“ Typical liberal democratic state. Don't all of you see that the entire Democratic party is NUTS!!! ”

“ Typical liberal democratic state. Don't all of you see that the entire Democratic party is NUTS!!! ”

“ Typical liberal democratic state. Don't all of you see that the entire Democratic party is NUTS!!! ”

“ HAHAHA! This is a bill put up by a SINGLE constituent, not the Democratic party or any Democratic politician. If you would actually read the article before commenting, you might realize that the only 2 people who are "nuts" are the guy who proposed it.... and you for writing that comment. LOL ”

“ This will never pass. However, I will say that I must respect this legislator for respecting the rights of his constituents to put proposals before the legislature even when it may appear on the surface that he is endorsing something he is not. It shows he respects the will of the people... even if this bill is a joke that will never see the light of day. ”

“ Are the Jews and Moslems going to go out of state to give birth?? Then circumcise then children out of state according to their religious law?? What is going on ??????? ”

“ i beleive that this bill is unconstitutional and even if it would pass in MA it'll be overturned by the US Supreme court ”

“ So it looks like this bill is geared against Jews, since Muslim do circumcision at the age of 13 and can express consent, but since Jews perform it on the 8th day, new born can not express consent ”

“ nothing to respect here; he has no choice. i would respect him, had he resigned rather than presenting this morons bs ”

“ Another nail in the coffin for American Jewery. ”

“ So, tell me why you feel it is your right to amputate a healthy part of someone's body? ”

“ So, tell me why you feel it is your right to amputate a healthy part of someone's body? ”

“ That is also prohibited under the law. Please see and read the entire bill, before commenting, as the article (as written) casts me in as an anti-Semite, and I am NOT!

The bill does not seek to prohibit religious circumcision. Adult males may still choose circumcision for themselves if they believe their God demands it. This bill focuses is on minors, where civil law must take precedent over religious texts. It codifies that the human rights of every individual exist first, and no amount of parental preference can supersede that in the pursuit of subjective, unprovable spiritual or cultural benefits. Unless we're opening the law books to strike any law that violates a religious dictate governing what one person may do to another, there is nothing objectionable on this front. Are we opening the law books in this manner for a purge of religiously objectionable civil laws?

Read the ENTIRE bill before commenting please!
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st01/st01777.htm ”

“ HAHAHA! This is a bill put up by a SINGLE constituent, not the Democratic party or any Democratic politician. If you would actually read the article before commenting, you might realize that the only 2 people who are "nuts" are the guy who proposed it.... and you for writing that comment. LOL ”

“ Look around a little at the no-circ sites and figure it out. They nearly always quote noted leftists like Dr. Spock. The Dems don't support no-circ as a plank in their platform because it's too wacky even for them, but you can't deny that a bunch of leftists (who all support abortion on demand, by the way) are leading the no-circ movement. ”

“ It will never happen, they just wanna scare us jews from doing mitzvot. ”

“ So it looks like this bill is geared against Jews, since Muslim do circumcision at the age of 13 and can express consent, but since Jews perform it on the 8th day, new born can not express consent ”

“ "The bill does not seek to prohibit religious circumcision. Adult males may still choose circumcision for themselves... There is nothing objectionable on this
front..." Sir, your statement is apparently disingenuous. The bill as you yourself
have stated does not seek to prohibit religious circumcision but at the same time
targets the circumcision of minors. For your edification, a religious circumcision
by definition must be performed on an eight-day old infant according to the Torah.
This mandate has been scrupulously and enthusiastically observed by the Jewish
People from time immemorial. It is universally observed by all religious American
Jews; in fact, the circumcision of eight-day old infants is proudly and
traditionally observed even by reform and liberal Jews in this country. Therefore,
the purport of this outrageous proposal can easily meet the criterion of
anti-Semitism; it would certainly constitute an anti-Jewish measure which
would significantly impede the religious freedom of Jews. Such anti-Jewish
initiatives have been attempted by anti-Semites in the past. Therefore, I urge
you to reject this repressive bill which violates the First Amendment of
religious freedom. ”

“ So it looks like this bill is geared against Jews, since Muslim do circumcision at the age of 13 and can express consent, but since Jews perform it on the 8th day, new born can not express consent ”

“ And just yesterday the press was reporting that circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS transmission by 60%. He should pass a bill making it required! ”

“ This will never pass. However, I will say that I must respect this legislator for respecting the rights of his constituents to put proposals before the legislature even when it may appear on the surface that he is endorsing something he is not. It shows he respects the will of the people... even if this bill is a joke that will never see the light of day. ”

“ Uh, Dr. Spock died in 1998; I don't think he is putting anything on the internet today. ”

“ For a non-believer this is not such an outrage, and definitely very sound arguments. It’s a concern for us, but I can still respect where he is coming from.
The medical necessity of “bris” is not a strong argument (as is the case whenever you try to “explain” a mitzvah). That being said, we (as a whole) have to extinguish all momentum of any type of ban against our mitzvoth. If we don’t make a mockery of the case and send him to mars they will be popping up all over until one catches. ”

“ Are the Jews and Moslems going to go out of state to give birth?? Then circumcise then children out of state according to their religious law?? What is going on ??????? ”

“ So, tell me why you feel it is your right to amputate a healthy part of someone's body? ”

“ If this Bill Passes, the "bostoner" rebbe will become the "Portlander" rebbe; it would not be good policy for the state to pass this bill since many jews would be inconvenienced by having to take their newborns to Connecicut or New Hampshire for millah. In the winter, it would be a real burden. ”

“ so in other words, you think a conservative would suggest a bill like this? never!! ”

“ That is also prohibited under the law. Please see and read the entire bill, before commenting, as the article (as written) casts me in as an anti-Semite, and I am NOT!

The bill does not seek to prohibit religious circumcision. Adult males may still choose circumcision for themselves if they believe their God demands it. This bill focuses is on minors, where civil law must take precedent over religious texts. It codifies that the human rights of every individual exist first, and no amount of parental preference can supersede that in the pursuit of subjective, unprovable spiritual or cultural benefits. Unless we're opening the law books to strike any law that violates a religious dictate governing what one person may do to another, there is nothing objectionable on this front. Are we opening the law books in this manner for a purge of religiously objectionable civil laws?

Read the ENTIRE bill before commenting please!
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st01/st01777.htm ”

“ That is also prohibited under the law. Please see and read the entire bill, before commenting, as the article (as written) casts me in as an anti-Semite, and I am NOT!

The bill does not seek to prohibit religious circumcision. Adult males may still choose circumcision for themselves if they believe their God demands it. This bill focuses is on minors, where civil law must take precedent over religious texts. It codifies that the human rights of every individual exist first, and no amount of parental preference can supersede that in the pursuit of subjective, unprovable spiritual or cultural benefits. Unless we're opening the law books to strike any law that violates a religious dictate governing what one person may do to another, there is nothing objectionable on this front. Are we opening the law books in this manner for a purge of religiously objectionable civil laws?

Read the ENTIRE bill before commenting please!
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st01/st01777.htm ”

“ Do you really want to do this here?
1) Ummmm, this is part of a tradition that's THOUSANDS of years old
2) While I'm no expert, I believe that there are many positive health benefits
3) Your use of the term "amputation" is ridiculous, given that the it's a superfluous piece of skin no bigger than a fingernail. Is fingernail clipping now going to be "amputation" as well?
4) Why do you want to impose your will on millions of others? If you don't want to circumcise, then don't. Why are you attempting to tell me what to do with my children?

I could go on and on, but I don't need to. You're sure to lose. Thanks for playing! ”

“ Just to reply to the Constitutionality of the bill: The bill, if it does pass will indeed be Constitutional. Freedom of Religion states that you have the right to practice your religion but up to a point. If your religion required you to do something dangerous such as chopping of a finger of a child or killing a child, the State can make a law forbidding it. ”

“ Typical liberal democratic state. Don't all of you see that the entire Democratic party is NUTS!!! ”

“ 1. An appeal to tradition is weak. Any number of actions have been practiced over the years. Standards evolve. This one needs to evolve.
2. There are potential health benefits. There is a difference between absolute and relative risk. (Voluntary, adult) circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission by 50% or more. But the absolute risk of such transmission is small, particularly in industrialized nations. This amounts to little more than a speculative chase.
3. The foreskin is not superfluous. It has nerve endings. It protects the glans. It is considerably larger than a fingernail. And unlike fingernails, the foreskin will not grow back. Anatomically and ethically, you're wrong.
4. Why do you want to impose your will on your son(s)? The point is that each individual should choose for himself, based on his own preferences and reasons. Telling me that if 'I don't want to circumcise, then don't' is interesting, but I don't want to be circumcised. Yet my parents forced their preference on me. The issue is individual rights since the individual is the basis of all rights in civil society. ”

“ Increased risk of HPV, Cervical Cancer, HIV and Thrush. Religious law aside, circumcision is a public health issue. ”

“ 1. An appeal to tradition is weak. Any number of actions have been practiced over the years. Standards evolve. This one needs to evolve.
2. There are potential health benefits. There is a difference between absolute and relative risk. (Voluntary, adult) circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission by 50% or more. But the absolute risk of such transmission is small, particularly in industrialized nations. This amounts to little more than a speculative chase.
3. The foreskin is not superfluous. It has nerve endings. It protects the glans. It is considerably larger than a fingernail. And unlike fingernails, the foreskin will not grow back. Anatomically and ethically, you're wrong.
4. Why do you want to impose your will on your son(s)? The point is that each individual should choose for himself, based on his own preferences and reasons. Telling me that if 'I don't want to circumcise, then don't' is interesting, but I don't want to be circumcised. Yet my parents forced their preference on me. The issue is individual rights since the individual is the basis of all rights in civil society. ”

“ 1) You're contention lacks merit. Tradition is extremely important, particularly in this area. We Jews risked life and limb to circumcise. We'll continue to do so. This tradition is thousands of years old. The ancient Greeks tried the very same argument and weren't successful. You're going to lose on the merit of tradition alone.
2) I don't want to argue health benefits because there are so many in the medical field who have already demonstrated the benefits of circumcision. The information is already established science.
3) Again, you argue that a tiny shred of skin (ever see a baby's foreskin after circumcision?) is so important. Your argument is simply ridiculous. If it were so important, as you allege, millions of men would be screaming about this. But they don't. It says a lot more about you ;and your fixation rather than the procedure itself.
4) I think we finally hit upon the main issue. And that is that you have issues with your parents. This is far better dealt with in a therapist's office that a court room. As an aside, you don't like what you perceive as having been forced on you, so you want to turn around and force your will on millions. You have issues. ”

“ Your first 3 points have no merit and your points about HIV are not backed up by the medical community.

The fourth is a logical argument, but you make one terrible blunder. You assume that people would WANT what you are offering. The overwhelming majority of Jews would NOT want it. Jews who care about being Jewish would be mortified if their parents did not circumcise them at 8 days. What about those people? Among religious Jews, a child would literally feel abandoned by his parents and his faith if they did not do it. You're argument only assumes the "feelings" of the individual from YOUR side of the argument, which for Jews is a tiny number. However, the overwhelming majority of Jewish boys would be mortified by this. Why do you not consider THEIR "feelings"? Why do you not take into account the sense of shame and religious abandonment they would feel by NOT being circumcised according to the practices of Judaism?

By not taking these things into account, your argument, as logical as it is, does not hold up. You would deny the emotional and spiritual needs of >99% of the Jewish community to spare the feelings of ”

“ No, but thank you for playing. He wants circumcision to be illegal before the age of 18 when a person is legally allowed to decide for themselves. There are some televised interviews that are available online of this guy giving his reasons. I will say, he does not seem angry or insincere in his beliefs. However, I don't know how much evidence I'm going to accept from a man who has tattoos all the way up his neck. You can find the videos on youtube by searching for his name.

CAUTION: The descriptions of the male genitalia are somewhat graphic and are in no way appropriate for children or anyone else who is made uncomfortable by this topic. However, it is discussed in a medical context. ”

“ "I don't know how much evidence I'm going to accept from a man who has tattoos all the way up his neck."
Logic fail: Either he chose to have the tattoos legally put on himself, just as he wants it to remain legal to have yourself circumcised, or it was done to him illegally without his consent - just as he may have been circumcised without his consent. Tattooing without consent and tattooing of minors are already illegal.

"The descriptions of the male genitalia are somewhat graphic and are in no way appropriate for children or anyone else who is made uncomfortable by this topic. " But it's OK to cut children's genitalia? That sure makes them uncomfortable! ”

“ The Bostoner Rebbe Shlita is a mohel. I dont think Portland will be his destination. Maybe Miami or Israel. ”

“ 1. An appeal to tradition is weak. Any number of actions have been practiced over the years. Standards evolve. This one needs to evolve.
2. There are potential health benefits. There is a difference between absolute and relative risk. (Voluntary, adult) circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission by 50% or more. But the absolute risk of such transmission is small, particularly in industrialized nations. This amounts to little more than a speculative chase.
3. The foreskin is not superfluous. It has nerve endings. It protects the glans. It is considerably larger than a fingernail. And unlike fingernails, the foreskin will not grow back. Anatomically and ethically, you're wrong.
4. Why do you want to impose your will on your son(s)? The point is that each individual should choose for himself, based on his own preferences and reasons. Telling me that if 'I don't want to circumcise, then don't' is interesting, but I don't want to be circumcised. Yet my parents forced their preference on me. The issue is individual rights since the individual is the basis of all rights in civil society. ”

“ That is also prohibited under the law. Please see and read the entire bill, before commenting, as the article (as written) casts me in as an anti-Semite, and I am NOT!

The bill does not seek to prohibit religious circumcision. Adult males may still choose circumcision for themselves if they believe their God demands it. This bill focuses is on minors, where civil law must take precedent over religious texts. It codifies that the human rights of every individual exist first, and no amount of parental preference can supersede that in the pursuit of subjective, unprovable spiritual or cultural benefits. Unless we're opening the law books to strike any law that violates a religious dictate governing what one person may do to another, there is nothing objectionable on this front. Are we opening the law books in this manner for a purge of religiously objectionable civil laws?

Read the ENTIRE bill before commenting please!
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st01/st01777.htm ”

“ I was born in USSR, the circumcisions were prohibited there.....they were done secretelly, very rare too. Although my parents decided not to circumcise me at that time, at the age of 13 I asked my parents and performed the Brit-Milah (briss) in Jerusalem. I'm glad I did, and I will circumcise my son even if it means to take it out of state/country etc.

I know this bill will not pass, but still it shows you there are plenty of people now and will be there in the future, ready to take away traditions and twist the religions even further.

Youtube this guys name and a video comes up. Pay attention to the left side of his neck...I bet you there are few swastikas under that buttoned up shirt and a tattoo sticking out of it. ”

“ I'm not sure why people think this is a vioation of religious freedom. It protects the religious freedom of the individual to choose whether or not he wants to cut off part of his own sexual organ to show his commitment to the religion he is free to choose. It PROTECTS religious freedom! ”