The Nanny State strikes again: Massachusetts to ban circumcision?
Whenever the radical left wants to attack Jewish ritual, they attack one of two things for being 'cruel' and 'inhumane.' One is ritual slaughter. The other is circumcision.There is a bill pending in the legislature of the People's Republic of Massachusetts that would ban circumcision for anyone under the age of 18. It specifically states no exceptions for religious reasons (Hat Tip: Lance K).
Under the legislation, people who disregard the ban would face a fine and possible 14-year prison sentence.There are a lot of comments - most of which seem to be in favor of the bill.
The proposal classifies male circumcision as genital mutilation and supporters of the bill say male infants can't possible consent to the procedure.
They testified here on Beacon Hill, calling circumcision unethical at its core.
The Centers for Disease Control says lack of circumcision has been linked to sexually transmitted diseases, urinary tract infections and penile cancer.
In the US, common complications include minor bleeding and infection.
The CDC doesn't recommend either way, preferring to leave the decision up to the person and their parents.
If this passes, I suspect a lot of people in the Boston area will be traveling to Providence to circumcise their sons.
What could go wrong?
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:53 PM
19 Comments:
Whenever the radical left wants to attack Jewish ritual, they attack one of two things for being 'cruel' and 'inhumane.' One is ritual slaughter. The other is circumcision.
----------------------------------
Hah! They overlooked hard kneidelach.
Does the law exempt muslims? Discrimination!
Hmm. I thought I read that this practice impedes the transmission of the HIV virus (and other STDs?). That, along with the brilliant idea of washing hands before eating, demonstrates that those old folks had figured out a lot without a microscope.
"Does the law exempt muslims?"
As if they ever followed non-muslim law to begin with.
So this would appropriately become part of the state penal code?
For once in my life I am speechless. And our oldest son's Brit was done in the Brit Room at the Beth Israel, where he was born, in 1963.
Circumcise your sons! Let the state throw you in jail.
Every totalitarian regime has tried this against the Jewish people, and they have been destroyed. Thus be it with a Massoftwoshits.
I am not surprised at all...this has been coming for a LONG time. (Years ago I wrote a letter to the Jewish Observer about this, telling people to be aware, tyo influence non-religious Jews to circumcise. About ten years ago there was a terrible row in a childbirth educator magazine that I was subscribed to. The language and lies given out by the anti-circumscision people was tremendous.
It's illegal to cut the prepuce off a baby girl, or to make any incision on her gen1tals, even without removing any tissue. Why don't boys get the same protection? Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they want parts of their gen1tals cut off or not.
No-one complained when it was made illegal to do it to girls, so why is it a big deal for boys to get the same rights over their own body?
His body - his decision.
Not all Jewish people believe in circumcision btw. Brit Shalom is an alternative naming ceremony to celebrate the birth of baby boys to Jewish families. These sites are all run by Jewish people opposed to circumcision:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
http://www.circumcision.org/
A politically incorrect question
what about mislim procedures ???
Forbidden too ????
uh oh, my mom had my ears pierced as a baby. i'm awaiting on the anti-circumcision people to start a law against people who pierce their babies ears'. it happens all the time, after all, and the little baby girls have no say. come on, anti-circumcision people, start a law against this, otherwise people might think you don't actually care about the issue, you are only looking to persecute other peoples' religious beliefs.
you know where they're heading with this, right? soon they are going to try to make it illegal to raise your children in your religion at all, since that interferes with the child's freedom of religion.
I think this is a good thing, why shouldn't you have the right to decide for yourself, it's your body, it should be your decision. I was circumcised at 16 for medical reasons and I wished I hadn't had to be because it felt better uncircumcised. I live in Europe where circumcision is banned for people under 18 except for medical reasons and religious rituals. I agree that religious ritual circumcision should not be outlawed now but only because if we did, parents who want their sons circumcised would then have them circumcised outside the hospitals anyway, which would make it very more risky for the children.
PS:
-For that matter I'm not a radical left winger but a centrist.
-The proposed bill in Massachusetts
would apply to muslims too.
-Circumcision doesn't prevent from AIDS, it just very slightly decrease the risk of catching it but there's something called a condom, you know?
-Circumcision doesn't make you more hygienic, if you're uncircumcised you just wash where you need to wash with a wash cloth...30s top...If you start reasoning like circumcision is more hygienic why wouldn't you want to break your teeth so don't have to wash them?
(because they're useful? last I heard so is the foreskin)
The bill was proposed by a citizen and by law, legislators are required to bring bills proposed by citizens to the state Senate...the bill has no open supporters and no sponsors. It has about as much of a chance at passing as a ban on consumption of alcohol.
Check your facts next time, eh? Just because one anti-semitic nut proposed a bill doesn't warrant you ranting about how the whole State of Massachusetts is anti-Jewish.
I an attorney of Jewish heritage on my fathers' side. I testified at the hearing that circumcision is already illegal and that the legislators have a duty to enforce the law.
Circumcision constitutes criminal assault. It violates Massachusetts child abuse law (which prohibits "impairment of any organ" and risking harm - the surgery can kill), and human rights law guaranteeing children security of the person.
Congress concluded the same. In banning female genital cutting, Congress expressly found that it violates federal and state statutes and constitutions, which include the 14th amendment right to privacy and bodily integrity. Males have the same constitutional rights as females. Males also have a right to equal protection of the law under the same 14th amendment.
Congress found that prohibiting genital cutting does not interfere with parents' constitutional right to freedom of religion. The law is clear, parents may practice religion but not even risk harm to their children. Parental consent to what every medical association in the world agrees is unnecessary surgery is also legally invalid.
I am proud of my Jewish heritage, but we all have a duty to obey the law and accordingly not to circumcise boys, in America at least.
This is an important message to community to the Jewish community. I ask you to publish it. Thank you.
@Peter,
Jews eveywhere will do according to their beliefs,whatever so called high courts,magistates,ministers decide !
Shabbat Shalom,
Trumpeldor
From Peter,
I am proud of my "Jewish heritage", but we "all have a duty to obey" the law and accordingly not to circumcise boys, in America at least.
It is a resounding NO to both statements !
And America won't do better than pharaon or antiochus epiphanes
Bothrulers were doomed by their evil decrees .
From Peter,
I am proud of my "Jewish heritage", but we "all have a duty to obey" the law and accordingly not to circumcise boys, in America at least.
It is a resounding NO to both statements !
And America won't do better than pharaon or antiochus epiphanes
Bothrulers were doomed by their evil decrees .
@Pierre,
Leftists are so logical...
1.Circumsion should be forbidden because of the lack of agreement from the involved baby
2.Abortion is legal because parents have the right to decide if the foetus may live on
wow, your education suffer from huge gaps ...
This bill has nothing to do with religious freedom. After it passes every person is still free to believe whatever they wish about life's unknowable answers. That right ends where another's body begins. The courts have already held against Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Muslims, when medical or cultural practices threatened harm to a child.
Since 1996 a Muslim may not even do a pin-poke to a girl to draw one ceremonial drop of blood. Who was marching on the capitol with pitchforks then?
To paraphrase Eli Wiesel: "They came for Muslims' religious freedom, but I said nothing because I was not a Muslim...."
About 3% of Jews do not circumcise. You might say this bill protects the CHILD'S religious freedom to be that kind of Jew.
Post a Comment
<< Home