There is an article in today’s New York Times surrounding the controversial Orthodox Jewish practice referred to as “metzitzah b’peh”. I tried to link to the article however it’s a “Time’s Select” option and therefore one must subscribe to the paper in order to read it. That said, I’ll try and give everyone and idea of its point.
The article in today’s paper surrounds the ancient practice in which a mohel, or a Jewish ritual circumciser, sucks blood from the freshly circumcised penis in order to clean it. Recently, there have been several babies who have received herpes from the mohel. One of then suffered brain damage.
The health commissioner issued an “open letter to the Jewish community” detailing the dangers of the procedure. And a fact sheet is being distributed to the parents of newborns all over the city.
Some believe the practice should be outlawed entirely.
Dr. Jonathan M. Zenilman says:
“This is a health issue, not a religions issue. There is no reason why this practice should be allowed.”
When confronted by the religious explanation, Koch had a retort.
“If a group said female genitalia cutting was part of its religions, would the city allow its practice? ‘We would not,” said former Mayer Edward I. Koch, who called metzitzah b’peh ‘an abuse’ and said, ‘It should be stopped.’”
Even some Orthodox question the procedure. But they say that it’s up to the religious community and not up to the government.
I wrote about something similar before. If people are so concerned about the welfare of an unborn child, why not worry about those who are already alive? If the government wants to step in and protect the unborn fetus (a lot the time this desire is related to ones religious beliefs) then why is it such a bad thing to step in and stop this ancient practice to protect our innocent as well? Lastly, if you were to remove the religious aspect from the practice, how do you feel about it then?
Mihow 
Leave a reply to sian Cancel reply