NationStates Jolt Archive

I see.


Is there anyone Jewish here? I have a question reguarding the Jewish ceremony (sorry if wrong word) of circumcision. Is it true that the man performing the circumcision sucks the blood from the child's penis? What reasons, if it is true, are given for this being considered humane?

I more or less begged my parents for braces.

I was sick of being called a rabbit.
I hated them at the time, but I will not say they were not worth it. Everything is awkward when your that young anyways.

Because the argument began to sidetrack into wether or not circumcision increases or decreases a male's sexual ability. I argued that no, it doesn't and that females have just as much of a role in sex as males do. Hardly seems off topic to me.
Ok.... so we're basically in agreement... one can be a good lover whether or not one is cut... and we've been arguing for no reason...

Ok.... so we're basically in agreement... one can be a good lover whether or not one is cut... and we've been arguing for no reason...

No, the argument lead to a conclusion and an agreement. Hardly seems like it was for no reason.

My original point was very simple and yet you seem to have conveniently ignored it. I simply asked for justifications as to why parents should be allowed to perform genital mutilations upon their own children. If you want to join the debate why not start there? Lateral reasoning and erm, circumlocution, unfortunately illustrate that you are the one who is 'incapable' of debate - not me.


I know you're all flustered and embarrased about being called up for being a tell-tale (is that a more acceptable word for you?), but please try to read through your posts before you submit them in future.

No you did not simply ask for justifications--which was my point, you should take your own advice about reading.

You placed limitation on what a given acceptable response would be, therefore you did not actually ask anyone for anything--the catergories you said were unacceptable are the basically the motivation for everything a human does besides instinct, which would fall under medical reasons as instinct can only be proven through science.
Religion
Culture
Tradition
Medical
Were all unacceptable to you, what other motivation for something is there?
You wait for a few pages to go by and then hope to bury the fact you just posted a thread full of bait.

I have no arguement with the suppostion of not cutting on an infants penis, my problem is with people like you who pretend to be presenting an intelligent discussion under a cheap immitation of logical and philosphical thought.

So you have yet again made another post with childish bait and avoided addressing my points--now go back as you are so quick to suggest and rerad the post and try to piece together whatever impossibly absurd bit of answer you can. By the way, any thing you base your opinion on is fine by me, I dont need limit the field of an opponent. Not you anyway.

if there is no compelling reason to have it done, then it is wrong to take the risk no matter how minor.

But your comment was that the risk of staph infection was a reason - I believe children can get an ifiection gettng a booster shot, or as I said earlier, getting ears pierced...should we place our children in a bubble unitl they are 18 so they "make descisions" for themselves? Perhaps as parents we can blame ad agencies for creating this cirumsision "epidemic" in the States - where all parents must be cavepeople for their non-enlightened lives - Did anyone find out what the stats are in Belize - I'm thinking of escaping there so my children can avoid international ridicule from the brilliant Aussies/Euros/Asians

Well no kidding, but show me where in that link it says that all the conditions I mentioned before are the result of negligence. That was my point, don't know how you missed it.
I didn't say that the conditions were the result of negligence, I said that the conditions you talked about were negligible, you made them appear as though they're a common occurance among uncut men. Furthermore, the american association of pediatricians (or whatever) link stated that men who are cut can get penis cancer too.

http://www.cirp.org/news/irishexaminer08-21-03b/
If we start driving this under ground what happened here WILL be repeated.

It is possible to argue that an action is wrong and no motivation can make it right.

It should be banned, yes.

Is it true, that circumcision is pretty common in the US? I'm not sure where I heard that, but I was quite surpised.
Before a few years ago, I didn't even know some people weren't circumcised. I look down and don't feel mutilated. Also, I am happy that my parents had it done(even if I had to be drunk). I don't even remember it happening. I wouldn't even know if I hadn't been told about it. I don't have to clean as much in the shower. There is proof that men have 60% less(I think) risk of getting HIV if circumcised. All male babies should be circumcised.

As for females, I don't have sufficient information to have an opinion.

I didn't say that the conditions were the result of negligence, I said that the conditions you talked about were negligible, you made them appear as though they're a common occurance among uncut men. Furthermore, the american association of pediatricians (or whatever) link stated that men who are cut can get penis cancer too.

Granted not every guy gets the afformentioned conditions, but they do exist and are a cause for concern. Which takes me back to probably my first post in this thread, stating why I had no idea why guys would want to have those risks in their life. I personally would rather not have to worry about getting an infection from being in the woods for a few days and unable to shower. See my point? Anything can happen at any time to anyone, and I personally would not want want to have those risks in my life.

And yes, cut makes can get penis cancer too. But circumcision reduces the risk 3 to 8 fold.

No, the argument lead to a conclusion and an agreement. Hardly seems like it was for no reason.
But we agreed before we started and had already reached the same conclusion before the discussion.

It is possible to argue that an action is wrong and no motivation can make it right.
People try to make the same argument about abortion and homosexual sex (now the people who say this are generally grossly ignorant on a good number of things) and it is generally ignored. So I am going to say no, that is not a valid argument.

It is possible to argue that an action is wrong and no motivation can make it right.
Define: Wrong
Define: Right

You are speaking in relative concepts.

What because you feel strongly about something the world should bend its knee to you?

These are opinions, no one here has spoken a universal truth.
That is my point, who are you or the little one who started this thread to judge anyone? About anything?

What makes you so much better then anyone else, to presume to decide for them what they can and can not do?

No they were not. Because the later you get them, the more painful it becomes. They were right in the choice. Just like when they had my widom teeth removed at 16 instead of waiting until i was 18 so i could make the choice on my own. Because given those two extra years the teeth may have actually become part of the jaw and even more painful to remove.
yeah they were. if a kid is old enough to know what he is objecting to, its wrong for a parent to force an unwanted medically unnecessary procedure on him.

http://www.cirp.org/news/irishexaminer08-21-03b/
If we start driving this under ground what happened here WILL be repeated.
To be fair, the same thing happens when people from cultures where FGM is practiced come to another part of the world where it is illegal to do so. That doesn't mean that female genital mutilation should be legalized.

How about wisdome teeth then? I had four teeth pulled out of my jaw, in a long surgery which because of which i do not have feeling on part of the outside of my jaw. I still to this day am glad I got those removed. Side note, they did have to pull two teeth when they put on my expander...a thing used to expand your jaw, frequently is used before braces.

Ooh, I should have seen that one coming. Well, ahem. I didn't get mine removed, despite my dentist telling me they need to come out. Of course, I was in the Air Force at the time and I have heard horror stories from military hospitals (go in for a headache come out with an amputated leg :p). I seriously question the need to have wisdom teeth pulled - I was told I would have a lot of pain to deal with if I didn't get them yanked out when I was 18, and I am 25 now with 3 of the 4 teeth already in and no real complaints to make...as for the other wisdom tooth, I am sure it is wandering around in my skull somewhere.

I guess if it came down to it, I would say there are clear and understandable reasons to get wisdom teeth removed, wheras circumcision seems to divide the 'experts' on whether or not it is good or bad. The fact that there is no unilateral support for circumcision tells me that some people do it because it is tradition and then go back and try and find legitimate reasons to justify it so people won't hassle them about it.

Did that make sense? I have a hard time sometimes putting thoughts into words.

I have read that around 200 babies die from circumcsion in a given year (nonunderground):

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/horror/horror.shtml

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/

I have one other site on this that I cannot locate at the moment. I'll post it later if I find it. Some of the death records read that it was a result of complications in circumcision, some read about the pain medications or anthesia. Seems like it just depends on the place and time.

Granted not every guy gets the afformentioned conditions, but they do exist and are a cause for concern. Which takes me back to probably my first post in this thread, stating why I had no idea why guys would want to have those risks in their life. I personally would rather not have to worry about getting an infection from being in the woods for a few days and unable to shower. See my point? Anything can happen at any time to anyone, and I personally would not want want to have those risks in my life.

And yes, cut makes can get penis cancer too. But circumcision reduces the risk 3 to 8 fold.
The risk of infection is minimal and even the risk of penis cancer is minimal. That's like saying I should have my breasts lopped off as a precautionary measure.

People try to make the same argument about abortion and homosexual sex (now the people who say this are generally grossly ignorant on a good number of things) and it is generally ignored. So I am going to say no, that is not a valid argument.


LoL, I never said they would be successful, but it is an argument many have. I cannot accept arguments based on all "right" or all "wrong" either....it seems to ignore the human condition completely.

yeah they were. if a kid is old enough to know what he is objecting to, its wrong for a parent to force an unwanted medically unnecessary procedure on him.
How old are you? Seriously, because as I am 19, I will still admit I have not dealt with problems that the world has yet thrown at me. For every year before this, i was more and more ignorant. Especially when it came to medical procedures. They know more, they have been through more, they know better then I did for what was in my best interest.

The risk of infection is minimal and even the risk of penis cancer is minimal. That's like saying I should have my breasts lopped off as a precautionary measure.


That a bit of an extreme measure, as my penis still works perfectly fine without the foreskin. I doubt your breasts would fare too well after that.

I suppose you would grow up traumatized by being circumcised? You will forever look down and feel that a part of you is missing that you have been scarred for life? I doubt that anyone is going to care at all that they were circumcised at birth.

...

are you kidding? there's a huge (ring-shaped) gap in the market here, you know, like when adopted kids grow up wanting to find their birth-parents and birth-siblings? they hire private eyes (I almost used the old slang, but the Jolt censor probably won't allow it anyway :p ).

yeah, as soon as I get home tonight I'm going to start planning my new business to help guys who were circumcised as infants so they can find the place where they were snipped, maybe even find the remains of their foreskin. then we'll help them plan therapy sessions where they can "re-bond" with their foreskins, maybe address their feelings of loss and grief to their foreskins and get closure, maybe even hold special memorial services for their foreskins and erect (sorry! -- ah, no I'm not :D ) memorials to them. you know, with a tiny portrait of the little deceased foreskin, and a verse. for example -

"in memory of the foreskin of [insert name]:
your life was short, your stature small,
but I shed a tear when I felt you fall.
though years have past since you've been gone,
I wish I could have you stitched back on."

tasteful, eh?

after that, I can see at least a year of psychotherapy to help my customers heal, maybe even hypnotic regression so they can talk to their foreskins before the circumcision took place. and for an extra fee, we could even help them reconstruct their personal narrative so that they'll have memories of growing up with their foreskins intact. you know, first time they played with it, first time they masturbated, first sex experiences, the whole thing - in a matter of speaking.

so don't go banning circumcision, at least not for another 10 years. I plan on getting very, very rich on this.

Maybe hospitals could request a one day waiting period before performing circumcision or give the parents a paper talking about the pros and cons. When my cousin had her child circumcisized, they said nothing to her at all, and she told me she never knew that many people just opt not to have it done.

The one day waiting might work since a woman is there for 2-3 days depending on insurance. In addition, the child would be more stable than just after birth or a few hours after. PLus, the mother could bond with her child before taking it off to surgery. I see a lot of benefits in this, but I also see conflict of religious interest (tho, I think they usually wait as well?)

are you kidding? there's a huge (ring-shaped) gap in the market here, you know, like when adopted kids grow up wanting to find their birth-parents and birth-siblings? they hire private eyes (I almost used the old slang, but the Jolt censor probably won't allow it anyway :p ).

yeah, as soon as I get home tonight I'm going to start planning my new business to help guys who were circumcised as infants so they can find the place where they were snipped, maybe even find the remains of their foreskin. then we'll help them plan therapy sessions where they can "re-bond" with their foreskins, maybe address their feelings of loss and grief to their foreskins and get closure, maybe even hold special memorial services for their foreskins and erect (sorry! -- ah, no I'm not :D ) memorials to them. you know, with a tiny portrait of the little deceased foreskin, and a verse. for example -

"in memory of the foreskin of [insert name]:
your life was short, your stature small,
but I shed a tear when I felt you fall.
though years have past since you've been gone,
I wish I could have you stitched back on."

tasteful, eh?

after that, I can see at least a year of psychotherapy to help my customers heal, maybe even hypnotic regression so they can talk to their foreskins before the circumcision took place. and for an extra fee, we could even help them reconstruct their personal narrative so that they'll have memories of growing up with their foreskins intact. you know, first time they played with it, first time they masturbated, first sex experiences, the whole thing - in a matter of speaking.

so don't go banning circumcision, at least not for another 10 years. I plan on getting very, very rich on this.

Not only is your answer incorrect, but we are all now more stupid having listened to it. I award you no points. May God have mercy on your soul.

But your comment was that the risk of staph infection was a reason - I believe children can get an ifiection gettng a booster shot, or as I said earlier, getting ears pierced...should we place our children in a bubble unitl they are 18 so they "make descisions" for themselves? Perhaps as parents we can blame ad agencies for creating this cirumsision "epidemic" in the States - where all parents must be cavepeople for their non-enlightened lives - Did anyone find out what the stats are in Belize - I'm thinking of escaping there so my children can avoid international ridicule from the brilliant Aussies/Euros/Asians
this is the difference...

circumcision has no medical necessity. except in rare cases which we are not including in this. and excepting religious reasons....

so there is ZERO benefit (as stated by the various medical associations) and a small chance of bad results. that adds up to "dont do it" but not so strong a "don't" that it must be banned.

same with getting your infants ears pierced. same equation, same answer.

when you are looking at innoculations, there are both medically compelling reasons AND a chance of a bad outcome. the medical community advises us that the good outweighs the bad but some parents weigh it differently.

if you dont circumsize your son, nothing bad will happen. the chances are that he will never get circumsized and never feel the need for it. if he does feel the need, he can get it done.

How old are you? Seriously, because as I am 19, I will still admit I have not dealt with problems that the world has yet thrown at me. For every year before this, i was more and more ignorant. Especially when it came to medical procedures. They know more, they have been through more, they know better then I did for what was in my best interest.

did you actually object to getting your wisdom teeth out?

im 48

Your point about immunizations is an excellent one. WHen taking your child to have their shots, you will sign waivers and be told of the risks. You can read extensively about possible autism connections to the MMR, pertussis outbreaks, the recent problem with the polio vaccine, and many more. Despite these, the AAP recommends immunzations while they do not recommend circumcsion.

That a bit of an extreme measure, as my penis still works perfectly fine without the foreskin. I doubt your breasts would fare too well after that.
Well, if I don't have kids, what use are my breasts really?
I mean, sure they're ripe with nerve endings, but apparantly keeping nerve endings intact isn't as important as cancer prevention.

To late - he was snipped after 36 hours (an answer to Carrierdom and the waiting period)

As to the Jewish ceremony - there is no bloodsucking - idiot

This is a parental decision - and as far as I can tell, will remain that way

I have read about it on sites like these:

EDIT: removed offensive link. Many appoligies; was really just wondering if i was indeed true.

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/JewishEnc/

"To this was added a third requirement, metsirsah (sucking of the blood). This was originally done by the mohel (circumciser) applying his lips to the penis and drawing off the blood by sucking"

I Just wndered to hear from those who still practice this. I am not an idiot.

did you actually object to getting your wisdom teeth out?

im 48
I had serious second thoughts about it. Some of my fear about it came true, hence the lack of feeling in part of my jaw. However, my parents were resolute in it and it was for the best. At 13 do you think you were capable of making a betterdecision then at the age you are at now?

Maybe hospitals could request a one day waiting period before performing circumcision or give the parents a paper talking about the pros and cons. When my cousin had her child circumcisized, they said nothing to her at all, and she told me she never knew that many people just opt not to have it done.

The one day waiting might work since a woman is there for 2-3 days depending on insurance. In addition, the child would be more stable than just after birth or a few hours after. PLus, the mother could bond with her child before taking it off to surgery. I see a lot of benefits in this, but I also see conflict of religious interest (tho, I think they usually wait as well?)
I think that is a perfectly reasonble idea. As far as religion is concerned no conflict, since circumcision is a mtter of the Abrahamic faiths and Abraham did not get circumsized until well after infancy(weeelllll after) 90 years old i believe. Very similar to the arguement about baptism being done later in life--that being a theological arguement. IN any event there is no reason that choice can not be left to the boy--and no reason it can not. I think your statement makes perfect sense and pays due respect to all parties concerned.

I have read about it on sites like these:

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/mohel.htm

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/JewishEnc/

"To this was added a third requirement, metsirsah (sucking of the blood). This was originally done by the mohel (circumciser) applying his lips to the penis and drawing off the blood by sucking"

I Just wndered to hear from those who still practice this. I am not an idiot.
:eek:

WOW! Was www.EvilJewishDickCutters.org experiencing technical troubles?

I had serious second thoughts about it. Some of my fear about it came true, hence the lack of feeling in part of my jaw. However, my parents were resolute in it and it was for the best. At 13 do you think you were capable of making a betterdecision then at the age you are at now?
you had your wisdom teeth out at 13??

if a procedure is not medically necessary then i see no reason to force it on a 13 year old who objects to it. he can live forever without it or he can have it done later if he changes his mind.

you consented to the procedure, so it was all fine.

I have read about it on sites like these:

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/mohel.htm

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/JewishEnc/

"To this was added a third requirement, metsirsah (sucking of the blood). This was originally done by the mohel (circumciser) applying his lips to the penis and drawing off the blood by sucking"

I Just wndered to hear from those who still practice this. I am not an idiot.
She should not be given flak for her comment.

The Bloodsucking thing has been used by antisemetics as a slur against the Jewish people, the true practice is a kiss. A blessing, but if you didnt know that and wanting to paint Jews as freakish monsters you could say the mohel was sucking the blood from the circumcision and to a casual observer it might be true. I only know this from arguements with Stormfronters.

:eek:

WOW! Was www.EvilJewishDickCutters.org experiencing technical troubles?


LoL sorry about the lewd titles of the sites, but when I googled the act, wondering if it was really true, I found those (along with some other much worse ones). Perhaps I should remove them before I get in trouble LOL.

Thanks for clearing it up for me. I really was jsut wondering because I do not know any Jewish people but had heard of it before.

you had your wisdom teeth out at 13??

if a procedure is not medically necessary then i see no reason to force it on a 13 year old who objects to it. he can live forever without it or he can have it done later if he changes his mind.

you consented to the procedure, so it was all fine.
No braces were 13, wisdome teeth were 16. But those ages can be vital and make it a lot less painful over all. I know this because I had some older friends who got their wisdom teeth pulled in their 20s, caused a lot more pain. and now i know people who just got braces and it will take a lot longer and then more pain for the wait. If it is in the childs best interest the parents should still have the over riding say.

LoL sorry about the lewd titles of the sites, but when I googled the act, wondering if it was really true, I found those (along with some other much worse ones). Perhaps I should remove them before I get in trouble LOL.

They just don't seem like the most....unbiased sources you could've chosen. :p

Oh I agree, which is why I asked!

Edit: When circumcision argument comes up in mothering boards or TTC boards, people often reference this act of "blood sucking" as a way of tearing down circumcision from a religious POV.

Another question for the Jewish ceremony- Was there a reason that the act was changed from cutting only the tip to cutting the entire skin? (This I read about in a book on the statue of david)

Oh I agree, which is why I asked!

Edit: When circumcision argument comes up in mothering boards or TTC boards, people often reference this act of "blood sucking" as a way of tearing down circumcision from a religious POV.

Another question for the Jewish ceremony- Was there a reason that the act was changed from cutting only the tip to cutting the entire skin? (This I read about in a book on the statue of david)
http://bible.cc/genesis/21-4.htm
http://bible.cc/genesis/17-10.htm

No braces were 13, wisdome teeth were 16. But those ages can be vital and make it a lot less painful over all. I know this because I had some older friends who got their wisdom teeth pulled in their 20s, caused a lot more pain. and now i know people who just got braces and it will take a lot longer and then more pain for the wait. If it is in the childs best interest the parents should still have the over riding say.
its only teeth

Yes. The snip is usually quicker and less painful. :p

sounds almost as if you do have kids. :p

but since I was circumcised as a baby, cleaning my room was all my folks could threaten me with.

http://bible.cc/genesis/21-4.htm
http://bible.cc/genesis/17-10.htm
Keep in mind the Old testament of hte Bible is the Jewish Torah. I believe, the word is torah.

Well, if I don't have kids, what use are my breasts really?
I mean, sure they're ripe with nerve endings, but apparantly keeping nerve endings intact isn't as important as cancer prevention.

Aside from breast feeding (which a lot of women don't do) you're right, the breasts really have no use, aside from sex/sex appeal. The penis serves a dual purpose for urination and sex....but I still don't know why you are so militant about nerve endings. It's not like a circumcised guy doesn't have feeling in his penis, we have plenty of it.

http://bible.cc/genesis/21-4.htm
http://bible.cc/genesis/17-10.htm

Good sites for references the the law of circumcision, but is there a guide as to how much needed to be cut and was it changed (as I read) at some point for a specific reason?

It should be banned unless it's for religious reasons. But no way should it be routine or covered by insurance.

I keep seeing references to statistics. Unfortunately no one has either mentioned or realized that statistics are grossly inaccurate. Although some are more accurate then others, there is no way for surveys to reflect precise numbers unless everyone represented is questioned. Don't believe me? Ask yourself how many statistics in the world could apply to you and then count how many have you actually participated in. I may get cancer, but would that be included in a study? Maybe, maybe not.

I personally would not have any child of mine circumcised, but that's because I don't agree with the necessity of the "snip." It's also because I know the risks and made a decision. I'm inclosing a link here (http://www.circumstitions.com/Botched1.html)to a page about some of the results of botched circumcisions. There are real pictures there, so if that offends you, don't go. But again this page doesn't represent everyone. Keep in mind there are plenty of men out there who suffered no ill effects.

Good sites for references the the law of circumcision, but is there a guide as to how much needed to be cut and was it changed (as I read) at some point for a specific reason?
forgive me for this.
I presume the practice had more to do with hygene--so removal of the foreskin as it is done today was more then likely the order of then as well--hygene was less good, so it would have been far more important to do a circumcision. Not to mention the filth a non-cut may of that day would be delivering to his mate. I wanted to point that out about UTIs--sex plays a huge role in that--and if the old boy isnt clean, the woman pays for it.

But, anyway I dont know a concise reference for the actual practice--but just cutting the tip would not be a circumcision--I think that be a myth as well. What it may be is that as time has progressed we have gotten more uniform in the practice. It being more haphazard back then. Lemme find an interesting subject on the matter of male cuts in Africa--I was very impressed by these boys.

Depends on the tail.

Removing it would sure make buying pants easier.

On the other hand, if it were prehensile, I could have a lot of fun! :D

if cats are anything to go by, having a tail improves balance. I could use that when I'm surfing, unless it's so long it gets in the way.

Is it possible to have a sound, logically argument against circumcision but be for it in a religious setting? Just a thought... I often find myself contradicting myself in matters such as this.

I think it is the South African tribal custom-which may have been adopted from Zulus.
The boy age 12-14 undergoes circumcision--what I saw was done with a sharp stone, they would lay there stock still and not winch or cry, but rather endure. Very amazing and number of other things were done including spalshing milk filled with pepper in their eyes and what not.

At the end they were men.

The young girls endured a ritual of diffirent nature but of equal pain--it too was impressive.

No infants were harmed--they were allowed their childhood.

sounds almost as if you do have kids. :p

but since I was circumcised as a baby, cleaning my room was all my folks could threaten me with.

I do. Not that he's old enough where cleaning his room is a problem(He's almost 2). I just remember how difficult it was to get ME to clean my room. :p

its only teeth
And circumcision is only foreskin.

Is it possible to have a sound, logically argument against circumcision but be for it in a religious setting? Just a thought... I often find myself contradicting myself in matters such as this.
Of course, Logically you have no proof of God.
So faith is not based on logic, so it can not be ruled by it.
You can know the physical world dictates a sensible approach, and still side on faith. Just dont call it logic, then you would be wrong.

And circumcision is only foreskin.

Apples and oranges. Having teeth pulled/not pulled doesn't give me a better orgasm. I want my foreskin back dammit! >.<

No infants were harmed--they were allowed their childhood.

Infantile Amnesia. No one remembers their infancy, any one who says they do is lying. You can sitll have your child hood and be circumcised as an infant.

I read in one of Dr Sear's books that it is possible to grow back the foreskin. ;) I must admit, I have never read about any successful respawners myself.

Apples and oranges. Having teeth pulled/not pulled doesn't give me a better orgasm. I want my foreskin back dammit! >.<
We were discussing the parents ability to impose elective medical operations on their kids. They retorted it is just teeth, I said it's just foreskin. But hey, a good smile can get you into the position to have that orgasm.

Infantile Amnesia. No one remembers their infancy, any one who says they do is lying. You can sitll have your child hood and be circumcised as an infant.
I am cut-I know.
I have no real opinion on it--whether you remember being hurt does not change the fact you were. These children were not--they waited for a concious choice, or rather possibility of failure. I simply thought it was an interesting right of passage versus what sissy Westerners go through.

And circumcision is only foreskin.
exactly

which is why it can be left alone for the child to decide to circumsize or not when he'd old enough to make the decision

Infantile Amnesia. No one remembers their infancy, any one who says they do is lying. You can sitll have your child hood and be circumcised as an infant.


WHile this may be true, there is a very powerful movement right now that contends that children are affected into their adulthood by the pains they suffer as a child. Many refuse to let their children "cry it out," will "wear" their babies in a sling, will refuse an unnatural birth, and will reject circumcision (primarily because of the pain in will inflict on the child.) They will talk about bonding from the moment of birth, breastfeeding in those first precious moments. AP parenting (which holds to many of these tenants) is the way many parents decide to go these days.

No you did not simply ask for justifications--which was my point, you should take your own advice about reading.

You placed limitation on what a given acceptable response would be, therefore you did not actually ask anyone for anything--the catergories you said were unacceptable are the basically the motivation for everything a human does besides instinct, which would fall under medical reasons as instinct can only be proven through science.
Religion
Culture
Tradition
Medical
Were all unacceptable to you, what other motivation for something is there?
You wait for a few pages to go by and then hope to bury the fact you just posted a thread full of bait.

I have no arguement with the suppostion of not cutting on an infants penis, my problem is with people like you who pretend to be presenting an intelligent discussion under a cheap immitation of logical and philosphical thought.

So you have yet again made another post with childish bait and avoided addressing my points--now go back as you are so quick to suggest and rerad the post and try to piece together whatever impossibly absurd bit of answer you can. By the way, any thing you base your opinion on is fine by me, I dont need limit the field of an opponent. Not you anyway.


Unfortunately for you that is precisely what I did.

I was very careful to state that 'in my opinion' all the usual arguments were unacceptable. I did not state that they were unacceptable as a matter of fact. Nor did I limit the field of any possible opponent's argument. I invited a response and I got it. You seem to have either misunderstood this or are unable to admit your initial error.

If it is indeed your contention that the original post was flamebait then have the courage of your convictions and report it, if not, try to concentrate on the topic instead please.


This is a single issue thread - I was very clear in that - Many people have disagreed with me. Others have just tried to appear clever but have failed miserably.

WHile this may be true, there is a very powerful movement right now that contends that children are affected into their adulthood by the pains they suffer as a child. Many refuse to let their children "cry it out," will "wear" their babies in a sling, will refuse an unnatural birth, and will reject circumcision (primarily because of the pain in will inflict on the child.) They will talk about bonding from the moment of birth, breastfeeding in those first precious moments. AP parenting (which holds to many of these tenants) is the way many parents decide to go these days.
Your referring to with the sling thing, contact comfort. Yes I am aware of that. However, I don't think it is possible to point at someone and to be able to tell from how they are acting if they wre circumcised or not.

But when it was all said and done, you hadn't lost anything. Now, if your parents had your dentist knock out a few of your teeth as a child to make your remaining teeth look nicer, then you would be close to home on the argument.


what!? you mean, he was talking about braces on his TEETH?

thanks for explaining that. I was trying to figure out how his parents could have braces attached where his foreskin used to be...

Parents do not always know and do what is best. It was a much scarier world when I realized my parents really didn't know what they were doing and were just playing it by ear. I am all for allowing parents to raise their children as they see fit to a degree...but if you give people absolute freedom in any area - guaranteed they will inevitably come up with some goofy-ass idea and think it is a sound plan, like chopping up baby dicks, or keeping their kids in boxes. In a world where we celebrate so many freedoms, is it so much to ask for people to ban circumcision? I mean..damn. I find it almost flabergasting on what some people consider such a critical thing to stand up for.

Your referring to with the sling thing, contact comfort. Yes I am aware of that. However, I don't think it is possible to point at someone and to be able to tell from how they are acting if they wre circumcised or not.


well, this argument could also be made about breastfeeding...or even female circumcision, for that matter. I think we cannot think of it from the outside perspective (I cannot tell they are different) but, rather, from the baby's. It is always something they can have done later in their life.

"What a perfect little baby boy, he's beautiful!"
"Know what'd make him _more_ perfect?"
"What?"
"Slicing off some wang skin!"

I try to have respect for other people's beliefs when they differ from mine, I really do, but letting - no, actually _asking!!_ someone to take a blade to your baby's genitals... it's sick, it really is.

If it doesn't 'mean' much, then let your boy make his own decisions about his body when he's a man. And if the dreadful act _is_ invested with meaning, all the _more_ reason to wait and let him make his own decision when he's capable of making them.

I wouldn't make it illegal, but I cannot understand why a parent, loving in every regard I'm certain, lets this happen in the west in the 21st century.

I haven't read pages 11-19 yet.
Anyway, I see no reason for the cut. Don't Jews usually wait before they cut it off? Also, I read the bible and I couldn't find any rules about that body part outside the old testament aka Torah. I really don't know much about other religions, but any religion can seem wacky if it's not yours. I thought some of the Islamic rules were a bit weird. That's because I'm not a muslim. Excuse my ignorance.

I see no reason to cut the skin. The kid's no longer attached to the female physically, so I don't see why the parents should get to choose. Sure, it can become infected, but so can fingers and toes. I don't see parents getting to choose if they can have the kid's pinky removed. After all, how many of us really need our pinkies? Can't our other fingers pick up the slack? Why can't we remove that flabby bottom part of our ears? It serves no purpose. It makes the kid look like the father. WTF? Most of the time, it's covered by clothing. I don't think most people are going to know. Then, there's the appendix issue. Sure, the appendix is useless. But, once it gets inflamed, it can kill you. Last time I checked, the skin doesn't get inflamed and threaten the life of the kid. Kids might make fun of him. So what? If it isn't a hidden part of his body, it's his hair or his voice. He's going to get made fun of no matter what you do. Teach him to deal with it. If he ignores them, the bullies might just give up on him. I think I covered all the bases. Yeah, countries where it isn't wide spread don't seem to have problems down there. They don't seem to have peoblems with cancer. Either Americans are somehow special biologically or the studies are messed up.

Parents do not always know and do what is best. It was a much scarier world when I realized my parents really didn't know what they were doing and were just playing it by ear. I am all for allowing parents to raise their children as they see fit to a degree...but if you give people absolute freedom in any area - guaranteed they will inevitably come up with some goofy-ass idea and think it is a sound plan, like chopping up baby dicks, or keeping their kids in boxes. In a world where we celebrate so many freedoms, is it so much to ask for people to ban circumcision? I mean..damn. I find it almost flabergasting on what some people consider such a critical thing to stand up for.
So in order to preserve freedom we should take away someones right to make a personal choice for their family? Flabergasting indeed.

Maybe the whole circumcision debate in the USA has come about as a kinda of pushing to have parents examine the way they raise their children, to educate themselves about options, opinions, and the possible dangers of following blindly what the generation before you has done (80% of infants were formula fed, circumcision rates were higher, Ferber was God, etc).

So in order to preserve freedom we should take away someones right to make a personal choice for their family? Flabergasting indeed.

Whose 'personal choice', exactly? Whose body is altered forever, and who made that decision?

well, this argument could also be made about breastfeeding...or even female circumcision, for that matter. I think we cannot think of it from the outside perspective (I cannot tell they are different) but, rather, from the baby's. It is always something they can have done later in their life.
Actually some studies think that breastfeeding does affect the kids quite a bit. When we were learning about contact comfort in psych. They had an interesting study highlighted in the book that said that some research done shows kids who are breastfeed generally have higher IQs then those who are bottlefed. How accurate that study was I have no idea, just might be a myth like playing classical music to babies. How ever I am aware of nothing regarding circumcision for either male or female, that it would affect them mentally from having it done as a baby or as an adult.

I haven't read pages 11-19 yet.
Anyway, I see no reason for the cut. Don't Jews usually wait before they cut it off? Also, I read the bible and I couldn't find any rules about that body part outside the old testament aka Torah. I really don't know much about other religions, but any religion can seem wacky if it's not yours. I thought some of the Islamic rules were a bit weird. That's because I'm not a muslim. Excuse my ignorance.

I see no reason to cut the skin. The kid's no longer attached to the female physically, so I don't see why the parents should get to choose. Sure, it can become infected, but so can fingers and toes. I don't see parents getting to choose if they can have the kid's pinky removed. After all, how many of us really need our pinkies? Can't our other fingers pick up the slack? Why can't we remove that flabby bottom part of our ears? It serves no purpose. It makes the kid look like the father. WTF? Most of the time, it's covered by clothing. I don't think most people are going to know. Then, there's the appendix issue. Sure, the appendix is useless. But, once it gets inflamed, it can kill you. Last time I checked, the skin doesn't get inflamed and threaten the life of the kid. Kids might make fun of him. So what? If it isn't a hidden part of his body, it's his hair or his voice. He's going to get made fun of no matter what you do. Teach him to deal with it. If he ignores them, the bullies might just give up on him. I think I covered all the bases. Yeah, countries where it isn't wide spread don't seem to have problems down there. They don't seem to have peoblems with cancer. Either Americans are somehow special biologically or the studies are messed up.

You cant find the bible verse on circumsion but know the medical stats for countries where circumcision is uncommon---I find that hard to believe.

You accept that you are ignorant of other cultures and turn right around and presume to know what goes on else where--do you see the flaw in that?

So in order to preserve freedom we should take away someones right to make a personal choice for their family? Flabergasting indeed.

You're right. If we let them take away our freedom to physically alter another person's body without their consent..what's next? I can see a Police State looming over the horizon.

Actually some studies think that breastfeeding does affect the kids quite a bit. When we were learning about contact comfort in psych. They had an interesting study highlighted in the book that said that some research done shows kids who are breastfeed generally have higher IQs then those who are bottlefed. How accurate that study was I have no idea, just might be a myth like playing classical music to babies. How ever I am aware of nothing regarding circumcision for either male or female, that it would affect them mentally from having it done as a baby or as an adult.


You are definitely correct on the BFing thing :) It was probably a bad example on my part, but it would still be tough to tell a BF 13 yr old from a non. Tho, the more I think about it...I think maybe I could, LoL...but that might be because I'm one of those crazy lactivists.

Maybe the whole circumcision debate in the USA has come about as a kinda of pushing to have parents examine the way they raise their children, to educate themselves about options, opinions, and the possible dangers of following blindly what the generation before you has done (80% of infants were formula fed, circumcision rates were higher, Ferber was God, etc).
Not to mention removing the mother from the home and ending corporal punishment as realistic and acceptable alternative--note the decline in the moral fiber of our society as these two things began to become more common.

You're right. If we let them take away our freedom to physically alter another person's body without their consent..what's next? I can see a Police State looming over the horizon.
Sarcasm in the face of your own hypocrisy, how very predictable.

Not to mention removing the mother from the home and ending corporal punishment as realistic and acceptable alternative--note the decline in the moral fiber of our society as these two things began to become more common.

I think those are symptoms rather than causes of societal change, friend :)

Elgesh']I think those are symptoms rather than causes of societal change, friend :)
Really?
So when the industrialization of America occured during WWII and women made the first real exodus from the home to which led to the concept of Career Mothers coupled with advent of the Feminist movement which sought to defece the value of a woman who stays at home with children(what more important careeer is there I ask?)
This linked then with drug induced peacenik concepts of negotiating with children leading to children who believe they are as capable of decision making as their parents---The Dr. Spock syndrome. The man had no children if I am not mistaken.

No, I believe those two things are directly the cause---UNfortunately rolling the clock back would crush some steps in Women's Liberties--since we cant do that we are stuck with...well I think most of the kids who come here are good example.

The 60s are a direct result of the motherless(and fatherless) children of the 50s, the downward spiral continued from there.

I don't like the idea of circumcision at a fundamental level. I'm using some arguments from the show Penn & Teller: Bullshit! to bolster my own.
The whole idea of it just being a "flap of skin" is stupid. There are 10,000 nerve endings on that piece of skin. This skin piece in fact helps people out people with sex. Check Penn & Teller for more information.
The whole idea of health to justify this practice is stupid too. The buildup in the tip called smegma can be easily cleaned away. No need to cause pain.
However, I am ambivalent. A close relative of mine had some problems with foreskin and needed to remove it. He is fine now. The Jewish faith says that all males must be circumcised at 8 days old. So you'd be violating their rights to practice their faith by banning circumcision.
So my point is this: it's not a friggin' human rights violation but neither is it as good as most doctors will tell you.

That a bit of an extreme measure, as my penis still works perfectly fine without the foreskin. I doubt your breasts would fare too well after that.

But we agreed before we started and had already reached the same conclusion before the discussion.

etc etc. etc. etc.

you guys argue like you're already married. you should just tie the knot and get it over with.
:fluffle:

:D

Not only is your answer incorrect, but we are all now more stupid having listened to it. I award you no points. May God have mercy on your soul.

wow! dude, my "answer" is "incorrect"! oh, teacher, could I stay after school today and take a make-up test? I'll even sharpen all my pencils.

how can you not award me no points at all? I'm sure I spelled my name right.

anybody who can be made "more stupid" for reading something here needs to be in one of those plastic bubbles somebody else was talking about earlier.

as for God, I'll have to hope won't I? but I guess that's what "mercy" is for, eh?

Is there anyone Jewish here? I have a question reguarding the Jewish ceremony (sorry if wrong word) of circumcision. Is it true that the man performing the circumcision sucks the blood from the child's penis? What reasons, if it is true, are given for this being considered humane?

No. Simply no. There's no sucking.

*ok, I was arguing with someone about this the other day; but I don't recall seeing anything about it on this forum in my time, apologies if it's already been done*


It's my view that infant male circumcision should be outlawed in any civilised society - I'm not talking about adults having it done here, or indeed the dreadful practice of female circumcision which is thankfully limited to a few North African shitholes anyway - just the circumcision of baby/infant sons at the request of their parents/guardians.


My reasoning is fundamentally based on human rights, i.e. it's the child's body and they have a right to bodily integrity. If informed consent cannot be given for such a procedure then it shouldn't be carried out - simple as that


Justifications citing religion, culture or tradition are unacceptable in my opinion. Even medical arguments, which are not universally recognised, are no excuse for violating human rights. There is a slowly growing consensus about the damaging effects of the procedure, especially upon sexual response, but even this is beside the point.


To those who disagree, I'd like them to explain why it's ok for parents to allow genital mutilation to be performed upon their own helpless children - I personally can think of few things that could be considered more depraved.

hmmmm, no

to avoid a flame war, i'm not going to say why

I haven't read pages 11-19 yet.
Anyway, I see no reason for the cut. Don't Jews usually wait before they cut it off?

8 days.

Also, I read the bible and I couldn't find any rules about that body part outside the old testament aka Torah. I really don't know much about other religions, but any religion can seem wacky if it's not yours. I thought some of the Islamic rules were a bit weird. That's because I'm not a muslim. Excuse my ignorance.

Same for Muslims, just as Allah commanded Abraham to circumsize himself and his sons as a sign of the Covenant, so too do Jews and Muslims continue this law.

Does a christian need to be circumsized? Or does the new covenant of Jesus trump the old one?

Does a christian need to be circumsized? Or does the new covenant of Jesus trump the old one?

I don't know. Gotta ask a Christian, but I'm reasonably sure they believe there's been a New Covenant (or Testament, if you will) and that, to them, may supercede the Old one, so no circumcision necessary.

However, Jesus was cut.

The old covenant is not superceded by the new covenant because they do not contradict each other.

The covenant is clear---it is the Mosiac Laws which are replaced.


To the best of my understanding.

The old covenant is not superceded by the new covenant because they do not contradict each other.

The covenant is clear---it is the Mosiac Laws which are replaced.


To the best of my understanding.

So, with that, I'd have to say that Christians are supposed to be circumsized as well.

Children also shouldn't be forced to go to school unless they want to. If they don't give their informed consent to, why should we deny the right to choose whether or not they receive an education? Same goes for any other decision a parent makes for their child. Why should their parents have any control?

So, with that, I'd have to say that Christians are supposed to be circumsized as well.


Wow, thanks I have never been the source of anything but irritation before.

Wow, thanks I have never been the source of anything but irritation before.

Sorry to ruin your record. I'll go delete my post. :D

Children also shouldn't be forced to go to school unless they want to. If they don't give their informed consent to, why should we deny the right to choose whether or not they receive an education? Same goes for any other decision a parent makes for their child. Why should their parents have any control?

Yeah! And they want to eat ice cream and cheese all the time, give it to them! Screw vegetables!

*tee hee*

Sarcasm is fun. :)

Children also shouldn't be forced to go to school unless they want to. If they don't give their informed consent to, why should we deny the right to choose whether or not they receive an education? Same goes for any other decision a parent makes for their child. Why should their parents have any control?
because when you analyze the upside/downside to education, you immediately see that there are significant benefits and few detriments. same for most dicipline issues

when it comes to surgeries that have no medical need and can wait until the child is older so as to have his input, there is no benefit to be had.

most day to day things a parent decides for a child have to be done NOW. circumcision can be done anytime. there is no need for it to be done only immediately after birth. (except for religious reasons)

most day to day things a parent decides for a child have to be done NOW. circumcision can be done anytime. there is no need for it to be done only immediately after birth. (except for religious reasons)

Actually, the child heals way faster and way more effectively than the adult. An adult getting circumsized may actually have long-term, if not life-long, side effects. There's also a greater risk of infection in adults as infants are equipped with astounding immune systems.

However, I and my son are both cut for religious reasons, neither of us remember it, neither of us miss our foreskins, and having 4 children is proof that my wang works juuuuust fine. :D

I don't like the idea of circumcision at a fundamental level. I'm using some arguments from the show Penn & Teller: Bullshit! to bolster my own.
The whole idea of it just being a "flap of skin" is stupid. There are 10,000 nerve endings on that piece of skin. This skin piece in fact helps people out people with sex. Check Penn & Teller for more information.
The whole idea of health to justify this practice is stupid too. The buildup in the tip called smegma can be easily cleaned away. No need to cause pain.


Actually the pleasure loss is highly overated.

What you get is spontaneous sex as you don't have to clean it off and the woman is less likely to have health issues.

My buddy will tell you this as he had his cut at 25 :eek: His wife was happier he did in that her infections went down. He was dilligent in cleaning it.....

Children also shouldn't be forced to go to school unless they want to. If they don't give their informed consent to, why should we deny the right to choose whether or not they receive an education? Same goes for any other decision a parent makes for their child. Why should their parents have any control?


Yea why learn how to read when you can play xbox/whatever and watch TV!

Actually, the child heals way faster and way more effectively than the adult. An adult getting circumsized may actually have long-term, if not life-long, side effects. There's also a greater risk of infection in adults as infants are equipped with astounding immune systems.

However, I and my son are both cut for religious reasons, neither of us remember it, neither of us miss our foreskins, and having 4 children is proof that my wang works juuuuust fine. :D


What he said! ;)

Well except for the 4 kid part.....

It's my view that infant male circumcision should be outlawed in any civilised society - I'm not talking about adults having it done here, or indeed the dreadful practice of female circumcision which is thankfully limited to a few North African shitholes anyway - just the circumcision of baby/infant sons at the request of their parents/guardians.

To those who disagree, I'd like them to explain why it's ok for parents to allow genital mutilation to be performed upon their own helpless children - I personally can think of few things that could be considered more depraved.

I don't think male circumcision should be outlawed, only because it is considered to be normal and healthy and all that good stuff, in Western Society, and people would feel you were taking away their freedom. Also, Jewish people need to get circumcized.

Now personally, I prefer hoodies/touques (foreskin entact) because it looks a lot more sexy and natural. But no way gov't legislation should touch this one.

On another forum I frequent, one posted, Eid, says that sice having his circumcision done in late 20s, his sexual experiences have not been as fullfilling. But since I suspect that no one feels an orgasm in exactly the same way, this point probably is very subjective.

Maybe there is something strange about American water or something that makes all these infections such an issue.I have always heard that american doctors are less educated in the treatment of an intact penis (many supposedly tell the parents to pull back the foreskin before they should.) My doctor is from Sweden but practicing here in PA, so we don't have this problem. But I just can't accept that none of our pediatricians get how to treat the intact. I'm searching for another reason why Europe and AUstralia are free from these issues.

Actually, the child heals way faster and way more effectively than the adult. An adult getting circumsized may actually have long-term, if not life-long, side effects. There's also a greater risk of infection in adults as infants are equipped with astounding immune systems.

However, I and my son are both cut for religious reasons, neither of us remember it, neither of us miss our foreskins, and having 4 children is proof that my wang works juuuuust fine. :D
considering that few adults get circumsized, i dont see that it makes much sense to circumsize a baby on the off chance that he would want it done as an adult.

Really?
So when the industrialization of America occured during WWII and women made the first real exodus from the home to which led to the concept of Career Mothers coupled with advent of the Feminist movement which sought to defece the value of a woman who stays at home with children(what more important careeer is there I ask?)
This linked then with drug induced peacenik concepts of negotiating with children leading to children who believe they are as capable of decision making as their parents---The Dr. Spock syndrome. The man had no children if I am not mistaken.

No, I believe those two things are directly the cause---UNfortunately rolling the clock back would crush some steps in Women's Liberties--since we cant do that we are stuck with...well I think most of the kids who come here are good example.

The 60s are a direct result of the motherless(and fatherless) children of the 50s, the downward spiral continued from there.

Hell, sorry, I was offline - didn't mean to ignore you!

You sort of introduce my arguments for me anyway; your theory is a lack of mothers at home and lack of corporal punishment leads to moral decline? That they are direct causes?

I would say that the turbulance of 2 world wars had a drastic effect on the home front, too, catalysing the effect of existing social pressures: a move away from authoritarianism, questioning authoritry figures, women's rights, civil rights etc etc, aided and abetted by mass literacy and mass communication. With the drastic changing of society in such a short time, it's inevitable that the old certainties and discipline, the old moralities would be similiarly changed, including childrearing practices. (moves post vaguely on-topic :p)

If we contend that children have rights, that they are not solely their parents' property but entities in their own right, then society and the state has an obligation to check parents' parenting; now, whether or not that should include circumsion of very young children is another matter, but the principle is sound.

*ok, I was arguing with someone about this the other day; but I don't recall seeing anything about it on this forum in my time, apologies if it's already been done*


It's my view that infant male circumcision should be outlawed in any civilised society - I'm not talking about adults having it done here, or indeed the dreadful practice of female circumcision which is thankfully limited to a few North African shitholes anyway - just the circumcision of baby/infant sons at the request of their parents/guardians.


My reasoning is fundamentally based on human rights, i.e. it's the child's body and they have a right to bodily integrity. If informed consent cannot be given for such a procedure then it shouldn't be carried out - simple as that


Justifications citing religion, culture or tradition are unacceptable in my opinion. Even medical arguments, which are not universally recognised, are no excuse for violating human rights. There is a slowly growing consensus about the damaging effects of the procedure, especially upon sexual response, but even this is beside the point.


To those who disagree, I'd like them to explain why it's ok for parents to allow genital mutilation to be performed upon their own helpless children - I personally can think of few things that could be considered more depraved.

Agreed 100%.

I don't see a need to cut off the skin. Don't equate an elective surgery with life-and-death situations like appendexis getting ready to burst(it can and will kill you if you don't get medical treatment). Don't equate it with something as vital as an education. It's more akin to plastic surgery or a sex job.

I hear some stupid reasons:
The kid might want it done in the future-The kid might want a sex job in the future also. Both affect your sexual life. Do you see parents demanding that their boy become a girl? After all, the kid might want that.
It will make him look like his father-So what? Do you dye his hair too? Are you power-feeding him mcdonalds so that he'll look like his dad?
The other kids have had it done-So what? What if they start committing suicide later in life? What if the other kids want to kill you? Are you going to give the kid a gun when he's older and paint a target on your chest?
He'll get made fun of-Damned if you do and damned if you don't. There's always something that he'll get teased about. His faith. His gender-preference. His hair color. His eye color. His birth marks. His shoes. If he's different. If he's not different. It's going to be lose-lose.


Religion=only good excuse. That and some kind of extremely rare condition.

I was circumcised at birth and I see nothing wrong with it. It has done nothing at all to me and I'm kind of glad my parents had it doe to me, because my uncle had ot have it done for medical reasons in his forties and it supposedly hurt like crazy. I don't see any harm in it and I don't see why it should be an issue. It's a flap of skin. Who gives a shit.

I don't see why a parent should be able to demand their male child gets circumcised any more than they should be able to demand female circumcisions or limb amputations. Now I know those are very extreme examples, but the principle stands. There can't be many medical merits in arbitrarily cutting off a perfectly natural part of every child's body. And from what I've seen most sound modern medical evidence points towards it being harmful, with a lot of the pro-circumcision stuff coming from fundamentalist lunatics who want to prevent boys from carrying out the mortal sin of masturbation.

Unless there is a good medical reason for it, circumcision should never be tolerated in a civilised society, irrespective of people's backward cultural and religious motivations.

Justifications citing religion, culture or tradition are unacceptable in my opinion.


What do you mean religious arguments are 'unacceptable'? Why don't we just ban Christmas while we're at it: it deprives everybody of a hard days work. Although many atheists and the like find it hard to get this through their heads, violating the core tenets of one's religious beliefs is, quite frankly, unspeakable. If you ask a Jew such as myself to tell you what Judaism is, they will tell you that it is essentially about keeping our covenant with God - and the sign of that covenant, as laid out by God, is the practice of male circumcision. Asking Jews to forgo the fairly humane practice of circumcision - one which, I might add, caries quite a few medical benefits - is no less absurd than asking a devout Muslim woman to uncover her hair, asking a Christian to forget about Christmas, or forcing a vegetarian to eat a platter of meat. There's a line between protecting against human rights abuses and interfering with the basic principles of somebody's life: where no substantive abuse has taken place there is absolutely no cause for government to deny someone the basic right of practicing their own religion.

I don't see why a parent should be able to demand their male child gets circumcised any more than they should be able to demand female circumcisions or limb amputations. Now I know those are very extreme examples, but the principle stands. There can't be many medical merits in arbitrarily cutting off a perfectly natural part of every child's body. And from what I've seen most sound modern medical evidence points towards it being harmful, with a lot of the pro-circumcision stuff coming from fundamentalist lunatics who want to prevent boys from carrying out the mortal sin of masturbation.

Unless there is a good medical reason for it, circumcision should never be tolerated in a civilised society, irrespective of people's backward cultural and religious motivations.

Gee, you seem like you had a bad experience with it. Like Tas(Forgot full name). Secondly, to the second paragraph, SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.(Incidentally, that's part of what makes a civilisation civilised, in my opinion. Along with all the other rights and the obvious stuff, like not being hunter-gatherers living in caves) If that didn't drive the point home, then may I say that circumcision would never be banned, at least in the U.S., because of that, since some religions require it. Mine included, Judaism if you were wondering.
By the way, if you got circumsized at birth, you have to be told about it to notice(Before you've seen an uncircumsized penis and know about the process.) It doesn't feel any different, although that's probably because I only had it for eight days.
And to note, it's much closer to removing an appendix then removing a limb, because you don't need it(Although circumcision does seem to have some health issues both ways, where the appendix doesn't, they cancel each other out, so the net effect would be the same), and you can't remember if it was done at birth. It's a little more extreme then that, but not very. Also, this seems to contradict the many medical benefits part, as there are ONLY medical benefits from removing the appendix, and that is also a "perfectly natural part of every child's body".

So, with that, I'd have to say that Christians are supposed to be circumsized as well.


I just asked a friend who's a Christian theologian. basically, he said no, they're not. he explained that for Christians circumcision is meant to be the preparing of the heart to listen to God sensitively and obediently, and said "read the letter to the Galatians".

Although many atheists and the like find it hard to get this through their heads, violating the core tenets of one's religious beliefs is, quite frankly, unspeakable.

exactly, for all you know your son might be an atheist and your violating his religious beliefs (or lack there of) before he has the ability to say something about it

There's a line between protecting against human rights abuses and interfering with the basic principles of somebody's life: where no substantive abuse has taken place there is absolutely no cause for government to deny someone the basic right of practicing their own religion.
the government is not denying any right you have save your ability to force your religion upon someone else (unless of course the gastly idea that your child may not follow in your religious footsteps has never occured to any of you)

@Islas Rules: The bottom of your earlobe (where people usually have piercings) are flaps of skin (the rest of the pinna being made of cartilage). Would you object to a parent having those surgically removed from their child? They do not do anything useful (unlike foreskin). I know this isn't an exact comparison but I'd say it's pretty close and I was just wondering what people's opinions are about it.

Also, although circumcision can reduce the chances of catching some STDs using a condom is far superior so that shouldn't matter where condoms are easily available.