Religion

muriel_volestrangler

(106,259 posts)

53. I've made it about having them performed by qualified people in regulated conditions

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 09:21 PM

Feb 2015

and I have already explicitly said that mohels should be able to do the circumcisions if they meet the general requirements for such minor surgery that non-religious professionals have to meet.

It's not unreasonable to treat members of all religions, and none, the same.

As I said, I want to offend people who defend this practice. They should be reminded it has killed babies. Negligence that kills people is normally dealt with by law, and with more action than just them agreeing not to practice it any more. You'd think that parents would want to help identify the negligent mohel who gave their child an STD - "But of those six cases, parents refused to identify the person who performed the circumcision — called a mohel — in four." So they're happy for other children to be at risk, not just their own.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

131 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NYC Orthodox Jews negotiate over right to give babies herpes and brain damage, and kill them [View all] muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 OP

I find your headline offensive Cartoonist Feb 2015 #1

Not intentional, but known side effects of a religious ceremony muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #2

The story reads they are trying to protect the infant's health, which seems a good thing uppityperson Feb 2015 #5

They could protect the babies' health by getting surgeons to do an operation muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #9

I agree, but the negotiations are not over the right to give herpes, brain damage, kill. uppityperson Feb 2015 #12

Surgeons don't generally do this procedure, pediatricians do. cbayer Feb 2015 #14

It's surgery; the person should be qualified to do such minor surgery muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #23

Mohels are completely qualified and trained. cbayer Feb 2015 #25

no they are not. Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #40

I agree with you. It's unnecessarily inflammatory. cbayer Feb 2015 #7

The "high reactionary quotient" is only due to skepticscott Feb 2015 #60

WTF is up with these religions and cannibalism? obxhead Feb 2015 #3

They are "how to protect children's health", not how to continue to harm them. uppityperson Feb 2015 #4

Right, but it's much more inflammatory to call Orthodox Jews baby killers. cbayer Feb 2015 #19

That libel comes straight out of the pogroms. okasha Feb 2015 #48

Honestly, the thread reveals an underlying agenda that has little cbayer Feb 2015 #49

You keep up the fantasies of what other people think, why not? muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #50

You have made this an issue about mohels performing circumcisions in general. cbayer Feb 2015 #51

I've made it about having them performed by qualified people in regulated conditions muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #53

Since the mohels performing these particular procedures are cbayer Feb 2015 #61

Warren Stupidity thinks that is not the case muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #64

Does he have anything to back that up, or is that just his belief? cbayer Feb 2015 #65

The basis for tighter regulation is the death, brain damage and STDs they've caused muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #67

Muriel, that risk is associated with this single practice, not with circumcisions cbayer Feb 2015 #68

Any pediatrician that's going to perform sugery better be trained in it muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #74

Honestly, I suspect mohels receive more extensive training in circumcision than cbayer Feb 2015 #83

You 'suspect'. You have no idea. You are really in over your head with this. muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #87

Here is a clue: "I am having trouble finding specific information on this". Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #70

It may have not been your intention, but it reads that way. Behind the Aegis Feb 2015 #57

Honestly, your assertion that there is an "agenda"... trotsky Feb 2015 #120

Oh bullshit. It's straight out of the headlines. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #115

The accusation that Jews killed children okasha Feb 2015 #125

I would say that of any group that would intentionally risk a child's health AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #130

If there are 3,000 of these a year, cbayer Feb 2015 #6

CDC says the practice increases risk of herpes in baby boys by 3.4 times. enough Feb 2015 #16

There does appear to be an increased risk. The question at hand is whether cbayer Feb 2015 #18

really? You see no reason why this particular form of circumcision, Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #35

It's religiony/faithy, and it's being criticized by people skepticscott Feb 2015 #59

So they are fighting against a consent form? Lordquinton Feb 2015 #31

Actually the vast majority of HSV infections in newborns do come from the mother. cbayer Feb 2015 #36

Barbaric, harmful practice debated edhopper Feb 2015 #8

Wow, great title! (he said sarcastically) LoveIsNow Feb 2015 #10

I don't think anything I can do would make it more offensive than death, would it? muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #11

What's the most offensive aspect to you? If they could do this without giving uppityperson Feb 2015 #13

In order, the offensiveness is: muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #22

You are again making a false statement. cbayer Feb 2015 #24

Which statement is false? muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #27

Mohels are qualified to perform circumcisions. That is not even up for debate. cbayer Feb 2015 #28

If mohels have passed appropriate state medical examinations, then that's fine muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #30

As far as I know, Mohels are generally certified and licensed. cbayer Feb 2015 #34

They are "certified and licensed" by various religious organizations Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #38

No, I was under general anaesthetic for mine, so I didn't see it muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #43

General anesthetic???? Did you have this done this as an adult? cbayer Feb 2015 #45

Aged about 8 muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #46

I sure hope it would not be. cbayer Feb 2015 #47

I drew blood from inmates in a jail setting for STD/HIV/HCV screenings. pinto Feb 2015 #56

You wore gloves to protect yourself AND THE PERSON YOU WERE DRAWING BLOOD FROM Heddi Feb 2015 #69

Yes, it was mutual protection. pinto Feb 2015 #107

Well, LoveIsNow Feb 2015 #21

Minimizing the health risk means ending the use of the mouth muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #26

No. It means like with that pediatrician, hygiene is used to make sure disease isn't spread. uppityperson Feb 2015 #29

This one man has done 35,000 of these muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #32

They need to regulate who does it. If he doesn't have herpes, he can't pass it on. If he does, he uppityperson Feb 2015 #33

Are all the babies tested for herpes too? muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #37

That is something that should be worked out with the public health people. It needs to be regulated uppityperson Feb 2015 #42

seriously? you think there is a way to make oral suctioning of a wound Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #39

Ever cut your finger and stick it in your mouth? I have and haven't gotten it infected. uppityperson Feb 2015 #41

please tell me you have nothing to do with health care. nt. Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #54

I am playing devil's advocate here, not sinking to personal insults. uppityperson Feb 2015 #55

Seriously? You're a nurse, right? So am I. I *know* you had to have taken Microbiology at some point Heddi Feb 2015 #72

I guess you didn't read my other post.I'm playing devil's advocate here, not sinking to personal ins uppityperson Feb 2015 #77

There's no excuse to post that drivel. Not as "devil's advocate." Not as anything Heddi Feb 2015 #78

You can believe what you want and continue to insult. Calling me "criminally negligent" for posting uppityperson Feb 2015 #79

Reading is FUNdamental. CLINICALLY negligent. CLINCIALLY Heddi Feb 2015 #80

And again she tries to claim I said something I didn't say. At least you missed the insult this time uppityperson Feb 2015 #81

Aha, and there is the insult, accusation and CAPS!!!1111 All edited in and changed after I replied? uppityperson Feb 2015 #82

there was no edit. You are lying. Clinically was not changed from criminally Heddi Feb 2015 #84

This message was self-deleted by its author Heddi Feb 2015 #85

Down at the bottom it says this....the edit history. uppityperson Feb 2015 #86

Wrong post, genius Heddi Feb 2015 #88

I never accused you of lying. You did edit post #80, the one I replied to in 82 uppityperson Feb 2015 #91

Oh, but you did. Are you unaware of what you post? Heddi Feb 2015 #94

Did you notice that was in reply to post 80, which you did edit? Are you denying you edited #80? uppityperson Feb 2015 #97

Yes. I edited THAT POST THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR CLAIM Heddi Feb 2015 #100

Nope. Look at post 82, which post it is in reply to. Notice, the edited post 80. uppityperson Feb 2015 #104

"you lied about me editing a post which was never edited." Nope. I said you edited 80, this one uppityperson Feb 2015 #105

Now you are saying you agree, you did edit 80, the one I said you did and you called me a liar. OK uppityperson Feb 2015 #106

And, since you self deleted, here is what you wrote, "You are lying." in part uppityperson Feb 2015 #89

I deleted a screen cap of the non-edit history because the screen had personal info on it Heddi Feb 2015 #92

You are lying about it. You lied and said I changed "Criminal" to "Clinical" Heddi Feb 2015 #90

No. I did not say you edited that post. I misread criminal for clinical. You edited post 80, denied uppityperson Feb 2015 #93

Short version: "I read something wrong and lied about it being edited so I wouldn't look foolish" Heddi Feb 2015 #96

You mean like you continuing to call me a liar for saying you edited post 80, which you did" uppityperson Feb 2015 #98

I will give you one more chance to edit out "you are lying" about you editing post 80 uppityperson Feb 2015 #99

You would already have it, in order to infect yourself with something. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #117

What about other diseases, I mean, herpes is the most obvious viral agent here, cold sores in... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #95

I do not know if that is possible, or how to go about it. I find the practice abhorent, and like uppityperson Feb 2015 #102

You can't. It isn't possible. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #118

"If the mohel doesn't have herpes, there is no health risk." AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #116

+1 cbayer Feb 2015 #17

I also find your title offensive. Android3.14 Feb 2015 #15

^^^ THIS ^^^ COLGATE4 Feb 2015 #20

I find your opinion offensive. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #103

Post removed Post removed Feb 2015 #108

Said the poster defending child endangerment. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #110

So you're offended skepticscott Feb 2015 #114

Make sure you go voice your fauxrage on this one too. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #121

a fitting title - edgineered Feb 2015 #44

The point of the OP is clear - that any purely religious-belief-based ceremony that unnecessarily risks heath is obscene. Fred Sanders Feb 2015 #52

If this were done to babies without religion as an excuse, those crying "offensive"... Silent3 Feb 2015 #58

Thank you...exactly the point I made above skepticscott Feb 2015 #63

Wow, just wow, what the fuck is wrong with some people... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #62

So those of you who support this for babies--it's okay if your surgeon licks your wounds, right? Heddi Feb 2015 #66

Its fucking insane, even when my Mom "kissed the boo boo" to make it better... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #71

You mean she didn't have some stranger from across town kiss the boo-boo Heddi Feb 2015 #73

The thing is that this goes WAY beyond just herpes, there are a lot of bacteria that can end up... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #75

Again, I think it's telling that these Mouth-As-Gauze advocates Heddi Feb 2015 #76

The "oral suction" has been proven to be a cause of serious ladjf Feb 2015 #101

For any DUers who think I am giving "expert medical advice" to go get this done, I am not. uppityperson Feb 2015 #109

I think the bigger point here is, this is NOT a thread on which... trotsky Feb 2015 #111

I agree Dorian Gray Feb 2015 #122

You claimed there was a way to make oral wound suction "less harmful". Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #119

While don't care for the headline I don't think they should be allowed to do in that fashion. n/t hrmjustin Feb 2015 #112

The fact that it's normal and legal... MellowDem Feb 2015 #113

GAH!!! Arugula Latte Feb 2015 #123

De Blasio to end Metzitzah consent forms hrmjustin Feb 2015 #124

Are you fucking kidding me? They need to end this stupid religious exemption of obvious health... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #126

Yeah I was shocked he went along with this but this is NYC politics at play. hrmjustin Feb 2015 #127

That's a bad bargain, I think. okasha Feb 2015 #128

I agree it is a bad bargin. hrmjustin Feb 2015 #129

"test and certify"? Warren Stupidity Feb 2015 #131