Reply to Mohel for Non-Jewish Circumcision?

Forum Index » Expectant and Postpartum Moms

Reply to "Mohel for Non-Jewish Circumcision? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Quick question - how much did it cost (for those using only the medical aspect, we are not Jewish), and did insurance cover it?  TIA.[/quote]

It was $500, and our insurance did not cover the rabbi, but would have covered it if we had used an in-network doctor who was also a mohel.  We actually found a great mohel + MD who was approved by our insurance and who would come to our house, but we were so thrilled with the rabbi's care, we decided it was worthwhile.  My MIL was so impressed by what she saw, she actually paid him herself as her gift to her new grandson.

By the way, I respect Catholics who choose not to circumcise because of the Church's emphasis on the sanctity of the body.  That is one of the reasons why fertility must not be artificially destroyed--that counts as self-mutilation, of course, to destroy or hinder healthy body parts.  Also why we should not get drunk, take harmful drugs, or have self-destructive habits.  But we chose circumcision for our sons based on our experiences with urologists and other specialists, as [b]something that offers health benefits[/b]; and it does not destroy the penis to circumcise it.

Also, on a lighter note, God defined His chosen people by circumcision (before the Incarnation), and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was circumcised Himself, so I don't think He has too much of an issue with it.[/quote]

So, it's okay to mutilate as long as it offers [i]potential[/i] "health benefits".   I think that many of us have been absolutely brainwashed by a generation of doctors who equate the foreskin to a dirty flap of festering skin.  Fortunately we now have access to a vast amount of information online, and can really discover what exactly the research shows, as well as gain insight into the political and financial aspects of those who continue to support RIC.  Also, we have the ability to discover what exactly IS mutilated and lost by circumcision.  I always wonder if those who justify their decision to circumcise really delved into any of this research, or if they really just were influenced by a doctor in the family and by the circumcised dad.  Anyway, yes, in some cases it DOES destroy the penis, as little boys have completely lost or permanently maimed their penis as a result of their unnecessary routine infant circumcision.  My husband, in fact, is one of these who has lasting, disfiguring and sometimes painful problems as a result of this "beneficial" surgery.

As to Jesus, he was Jewish, so it is right that he was circumcised.  However, we were subsequently relieved of that duty.  Also, it is thought that the type of circumcision performed at that time was quite different (less invasive) than what we routinely do today. [/quote]

My sister in Christ, I completely respect your position.  I am a homebirthing, homeschooling, midwife-loving, chiropractor-believing medical skeptic.  I was completely open-minded about circumcision, and did not make the decision lightly.  Rabbi Malka uses the "traditional" technique, and my boys did not cry, and were held in their father's arms.  They nursed immediately afterwards, and healed completely and quickly.  I do recommend to mothers who circumcise to use a trained and experienced mohel, even if they need to sacrifice financially.  It is worth it.

This is one of those decisions conscientious, informed, and educated parents get to make, and [b]there are benefits and drawbacks each way,[/b] as there are for many things in life.  I am at peace with our decision, and I can see that you are with yours.  That's wonderful![/quote]

Well, no, there aren't "drawbacks" to having a foreskin - I would love to hear what you believe they are.  An intact penis is normal and healthy.  Would you say there are "drawbacks" to allowing a person to keep their ears?  Their little toes?  It is immoral (from a Catholic perspective, as well as a basic human rights perspective) to have normal, healthy, functioning body parts cut from our babies because we are afraid that one day they might acquire an infection.  Many body parts eventually become infected, yet we would never remove them at birth to save this from happening.  What has caused you to believe that the foreskin is likely to have more problems than any other body part?  This is the lie -- you have given in to our cultural lies that this is a superfluous or infection-prone body part (hint - it is not).  My guess is that you do not understand the purpose and function of the foreskin, nor do you understand that it is no more likely to become infected than, say, a vulva (actually, it is LESS likely to become infected than a baby girl's genitals, but that is another conversation).

Also, whether or not the procedure makes a baby cry is completely irrelevant.  Babies cry from all sorts of things; we can't always change our care for our babies based on whether it makes them cry or not.  The issue is the sanctity of their bodies; we do not have the right to remove a healthy, functioning, normal part of their genitals.  If you are somehow able to justify this bizarre practice in your mind, [i]you have not done your research.[/i]  It truly is that simple.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics