hopp@nbs-amrf.UUCP (Ted Hopp) (03/27/85)
The following article was posted to net.kids in answer to a query about circumcision. I find the author's gratuitous comments about the origin of circumcision offensive, and I thought that this newsgroup should be aware of such postings. There were other postings on the subject; several of these talked in resentful tones about feeling coerced into have their sons circumcised out of fears of their kids being ridiculed if they were not. My worry is that these fears could coalesce into a focused resentment of Judaism as the "sponsor" of circumcision as a "standard practice". The allegations of the attached posting would be a good starting place for this process. Perhaps we need net.religion.jewish.adl (:-[) --------------- snip --------------------- snip ----------------------- > THE CIRCUMCISION DECISION > > I would like to hear the pro's and con's of circumcising > infant boys other than for religious reasons. A big, local health cooperative here recommends against circumcision (for those of you who don't know, circumcision is a particularly nasty form of mutilation inflected upon young boys, invented by ignorant sheepherders thousands of years ago who never washed themselves). The coop has a film which they showed to their employees and other interested people in which an infant is circumcised. The infant cries a great deal because the procedure is painful. The coop recommends against circumcision not because of the pain, but because the risk of infection as a result of circumcision is far greater than the risk of health hazards of not being circumcised. With proper hygiene (including not trying to retract the foreskin for washing until it is ready to be retracted), there should be no problems. -- Mike Eve Boeing Aerospace, Seattle ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve --------------- snip --------------------- snip ----------------------- -- Ted Hopp {seismo,umcp-cs}!nbs-amrf!hopp