If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Two 'kinds' of penises: 'The' penis and...
AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE
See below. First this... THE TWO "KINDS" OF PENISES "Jake Waskett" wrote: snip It is categorically *not* fraudulent to state that circumcision enhances the hygiene of the penis. Jake, You and I are talking about two very different "kinds" of penises - there is "the penis" (intact; the one male babies are born with) and there is the mutilated penis. My own mutilated penis seems quite normal to me - seems to work fine (!) - but it *was* mutilated. Some readers might ask what I mean by mutilated penis... Like most American males my age a LARGE PART of my penis was literally ripped then sliced off my penis. Mutilated penises seem quite normal - indeed they ARE quite normal to those who sport them. But men with mutilated penises reportedly have on average about 12 sq. in. less of sexually sensitive skin than men with intact penises. By slicing off this sexually sensitive skin, MDs reportedly deny immune function. See the postscript. Finally regarding my use of the term mutilation, encyclopedias use the term mutilation to describe circumcision. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398 .... Bottomline Jake, Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene of "the penis" because following circumcision one does not HAVE "the penis." One has something less... At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE MUTILATED penis. Todd Dr. Gastaldo PS Penis function: Intact vs. Mutilated As indicated above mutilated penis does not work like the intact penis. SEXUAL FUNCTION Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] write: "One function of the prepuce is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surface of the two partners during intercourse. The prepuce enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina non-abrasively inside its own sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the male's prepuce is missing." IMMUNOLOGICAL FUNCTION Fliess, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] also write: "...A review of the scientific literature...reveals that the actual effect of circumcision is the destruction of...clinically-demonstated hygienic and immunological properties of the prepuce and intact penis. "The sphincter action of the preputial orifice functions like a one way valve, blocking the entry of contaminants while allowing the passage of urine.7,8 "...The inner prepuce contains apocrine glands,15 which secrete cathepsin B...chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase,16 cytokine (a non-antibody protein that generates an immune response on contact with specific antigens)17...pheromones such as androsterone18...[and lysozyme16]... "...Lysozyme...also found in tears, human milk, and other body fluids destroys bacterial cell walls..." From Fleiss P, Hodges F, Van Howe RS. Immunological functions of the human prepuce. Sex Trans Inf 1998;74(5):364-7... http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3 (How odd that Jake questions this or that statement by Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe - but does not question the AAP/CMA circumcision anti-science discussed below.) Anyway, the mutilated penis might be said to be a CRIPPLED penis, immunologically speaking... It is perhaps a crippled penis sexually as well... An ancient Jewish fellow, Maimonides, reportedly wrote: "The fact that [mutilation] weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and [is mutilated -] has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an un[mutilated] man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for [mutilation]. http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/ [I've substituted "mutilation/mutilated" in appropriate places] REGARDLESS though whether the mutilated penis is crippled.... FACT: Nearly 100% of babies join me in calling for an end to American medicine's grisly most frequent surgical behavior toward males. (Most babies SCREAM their support - but some are rendered unconscious by the intensity of the pain of having their penises ripped and sliced.) KEY POINT... ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION is *not* Jewish ritual circumcision - most certainly it is not the ORIGINAL Jewish ritual circumcision that left most of the foreskin on the penis. More on this below. AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE In late 1987, when I discovered American MDs using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology to obtain consent to perform "no medical indication" routine infant circumcisions, I demanded an end to the obvious child abuse and called for a religious exemption for Jewish circumcision. Pediatricians (the AAP, Jan/Feb 1988 issues of Pediatrics) immediately called for opposition to ALL religious exemptions, saying in effect that if MDs were to be forced to stop circumcising - so would Jewish ritual circumcisers! Immediately thereafter (March 1988), the California Medical Association/CMA House of Delegates ignored its own Scientific Board and by voice vote instantly changed routine circumcision from "no medical indications" to "an effective public health measure." ("Unjustifiable physical pain" is the exact definition of child abuse in California. Child abusers can go to prison for up to six years per count. Calif. Penal Code Sec. 273a.) In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP officially stated in effect that MDs can no longer make infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die...and hide behind PARENTS REQUEST IT cowardice... According to AAP, "[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires... "...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding obviously constitutes the - TDG] patient's reluctance or refusal to assent [and - TDG] should...carry considerable weight when the proposed intervention is not essential to his or her welfare and/or can be deferred without substantial risk... "[T]hose who care for children need to provide for measures to solicit assent and to attend to possible abuses of 'raw' power over children when ethical conflicts occur." AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice(RE9510) Pediatrics Volume 95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317 http://www.aap.org/policy/00662.html In 1980, one pediatrician wrote: "[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980] In 1986, another wrote: "What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse. AJDC, 1986;140:329-330] JEWISH RITUAL CIRCUMCISION I still would like to see a religious exemption for Jews... "[T]he LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it...So the LORD let him alone...(Genesis 4:24-26)" http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net...y/zipporah.asp KEY POINT: As indicated above, the original Jewish ritual left most of the foreskin on the penis. The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical Writers Award for gathering much of the historical evidence in "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy" [NY: Springer 1980] Later, Wallerstein wrote of the minimal ancient practice in a 1983 article: "Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin. This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from] elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised." [Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46] Wallerstein's research is supported by The Jewish Encyclopedia which indicates that a Jewish "rage for athletics" occurred around 175 BCE when the Seleucid king Antiochus IV offered citizenship to those who adopted the athletic Greek way of life. ANCIENT NUDE WRESTLING AND CIRCUMCISION Jason, high priest of Jerusalem, offered to increase his tribute to Antiochus IV if he would build a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem. The gymnasium was built. As Jews began participating in the nude games, "devout Jews" (a minority of Jews) found to their horror that a partially exposed glans (i.e., a "mini"-circumcised penis) was considered vulgar. Compounding the horror (of this minority of "devout Jews") was the fact that many Jews - including perhaps Jewish priests - were stretching their "mini" circumcisized foreskins so as not to appear circumcised. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia: "[D]evout Jews began to look upon the exercises with horror, especially because most of them were practised "in puris naturilibus" and the Covenant of Abraham had become an object of derision. Nevertheless, for a time at least, the rage for Athletics spread even to the priests... [See Athletics in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.] "...[T]he consequence was [the] attempt to appear like the Greeks by epispasm ('making themselves foreskins')... [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901] Forty years later (134 BCE), the high priest of Jerusalem, John Hyrcanus, forcibly circumcised the Idumeans, "leading them to think they were Jews." [Gribetz J, Greenstein EL, Stein RS. The Timetables of Jewish History. New York: Simon and Schuster 1993. Judah Gribetz is president of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.] It was during this period that Jewish priests apparently decided that stretching the foreskin was wrong and threatened the extermination of those Jews who stretched their foreskins: "The Book of Jubilee (xv. 26-27), written in the time of John Hyrcanus, has the following: '...God's anger will be kindled against the children of the covenant if they make the members of their body appear like those of the Gentiles, and they will be expelled and exterminated from the earth.'" [Charles, The Book of Jubilees iv.-ix. iii. 190-192, under Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.] But Jews of this period apparently construed the "no stretching" decree to mean that it was all right not to circumcise; for when the son of John Hyrcanus took power in 104 BCE (by imprisoning his mother and killing his brother), he forced circumcision on the residents of Galilee - "many of them Jews." [Gribetz 1993] The shift to total foreskin amputation is believed to have occurred one hundred years later, after the unsuccessful Bar Kokba uprising against the Roman Emperor Hadrian (who had completely outlawed circumcision): "In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of the covenant"...the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb. l.c.; Gen. R. xivi.), instituted the 'peri'ah' (the laying bare of the glans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab. xxx. 6)." [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901] "Thenceforward [total foreskin amputation - the laying bare of the glans] was the mark of Jewish loyalty." [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901] God originally/allegedly told Jews to leave most of the foreskin on the penis - and rabbis are ignoring Him... But even God's original (minimal) ritual infant mutilation is illegal in the U.S... See Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398 Fortunately, some modern rabbis (hotly contested by other rabbis) offer American Jews an ideological basis not to circumcise... According to Rabbi MN Kertner: "[Circumcision] is not a sacrament which inducts the infant into Judaism: his birth does that" [Rabbi MN Kertner. What is a Jew? New York: Macmillan, 1973,1993] Adult Jews who wish to remain uncircumcised are accepted under Israel's Law of Return, which indicates that even "religious" circumcision is a CHOICE which may legitimately be postponed until adulthood and beyond... And according to Rabbi Michael Lerner: "The infliction of unnecessary pain is precisely what Judaism is designed to fight against, so it makes little sense for us to be the perpetrators on our children." [Rabbi Michael Lerner. Jewish Renewal NY: G.P. Putnam's Sons 1994:387]) RABBIS CHANGE THE BIBLICAL RULES Hershel Shanks, editor of Moment, recently noted that "the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules" (emphasis added): "A friend...[argued]...with regard to the Orthodox rabbis' pronouncement declaring Reform and Conservative not Judaism...[that]...[i]t's all traceable to the [U.S.] Reform decision nearly 15 years ago to adopt patrilineality - a child born of a Jewish father, if raised as a Jew, is Jewish.... "....[i]n Biblical times, Jewish descent was determined by the Jewishness of the father...The rabbis changed that 2,000 year-old tradition...Indeed the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules (emphasis added)..." [Shanks H. Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment. (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9] Modern rabbis could switch back to "tip" circumcisions - or even to NO circumcisions - if they really wanted to. I still though favor a religious exemption for Jews. Jews do NOT circumcise for medical reasons - they circumcise because their God wants them to - at least this is what they sincerely believe - and I believe them. Which brings me back to ROUTINE (medical) infant circumcision, American medicine's $400 million dollar per year GRISLY most frequent surgical behavior toward males... In the medical literature, "freeing adhesions," the first step in routine infant circumcision, has been called "tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment": "Freeing adhesions, is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment and is unfounded physiologically and medically." [Kaplan GW: Circumcision: An overview. Current Problems in Pediatrics, 1977;7(5):8.] Routine infant circumcision should have ended BILLIONS of dollars' worth of infant screams ago - back in 1987 when I exposed AAP's perpetuation of phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology... Ending this barbaric MD behavior toward babies (see "brutal" "barbaric" quotes below) would not only save $400 million dollars per year^^^ ... Ending it would stop the infant screams and (paradoxically) PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males could make for themselves in adulthood. (It is likely that - like most males on the planet - American males would NOT chooose circumcision in adulthood.) ^^^$400 million dollar per year figure is from http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm INFANT CIRCUMCISION: A BRUTAL, BARBARIC PRACTICE... "After years of strapping babies down for this brutal procedure and listening to their screams, we couldn't take it any longer." [Sperlich BK, Conant M. Am J Nurs (Jun)1994:16. http://www.cirp.org/nrc/] "Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their participation in a surgical procedure that involves no anesthesia to be a barbaric practice." (p. 205) Donna L. Wong's Essentials of Pediatric Nursing [1997] "[S]till all too often barbaric...[M.D.s]...would never allow older children or adults to be subjected to such practices, nor would they submit to it themselves..." [Veteran circumcision cheerleader Colonel Thomas E. Wiswell, MD in article in the April 24, 1997 New England Journal of Medicine] THINK ABOUT IT AS INFANTS SCREAM AND WRITHE AND BLEED... "One-half to one-third of the skin on the...penile shaft is sliced off." http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm (paraphrasing Ronald Goldman, PhD, author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma) "The average circumcision cuts off what would grow into about 12 square inches of sexually sensitive skin." http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm (quoting Ronald Goldman, PhD, author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma) Sometimes (fortunately rarely) babies die or lose their penises because of circumcision. I say again, Jake... Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene of "the penis" because following circumcision one does not HAVE "the penis." One has something less - one-half to one-third less skin on the infant penile shaft - and 12 square inches less sexually sensitive skin in the adult - not to mention (according to Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe) less sexual and immunological function. At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE MUTILATED penis. Thanks for reading, everyone. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Two 'kinds' of penises: 'The' penis and...
Todd Gastaldo wrote:
AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE See below. First this... THE TWO "KINDS" OF PENISES "Jake Waskett" wrote: snip It is categorically *not* fraudulent to state that circumcision enhances the hygiene of the penis. Jake, You and I are talking about two very different "kinds" of penises - there is "the penis" (intact; the one male babies are born with) and there is the mutilated penis. My own mutilated penis seems quite normal to me - seems to work fine (!) - but it *was* mutilated. Ok, Todd. I accept that you feel it was mutilated. Some readers might ask what I mean by mutilated penis... Like most American males my age a LARGE PART of my penis was literally ripped then sliced off my penis. You mean that the synechiae connecting your foreskin to the glans were separated, and then the foreskin excised? Mutilated penises seem quite normal - indeed they ARE quite normal to those who sport them. But men with mutilated penises reportedly have on average about 12 sq. in. less of sexually sensitive skin than men with intact penises. By slicing off this sexually sensitive skin, MDs reportedly deny immune function. See the postscript. Be careful to be accurate, Todd. As the skin is double-layered, one half of it will be ordinary shaft-skin. The other half, some claim, is especially sensitive. Finally regarding my use of the term mutilation, encyclopedias use the term mutilation to describe circumcision. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398 I'm sure, Todd. ... Bottomline Jake, Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene of "the penis" because following circumcision one does not HAVE "the penis." One has something less... Ok, Todd, you feel free to split hairs. At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE MUTILATED penis. Todd Dr. Gastaldo [repeat of earlier posts snipped] |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Two 'kinds' of penises: 'The' penis and...
I got it. Foreskin good. Circumcision bad. Can we all go home now?
I'll turn out the lights. :-) "Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message link.net...[i] AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE See below. First this... THE TWO "KINDS" OF PENISES "Jake Waskett" wrote: snip It is categorically *not* fraudulent to state that circumcision enhances the hygiene of the penis. Jake, You and I are talking about two very different "kinds" of penises - there is "the penis" (intact; the one male babies are born with) and there is the mutilated penis. My own mutilated penis seems quite normal to me - seems to work fine (!) - but it *was* mutilated. Some readers might ask what I mean by mutilated penis... Like most American males my age a LARGE PART of my penis was literally ripped then sliced off my penis. Mutilated penises seem quite normal - indeed they ARE quite normal to those who sport them. But men with mutilated penises reportedly have on average about 12 sq. in. less of sexually sensitive skin than men with intact penises. By slicing off this sexually sensitive skin, MDs reportedly deny immune function. See the postscript. Finally regarding my use of the term mutilation, encyclopedias use the term mutilation to describe circumcision. See http://groups.dogyob.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398 ... Bottomline Jake, Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene of "the penis" because following circumcision one does not HAVE "the penis." One has something less... At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE MUTILATED penis. Todd Dr. Gastaldo PS Penis function: Intact vs. Mutilated As indicated above mutilated penis does not work like the intact penis. SEXUAL FUNCTION Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] write: "One function of the prepuce is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surface of the two partners during intercourse. The prepuce enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina non-abrasively inside its own sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the male's prepuce is missing." IMMUNOLOGICAL FUNCTION Fliess, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] also write: "...A review of the scientific literature...reveals that the actual effect of circumcision is the destruction of...clinically-demonstated hygienic and immunological properties of the prepuce and intact penis. "The sphincter action of the preputial orifice functions like a one way valve, blocking the entry of contaminants while allowing the passage of urine.7,8 "...The inner prepuce contains apocrine glands,15 which secrete cathepsin B...chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase,16 cytokine (a non-antibody protein that generates an immune response on contact with specific antigens)17...pheromones such as androsterone18...[and lysozyme16]... "...Lysozyme...also found in tears, human milk, and other body fluids destroys bacterial cell walls..." From Fleiss P, Hodges F, Van Howe RS. Immunological functions of the human prepuce. Sex Trans Inf 1998;74(5):364-7... http://www.dogyob.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3 (How odd that Jake questions this or that statement by Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe - but does not question the AAP/CMA circumcision anti-science discussed below.) Anyway, the mutilated penis might be said to be a CRIPPLED penis, immunologically speaking... It is perhaps a crippled penis sexually as well... An ancient Jewish fellow, Maimonides, reportedly wrote: "The fact that [mutilation] weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and [is mutilated -] has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an un[mutilated] man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for [mutilation]. http://www.dogyob.org/library/cultural/maimonides/ [I've substituted "mutilation/mutilated" in appropriate places] REGARDLESS though whether the mutilated penis is crippled.... FACT: Nearly 100% of babies join me in calling for an end to American medicine's grisly most frequent surgical behavior toward males. (Most babies SCREAM their support - but some are rendered unconscious by the intensity of the pain of having their penises ripped and sliced.) KEY POINT... ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION is *not* Jewish ritual circumcision - most certainly it is not the ORIGINAL Jewish ritual circumcision that left most of the foreskin on the penis. More on this below. AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE In late 1987, when I discovered American MDs using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology to obtain consent to perform "no medical indication" routine infant circumcisions, I demanded an end to the obvious child abuse and called for a religious exemption for Jewish circumcision. Pediatricians (the AAP, Jan/Feb 1988 issues of Pediatrics) immediately called for opposition to ALL religious exemptions, saying in effect that if MDs were to be forced to stop circumcising - so would Jewish ritual circumcisers! Immediately thereafter (March 1988), the California Medical Association/CMA House of Delegates ignored its own Scientific Board and by voice vote instantly changed routine circumcision from "no medical indications" to "an effective public health measure." ("Unjustifiable physical pain" is the exact definition of child abuse in California. Child abusers can go to prison for up to six years per count. Calif. Penal Code Sec. 273a.) In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP officially stated in effect that MDs can no longer make infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die...and hide behind PARENTS REQUEST IT cowardice... According to AAP, "[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires... "...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding obviously constitutes the - TDG] patient's reluctance or refusal to assent [and - TDG] should...carry considerable weight when the proposed intervention is not essential to his or her welfare and/or can be deferred without substantial risk... "[T]hose who care for children need to provide for measures to solicit assent and to attend to possible abuses of 'raw' power over children when ethical conflicts occur." AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice(RE9510) Pediatrics Volume 95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317 http://www.dogyob.org/policy/00662.html In 1980, one pediatrician wrote: "[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980] In 1986, another wrote: "What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse. AJDC, 1986;140:329-330] JEWISH RITUAL CIRCUMCISION I still would like to see a religious exemption for Jews... "[T]he LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it...So the LORD let him alone...(Genesis 4:24-26)" http://www.dogyob.net/biblediscovery/zipporah.asp KEY POINT: As indicated above, the original Jewish ritual left most of the foreskin on the penis. The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical Writers Award for gathering much of the historical evidence in "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy" [NY: Springer 1980] Later, Wallerstein wrote of the minimal ancient practice in a 1983 article: "Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin. This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from] elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised." [Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46] Wallerstein's research is supported by The Jewish Encyclopedia which indicates that a Jewish "rage for athletics" occurred around 175 BCE when the Seleucid king Antiochus IV offered citizenship to those who adopted the athletic Greek way of life. ANCIENT NUDE WRESTLING AND CIRCUMCISION Jason, high priest of Jerusalem, offered to increase his tribute to Antiochus IV if he would build a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem. The gymnasium was built. As Jews began participating in the nude games, "devout Jews" (a minority of Jews) found to their horror that a partially exposed glans (i.e., a "mini"-circumcised penis) was considered vulgar. Compounding the horror (of this minority of "devout Jews") was the fact that many Jews - including perhaps Jewish priests - were stretching their "mini" circumcisized foreskins so as not to appear circumcised. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia: "[D]evout Jews began to look upon the exercises with horror, especially because most of them were practised "in puris naturilibus" and the Covenant of Abraham had become an object of derision. Nevertheless, for a time at least, the rage for Athletics spread even to the priests... [See Athletics in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.] "...[T]he consequence was [the] attempt to appear like the Greeks by epispasm ('making themselves foreskins')... [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901] Forty years later (134 BCE), the high priest of Jerusalem, John Hyrcanus, forcibly circumcised the Idumeans, "leading them to think they were Jews." [Gribetz J, Greenstein EL, Stein RS. The Timetables of Jewish History. New York: Simon and Schuster 1993. Judah Gribetz is president of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.] It was during this period that Jewish priests apparently decided that stretching the foreskin was wrong and threatened the extermination of those Jews who stretched their foreskins: "The Book of Jubilee (xv. 26-27), written in the time of John Hyrcanus, has the following: '...God's anger will be kindled against the children of the covenant if they make the members of their body appear like those of the Gentiles, and they will be expelled and exterminated from the earth.'" [Charles, The Book of Jubilees iv.-ix. iii. 190-192, under Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.] But Jews of this period apparently construed the "no stretching" decree to mean that it was all right not to circumcise; for when the son of John Hyrcanus took power in 104 BCE (by imprisoning his mother and killing his brother), he forced circumcision on the residents of Galilee - "many of them Jews." [Gribetz 1993] The shift to total foreskin amputation is believed to have occurred one hundred years later, after the unsuccessful Bar Kokba uprising against the Roman Emperor Hadrian (who had completely outlawed circumcision): "In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of the covenant"...the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb. l.c.; Gen. R. xivi.), instituted the 'peri'ah' (the laying bare of the glans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab. xxx. 6)." [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901] "Thenceforward [total foreskin amputation - the laying bare of the glans] was the mark of Jewish loyalty." [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901] God originally/allegedly told Jews to leave most of the foreskin on the penis - and rabbis are ignoring Him... But even God's original (minimal) ritual infant mutilation is illegal in the U.S... See Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history http://groups.dogyob.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398 Fortunately, some modern rabbis (hotly contested by other rabbis) offer American Jews an ideological basis not to circumcise... According to Rabbi MN Kertner: "[Circumcision] is not a sacrament which inducts the infant into Judaism: his birth does that" [Rabbi MN Kertner. What is a Jew? New York: Macmillan, 1973,1993] Adult Jews who wish to remain uncircumcised are accepted under Israel's Law of Return, which indicates that even "religious" circumcision is a CHOICE which may legitimately be postponed until adulthood and beyond... And according to Rabbi Michael Lerner: "The infliction of unnecessary pain is precisely what Judaism is designed to fight against, so it makes little sense for us to be the perpetrators on our children." [Rabbi Michael Lerner. Jewish Renewal NY: G.P. Putnam's Sons 1994:387]) RABBIS CHANGE THE BIBLICAL RULES Hershel Shanks, editor of Moment, recently noted that "the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules" (emphasis added): "A friend...[argued]...with regard to the Orthodox rabbis' pronouncement declaring Reform and Conservative not Judaism...[that]...[i]t's all traceable to the [U.S.] Reform decision nearly 15 years ago to adopt patrilineality - a child born of a Jewish father, if raised as a Jew, is Jewish.... "....n Biblical times, Jewish descent was determined by the Jewishness of the father...The rabbis changed that 2,000 year-old tradition...Indeed the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules (emphasis added)..." [Shanks H. Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment. (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9] Modern rabbis could switch back to "tip" circumcisions - or even to NO circumcisions - if they really wanted to. I still though favor a religious exemption for Jews. Jews do NOT circumcise for medical reasons - they circumcise because their God wants them to - at least this is what they sincerely believe - and I believe them. Which brings me back to ROUTINE (medical) infant circumcision, American medicine's $400 million dollar per year GRISLY most frequent surgical behavior toward males... In the medical literature, "freeing adhesions," the first step in routine infant circumcision, has been called "tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment": "Freeing adhesions, is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment and is unfounded physiologically and medically." [Kaplan GW: Circumcision: An overview. Current Problems in Pediatrics, 1977;7(5):8.] Routine infant circumcision should have ended BILLIONS of dollars' worth of infant screams ago - back in 1987 when I exposed AAP's perpetuation of phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology... Ending this barbaric MD behavior toward babies (see "brutal" "barbaric" quotes below) would not only save $400 million dollars per year^^^ ... Ending it would stop the infant screams and (paradoxically) PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males could make for themselves in adulthood. (It is likely that - like most males on the planet - American males would NOT chooose circumcision in adulthood.) ^^^$400 million dollar per year figure is from http://www.dogyob.org/MensHlth.htm INFANT CIRCUMCISION: A BRUTAL, BARBARIC PRACTICE... "After years of strapping babies down for this brutal procedure and listening to their screams, we couldn't take it any longer." [Sperlich BK, Conant M. Am J Nurs (Jun)1994:16. http://www.cirp.org/nrc/] "Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their participation in a surgical procedure that involves no anesthesia to be a barbaric practice." (p. 205) Donna L. Wong's Essentials of Pediatric Nursing [1997] "[S]till all too often barbaric...[M.D.s]...would never allow older children or adults to be subjected to such practices, nor would they submit to it themselves..." [Veteran circumcision cheerleader Colonel Thomas E. Wiswell, MD in article in the April 24, 1997 New England Journal of Medicine] THINK ABOUT IT AS INFANTS SCREAM AND WRITHE AND BLEED... "One-half to one-third of the skin on the...penile shaft is sliced off." http://www.dogyob.org/MensHlth.htm (paraphrasing Ronald Goldman, PhD, author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma) "The average circumcision cuts off what would grow into about 12 square inches of sexually sensitive skin." http://www.dogyob.org/MensHlth.htm (quoting Ronald Goldman, PhD, author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma) Sometimes (fortunately rarely) babies die or lose their penises because of circumcision. I say again, Jake... Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene of "the penis" because following circumcision one does not HAVE "the penis." One has something less - one-half to one-third less skin on the infant penile shaft - and 12 square inches less sexually sensitive skin in the adult - not to mention (according to Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe) less sexual and immunological function. At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE MUTILATED penis. Thanks for reading, everyone. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 6 | April 7th 04 04:58 PM |
At 3:22 am mom & son | nancy | Pregnancy | 1 | December 20th 03 06:57 PM |