Rabbis sucking infants' penises!

[MrDarwin]

It never ceases to absolutely boggle my mind what people can get away with in the name of religion. I kid you not, this is straight from today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001209.html) (free registration required):

Circumcision Warning Heightens N.Y. Dispute

...The ritual, called metzitzah b'peh , which involves sucking blood from an infant's penis to clean it after circumcision, puts babies at risk for herpes, Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden wrote in a Dec. 13 open letter to Jewish media and leaders.

"Because oral herpes is common, and because it is spread by infected saliva through breaks or cuts in the skin, metzitzah b'peh can directly expose circumcised infants to the herpes virus," Frieden noted.

Okay, just a time out to say... EEEEEWWWWWWWW.

...Some rabbis, however, do not believe that the circumcision ritual puts infants at risk and said that the health department shouldn't interfere.

"I think it has no basis," said Rabbi Romi Cohn, a Staten Island- and Brooklyn-based rabbi who said he has not seen a single infection among the 15,000 circumcisions he has performed in the region.

Well, duh. If he doesn't have oral herpes, he's not going to give it to the kids. But again I say: EEEEEEWWWWW!

...The health department's letter came after months of discussions with Orthodox Jewish leaders following an investigation into three cases of neonatal herpes among circumcised babies in November 2004 -- all of which were traced to one rabbi -- and two cases in 2005.

In other words, it can and does happen that oral herpes is transmitted to infants by this practice.

EEEEEWWWWWWW.

[casseopia]

God, that's just sick. :angry:

[ashe]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

ashe

[Withered]

Wouldnt this be a crime in any other context? Is there a single other instance where this sort of action would be considered legal?

[buybull]

Seriously fucking warped! And I second that EEEEWWWWWWWW!

[Columbus]

Wouldnt this be a crime in any other context? Is there a single other instance where this sort of action would be considered legal?Hah, pretty clear evidence that the ICK factor is cultural. I mean, if God tells you to engage a Religious Professional to cut off part of your son's dick and then suck it while it bleeds, who are you to argue?

I'd guess that for nearly all the history of this particularly weird custom(circumcision) sucking the wound clean was safer than the alternatives. Keep in mind, they didn't even know to sterilize their knives. Ever wonder how many Jewish baby boys died in pre-germ theory Israel?
Back in the OT there is a story about a whole neighboring tribe getting circumcised to placate some Israelites(it's a long story, the Israelites killed them anyway, naturally:rolleyes: ) What do want to bet that the priests involved found a reason for deciding that metzitzah b'peh was unnecessary, that particular time.:rolling:
Tom

[Puck]

I swear, every news item that comes out just reinforces the depravity of religion. And among all those news articles, not one fucking miracle. Two thousand years or more, and no proven amazing feats by this god. Just sick followers doing sick things in the name of religion.

So, rabbis have been sucking baby penis' all these years, and no ones thought to question the practice untill now? What the hell, a clean cloth isn't good enough? Hell, there's some baby wipes in the diaper bag, asshole. Cripes, and just what do the parents think of this, and why do they allow it?

Argh, my head's gonna explode.

[Murmur]

Damn, & I thought the Catholic church had issues! LOL

I join the chorus: EEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!!!!!!

murmur

[Anat]

Actually only in the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) communities do the mohalim use direct oral suction of the blood. All others use a tube, so there is no direct oral-genital contact.

From City Risking Babies' Lives With Brit Policy: Health Experts (http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11539)
Not all ultra-traditional groups mandate the practice, and the Modern Orthodox-oriented Rabbinical Council of America recommends using a sterile tube and gloves to avoid direct oral-genital contact.

........

While cases of herpes transmission from mohel to baby are rare, they are documented going back as far as an 1811 medical book that detailed an outbreak in Krakow’s Jewish quarter.

Metzitzah b’peh was abandoned by all but fervently Orthodox mohels in the 1950s, when diseases including herpes, syphilis and gonorrhea were shown to be transmitted from mohel to baby.


Here is Bris Milah and Metzitza Be'Peh RCA Policy (http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100546) (RCA= Rabbinical Council of America, a Modern Orthodox body):
For those authorities who follow the view that suction via a sterile tube is completely permitted as a matter of Jewish law, this is clearly the optimal method to fulfill the requirement of Metzitzah be'Peh. In this manner, one absolutely fulfills the precept whilst placing the infant and mohel at no additional risk.

Based upon a careful study of the available halachic and scientific literature, as well as a review of sanctioned practice by numerous reliable Torah authorities past and present, it is the position of the RCA that the requirement of Metzitzah is fulfilled completely and unambiguously by the use of oral suctioning through a tube, as practiced by many mohelim in our communities. Therefore, according to this viewpoint, the use of such a tube is not only permissible, but is preferred (instead of direct oral contact) to eliminate any unintentional communication of infectious diseases. This protects both the mohel and the newly circumcised child.

An additional reason to encourage the use of a tube to fulfill the requirements of Metzitzah is that we not discourage less committed Jewish men and women from observing ritual circumcision (and possibly other Jewish rituals). Indeed, even some authorities who otherwise require Metzitzah be’Peh via direct oral contact, sanction a tube if that is the only way that the parents of a child would observe the mitzvah of Bris Milah.

In light of the above, the RCA urges its member rabbis, their congregants, synagogues and institutions, as well as the larger Jewish community, to encourage and where possible necessitate, that Metzitzah be’Peh be fulfilled via a tube.

OTOH, see Circumcision’s Third Step, The Drawing of Blood (http://www.science-halacha.com/refuah/refuah_eng_draw.htm).

According to this article, at times in Europe non-Jewish authorities had prohibited the direct oral suction, particularly during the plagues (I didn't know they were interested in the health of the Jewish population, I thought they were too busy persecuting them for alleged well poisonings?), and some communities continued the alternate procedure even at 'safer' times. The article suggests that sometimes the use of surgical gloves and sterile tube might be required:
Many a mohel follows a compromise policy incorporating the hygienic issue. They claim that, although no one has proved that viral transmission occurs through mitzitzah bipeh there is still no comprehensive international study to prove this. Consequently, where there is reason to suspect that the patient may have a contagious disease, such as with a non-observant family, or a family that have recently become observant, or an adult who was not observant in his youth, and considering modern life styles, they may be suspected of carrying contagious diseases, then the mohel will draw blood from the wound with a tube, and wear surgical gloves when circumcising, when he feels it necessary. If the mohel has a contagious disease, he will appoint someone else to orally draw the blood from the wound. However, if the family have been observant of the halacha since their youth and they say that they have no contagious diseases, and the infant has been checked and found negative, then there is no reason not to do mitzitzah bipeh.

(Right, no way religiously observant people might have diseases that might be transmissible by oral-genital contact.)

But otherwise, the author says, suction via tube or the use of surgical gloves is disrespectful (unless both the baby's father and the mohel are from communities who hadn't been doing oral suction as a tradition):
If the mohel's family custom from Europe is to do mitzitzah bipeh, but the mohel performs all circumcisions by afterwards drawing blood from the wound with a tube, or he does circumcision with gloves, then this action is motivated because he does not want to dirty himself with the blood of the circumcision and he is acting disrespectfully towards the mitzvah. If the father's family custom from Europe is to do mitzitzah bipeh, and he tells the mohel that he wants him to draw the blood of the wound with a tube and not orally, the father is considered acting disrespectfully towards the mitzvah.

The article goes on to criticise claims of viral transmission via circumcision, charging that alternative explanations of the acquisition of infection haven't been sufficiently ruled out.

But in practice, those Jews who are part of the modern world have switched to the more hygienic method. Only Haredim choose the older method because they see it as more religiously correct.

[David B]

But in practice, those Jews who are part of the modern world have switched to the more hygienic method. Only Haredim choose the older method because they see it as more religiously correct.

Well the Haradim need suppressing by all force of law, then.

But it's only a matter of degree.

Mutilation remains mutilation, and child abuse remains child abuse.

No matter what religious or cultural tradition supports it, male or female genital mutilation, like cannibalism, slavery, human sacrifice, suttee, foot binding... should be consigned to the dregs of history, IMV.

David B

[BigJim]

Wouldnt this be a crime in any other context? Is there a single other instance where this sort of action would be considered legal?

Snake bite?

[Chris Porter]

human saliva contains coagulant factors.

[Thomas II]

It never ceases to absolutely boggle my mind what people can get away with in the name of religion. I kid you not, this is straight from today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001209.html) (free registration required):



Okay, just a time out to say... EEEEEWWWWWWWW.



Well, duh. If he doesn't have oral herpes, he's not going to give it to the kids. But again I say: EEEEEEWWWWW!



In other words, it can and does happen that oral herpes is transmitted to infants by this practice.

EEEEEWWWWWWW.


You got to be kidding me...
Is this for real??
Rabbis actually do that???
:rolleyes: EEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!

Please say it ain't so...

[Thomas II]

Wait...
...I think I'm gonna throw up...

[Agemegos]

Rabbis actually do that???
:rolleyes: EEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!

Please say it ain't so...

It ain't so.

Rabbis don't do that.












Mohels do.

[premjan]

for an instant I thought it was rabbits that were sucking infant penises (sounded weird enough).

[Thomas II]

It ain't so.

Rabbis don't do that.












Mohels do.


Mohelin do...and some are Rabbis...
Still...EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWW:rolleyes:

[Thomas II]

But wait...:rolleyes:

Imagine if there was circumcision in Chistianity...and priests....were the Mohelin...




:rolleyes: EEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!

(gag)

:rolleyes:

(gag)

[His Noodly Appendage]

Those catholic priests weren't paedophiles, they were just getting back to traditional roots! It all makes sense now!

[Boro Nut]

Jah, unt how you all laffed ven I zed dey zucked babies cokz.

Dizgusted of Berlin

[Murmur]

Those catholic priests weren't paedophiles, they were just getting back to traditional roots! It all makes sense now!
:rolling: