Hmmm...  it says they did this under "Jewish law". 
Haven't there been some other topics on these forums where people kept wanting to condemn people because of ancient Jewish laws?  I seem to recall a few.  Some people quoting Leviticus and such?

I wonder if those same people will defend this Jewish law as well.  Or, is this an antiquated system that has been outdated?

Rabbi probed for circumcised infants' herpes
Baby died from disease after undergoing procedure

msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 10:50 a.m. CT, Wed., Feb. 2, 2005

City health officials are investigating the death of a baby boy who was one of three infants to contract herpes after a rabbi circumcised them.

Ten days after Rabbi Yitzhok Fischer performed religious circumcisions on twins last October, one died of herpes and the other tested positive for the virus, according to a complaint filed by the health department in Manhattan Supreme Court.

The complaint, reported in Wednesday’s edition of the New York Daily News, also said health officials later found a third baby who had contracted herpes after being circumcised by Fischer in late 2003.

Under Jewish law, a mohel — someone who performs circumcisions — draws blood from the circumcision wound. Most mohels do it by hand with a suction device, but Fischer uses a practice rare outside strict Orthodox groups where he uses his mouth to draw blood after cutting the foreskin.

Herpes can cause potentially severe complications for infants because of their undeveloped immune systems. A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics found that the rare ritual puts newborns at serious risk of contracting herpes simplex virus and shouldn't be performed as part of the circumcision procedure.

Fischer’s lawyer, Mark Kurzmann, told the Daily News that Fischer was cooperating with the investigation, although it’s unclear whether Fischer submitted to the city’s request for a blood test.

“My client is known internationally as a caring, skilled, and conscientious mohel,” Kurzmann said.

under "rabi law" one can NOT rape little girls ('hymen grows back') nor boys ('under age 9 they are not men and therefore not able to be "raped"')!

Also, under noahide laws (more rabi junk) any "christain" that proclaims Christ as G, is subject to execution by decapitation!

Of course if these babies were forced into catholic baptism, "their souls" would be "saved"!

Originally posted by billie

under "rabi law" one can NOT rape little girls ('hymen grows back') nor boys ('under age 9 they are not men and therefore not able to be "raped"')!

Also, under noahide laws (more rabi junk) any "christain" that proclaims Christ as G, is subject to execution by decapitation!

Of course if these babies were forced into catholic baptism, "their souls" would be "saved"!

Careful, there are some members here who think we should still be following those old Jewish laws.

You don't want to put more ideas into their heads.   They love reading those ancient books so that they can find places where they think it condemns people. 

The jews are above all didn't you know. Nobody is allowed to criticize them because of what happend 60 years ago.

Any religion that advocates a grown man to place his lips on the penis of a small boy is absolutely disgusting. Nambla will all be switching religion soon.

Originally posted by Sithos

Any religion that advocates a grown man to place his lips on the penis of a small boy is absolutely disgusting. Nambla will all be switching religion soon.

Yeah, those ancient rules have gotten a little dusty with today's societal changes.  It's a pity that some people still want to bring some of the outdated ones into this era anyway.

I wonder if these kids parents knew what he was doing?  Were they there during the procedure?  Kind of strange. 

But then again I've seen some people do some really strange things by today's standards in the name of religion.

 

Exorcism


Witch Trials

Attempts at Political Takeovers



 

Did you even bother looking at the date of the article before posting it, it's 4 years old..?!

 Obvious troll is obvious

Originally posted by Enigma

 

Originally posted by mlauzon

Did you even bother looking at the date of the article before posting it, it's 4 years old..?!

No, I didn't pay attention to the date.  I just clicked on the article link from Reddit.com.

I'm not sure why the date matters too much though really.  Not much has changed I'm sure you'll agree.

We've still got a group of people who want to spout ancient laws to condemn others but act like ones like this are bad.  My point was to show that ancient laws are just what they're labeled.  Ancient laws.  We've changed a WHOLE bunch since then.  And learned a lot of new things too.

---

Originally posted by gnomexxx

---

Originally posted by mlauzon

Did you even bother looking at the date of the article before posting it, it's 4 years old..?!

---

No, I didn't pay attention to the date.  I just clicked on the article link from Reddit.com.
I'm not sure why the date matters too much though really.  Not much has changed I'm sure you'll agree.
We've still got a group of people who want to spout ancient laws to condemn others but act like ones like this are bad.  My point was to show that ancient laws are just what they're labeled.  Ancient laws.  We've changed a WHOLE bunch since then.  And learned a lot of new things too.

---

But, who are you to say what a culture does?

Originally posted by mlauzon

 

---

Originally posted by gnomexxx

---

Originally posted by mlauzon

 

Did you even bother looking at the date of the article before posting it, it's 4 years old..?!

---

No, I didn't pay attention to the date.  I just clicked on the article link from Reddit.com.
I'm not sure why the date matters too much though really.  Not much has changed I'm sure you'll agree.
We've still got a group of people who want to spout ancient laws to condemn others but act like ones like this are bad.  My point was to show that ancient laws are just what they're labeled.  Ancient laws.  We've changed a WHOLE bunch since then.  And learned a lot of new things too.

---

 

But, who are you to say what a culture does?

Whaaaat?  Your question confuses me.

Can you ask it a different way please?  I'm not sure I see where I said or implied I wanted to tell a culture what to do.

I dont seem to recall sucking blood from a newborn baby penis in the old testament.

But that is what you're saying...right gnomexx?

The "morality" of many things is largely subjective.  If you take any human sexuality class, you will learn of cultures whose sexual rites of passage would be outright criminal here.  Likewise, many of the things which are "normal" in America would cause somebody to be ostracized in certain other cultures.  The reality is that some things work for some cultures and don't work for others.  Where is the line, though?

I think one has to take a stand when a culture's views impose a clear and quantifiable physical health risk to those who cannot give informed consent regarding the decisions they make: children.  The law reflects this.

For instance, somebody may for religious reasons refuse a blood transfusion (members of the Jehovah's Witnesses), even if it results in their death.  However, in some states, no parent can refuse life-saving treatment to their child since the child is deemed unable to give proper consent.  In these states, medical practitioners will give a blood transfusion to the child even if the parents and child object.  This particular issue has actually has caused significant ethical debate within the medical community.  If you're wondering, yes: there have been documented cases of parents refusing blood transfusions for their children, having been advised that they would die as a result, and the children subsequently dying.

You might say that this rabbi's actions represent a fluke: somebody with herpes performing this rite.  However, the fact is that a huge chunk of the American population is infected with some form of the herpes virus.  Estimates are up to 20%, and most don't even realize it.  "Cold sores?"  That's very often herpes simplex.

Drawing blood from an infant's wound using your mouth is grossly negligent.  To start with, human saliva does have remarkable antimicrobial properties, but there are numerous viral agents which have evolved to resist this.  Such agents can be transmitted through salivary contact.  Most of these ailments are not life-threatening or even medically significant to adults or sufficiently-developed small children.  However, to a newborn, many of these conditions are potentially lethal.

I hope the parents were simply ignorant of this risk, but it's possibly they weren't.  There are people in America who will, while fully aware of what they're doing, sacrifice the lives of their children for the sake of their religious beliefs or their misguided scientific views.  For specific examples, see the blood transfusion issue or the outbreaks of lethal childhood diseases (and numerous fatalities in these outbreaks) due to parents refusing to immunize their children for non-religious reasons.  In the latter case, many of these diseases were previously essentially wiped out in the United States.

The Rabbi was probably complying to oral law, or the Talmud (or the Jew's other laws besides what we find in the Torah). I did a quick study on circumcision and there is nothing about using your mouth/etc etc in order to fulfill this Jewish privilage.

Oh, looks like I will get beheaded by a zealot Jew when they find out I'm a Christian! Muahah!

Originally posted by Finwe

I dont seem to recall sucking blood from a newborn baby penis in the old testament.

But that is what you're saying...right gnomexx?

There is more to Jewish Law than the Old Testament.  Trust me, I'm a jew. 

You're more than welcome to come learn about it with me at our next meeting.  Just a word of caution though.  We are mostly reform Jews in my synagogue.  I have a feeling (after reading some of your other posts) that you might find us a bit away from your evangelical views of the Old Testament.  My rabbi speaks of a lot of those as ancient and damn well best that way.  And we don't exactly look into that King James thing too much.  You guys still using that?

Originally posted by MarleVVLL

The Rabbi was probably complying to oral law, or the Talmud (or the Jew's other laws besides what we find in the Torah). I did a quick study on circumcision and there is nothing about using your mouth/etc etc in order to fulfill this Jewish privilage.

Oh, looks like I will get beheaded by a zealot Jew when they find out I'm a Christian! Muahah!

Nyah, like the article said, those are orthodox practices and beliefs.  Those are really foreign to most jews.  Especially reform jews.

Is not orthodox one who complies with all the rules and regulations of both Torah and Talumd?