Rabbi gives baby boy herpes (was: Paedophile Rabbi gives baby boys Herpes)
 

"Caleb" wrote in message
...
The idea of a bris to me is insane, but the idea of sucking on the
wound... any wound, is even more insane.

It used to be very sensible, but nowadays, is nolonger necessary.
It's one of the reasons this case is getting so much attention.

Knowing he had herpes and doing
this act, makes him 100% accountable for the results (of the death of a
person).

Absolutely!!

But what I'd like to know is where the word "pedophile" comes
into play with this post.

It comes from the supposed anti-circ crowd.

I've read the article in different forms from
different newspaper and I haven't read that he was a pedophile purposely
sucking on the newborn's genitals for his own sexual pleasure. That's like
saying a pediatrician who operates on a male boy's undescended testicle is
a pedophile.

Or anyone who helps a toddler boy go to the bathroom withour squirting all
over the toilet or bathroom is a paedophile.

He's a horrible man... "monster" even, but
pedophile? I don't think so.

That's because you *think* in the first place, & you don't have an agenda

Susan

Thanks for reading f

Nick wrote:

"Riain" wrote in message
...
This is not in the article:


This practice is not "rare" by any means, many rabbis still practice
this form of paedophilia with the full support of the jewish
community. Thus they commit double crime - they genitally mutilate
the child, then they suck his freshly-mutilated penis.


The poster added without saying it was his own words!


"Nick" wrote in message
...
: "Patricia Heil" wrote in message
: nk.net...
:
: "lab~rat" wrote in message
: ...
: On 2 Feb 2005 18:57:54 -0000, Ban Paedo Rabbis

: puked:
:
: This practice is not "rare" by any means, many rabbis still
practice
: this form of paedophilia with the full support of the jewish
: community. Thus they commit double crime - they genitally mutilate
: the child, then they suck his freshly-mutilated penis.
:
: This sentence wasn't in the original article, although it probably
: should have been.
:
: Maybe the guy couldn't find a knife...
:
: --
: lab~rat :-)
: The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.
:
: Figures that somebody with an agenda of hate would add a lie.
:
:
:
: Patricia, I have looked up the link unless someone has doctored it.
:
: Nick
:
:

You are quite right, this paragraph has been added.

Nick

"Chotii" wrote in message
...

Then unfortunately, you're not the correct person to address this
question. Also, all the pictures of infant circumcisions I have seen, have
the wound (-cision) encircling (circum-) the penis. I'm not clear how
anyone could orally draw blood from this wound without mouthing the entire
head and half the shaft of the infant penis. Perhaps mohels make a
different cut from what medical doctors do.

Having read up on what medical doctors do, I would have to say that yes, th
*precedure* is very different - but I'm not sure about how much is different
in the cutting. In a bris, only the tip is cut off, and then it's bandaged
down.

I'm looking for actual information. Which someone else clearly will have
to do, as you have only personally observed the use of gauze.

No, I never personally observed it with my son - my husband did.
But I suppose that amounts to the same thing in this case....


Ma'am, I have seen pictures of circumcisions, where the infant clearly has
an erection from all the handling/stimulation, intended or unintended. If
I overspoke by claiming the stimulation was intentional, then I overspoke,
but the effect would appear to be the same.

Okay - I do apologize; we've been inundated by a lot of sickos this week.

Susan