanda.
The Washington D.C. district report on HIV and AIDS reported an increase of 22% from 2006 in 2009. According to Shannon L. Hader, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington D.C., March 15, 2009, "[Washington D.C.'s] rates are higher than West Africa... they're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya." (Hader once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe)
According to a recent report:
"HIV/AIDS is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States among people age 15 to 24, and half of young people infected with HIV are not aware of it. An unbelievable 26 percent of all new HIV infections are among those 13 to 24."
According to HIV prevalence data in the CIA Factbook, and circumcision prevalence figures in Wikipedia, the United States, where 80% of the male population is circumcised from birth, has a higher HIV prevalence rate than 53 countries where circumcision is rare (e.g., falls below 20%).
Countries where circumcision falls below 20%, and HIV is less prevalent than the United States (By rank in HIV prevalence):
Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Cambodia, Peru, Nepal, Switzerland, Vietnam, Ecuador, France, Chile, Spain, Moldova, Mexico, Italy, India, Iceland, Costa Rica, Canada, Belarus, Austria, Paraguay, Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Bolivia, Bhutan, United Kingdom, Belgium, Nicaragua, Laos, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Japan, Lithuania, Mongolia, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Sweden
There is a prevalence of European, South American and Asian countries. Countries where one might expect a higher HIV prevalence rate have a surprisingly low prevalence rate. One would expect a higher prevalence of HIV in these countries, but they fare better than the United States, where 80% of the men are circumcised, instead.
Before handing out millions to gold-mining circumcision device manufacturers, PEPFAR ought to address the question of why something that never prevented HIV in this country is suddenly going to start working miracles in Africa.
PrePex CEO Tzameret Fuerst Gloats
In the following video, Tzameret Fuerst can be seen gloating about securing billions from PEPFAR, one can almost see the dollar signs in her eyes, as if she actually cared about HIV prevention. She repeats the same old circumcision/HIV propaganda, touting circumcision as a "one-time intervention with the efficacy of a vaccine." Sharp viewers may note other thinly veiled interests.
It'd be interesting to see her credentials. She holds degrees in urology, surgery and epidemiology, and can explain to us the mechanism whereby circumcision immunizes a man against HIV I'm sure.
But all is not lost; this new device makes the argument that circumcision would be "more painful, more complicated and more traumatic as an adult" a moot point, if in fact, as Tzemeret tells us, her product is "virtually painless and simple to do."
Related Posts:
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore
One of the greatest brick walls for intactivism has been the fact that the circumcision of newborns happens to be a religious ritual practiced by a very vocal minority. When circumcision is challenged, it doesn't take very long for Jewish defenders of infant circumcision to start insinuating that those who oppose circumcision are equivalent to, or worse than Nazi Germans. In the past, accusations of antisemitism were a very effective tactic at silencing any discourse regarding the circumcision of infants. To date, Jewish circumcision advocates still expect opponents of the practice to feel guilty because they're challenging a tradition practiced by survivors of the Holocaust, but that strategy is slowly losing its effect.
Accusations of antisemitism are based on three assumptions:
1) That circumcision is exclusively Jewish
2) That circumcision is universal among Jews
3) That intactivists focus on stopping only Jewish circumcision
The fact is, circumcision is not exclusive to Jews; only approximately 3% of all circumcisions in this country are Jewish brisim; the rest are secular, gentile circumcisions performed at hospitals.
In addition, circumcision is not universal among Jews. There are Jews in Europe who have been leaving their children intact for years. A growing number of Jews are forgoing a traditional Bris Milah circumcision ceremony, and instead opting for a more peaceful, non-cutting Bris Shalom naming ceremony. Even in Israel, there is a growing number of parents who are not circumcising their children. A recent poll reveals that 1/3rd of Israeli parents question the practice.
Molly Tolsky brings the following picture back from her 10-day Birthright trip to Israel:
"Wherever you go, even in the Holy Land, people have opinions on circumcision. Case in point–I managed to capture this from the bus on the way to Tel Aviv. I believe what that van is blocking out is “Freedom of choice for newborns.” So even though this debate is getting a little annoying and at times totally out of line, it’s sort of nice to know that it’s not just us crazy Americans who spend hours discussing the rights of our baby’s penises. It’s us crazy Jews everywhere."
The following documentary follows two Jewish couples, one in America and one in Israel. One couple decides to proceed with the circumcision ritual, the other does not:
And finally, it would be one thing if intactivists targeted the Jewish ritual of infant circumcision. The fact is that intactivists oppose the forced genital cutting of ALL minors, regardless of race or creed. Of all circumcisions that happen in the US, only about 3%, perhaps even less, comprises of Jewish brisim; the rest are secular, non-Jewish circumcisions that happen at hospitals. We're opposed to ALL of it.
It is dishonest for Jewish advocates of circumcision to pretend like they're being "singled out," when this clearly isn't the case. Little by little people are seeing through this smear tactic, as more and more people have the courage to speak out, despite the threat of being labeled Nazi-Germans.
Jewish Intactivists Galore
Now as I've said earlier in this post, circumcision is not exclusive to Jews. But furthermore, intactivism is not exclusive to gentiles. Some of the most outspoken voices in the intactivist movement happen to be Jewish. In this blog post I include a list, which is by no means complete, of some of the most outspoken Jewish intactivists.
At least one young man has written an open letter to the mohel who circumcised him. Shea Levy is to be commended for the courage to challenge tradition, and to challenge the very man who cut off part of his penis.
Shea Levy
Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon, who grew up in an Orthodox Jewish home, is author to the revolutionary documentary CUT: The Film, which examines the subject of male circumcision from a religious, scientific and ethical perspective. In addition to writing the OpEd "Outlawing Circumcision: Good for the Jews?" for the Jewish Daily Forward, he has also participated in other intactivist demonstrations.
Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon wearing tefillin in protest against the latest AAP Statement
"When considering the practice of female genital cutting, we don’t start from a neutral position of 'I wonder whether there are any health benefits to permanently altering the genitals of baby girls? Let’s set up some studies and see what kinds of diseases cutting off clitorises can prevent!' We don’t do this, because we understand the very basic concept that cutting away healthy, functional tissue in the hopes of preventing potential disease is just bad medicine."
~Eliyahu Ungar Sargon
An interview with Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon
Cultural anthropologist Leonard Glick, MD, PhD, is the author of Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America. Glick became aware of the role of circumcision in Jewish history during the 1990s, while working no his first book, Abraham's Heirs: Jews and Christians in Medieval Europe. This was the catalyst that led him to research on the entire subject of circumcision. Glick is a father of three sons, all of whom were circumcised; he admits he hadn't given the practice a second thought when they were born. Through his research, he became "totally convinced that cutting the genitals of infants and children, girls or boys, is fundamentally evil. And that is why I am an intactivist." Glick describes himself as a "scholarly activist." He regularly sends letters to legislators, marches in protests, and gives lectures on Judaism and the history of circumcision.
Leonard Glick MD, PhD
"The fact that I am opposed to this anachronistic, barbaric behavior has nothing to do with the fact that I am Jewish.... Children, whether male or female, of any race or ethnicity or background, have the right to their own physical integrity... No one, no parent, no adult, no one has the right to deprive a child of any part of his or her body without extreme medical emergency justification."
An interview with Leonard Glick
Dean Edell is a Jewish-American physician and broadcaster who hosted the Dr. Dean Edell radio program, which aired live from 1979 until December 10, 2010. In his own words, he has had "a long and vociferous opposition to the practice of routine male circumcision." Edell had fathered three boys whom he agreed to circumcise before he became an intactivist. Subsequently, he fathered two boys whom he refused to circumcise, and became one of the most outspoken opponents of circumcision.
In recent years, Edell has also strongly criticized the ongoing "mass-circumcision campaigns" in Africa. "The idea, that we Westerners are going to march into Africa... and are going to... perform an operation on millions and millions of men, when we refuse to feed [them], get them useful jobs, and bring them fresh water, is so naïve that it expresses to me the true desperation of the circumcision lobby."
Dr. Dean Edell
The following is an excerpt from one of his broadcasts:
"How do I do this without getting some friends very, very mad...
Are you ready?
Amongst speakers, at the CDC's National HIV prevention conference in Antlanta, which is happening, gonna be happening right now, amongst the speakers is a physician from Operation Abraham, an organization based in Israel, named for the Biblical figure who was circumcised at an advanced age according to the book of Genesis, the group trains doctors in Africa to perform circs on adult men to reduce the spread of HIV.
Two things.
First they had to stop the study, because they found indeed, that it didn't help at all in spreading HIV to women. So it doesn't seem even to be effective there, AND, the recommendation is men still have to wear condoms with every intercourse, where in Africa men think they get circed "I'm not gonna need a condom." But the heavy recommendation is you DO NOT stop using condoms, so then WHAT IS THE POINT? In Africa?
But here's my point.
Of what interest is it to Israelis, of what the rest of the world does?
Now I can say this because I'm Jewish.
And I think when Jews stick their necks out here and become the world's most vociferous proselytizers for circumcision, when it is our paticular religious rite, it would be like Catholics telling me not to use birth-control, I resent that. And when they try to inflict it into public policy, then you really get me blowing smoke out my ears.
We have no business telling other people what to do. It's like telling other people not to eat pork, like telling other people not to drive their cars on Friday. It is not the place.
And you understand the deep fear that Jews have about all of this, is in WWII, they pulled men's pants down [and] if they were circumcised you went off to the concentration camp. So there's a deep scar there.
And, um, this is not said, I'm the only person you'll ever find that say this, will admit this, that Jews feel more secure among populations where people are circumcised.
I know, I know. It's only been 50 years, but never the less. The memory I hope, you know, will be long.
All I've got to say is, very well said. Dr. Dean Edell is to be commended for having the courage to tell it like it is.
An interview with Dr. Dean Edell
Few people may know this, but radio talk show host Howard Stern is very outspoken against the practice of neonatal circumcision. He has openly resented the fact that he was circumcised on more than one occasion. On at least one occasion, he hosted inventor of the TLCTugger foreskin restoration device Ron Low on his show.
"You know, my mother is so into 'natural'. Everythi- , 'The body is beautiful,' you should hear the rap. 'The body is beautiful, we should leave things natural...' So, she wouldn't get me braces. My teeth were as crooked as a four-way intersection in Washington DC, and green, and bu-bu-bu- wouldn't get me braces, My teeth were so wrecked because 'naturally the body will heal itself.' She's like a Christian Scientist. ... but the penis? Right out the window!"~Howard Stern
Jonathan Friedman, an Orthodox Jew who attended yeshiva through high school, is the founder of IntactNews, a news organization for the intactivist movement. He is also currently a Projects Coordinator at Foregen, a nonprofit founded to provide therapies for foreskin regeneration using regenerative medicine.
Jonathan Friedman, IntactNews, Foregen
I believe this is what has happened to all Jewish males, as well as the majority of non-Jewish males in the USA: we’ve been hijacked by abusive authority figures of the past. Whether it's the Victorian-era doctors, bent on perpetuating their own sexual repression, or during the Maccabean Period where the Jewish priestly ruling class instituted the more severe form of brit milah that is practiced today, which includes brit peri'ah (complete foreskin ablation), we are made to suffer and cause our children to suffer in an endless cycle of trauma. It's high time we stop.
And finally, but definitely not least, and definitely not the last in the long list of Jewish intactivists, Rebecca Wald is the founder of Beyond the Bris, a blog for the purpose of uniting Jewish people who oppose neonatal circumcision. The blog is self-described as a "multimedia project created by Jewish people who are
united in the belief that circumcising healthy children is harmful and
unnecessary. We are the faces and voices of the current pro-intact
Jewish movement." Many of the Jewish intactivists already mentioned in this blog have contributed to, or have been mentioned in Beyond the Bris
.
Rebecca Wald
Other notable Jewish intactivists include Ronald
Goldman, Ph.D, executive director of the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center in
Boston, and author of Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish
Perspective and Circumcision: The
Hidden Trauma (he may be contacted at jcrc@jewishcircumcision.org), Rosemary Romberg, author of Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma, and Lisa Braver Moss, author of the book The Measure of His Grief, and many essays published in Tikkun, Parents, and the San Francisco Chronicle.
But the list doesn't end here. Readers can learn more about Jewish intactivists not mentioned here on Beyond the Bris.
A few of Beyond the Bris's contributing writers: Eli Ungar-Sargon,
Lisa Braver Moss, Dr. Mark Reiss and Rebecca Wald
Lisa Braver Moss, Dr. Mark Reiss and Rebecca Wald
Related Links:
The following are links to Jewish groups against circumcision:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
The following is a Facebook group for Jews and others against circumcision:
These link to websites in Hebrew, run by intactivist groups in Israel:
http://www.gonnen.org/
http://www.britmila.org.il/
http://www.kahal.org/
The following are resources on "Brit Shalom":
http://www.officiant.org/brit-shalom
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html
"I believe circumcision is a major mistake...The code of the Jewish law is called "halacha" (the way). Within the Code, there is a provision that if a mother looses a son because of circumcision, she is NOT obligated to circumcise her next son. I extrapolate from this, the inter-connection of my human family, that enough deaths and maiming have occured because of circumcision. Therefore - circumcision is no longer a requisite! Just as we no longer practice the animal sacrifices in the traditional temple, so let us not sacrifice an important piece of our mammal in the temple of tradition."
- Rabbi Natan Segal, 2007
Rabbi of Shabbos Shul, Marin County, California, U.S.A.
Ordination: 1977 Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi Yeshiva B'nai Or Philadelphia, Pa.
"As a Jewish grandfather, I want to assure young couples about to bring a child into the world, that there are other members of the Jewish "older" generation, including other Jewish physicians, and even some rabbis, who feel as I do. If your heart and instincts tell you to leave your son intact, listen!"
- Dr. Mark D. Reiss, of Doctors Opposing Circumcision speaking to Rabbi Nathan Segal's Congregation on Kol Nidre eve.
"I am calm and comfortable in the knowledge that no one will ever take a knife to this baby's flesh in the name of religion... I am confident that my people have such an abundance of life-enhancing, life-affirming and mind-opening traditions, that our identity and sense of cultural self-heed will happily survive our outgrowing of circumcision, a cruel relic which has always felt to me like an aberration at the heart of my religion."
- Dr. Jenny Goodman
Challenging Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective (UK)
"...as recently as the mid-nineteenth century, in Eastern Europe and Russia there was a widespread move to stop the practice... Led by women--what a surprise!--who thought the practice barbaric and patriarchal, the movement eventually even convinced Theodore Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, who refused to allow his own son to be circumcised."
- Michael S. Kimmel, Professor, SUNY Stony Brook
TIKKUN, Volume 16, May/June, 2001.
"Coming from a European background... where many Jews reject a brit milla as an archaic and barbaric ritual... This author grew up in France in a traditional Jewish family. Not a single male of her generation or her children's generation within her large family (or in her circle of Jewish friends) was ever circumcised."
- Nelly Karsenty
Humanistic Judaism, 1988; 16(3): 14-20.
"I should like to suggest to my fellow Jews that perhaps the time has come to redeem the foreskin itself, rather than sacrifice it. Surely some substitute might be found for this rite, ... that would be preferable to this assault upon and mutilation of a newborn infant..."
- Professor George Wald, M.D
Harvard University Professor, Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine
"...it would be anti-Semitic of us if we didn't defend Jewish babies along with other children. We respect what is beautiful in every religion or culture and speak out against what is brutal. All cultures and religions are capable of evolving."
- Mary Conant, R.N. and Betty Katz Sperlich, R.N. (a Jewish mother), founding members of "Nurses for the Rights of the Child", America's largest union of Nurses who refuse to participate in circumcisions.
"I was raised as a Jew and yet I never even considered circumcising my sons. Reason told me that God or nature doesn't make mistakes. Obviously there is a vast intelligence behind all of life, and just as our eyes have eyelids to protect them, foreskins must serve a similar purpose.
When all is said and done, circumcision is really a human rights issue. What right do any of us have to permanently remove a normal, healthy, sensitive part of another person's body without their consent? I have no problem with an adult male who chooses to be circumcised. I do have a problem with an adult who makes that decision for a child. I have known too many men, both Jewish and Christian, who resent the fact that they were circumcised."
- Laura Shanley
"...support can be found from many Jewish sources for the view that circumcision of infants is unethical and should therefore be abandoned... Now is the time to lay the knife aside and to move forward into the 21st century with a form of ritual that is truly welcoming and that is truly purely symbolic."
- J. Goodman, MD
Jewish circumcision: an alternative perspective. BJU Int 1999; 83 Suppl 1:22-27.
"AS AN INCREASING NUMBER OF AMERICANS - including a sizable number of American Jews - question the act of male circumcision , a group of San Francisco activists are advocating to ban circumcision... Many of the leading activists against circumcision around the country are Jewish."
Jerusalem Post, Challenging the Circumcision Myth, April 10, 2011
"In Israel, opposition to circumcision has happened in just two decades, and now these “rebels” number in the tens of thousands, according to Ronit Tamir, founder of Kahal, a support group for parents who choose not to circumcise their children."
Jewish World, 3/11/2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)