Archived Discussion: Birth - Page 1

Page 1

< Previous

Next >

---

Welcome to our discussions!

Author: InterfaithFamily.com Editors  Date:   03-27-02 12:19 We're pleased to tell you that we've changed our online discussions--and we invite you to join them! When you submit a message, it will be reviewed by our moderators before it is posted. While we will accept messages that are realistic about the challenges posed by interfaith relationships, we won't allow people to vent their opposition to intermarriage, as has happened in the past. Our goal is to make our discussions a welcoming and safe place for people dealing with interfaith relationships to turn for helpful information and support. So please--join our discussions!

^ top

---

Re: Circumcision

Author: Ronnie Friedland, editor  Date:   03-28-02 12:28 Some think circumcision is a meaningful, fundamental Jewish ritual commanded by God. Others think that it may have been meaningful centuries ago, but should now be banned as a harmful act. What do you think?

^ top

---

Re:

Author: Jennifer  Date:   04-15-02 13:50 I think circumcision is like ear piercing, putting discs in a bottom lip, rings around a neck, tattoos or foot binding. Whether you consider it cruel or humane...it is nothing more than a cultural mark. I am fine with people who agree to circumcision that understand this. I have a problem with people who think it is medically necessary, or beneficial. It is not. Personally, I find it a bit on barbaric side. Doesn't a Jewish male do enough in life to prove his Jewishess? Why a physical marking for a spiritual, educational and communal commitment? Sure it may be a commandment from God. However, over the years, some Jews have disregarded covenants that have not reflected the changing times (e.g., separate quarters for a menstruating woman, animal sacrifices) without losing their Jewish identity. Perhaps circumcision is next? Are there other Jews who are choose not to circumcise?

^ top

---

Re: Circumcision

Author: Beth  Date:   04-16-02 19:20 My brother and his wife(both Jewish) did not want to have their son circumcised because it is not a medically necessary procedure. My brother is very connected to Judaism, but I think his wife had the final say on this. My mother cries about this every now and then. For some people it is a very touchy subjecy. For myself, I plan on having my son circumcised, but I would have it done at the hospital. For one, the religious aspect is not important to me and second, my husband is not Jewish and I do not want to deal with finding a Rabbi who will do it in this situation. Beth

^ top

---

Re:

Author: Felicia  Date:   04-18-02 15:02 Hi Beth, Just so you know: If you are Jewish then any rabbi who follows halacha will consider your son Jewish as well, and should have no qualms about circumcising him, regardless of your husband's religion. Just my $0.02! :) F

^ top

---

Re:

Author: J.R.  Date:   05-05-02 18:18 My father is Jewish, my mother is not. They did not raise me in any religion and also opted not to circumcise me. When I converted to Reform Judaism about a year ago, I did not undergo circumcision as part of the conversion process. I did, however, promise to circumcise my sons, and I will do it gladly, for the simple reason that I don't want them to go through the psychological torment I went through for two years deciding whether to undergo this procedure. I will not do it, however, in the belief that circumcision is necessary as the sign of a covenant with God; rather, I will do it to save my son from community prejudices against uncircumcised men. I do agree with Jennifer (and Beth's in-laws) that it is not the most meaningful or important part of Jewish identity, and I wish more people who felt this way would speak up. Some people act as though this is the only commandment in the Torah, when there are 612 other perfectly good (and more morally edifiying) commandments.

^ top

---

Re: circumcision

Author: Rabbi Chaim  Date:   05-10-02 10:09 Circumcision has nothing to do with medically needed (or not needed) procedures. The circumcision is religously mandated in Judaism (as well as in Islam) for all males. There is anecdotal evidence, as I hear, that there is less cervical cancer in women married to Jewish men (is circumcision the reason ?); perhaps some OB/GYN's could respond to this issue (my information does come from OB/GYN's and other physicians).

^ top

---

Re: Post in Wedding Section about bris and baby-naming

Author: Jenny Genser  Date:   08-02-02 14:21 I was puzzled by the question posed by the person whose rabbi wouldn't name their half-Jewish son because he didn't have a bris. I have two questions for you. 1. Did your son receive a hospital circumcision or is he not circumcised? If he received a hospital circumcision, I think rabbis can do a ceremony for the bris. I'm not sure though, since my only child is a daughter. If your son is not circumcised at all, that's another story, and you will want to check the web sites for anti-circumcision Jews that Ed Case refered to. 2. I thought the naming ceremony was only for daughters. Does anyone else know if rabbis do naming ceremonies for sons? Finally, we never had a naming ceremony for my daughter because at the time she was born, we weren't affiliated with a synagogue. My agnostic husband (now ex) didn't want to pony up the membership dues (which is a whole other story). Now, seven years later, that fact is pretty irrelevant. Yes, it would have been nice, but my daughter, now a rising second-grader, is pretty plugged into the synagogue and Jewish life.

^ top

---

Re: Circumcision

Author: Berta  Date:   08-18-02 04:09 Circumcision has been done for thousands of years without ill affect and not just among Jewish people. It is part of a Faith that I love and believe in. For those who don't believe or have much faith, there has also been medical evidence that proves that women who are married to circumcized men are less likely to develop cervicle cancer. Not all men wash themselves carefully. For many men it's a hassle just to get them to wash their hands when they go to the bathroom. And that's for all men. Sorry fellas.

^ top

---

Re: Circumcision

Author: Sean  Date:   08-19-02 14:22 I'll wash my hands when you turn right on a red light after stopping instead of waiting for the light to change to green even when there is no traffic coming at you... As for the circumcision, my wife who is Jewish and I plan to have a Bris to circumcise our future male children. Of course, we also plan on having a Baptism. Each family should choose on what they feel is important. I've heard of medical studies showing that circumcision is harmful to males by increasing odds of VD through easier transmission of blood through the head of the penis. I've also heard of a connection to women's cervical cancer, but I thought that was because circumcised men had a higher chance of catching and passing on genital warts; which can lead to cervical cancer in women. Sean

^ top

---

Re: circumcision

Author: Ronnie Friedland, editor  Date:   08-20-02 09:26 I wanted to let our readers know what we will be addressing different views on circumcision in our issue on birth ceremonies, on Sept. 20. Stay tuned.

^ top

---

Re: Circumcision

Author: Brenda  Date:   08-28-02 11:09 I have a 4-year old daughter and a 15-month old son. I did not circumcise my son, despite much pressure from my family. We had a beautiful alternative bris ceremony on his 8th day. Jews circumcise their sons for religious and cultural reasons. It is in keeping with their convenant with God. We are not supposed to do it for hygiene reasons or to lessen the incidence of cancer. And in fact, there are no legitimate surgical-medical indications for the operation. The incidence of penile cancer in Europe, for example, where circumcision is rarely done, is no higher than in the U.S. where it is done almost routinely. The same is true for cervical cancer. Most Jews circumcise their sons to conform culturally, be part of the tribe, to give us a connection with other Jews, and because we buy into the myth that it is something we HAVE TO DO as Jews. And many Jews use health claims to support the practice. About 10 years ago I met a couple from Israel. They had a baby girl. The issue of circumcision came up and they told me that if they had had a boy there was no way they would have circumcised him. As a Jew it had never occurred to me that I could choose not to circumcise. Before my son was born I decided I needed to look into this issue very carefully. I am a researcher by profession. So research I did. I read many resources and dialogued with many people. Dr. Ronald Goldman's book, Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective, is a must-read for any Jew interested in the issue of circumcision. I wrote a 4-page article, Circumcision: One Expectant Jewish Mother's View, which I am happy to share with folks. It summarizes everything I learned. Despite my mother admonishing me that the foreskin is just a piece of skin -- it is not. It is a normal structure with important functions. It contains specialized nerve receptors, called Meissner corpuscles, which are more abundant there than any part of the male genitalia, making the foreskin one of the more erogenous of all male body tissues. The foreskin contains more than 3 feet of veins, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings. Every male mammal on earth has a foreskin. In the U.S., the possibility of a serious complication as a result of infant circumcision is 1 in every 500 operations. This is 200 times higher than the likelihood of getting penile cancer, an often-cited reason to circumcise. Complications include blood loss, infection, mechanical or structural abnormalities such as hemorrhaging, laceration of the penile and scrotal skins, excessive penile skin loss, beveling deformities of the glans, scar tissue, inflammation of the urinary opening, loss of penis, and even death. Even when no complications occur, cutting off the foreskin hurts and the infant's pain is extreme. Research studies done in the last few decades indicate that the effects of circumcision on the infant are much greater than are generally assumed. And the rationale that men can't clean themselves is so bogus and insulting. As one author I read wrote, why substitute a knife and operation for a little diligent cleaning with soap and water? No one advocates cutting off any segment of the female genitalia to insure genital cleanliness. There are many other reasons not to circumcise, which I won't go into here. Suffice it to say that I have reached the conclusion that circumcision is a clear violation of human rights and medical ethics. As Jews, we have to find a better way to welcome our sons into the world. Fortunately, Judaism has always evolved with changing values. Consider how the women's liberation movement has profoundly influenced Judaism, a traditionally partriarchal religion and culture. Religious laws and practices are constantly changing and evolving. Adultery, insulting one's parents, and fornication by women are no longer punishable by death. Women can now seek divorce and inheritance is no longer restricted to sons. Do I think circumcision should be banned? I think ROUTINE infant circumcision should be banned. If there is no TRUE medical reason to circumcise, doctors should not be allowed to perform it. We don't remove people's appendixes because there's a chance they can get appendicitis. However, I don't think we ought to ban circumcision that is routinely performed for religious reasons. Rather, I think those who circumcise for religious reasons -- such as Jews -- have to educate ourselves and create change from within our community. Circumcision continues at such a high rate because of misinformation, tradition, stubborness, money, fear, silence, and the power of conformity and beliefs. Indeed, new information casting doubts on previous medical benefits of circumcision has already helped reduce the American rate of circumcision from a high of 85% a few decades ago to 60% today. There is a growing anti-circumcision movement and it is spreading to the Jewish community as well. One web site lists rabbis who will officiate at alternative bris ceremonies. A listserve now exists to facilitate dialogue among Jews who are questioning circumcision. I know of many Jewish mothers who also opted not to circumcise their sons. It's a new millenium. We know more than we ever did about the impacts of circumcision. It's time Jews question this practice. As Dr. Goldman argues in his book, questioning circumcision will ultimately benefit and strengthen the Jewish community. We are a people who ask questions. As Jews we need to take another look at our assumptions and feelings about circumcision. He asserts that "the primary way that circumcision is perpetuated in the Jewish community is through silence." He points out, "We owe it to our children to educate ourselves and do what is best for them." My husband and I are committed to raising our son Jewish (my husband is not Jewish). We saw our alternative bris ceremony as the first step. At that ceremoney, instead of affirming a convenant with God, our convenant was with our son to do our best to protect him from harm. Brenda

^ top

---

Re: circumcision

Author: Brenda Platt  Date:   08-28-02 11:22 Ronnie, If you're interested, I can send you a copy of the alternative bris ceremony we did for our son. Brenda

^ top

---

Re: circumcision

Author: Mimosa  Date:   09-20-02 14:34 Rabbi Chaim, I have heard this bit of anecdotal evidence as well. However, in this, and in many cases, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. It may be that the women married to Jewish men have any number of risk reducers for cervical cancer, or that they may tend to be slightly more affluent/body aware/educated, or they may have better access to medical care/gynecological care, and hence, more preventative care, and therefore, lower rates of cervical, and possibly other cancers. Or it may be that they and a number of other women who don't end up getting cervical cancer simply have a gene we don't know about yet. There are so many factors at play that it is not possible to draw even a preliminary conclusion that women who have intercourse with men who are circumcised have less cervical cancer than the general female populus. Respectfully, Mimosa Tedhams (not an MD, just a talker) -There are currently only a few solid risk factors indicated in cervical cancer development, two of which I am aware- 1) some strains of the human papillomavirus predispose women to develop cervical cancer and 2) smoking pretty much leaves you an easier target for most disease, especially cancer.-

^ top

---

Re: Husband's fears

Author: Big J  Date:   09-23-02 16:07 My husband is not Jewish. Our first child is due in two weeks - we do not know the gender. We have agreed to raise the child as a Jew, but so far in our lives, everything Jewish is extremely interpretive and pretty much non-traditional. The bris question has been loaded - we have been discussing it for many months, and have basically decided that IF we circumcise, it will be for Jewish purposes only (i.e. we would not do it in the hospital or for medical reasons). We are definite about holding a naming ceremony for either a boy or a girl on the 8th day - the question is whether the OB who performs the bris will come to our home for the actual My husband has no non-Jewish religious background per se, and overall has no real conflicts about Jewish values or traditions. I grew up in a non-practicing home (with two Jewish parents) and have become increasingly identified, though still very progressive. We share deep spiritual values in common, but this is the first Jewish thing we've had to confront where there is simply no middle ground. Because my upbringing led to some confusion about who I was, I don't want to inflict that on my child from the very beginning of his life (i.e. you are Jewish and uncircumcised but your father is not Jewish and IS circumcised - now go and study). Here's the catch - my husband's real fear is that having a bris will separate him from his son by saying "You are Jewish and I am not." He also says that something he loves about Judaism is the tradition of not doing anything unquestioningly - and so he enjoys the act of challenging this ancient ritual. My fears are that 1) We won't have a bris and that this will represent, at least to me, keeping Jewish life at arm's length despite our decision to raise the child Jewishly OR 2) We will hold a bris and my husband will feel distant or even worse, disturbed by it. I feel a strong need to do it, even while dreading the actual experience and regretting that this is so important to the Jewish people. We have talked about this with many Jewish friends, my family, and some rabbi friends, and have gotten much wonderful insight and advice, but find ourselves within days or weeks ago the baby's arrival still undecided...

^ top

---

Re: Husband's fears

Author: Jennifer  Date:   09-25-02 16:00 Big J: Wow - I am the non-Jewish partner in my marriage and am 5 months pregnant = sex-unknown. I am having the same feelings your husband is having. I disagree that circumcision is medically beneficial and believe it is truly a only a traditional marking. (Mine is the 1st post in this string = I wrote that before I knew I was pregnant!) My husband and I have agreed to raise this child Jewish, but I find myself questioning and struggling to become comfortable with every aspect that arises. I think this is a result of these decisions being very conscience for me and more 'automatic' for him. I am having a hard time thinking that I should host a naming ceremony/bris in my home on the 8th day when I haven't even been to one and we don't belong to a synagogue. I feel like I would be renting a rabbi/mohel to perform a strange procedure explained in a strange language on my newborn child in front of what would be mostly my equally-as-inexperienced secular gentile family. I understand that this, although really awkward, is part of being "jewish". I see it from a traditional standpoint as an opportunity to study meanings, Hebrew, educate my family on all of this. But from a practical sense I am struggling to understand why the hoopla is generally accepted as necessary. In my family, when you have a baby friends and family visit and send cards. There is no ceremony. I hope to be pleasantly surprised with the arrangement my husband I agree upon. This post probably won't help you, but I wanted to see if these feelings are what a little of what your husband and you are discussing. Jennifer

^ top

---

Response to Jennifer

Author: Lee Ann  Date:   09-25-02 20:39 Like Jennifer, I am a non-Jew and my husband is Jewish. We have a 3 year old son, who we circumcised with a bris 8 days after his birth. I wanted to share my story because I can really relate to what you are going through. I wanted to have the bris because I think birth/welcoming rituals are important, and I would have circumcised him anyway, even if he was not Jewish. I also like using a mohel, because they are *very* experienced at the procedure and often use pain medication on the baby --- whereas you don't know who is doing the procedure in the hospital, and what kind of care your baby will be getting. However, I wanted to have a small, family-only ceremony but my mother-in-law took over the whole thing and made it a huge catered event *in my home* where all her friends and family were there. Most of my family did not come because it was held on a week day and they had to work; non-Jews don't typically take off work for Jewish events. Anyway, it was a horrible experience for me. I felt like I had no support (few family and friends around), my house was teeming with people I hardly knew, my hormones were raging since I was only 8 days post partum, I was sleep deprived from having a newborn in the house...all I could do was stand there and sob during the ceremony. The mohel did a good job, medically, but he made a stink about letting my father participate in the ceremony and putting his name on the certificate...something about it being "more authentic" if only Jewish males were involved. My father backed down, and as a result, my family got totally left out. To this day, I regret allowing that to happen, but I know that being 8 days post partum I was not in any mental shape to argue about religion. If we have another boy, I want to use the mohel again because he did a good job and it healed great, etc. Plus we want our kids to be Jewish and the circumcision helps "convert" them (as if an infant needs to be converted! Converted from what, from having non-Jewish blood in him? that's another topic...) But I will never have another bris ceremony again, except for one held in the mohel's office, with whatever "witnesses" are required for the certificate, and I'll pull men off the elevator if I have to, I will not invite any family to it. I want it short and sweet. I refuse to allow myself to suffer alienation, depression, confusion, rejection, and separation from my son that the bris caused me. Pay attention to how you are feeling now...do not let your inlaws ruin what should be a happy time in your life by holding a religious ceremony that alienates you and makes you feel like your son is being taken from you. Have a small, *intimate* ceremony or have nothing at all. You won't regret it. And your son will be *fine* either way.

^ top

---

Re: Circumcision

Author: Seth Grimes  Date:   09-26-02 09:47 I'm Jewish and so is my wife and we have two sons. I just stumbled across this forum but I thought I'd comment that: - You don't have to have a big party around a bris. For instance, my first son was born in France, and the tradition there, perhaps Sephardic, is to have a quiet bris and celebrate after a month. - If other family members take over a make the ceremony into something you don't want, that's likely a problem with family that you're going to have to work out and not a religious question. It would've happened with a baptism or a first communion or whatever. - The reason for having a Jewish male involved in the bris is that it's religiously the father's responsbility to do the circumcision -- the mohel performs it in our modern world at at the father's request -- and there's no religious imperative on a non-Jewish father. - Why should a non-Jewish father fear his son will see circumcision as a sign that the son is Jewish and the father not? Isn't that the case? The father shouldn't fear it if he's not ashamed of it. - Judaism is a religion, not a race. Conversion is acceptance of the religion and religious tradition. Some of this is a bit blunt, eh? I really don't mean to offend anyone. I just think we should all be comfortable with our choices if they were made with good intentions and don't harm others, and I don't believe in letting family push you around. Seth

^ top

---

Re: Circumcision

Author: Rabbi Chaim  Date:   10-04-02 11:04 From a Jewish perspective, any argument against circumcision, excepting any dire medical problems (such as hemophilia), for a Jewish male child born of a Jewish mother is not in the vocabulary, so to speak, of anyone's idea of being a Jew. Circumcision, barring any of the aforementioned medical problems, for a male child born of a non Jewish mother, said child to be considered/raised as a Jew, is also not in the vocabulary, excepting brit ha-dam later in life. A little discomfort now is sure to avoid great pain later.

^ top

---

Re:Circumcisoin

Author: Andrew Reiver  Date:   10-04-02 13:47 I do not understand how a religion that abhors pain inflicted upon animals could allow this to be subjected on a helpless infant. Also, doesn't Judaism forbid marking the body with tattoos and other methods, such as piercing, branding, and scarification? While these may seem repugnant to many of you, they pale in comparison to the forced amputation of healthy erogenous tissue. Andrew Reiver

^ top

---

removal of healthy tissue

Author: Susan  Date:   10-04-02 13:55 Andrew: If the tissue to which you refer is so essential for a normal happy life, then why are we not all born with it?

^ top

---

Re: Susan/Andrew

Author: Mims  Date:   10-04-02 20:43 While I do not agree with Andrew's sentiment (Andrew, I don't really agree with your sentiment), I find Susan's semi-rhetorical question to be a misinterpretation of his argument (Susan, I find your question argument ineffective), in addition to being only partially correct. The female anatomy has a parallel to the male foreskin-it's called the hood of the clitoris, or the glans clitoris. Unless you have undergone ritual female circumcision (which is generally not performed on infants, but on female children, although is not on our radar much these days since supposedly it was outlawed in the few countries that practiced it), you do have the equivalent of the male foreskin. M.

^ top

---

Re: Andrew/Mims

Author: Susan  Date:   10-06-02 18:16 All right, so that was kind of a flippant answer. Sorry if it wasn't the most effective argument. To be more serious, I never heard my husband say "This just doesn't feel as good as it would have felt if only I still had my foreskin," and I've never heard of any other Jewish man feeling deprived in that area, either. Maybe "I just don't enjoy sex very much; I want my son to enjoy it more" is a theme men repeat in their locker rooms, but somehow it seems hard for me to believe. Judaism is a religion which tries to elevate every experience -- waking up, getting dressed, eating, even intimate body functions -- from a level of mere physicality to a level of sanctity. Brit Milah is our way of dedicating a man's sexuality to a sacred purpose and of reminding him that, even in those circumstances when God may be the farthest thing from his mind, he is obligated as a Jew to act in a manner consistent with God's will. I think it's kind of sad that some people would value more acute sexual sensation more than they value sanctity.

^ top

---

Circumcisio Symbolizes...What?

Author: Layla  Date:   10-06-02 21:36 I am in total agreement with Brenda. I would also like to throw out a few points which have not yet been mentioned. One of the things which disturbs me about circumcision is the context surrounding it in the Bible. Most of us think only of the story of Abraham's covenant with G-d, but take a look at the other tales where circumcision plays a role... *When David is wooing Saul's daughter Michal, Saul asks him to secure "the foreskins of a hundred Philistines" as a brideprice. David, ever the over-achiever, brings 200. (Presumably, these men were not separated willingly from their foreskins.) (I Samuel 18:25-27) *When Jacob's daughter Dinah is raped and kidnapped by the men of Shechem, Jacob's sons agree to give her in marriage...but only if the whole tribe is cicrcumcised . However, "on the third day, when they were in pain", Jacob's sons Simeon and Levi treacherously attack and murder the helpless men of Shechem. (Genesis 34: 13-25) *Then there is the bizarre "bridegroom of blood" passage, where Moses is attacked by either G-d or an angel. Although it's not clear what happens next, in most versions Moses' wife Zipporah promptly circumcises her son with a flint kife, strokes Moses legs, (or gentialia) with the bloody foreskin and says, "Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" (Exodus 4:24-26) What I'm getting at is that circumcision clearly signified more than merely a loving covenant to the writers of the Bible. There are hints of human sacrifice, circumcision as torture, humiliation, and a symbol of conquest and subjugation. Given the way humans envisioned G-d then, this makes sense. But I think it's fair to ask: is this how we see G-d now? Is this the image of deity we want to perpetuate for future generations? Yes, we could simply dismiss these ancient associations as meaningless in modern times. But if we feel free to throw away what we find terrifying and disgusting in these old rituals, how can we then appeal to "tradition" and "the sacred rites of our ancestors" to justify continuing them?

^ top

---

Re: Rabbi Kerry Olitsky's article

Author: Rabbi Yeshaia Familant  Date:   10-07-02 12:42 The mistake that Rabbi Olitzky has made in counseling this couple - and perhaps many others as well - is in not distinguishing among the several branches of Judaism with regard to their differing approaches. Were such a distinction made, then the couples that come to him for counsel would learn of choices they had not realized they had, instead of gaining the false impression that either the child is circumcised or he will have no Bar Mitzvah.

^ top

---

Re: circumcision

Author: sue  Date:   10-07-02 15:10 I am Jewish and my husband is not. We have agreed to raise our children Jewish, the first of which should arrive any day now. We opted not to find out the sex of the child until its birth, which has led to a lot of discussion about what our options are around circumcision. Both my husband and I agree that the child, if it's a boy, should be circumcised. My husband would like it done immediately at the hospital, whereas I would rather wait the 8 days and do it the way I was raised, as a ritual covenant on the 8th day (more for my family than myself). After much research on the issue we have come to an agreement. I agreed to allow the child to be circumcised in the hospital prior to release and our Rabbi has agreed to have a service, like a baby-naming, some months after the birth. Discussing this with our Rabbi was not as uncomfortable as I thought it would be. I think that after talking with my mother and father, who are opposed to our ideas, I was certain that the Rabbi too, would not support our decision. I was wrong, and relieved at that.

^ top

---

Re: McManis article

Author: Mark Reiss  Date:   10-07-02 19:30 Here is a copy of a letter to the editor that I wrote to the SF Chronicle in response to the McManis article which is published in your Oct 4 issue. SF Chronicle, Sunday, January 6, 2002, Living Section Editor- Sam McManis' "Jewish bris ceremony shows you're never too young for tradition" (Dec 30) implies that all Jews practice circumcision. On the contrary. There is a growing minority of Jews throughout the Reform, Conservative and Renewal traditions of Judaism in the United States and in many other countries, including Israel, that reject this practice and we have replaced it with a non-cutting naming ceremony similar to that done with newgorn girls. This form of bris (or brit) is called "bris shalom" or "bris b'li (without) mila" in contrast with "bris mila." There are a number of rabbis and other lay leaders throughtout the country, incluing the Bay Area, who will officiate at such ceremonies or will aid young couples in creating their own ceremonies. Dr. Mark David Reiss San Francisco

^ top

---

Re: circumcision

Author: Ilana  Date:   10-08-02 17:10 The medical community has not yet decided whether circumcision helps prevent cervical cancer or not.

^ top

---

Re: Circumcision Debate

Author: BobP  Date:   10-09-02 01:34 A timely topic. My cousin (Jewish male) and his (Japanese non-Jewish) wife just had a baby boy yesterday. When I spoke with him a few months ago, he indicated that there would be no bris because no mohel would do this since the mother is not Jewish. I was fairly certain there were mohel's in our area who would perform the circumsion, but I figured it was not my place to talk about this. Anyway, I just spoke to the proud grandmom, and the baby will have his bris (and conversion since mom isn't Jewish) next week. As to the medical debate, I don't see the point there. This is a religious issue, and like keeping kosher (I don't), medical benefits, if any, are irrelevant. I am sure at this time, while most Jewish males may not keep kosher, most are circumcised. I would be surprised if more than a small minority of Jews elect to not have their sons circumcised in the future.

^ top

---

Re:Susan

Author: Andrew  Date:   10-10-02 19:16 How depriving someone of a body part could be seen as elevating is a mystery to me. All the talk about "sanctity and meaningful ritual" is tempered by the fact that the one being operated upon is not there voluntarily. I’m glad your husband is happy but there are concepts that you might have overlooked. One being maybe he doesn't know what he is missing the other denial. A fairer way to assess the procedure would be to speak to men circumcised as adults. Theoretically this should be slanted towards circumcision since those men were probably not satisfied in their own minds before the procedure, however many men who were circumcised as adults are the strongest opponents of circumcision. They know the difference. You could ask the men who have undergone either surgical, or non-surgical methods of foreskin restoration but I guess we know how that would come out. I think that it is silly that a religion would try to govern a persons natural sexuality, and sad that it would stoop to such a painful procedure on one so young and helpless to accomplish it. Andrew

^ top

---

Re: Andrew

Author: Susan  Date:   10-11-02 12:02 Andrew: You write "I think that it is silly that a religion would try to govern a person's natural sexuality." Do you have a problem with religion trying to govern a person's natural selfishness or his natural greed or his natural envy or his natural anger or his natural gluttony or his natural sloth? What do you see as the appropriate function of religion? As for what my husband was willing to let our son miss, he thought losing a little flap of skin was hardly significant when compared to losing the opportunity to live a fully Jewish life. I realize that this might not make any sense to you, but to a religious Jew, it does. If you don’t understand all the commandments of the Jewish religion, is that really the fault of the Jewish religion? You can learn more about this critical commandment, if you wish, by visiting these sites: http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm http://www.aish.com/literacy/lifecycle/bris_milah_beautiful_or_barbaric$.asp

^ top

---

Re: Susan

Author: Andrew  Date:   10-12-02 07:26 Susan The function of religion should be to gently guide us through our spiritual needs and provide a moral compass. Religion should help us direct our joy and comfort us in times of grief. I understand the call to violence that some people find in religion, I personally reject those aspects. Andrew

^ top

---

Re: please answer my question

Author: Susan  Date:   10-13-02 08:51 Andrew: You wrote something the other day about circumcision being an unpleasant experience for grown men. Unless one is required by one's religion or extraordinary medical necessity to undergo circumcision, I don't see the benefit of it either, and I certainly would not trust an obstetrician to circumcize my son. I agree that expecting a seventh grade boy to undergo it really would be cruel. That is, of course, the beauty of the commandment to do brit milah on Jewish boys at a week's age. Not only is there new medical evidence that it's safer at eight days than at one or two, but the baby is too young to know what's happening or experience any lasting emotional trauma. He doesn't even realize yet that his own hands are attached to him, so he certainly won't be aware of what's under his diaper. If he feels any pain, it will be no worse than his PKU test or his DPT shots, and all he'll remember of it will be the wine and milk and comfort that follow. I asked you, essentially, if you think it's all right for religions to try getting those "Seven Deadly Sins" under control. Aside from comfort in times of sorrow, I don't think you've provided a response. What do you mean by "gently guide" and "moral compass"? In what direction should we "direct our joy"? What, specifically, are our "spiritual needs"? You see, to my thinking, brit milah serves all of those functions, especially in providing a moral compass to help Jews direct their joy.

^ top

---

Re: Susan

Author: Andrew  Date:   10-13-02 23:12 Susan, Not everyone's spiritual needs are the same. Some people need instructions on how to live every single aspect of their lives, some just need advice or a sounding board for issues of faith, and others need less. A moral compass would also differ according to the individual. The fundamentalist Moslem has a complete blueprint on how to eat, sleep, dress, think, etc. A Buddhist is instructed on how to look into himself for many answers. Now if one is going to adhere to every single commandment then there is no choice regarding circumcision and I understand this [I have ultra-orthodox relatives]. However when so many Jews are customizing the religion to make their lives more convenient, I think it is hypocritical for someone to subject an infant to an unnecessary painful procedure when they can't be bothered to keep the Sabbath or follow dietary laws. As far as circumcision being no worse then shots, I think you are very far off. Circumcision is as painful as it looks and sounds. From the start when the skin is torn from the glands by ripping the adhesions, similar to the ones holding the finger nail to the quick, til the end when the skin is cut after being crushed to form a new seal. Circumcision hurts and the baby lets you know it. Modern scientific studies state that an infant feels pain to an equal or greater extent then adults. An adult is given anesthesia for the operation and proper pain control after the surgery. A baby is given half a teaspoon of wine and bubkis. Would you consent to surgery on your genitals without anesthesia? The baby is also a not willing participant. Why would you think that there is no trace of trauma from an experience like that? Studies in Canada have shown circumcised boys react more adversely to routine childhood inoculations and minor injuries then girls and intact boys. Your earlier assessment of the procedure as the removal of a tiny flap of skin displays a lack of understanding of the subject. The foreskin is much more then that. I would suggest either of Ronald Goldman's books "Circumcision the Hidden Trauma" or "Questioning Circumcision A Jewish Perspective" or Kristen and Jeffrey O'Hara’s "Sex As Nature Intended It". The latter is interesting because it is the first to address the issue of male circumcision form a woman’s perspective. Andrew

^ top

---

Re: Rabbi Familant's article

Author: Michael Keith  Date:   10-15-02 18:44 I wanted to comment on the column written about circumcision by Rabbi Familant. I would like to say that I was pleased by the content of the column, but I disagree with Rabbi Familant's comments that one can never know if a natural penis is more sensitive than a circumcised penis because one is either intact or circumcised and can only speak from personal experience. There are many men in the United States who, for one reason or another, are choosing to undergo non-surgical skin-stretching foreskin restoration and who can testify that a penis which is protected by a foreskin has greatly enhanced sensitivity over a circumcised penis. I have learned recently that studies on foreskin composition were done in 1996 which determined that the foreskin is actually the most sensitive part of the penis. The parts of the penis that are left exposed after circumcision, were never meant to endure direct contact with clothing, skin etc. Over time this unnaturally exposed skin reacts by developing thicker skin. Naturally, loss of sensitivity results from the necessary development of protective skin. It is my opinion that male circumcision is no better than female circumcision; a form of genital mutilation which damages the natural functioning of genitalia. I do believe that every child has the right to enjoy the promise of his or her own natural state. Like many men and some women, I wish that the natural development of my genitalia in childhood had not been interrupted and damaged by circumcision. Michael Keith Contact me at: michaelkeith@prodigy.net for more information about this self-help procedure.

^ top

---

A Missed Opportunity?

Author: Benjamin  Date:   10-16-02 13:09 While I think it is important to have a reasoned discussion about this issue since it is so integral to Judaism and so many misconceptions abound on both sides, and I applaud the editors for creating a forum for such discussion, I think an important opportunity may have been missed. Virtually all of the articles are by Rabbis. The single article by a medical authority is clearly and very strongly on one side of the issue (i.e. against). This could lead someone who has not explored the issue at length (which I assume is many of us) to conclude that while theologians may disagree about circumcision, doctors speak out with one voice against it. Since there were articles on both sides from Rabbis, I wish that a counter-article could have been included from a medical authority. In fact, while there certainly is a body of medical literature that argues against circumcision, the whole of the literature is quite mixed and inconclusive. The reality is that there are many well-regarded, conscientious and highly ethical doctors who believe it is appropriate to perform circumcision. There are even many doctors who are certified as mohels and will perform a bris. It would have added so much to have an article from one of these doctors. A number of the postings above expressing disapproval of circumcision either talk about what some believe are the negative consequences later in life or the apparently greatly reduced sexual sensitivity that results. As to the purported negative consequences to one's psyche, the fact remains that Jews have somehow managed to live good lives, create families, nurture their children, and make major contributions to society throughout history far out of proportion to their numbers. So one wonders just how far-reaching these negative consequences are. As to reduced sexual sensitivity, I cannot speak to this issue from personal experience as I do not know how it feels not to be circumcised. However, given the large amount of abuse of women that is generated by the male sexual drive, one could make a pretty strong case from a feminist perspective that reducing the male sexual drive somewhat may not be a bad thing for society. Nevertheless, there must still be quite significant and sufficient sexual drive left following circumcision, as the example of some Orthodox (and other) families with five, six or more children will attest. But ultimately, the circumcision decision is not a strictly logical, rational one (no religious act ultimately is), but is part of a way of life that one feels in one's bones, even if one does not practice that way of life in its entirety. There is a wonderful book, "Lovesong", by Julius Lester, Professor of African-American Studies at University of Massachsetts, son of a Methodist Minister, and a convert to Judaism as an adult. Lester became circumcised as an adult (which by any measure, was a LOT more painful than if it had been done at 8 days of age). Lester said the following of his decision: "No rational thought process led to the decision to be circumcised. More and more I felt incomplete as a Jew. . . . . Now I am whole . . . . Only a small bit of skin was removed but it is as if something within me has been set free."

^ top

---

Re: Circumcision

Author: JP  Date:   10-16-02 14:56 I am compelled to point out the extreme gender bias of the following comment, which was posted earlier: "Not all men wash themselves carefully. For many men it's a hassle just to get them to wash their hands when they go to the bathroom. And that's for all men. Sorry fellas." Sexist stereotypes of men and their ability to maintain basic hygiene does not explain or justify circumcising males any more than the reverse discrimination (against women) would explain or justify FGM. Such comments are truly thoughtless and do not advance the understanding of this complex issue. Thanks for hearing me out.

---

< Previous

Next >