Posted on 02/28/2010 9:24:25 PM PST by Babwa
A group has filed the “Male Genital Mutilation Bill” with the Massachusetts Legislature. It calls for a ban on circumcision for males under 18, unless medically necessary, and with no religious exemptions. There will be a public hearing for the bill, S. 1777, at the State House in Boston on Tuesday, March 2 at 1 p.m. in Hearing Room 1A.
Of course, there have been anti-circumcision movements before, but most Jews historically have continued the religious practice of circumcision even under the threat of death. The leader of this current initiative, Matthew Hess, president of the group called the Bill to End Male Genital Mutilation, was quoted in the Boston Herald (February 21, 2010) as saying “circumcision is painful and unnecessary, violates a baby’s human rights and decreases sexual sensation in mature males.”
Because we see the proposed ban as a violation of religious freedom, we feel it will undoubtedly not pass into law. But these types of claims need to be answered. Jews have circumcised tens of millions of their infant sons for over 3,000 years with few complications and without the dire pain, trauma, and other horrible effects claimed by opponents of circumcision.
Medical research has proven neonatal circumcision provides a lifetime of medical benefits, yet the anti-cirumcisionists claim the medical benefits of circumcision are unproven. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published reports on circumcision from 1971-1989 questioning the medical benefits, but as research advanced, their latest report (1999) documented that neo-natal circumcision offered protection against six medical problems:
1. UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) 2. Penile cancer 3. STD’s (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) and HIV/AIDS infection 4. Balanoposthisis (infections of the glans) 5. Phimosis (failure of the foreskin to retract) 6. Genital hygiene.
Since then, the scientific data has only strengthened the case for these benefits. Most dramatic is the growing evidence that circumcision helps prevent HIV/AIDS. Recent studies have confirmed circumcision has the ability to reduce transmission of HIV/AIDS by 50-60% or more.
The same mechanism that helps protect men from infection with the HIV virus causing AIDS also helps prevent infection with Human Papillomavirus (HPV) which causes penile cancer in men and cervical cancer in women. As a result, Jewish women have a very low rate of cervical cancer. Long before Gardasil, a vaccine approved by the Food and Drug Administration to prevent cervical cancer in females, the Torah prescribed a proven vaccine for cervical cancer.
What parent wouldn’t want their child to receive these benefits?
But what about the “horrible” pain? Anyone attending a traditional Jewish circumcision (bris milah) will note that the baby begins to cry when the diaper is opened to the cooler air. The baby is comforted in the sandek’s (G-d-father) lap and given gauze with wine to suck on. The circumcision usually takes only 20-30 seconds, and the baby is shortly asleep.
Admittedly, the procedure used in most hospitals, lasting 6-40 minutes, is more traumatic, but severe pain is neither a religious nor medical necessity. Many doctors and hospitals have begun adopting the traditional Jewish techniques, although they are still not as quick as an experienced mohel.
An infant’s vaccination shots are also painful and might cause more crying than a circumcision. Would the proponents of this ban also ban parents’ rights to have their children vaccinated or treated with other painful procedures they deem necessary until the child is 18? The claim of reduced sexual sensitivity is also not supported by data. The claims are purely anecdotal, and the few discredited studies that claimed to show this were also only anecdotal and badly structured. Properly structured before & after analysis of adult circumcisions as well as physical testing have shown no reduction of sexual sensitivity from circumcision.
The evidence is clear that neonatal circumcision offers positive medical benefits to males, both as infants and in later adult life. The data is also clear that there is no physiological reduction of sexual sensation or performance associated with neonatal circumcision.
The medical benefit of circumcision is not of religious significance to a believing Jew’s decision to have a bris for a newborn son, but obviously, a parent would be concerned if the net effect were negative. Fortunately, G-d created a benevolent universe.
Throughout history, skeptics and opponents of Torah have made claims like these only to have researchers demonstrate a medical or other type benefit resulting from the performance of a mitzvah – a commandment of G-d. This coincides with a traditional phrase used by our sages that “only good and no harm can come of doing a mitzvah.”
For a Jew, the question shouldn’t be “what is the medical benefit of circumcision?” Rather, circumcision should be performed as a commandment of G-d and as a sign of G-d, affecting the family for generations to come.
But it’s nice to know it is actually good for you.
In the early 1930s, only 30% of the male population was circumcised. Circumcision has nothing to do with intelligence. Most of the countries with the greatest longevity rates do not circumcise their males. It's irrelevant to intelligence or longevity.
Unconstitutional.
huh? yes, he's circumcised... he just didn't know what the word meant until he figured it out...
There are many pro and cons about circumcision. My dad was not, but I was (not by his choice, doc did it).
When/if we have a son, he will probably not be cut.
In reality, the cons are not nearly as great as the pros. The only medical con documented is a very small rate of excess bleeding associated with hospital circumcisions on the 2nd or 3rd day. A newborn's clotting ability is at it lowest at this time. Jewish circumcisions take place on the 8th day when strangely or providentially, the clotting ability peaks. The anti-circs play up the cons, but they are just not real.
But they will include a provision exempting residents of Florida and New York.
-PJ
You keep switching between the terms circumcision and bris milah. What I said is that a mohel can perform circumcisions for medical and health reasons on non-Jews, but not for religious reasons. If you agree, then we have no argument.
Of course, this still leave open the question of what would you call the circumcision of all the males living with Abraham who were also circumcised?
I have to go back and read the thread, so apologies if this is off topic or has been answered. But I believe you're mistaken, I think in most states a Mohel performs a circumcision as a representative of the father, who could do it himself, as a religious exemption to various statutes governing medical procedures. I don't think a Mohel could perform circumcisions on non Jews for health reasons, centainly couldn't be compensated for it.
From a legal perspective, there are other obvious reasons a Mohel wouldn’t be performing circumcisions on non Jews
I read through the first 40 replies or so and sad to see that it is a discussion on the merits of “cut or uncut” and little mention on the nanny statism of dictating to parents on such a personal decision that properly belongs to parents and in many cases infringes on religious liberty.
Many African men think an uncircumcised vulva is ugly. In my opinion there is no ethical difference between an American woman who thinks an uncircumcised penis is ugly and an African man who thinks an uncircumcised vulva is ugly.
Cutting the genitals of children to satisfy the sexual preferences of adults is wrong, whether it is an American boy or an African girl.
What parts do they cut off of women and older girls in your hospital when they get genital infections?
In other countries doctors treat infections with medication, not surgery.
I personally do not understand why this is done, but it seems certain men were advised to be circumcised because of chronic infection.
I remember specifically a seven year old boy who had the procedure because of a malformation caused by an infection.
Other than that I cannot tell you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.