No, there is no such leap. Again, the central conceit of Christian theology is that we cannot save ourselves, that humans are fallen and have a sin nature that we cannot overcome without help. This tactic is directly analgous to the manner in which abusive spouses systematically destroy the self-worth of their victim ("partner"). "You aren't good enough on your own" is a terribly harmful message to teach children.
And the other message is that God loves you enough to die for you and that you are forgiven your sins.
Also a common message from abuser to abusee.They claim overwhelming love and devotion, but fail to actually demonstrate that love.
How does it even make sense?
"I'm all-powerful and created the universe to my design."
"These things are sinful and wwill remove you from my presence."
"It is in your nature to sin- you cannot help but sin"
"I will die for you to save you from the sin"
God created the whole set-up. His "sacrifice" is meaningless because:
a) it's not really a sacrifice. He knows he's God. He knows he going to be ressurected. A few ours of pain on the cross? Big whup.
b) If he's so all-powerful, he could just change the rules without all the bull*****.
c) condemning people to an eternity of torment, absence from God, or non-existance is not love. Again, he has all the power, so he has all the choice.
The whole set-up is textbook abuse. The abuser holds all the power and creates an artifical scenario that makes them look wonerful and the victim look awful (to themselves), but any true objective examination of the facts shows it's all bull*****.
If that God exists, he is small and petty despite his overwhleming power. He is not all-loving, all-powerful, or all-knowing, and I am not on his side.
Fortunately, there are a host of other reasons that indicate he doesn't exist any more than the thousands of other gods with equal evidence that you and I both don't believe in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Because it's usually not medically necessary and has no real medical benefits with the risk of long-term physical and psychological damage. Barring medical emergencies, I don't really see why this practice needs to exist. It's a lot of risk for very little, if any, benefit. In worst cases, it's a cosmetic decision. In terms of consent, it's also an issue for me. At least you can leave religion if it no longer carries meaning for you. You can't really undo missing portions of your genitals.
[quote="Highroller"]I think the issue is whether it is possible to teach religion without being authoritarian.
That sounds right. I suppose it's possible, but I'm not sure what that would really look like. It would have to entail that parents raise their children with religion without the expectation that they carry that ideology to the grave.
In fact, according to the following data, some of the highest reported HIV/AIDS populations reside within countries that reguarly circumcise their infant boys. Swaziland is one such country and nearly 28% of the population is infected! Conversely, not nearly as many British citizens are circumcised and they've settled on 81, at 0.33% infection: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html
The conclusion that one might draw is that there's not a meaningful correlation between male circumcision and reduced STI contraction.
@Nodrog
To be fair, correlation does not equal causation. While rate of circumcision has no meaningful correlation with disease contraction, that doesn't mean that circumcision isn't useful for preventing disease. Other factors, notably, use of contraceptives, would affect this result.
Actually, circumcision does marginally decrease infection rate, but not really by that much.
Much more interesting is that the foreskin is abundant with nerve endings which are important for receiving stimuli and therefore sexual intercourse.
In regards to that, I feel much, MUCH!!! more inclined to trust medicinal/biological studies than social studies in that regard. I really don't care if so and so many men were asked if they miss their foreskin or not, such questionaires are completely useless when you wheigh them against actual studies about the human body.
So yes, circumcising baby boys without medical necessity is pretty much barbaric and idiotic, especially if the only argument for it is marginally better prevention of contracting diseases, notably diseases the boy in question hardly will get before he is old enough to decide how his ***** should look!
I can't fathom why people would force such an irreversible change onto their own child! (Most) religions are harmless in comparison to that!
By the way, there is also a comparable female circumcision (clitoral hood reduction, no link cause NSFW), but do you see that done to young girls in western countries? No, cause it's horrible to do that without their consent.
Let's say I tell my kids that King Arthur really existed. Then I tell them that he got tortured to death, and it's their fault. Then I tell them that they need to worship King Arthur or else his ghost would suck out their blood. Would that be child abuse? Would the answer somehow change if I taught the same stuff, but about some other guy named Jesus?
There's a few religions for which this debate can happen, and Christianity isn't one of them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: [leftovers from booster drafts]
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
@Nodrog
To be fair, correlation does not equal causation. While rate of circumcision has no meaningful correlation with disease contraction, that doesn't mean that circumcision isn't useful for preventing disease. Other factors, notably, use of contraceptives, would affect this result.
I never said it did. I just said it didn't meaningfully correlate with STI rates. Yes, removing the foreskin does lower the disease infection rate, technically. Technically, removing your testicles reduces the risk of testicular cancer. The problem is that better solutions exist (such as condoms and basic hygiene) that don't require the removal of a large portion of an infant male's *****. It's an ethical issue of consent, but also it just doesn't pragmatically make sense.
Quote from Gustostueckeri »
I can't fathom why people would force such an irreversible change onto their own child! (Most) religions are harmless in comparison to that!
Doesn't circumcision of infant boys originate from religious thinking?
Quote from Gustostueckeri »
By the way, there is also a comparable female circumcision (clitoral hood reduction, no link cause NSFW), but do you see that done to young girls in western countries? No, cause it's horrible to do that without their consent.
I wanted to go on a rant about how this double standard is very troubling to me, but I think since it largely wouldn't involve religion, it's somewhat out of the scope of this debate.
It does originate from religion, true. But there is also a large group of people, mainly in the US, who circumcise their boys for no apparent good reason. Tragically enough, studies that prove a slight reduction in infection rate are quite new and therefore not responsible for the hype in some coutries. It's still a rather radical procedure for a marginal gain, it's not even like you get totally immune due to it or something. What would you rather have, a fully sensitive ***** or slightly lower infection rate when barebacking strangers? Hmmmmmm....
It does originate from religion, true. But there is also a large group of people, mainly in the US, who circumcise their boys for no apparent good reason. Tragically enough, studies that prove a slight reduction in infection rate are quite new and therefore not responsible for the hype in some coutries. It's still a rather radical procedure for a marginal gain, it's not even like you get totally immune due to it or something. What would you rather have, a fully sensitive ***** or slightly lower infection rate when barebacking strangers? Hmmmmmm....
I wanted to go on a rant about how this double standard is very troubling to me, but I think since it largely wouldn't involve religion, it's somewhat out of the scope of this debate.
How in the hell is there a double standard between not objecting to circumcision but objecting to female genital mutilation?
The former is a procedure that the medical community is largely ambivalent toward, and is regarded as not harmful and possibly having some medical benefits. The latter is a procedure universally objected to by the medical community because it is very harmful and has no medical benefits.
I have to agree with Highroller, the procedures are quite different in this regard. But I would add that I am generally against either being done without consent. Circumcision isn't much of an issue though, so I am willing to let it slide.
How in the hell is there a double standard between not objecting to circumcision but objecting to female genital mutilation?
The former is a procedure that the medical community is largely ambivalent toward, and is regarded as not harmful and possibly having some medical benefits. The latter is a procedure universally objected to by the medical community because it is very harmful and has no medical benefits.
This is the opposite of a double standard.
Wasn't talking about female genital mutilation but CHR, which can be considered as the lowest form of female circumcision. Granted, the example was just hypothetically speaking since CHR is more for mature woman, but still, the comparison is valid.
The medical community in Europe is NOT ambivalent towards circumcision, they even tried to make it harder in Germany to perform circumcision without an MD, but guess what, since little boy penises are such an important part of certain religions, it immediately got shut down and called "antisemitc" and the advocates against it "Nazis"
Sure, because trying to protect defenseless kids from their fundamentalist parents is such a horrible thing to do..But oh, freedom of religion and doing whatever the **** you want within it, great concept.
The medical community in Europe is NOT ambivalent towards circumcision, they even tried to make it harder in Germany to perform circumcision without an MD, but guess what, since little boy penises are such an important part of certain religions, it immediately got shut down and called "antisemitc" and the advocates against it "Nazis"
That's not anti-circumcision, that's anti-amateur ***** surgery.
Arguing that this makes the medical community anti-circumcision is using the US Medical Community's opposition to midwives as being anti-birth.
The medical community in Europe is NOT ambivalent towards circumcision, they even tried to make it harder in Germany to perform circumcision without an MD
As Jay pointed out, being against having surgery being performed without an MD is not the same as being against the surgery altogether.
The Canadian Paediatric Society's official position from their web site is that they are against it being used routinely for every newborn, because "the benefits and harms are evenly balanced", but they are not blanket "anti-circumcision".
Quote from "Canadian Paediatric Society »
Because the medical risk:benefit ratio of routine newborn male circumcision is closely balanced when current research is reviewed, it is challenging to make definitive recommendations for the entire male newborn population in Canada. For some boys, the likelihood of benefit is higher and circumcision could be considered for disease reduction or treatment. Health care professionals should provide parents with the most up-to-date, unbiased and personalized medical information available so that they can weigh the specific risks and benefits of circumcising their son in the context of familial, religious and cultural beliefs.
I never said that THIS makes the medical community anti-circumcision, studies and hard science do. Making it harder for people without MD to perform circumcision would just have been the first step, they also advocated against MD performing that surgery solely on the parents wishes, since it is a violation of the bodily integrity of the child. It's so strange that MD's would even perform this without a strong reason. It does not better your life like for example correcting a severe overbite would. There is just no compelling reason besides parents deciding how the genitalia of their offspring should look like, which is an abhorrent thought on its own.
Food for thoughts
Here the German case by BBC. Note that, apparently, "Circumcision is an ancient ritual that is fundamental to our individual faiths and we protest in the strongest possible terms against this court ruling". Wow, just wow. It is fundamental! Nothing more harmful to jewish faith than an intact *****.
@brasswire: Your comment came while I had mine open, so read the link if you are interested, there are a few Canadians included as well. "Benefits and harms are evenly balanced" is a pretty remarkable statement by the way, since most foreskin related diseases are pretty rare already. Routine apendix removal would save more lifes, although that is a much more invasive procedure.
I never said that THIS makes the medical community anti-circumcision, studies and hard science do. Making it harder for people without MD to perform circumcision would just have been the first step, they also advocated against MD performing that surgery solely on the parents wishes, since it is a violation of the bodily integrity of the child. It's so strange that MD's would even perform this without a strong reason.
I wasn't aware that surgeries required a strong reason to be performed. Wait, they don't.
Food for thoughts
Here the German case by BBC. Note that, apparently, "Circumcision is an ancient ritual that is fundamental to our individual faiths and we protest in the strongest possible terms against this court ruling". Wow, just wow. It is fundamental! Nothing more harmful to jewish faith than an intact *****.
You know absolutely nothing about Judaism, do you?
The correct answer is yes, the banning of circumcision is incredibly harmful to the practice of Judaism, to the point where it can certainly be argued that a ban against circumcision is a ban against Jews, and is indeed a violation of the freedom of religion.
Food for thoughts
Here the German case by BBC. Note that, apparently, "Circumcision is an ancient ritual that is fundamental to our individual faiths and we protest in the strongest possible terms against this court ruling". Wow, just wow. It is fundamental! Nothing more harmful to jewish faith than an intact *****.
You know absolutely nothing about Judaism, do you?
The correct answer is yes, the banning of circumcision is incredibly harmful to the practice of Judaism, to the point where it can certainly be argued that a ban against circumcision is a ban against Jews, and is indeed a violation of the freedom of religion.
Agreed. Putting regulations to ensure the procedure is done safely is fine, but unless circumcision is universally bad (which it isn't) then violating it as a religious practice is unfair restriction of people's freedom of religion. Freedom of religion should only be impaired when the freedom is to murder, steal, rape, discriminate, financially exploit people (I'm looking at you televangelists), etc - something that should always be against regulation. If people's religious practice is not clearly harmful, then it should be generally allowed. If people's religious practice IS clearly harmful, then it should not be allowed.
My biggest contention with the teaching of religion to children is how often the teaching (intentionally or accidentally) involves psychological manipulation, through the exploitation of cognitive biases and emotional connection. Religious beliefs should be taught moderately, without emphasizing the belief to be fact, or appealing strongly to emotion. Otherwise, it is easily possible for the child to be near incapable of ever rejecting that belief. It is near requirement for any strongly held belief to be rejected for the person to be emotionally comfortable with it, if they are fundamentally emotionally attached to that belief, you may have to emotionally overwhelm them in order for them to actually critically think about it. This is not a good thing. Religious belief is personal, not societal. Hence, it should be induced by personal views not from societal pressures. This is true in the same way you shouldn't teach children to be scientists or teach children to be liberals, you should only expose them to science and expose them to liberalism. Teach children about religion, don't teach children to be religious.
I wanted to go on a rant about how this double standard is very troubling to me, but I think since it largely wouldn't involve religion, it's somewhat out of the scope of this debate.
How in the hell is there a double standard between not objecting to circumcision but objecting to female genital mutilation?
The former is a procedure that the medical community is largely ambivalent toward, and is regarded as not harmful and possibly having some medical benefits. The latter is a procedure universally objected to by the medical community because it is very harmful and has no medical benefits.
This is the opposite of a double standard.
Sorry, I'm just getting to this now.
Also, I lied. This is related to religion. The double standard is that we do not make concessions for female circumcision based on religious grounds, yet we do for male circumcision. Why is that? Because one is tied to Judaism? Why is that relevant? I know you've already distinguished one as mutilation and one as circumcision, but what is the actual difference there? Both are the removal of portions of an infant's genitals for what is essentially a cosmetic procedure; to distinguish that individual as a member of a certain culture or faith.
The correct answer is yes, the banning of circumcision is incredibly harmful to the practice of Judaism, to the point where it can certainly be argued that a ban against circumcision is a ban against Jews, and is indeed a violation of the freedom of religion.
Explain to me why forcibly removing the foreskin of an infant boy's ***** (I remind you, at GREAT physical and possibly psychological duress to the child) takes precedent over human right to bodily integrity? Again, we scoff at and denounce even the pricking of an infant girl's clitoris with a needle, but we find no moral qualms with the complete removal of an entire portion of an infant boy's *****. We find this socially normal.
Also, I lied. This is related to religion. The double standard is that we do not make concessions for female circumcision based on religious grounds, yet we do for male circumcision.
First off, I am unaware of any religion that mandates female circumcision. But this is a moot point, because it wouldn't matter if there were such a religion, or if every religion mandated it. It would still be wrong.
And lest you claim double standard, no, it is not a double standard, because male circumcision and female circumcision are not equivalent. As I stated before, one is regarded as medically unnecessary but relatively benign - possibly even having some health benefits in point of fact. The other is regarded as entirely harmful and having zero medical benefits and is universally decried by medical institutions.
Why is that? Because one is tied to Judaism? Why is that relevant?
Freedom of religion. The government cannot lawfully encroach upon peoples' expression of religion without a valid cause for doing so, because that violates the fundamental liberties this government was created to protect.
That's not the only reason, of course. We do allow circumcisions to people who are not Jewish. But that goes back to liberty: what is the justification for the government forbidding such a procedure?
I know you've already distinguished one as mutilation and one as circumcision, but what is the actual difference there? Both are the removal of portions of an infant's genitals for what is essentially a cosmetic procedure; to distinguish that individual as a member of a certain culture or faith.
I've already distinguished the two. One is considered - by the professional medical community at large, mind - to be medically unnecessary, but not necessarily harmful, and possibly beneficial. The other is considered harmful and decried.
There is also the magnitude of the damage. A properly-performed circumcision results in some obvious and understandable short-term pain but a person is able to live a perfectly normal life afterward with no complications. Female genital mutilation can cause health complications for the rest of a woman's life.
Explain to me why forcibly removing the foreskin of an infant boy's ***** (I remind you, at GREAT physical and possibly psychological duress to the child) takes precedent over human right to bodily integrity?
So shouldn't we, by your logic, forbid any surgeries performed on anyone younger than the age of 18, the age of consent? If not, why shouldn't a parent be allowed to elect to have a circumcision performed on his/her child, but still allowed to elect to perform any other surgery on a child?
Again, we scoff at and denounce even the pricking of an infant girl's clitoris with a needle, but we find no moral qualms with the complete removal of an entire portion of an infant boy's *****.
You have yet to demonstrate why we should have moral qualms with it. I've actually demonstrated a distinction. You have not. Also, you seem to want to ignore my doing so, which I'm thinking has to do with the fact that you, again, provide no reasons why we should forbid circumcision.
I wasn't aware that surgeries required a strong reason to be performed. Wait, they don't.
Erm, yes they do if they are to be performed not on yourself but on your child. Even if it is just yourself, a doctor still might refuse surgery if it serves no good purpose, neither physical nor psychological, like for example removing all your healthy limps because you feel that you should have been born without them. Please don't see this as a jab against transgendered people, it is not the same. At least where I'm from this is the case.
You know absolutely nothing about Judaism, do you?
The correct answer is yes, the banning of circumcision is incredibly harmful to the practice of Judaism, to the point where it can certainly be argued that a ban against circumcision is a ban against Jews, and is indeed a violation of the freedom of religion.
I am certainly no expert, but stating that it would be a ban against Jews is ridiculous. There are whole groups of jews dedicated to modernizing their religion in many aspects, including circumcision. Those people apparently still consider themselves jews but are opposed to archaic practices, pretty similar to all kinds of people throughout history who did the same to their religion. Christianity was also modernized pretty often, even if the current pope is not that forward thinking.
Agreed. Putting regulations to ensure the procedure is done safely is fine, but unless circumcision is universally bad (which it isn't) then violating it as a religious practice is unfair restriction of people's freedom of religion. Freedom of religion should only be impaired when the freedom is to murder, steal, rape, discriminate, financially exploit people (I'm looking at you televangelists), etc - something that should always be against regulation. If people's religious practice is not clearly harmful, then it should be generally allowed. If people's religious practice IS clearly harmful, then it should not be allowed.
Did you read through any papers I provided? It's not universally helpfull either, and performing surgery on another person without immediate!(that's the key word here) positive results or high certainty of preventing further harm in the future is a questionable procedure in any case.
You could also perform appendectomy on every child because it would prevent it ever getting appendicitis, but you don't do you? Yes I know, invasive procedure, still, the benefits would be guaranteed.
First off, I am unaware of any religion that mandates female circumcision. But this is a moot point, because it wouldn't matter if there were such a religion, or if every religion mandated it. It would still be wrong.
And lest you claim double standard, no, it is not a double standard, because male circumcision and female circumcision are not equivalent. As I stated before, one is regarded as medically unnecessary but relatively benign - possibly even having some health benefits in point of fact. The other is regarded as entirely harmful and having zero medical benefits and is universally decried by medical institutions.
And as I have stated before, female circumcision hase many stages/levels with one of them being CHR, which can be part of Vaginal Rejuvenation Plastic Surgery, which you probably have heard of. CHR has medical benefits but is only voluntary and only after you are psychologically screened. Mind that in no way have I ever meant the (misnamed) female circumcision when it's actual body mutilation. Problem in dialog is that there usually is only on degree of male circumcision while there are 4 established ones for woman.
Also mind that the comparison was purely hypothetical, since CHR is probably not possible to do safely on non elderly woman.
Freedom of religion. The government cannot lawfully encroach upon peoples' expression of religion without a valid cause for doing so, because that violates the fundamental liberties this government was created to protect.
That's not the only reason, of course. We do allow circumcisions to people who are not Jewish. But that goes back to liberty: what is the justification for the government forbidding such a procedure?
Please specify the "we". I gave you many sources why the medical community is not that fond of unnecessary circumcision, one of them specifically debunks the "professionals" who gave their opinion to the USA PA as beeing culturally biased and not scientifically sound in their study. Really, please read at least the abstracts, or buy the whole paper if you got the money and the interest to spare.
I've already distinguished the two. One is considered - by the professional medical community at large, mind - to be medically unnecessary, but not necessarily harmful, and possibly beneficial. The other is considered harmful and decried.
There is also the magnitude of the damage. A properly-performed circumcision results in some obvious and understandable short-term pain but a person is able to live a perfectly normal life afterward with no complications. Female genital mutilation can cause health complications for the rest of a woman's life.
I wouldn't call it normal or healthy if you are missing a portion of your ***** which adds vital sensitivity to your ***** and also keeps the glans from desensitizing throughout your life. Granted, you still have fun(of course!), but you will never be able to experience the same possible magnitude as one with a fully intact *****. That's just hard science thout any opinion added. Granted, everything totally depends on your sex life anyway and I would not call it a "complication", but there is a measurable(in terms of amount of nerve cells) difference between and intact and not intac *****.
Now the added opinion I stated many times already: I find it highly questionably for a parent WITHOUT RELIGIOUS REASON compelling them to do that to their boy. Why would you? Penile cancer rates are actually not significantly lower in countries with high degree of circumcision, and every other "advantage" is purely dependant on your childs sexual savy later on in life. Infection rates of highly circumcised western! countries are also not significantly better than those of non-cir western countries, so what's the point?
So shouldn't we, by your logic, forbid any surgeries performed on anyone younger than the age of 18, the age of consent? If not, why shouldn't a parent be allowed to elect to have a circumcision performed on his/her child, but still allowed to elect to perform any other surgery on a child?
That's an asinine comparison, it is already forbidden(again, where I am from, no idea where you might hail) to perform surgeries on some child without the parents consent AND without medical reason. NO MD in their right mind would perform a surgery on your child if it serves no purpose whats-o-ever, except for circumcision.
You have yet to demonstrate why we should have moral qualms with it. I've actually demonstrated a distinction. You have not. Also, you seem to want to ignore my doing so, which I'm thinking has to do with the fact that you, again, provide no reasons why we should forbid circumcision.
I actually have demonstrated and also cited different sources. You have not, and you obviously also ignored my doing so.
Even if it is just yourself, a doctor still might refuse surgery if it serves no good purpose, neither physical nor psychological, like for example removing all your healthy limps because you feel that you should have been born without them. Please don't see this as a jab against transgendered people, it is not the same. At least where I'm from this is the case.
And just like Germany forbidding circumcision performed by people without a medical degree is not the same thing as Germany forbidding surgery, a doctor refusing to perform a procedure is not the same thing as the procedure being illegal.
I am certainly no expert,
You are certainly not. For reference: expressing bewilderment at Jews regarding the circumcision as important is analogous to expressing bewilderment that "the guy on the plus sign" is a big deal in a Christian discussion. It displays a lack of understanding of the entire point behind the religion.
but stating that it would be a ban against Jews is ridiculous.
Of course it isn't.
Although, fellow forumites, this would be a good time for an aside: there is a saying "a law against yarmulkes is a law against Jews," right? Because Google is completely unhelpful at helping me find the source of it.
There are whole groups of jews dedicated to modernizing their religion in many aspects, including circumcision. Those people apparently still consider themselves jews but are opposed to archaic practices, pretty similar to all kinds of people throughout history who did the same to their religion. Christianity was also modernized pretty often, even if the current pope is not that forward thinking.
That you found a website of a group of Jews who do not agree with circumcision does not change the fact that circumcision is a fundamental ritual of Judaism, and that restricting it would be restricting the religious liberties of most observant Jews.
Did you read through any papers I provided? It's not universally helpfull either, and performing surgery on another person without immediate!(that's the key word here) positive results or high certainty of preventing further harm in the future is a questionable procedure in any case.
And as I have stated before, female circumcision hase many stages/levels with one of them being CHR, which can be part of Vaginal Rejuvenation Plastic Surgery, which you probably have heard of. CHR has medical benefits
Cite source?
Please specify the "we".
... America?
I gave you many sources why the medical community is not that fond of unnecessary circumcision,
Which is entirely irrelevant. The medical community's fondness for a procedure has no bearing on whether or not the procedure is unethical/should be illegal, which is what this debate is about.
I wouldn't call it normal or healthy if you are missing a portion of your ***** which adds vital sensitivity to your *****
"Vital sensitivity"? Look, it's nice to have a foreskin and all, but "vital?" Come on. Let's stop being silly. Yeah, it's nice to have extra sensitivity during sex. It's certainly not vital, however, and it's ridiculous for a person harping on about the necessities of surgery to flip around and talk about how medically essential the damn foreskin is.
That's just hard science thout any opinion added.
Of course it isn't.
The foreskin is not only non-essential, it may actually be more beneficial to have it removed. It is certainly not vital. That is what science actually says.
Granted, everything totally depends on your sex life anyway and I would not call it a "complication", but there is a measurable(in terms of amount of nerve cells) difference between and intact and not intac *****.
Yeah, this is really right up there with the heart, brain, lungs, and the other vital organs, isn't it? [/sarcasm]
Now the added opinion I stated many times already: I find it highly questionably for a parent WITHOUT RELIGIOUS REASON compelling them to do that to their boy. Why would you?
I don't know. I guess cleanliness is a reason, and indeed, apparently there is a reduced risk of disease that comes with circumcision, and long with the general "***** is easier to clean" thing. But I'm not sure why Christians circumcise their children, and in this day and age I'm really not sure why Gentiles in general choose to.
But the fact is people do. I don't get it, but then, here's the thing: not getting why people doing something is not valid reason to make it illegal.
That's an asinine comparison, it is already forbidden(again, where I am from, no idea where you might hail) to perform surgeries on some child without the parents consent
Which is an asinine response to my question of what is allowed by parental consent. In America, we allow surgeries on children with parental consent. Hence my question: do you believe any surgery on a person under the legal age of consent is wrong? If not, why should we allow any kind of surgery at all, but not circumcision?
NO MD in their right mind would perform a surgery on your child if it serves no purpose whats-o-ever, except for circumcision.
Circumcision does serve a purpose. It's not vitally necessary medically, true, but we allow surgeries that aren't on children so that point is moot.
I actually have demonstrated and also cited different sources. You have not, and you obviously also ignored my doing so.
You do realize I was talking to Nodrog when I wrote that, right?
But what I said to him also applies to you: you have demonstrated no reason that circumcision should not be allowed. Saying, "I don't like it" or "I don't understand it" or "I think it's weird" are not reasons for it to be banned.
Nor has any compelling case been made for female genital mutilation being analogous to circumcision, which is Nodrog's argument and remains currently unsubstantiated by anything.
You are certainly not. For reference: expressing bewilderment at Jews regarding the circumcision as important is analogous to expressing bewilderment that "the guy on the plus sign" is a big deal in a Christian discussion. It displays a lack of understanding of the entire point behind the religion.
Why is it the same? You did not specify that at all!
Of course it isn't.
Why?
Although, fellow forumites, this would be a good time for an aside: there is a saying "a law against yarmulkes is a law against Jews," right? Because Google is completely unhelpful at helping me find the source of it.
So you can't even find anything to support that claim?
That you found a website of a group of Jews who do not agree with circumcision does not change the fact that circumcision is a fundamental ritual of Judaism, and that restricting it would be restricting the religious liberties of most observant Jews.
It's a fact now? By the way, to the orthodox it is apparently also important to let Rabbis suck the blood after performing the cir, I guess this practice must also be allowed and very important to religious freedom, even if some boys die afterwards.
Again, did you read the paper? It even states that the AAP is pretty backwards in that regard, supported by many pediatricians with different cultural and national background. They pretty much debunked the 8(pretty small group) experts who consulted the AAP in that regard. So no, it's not "me".
Cite source?
I have also stated(getting exhausted now) that pretty much every link I could provide is not safe for work and kinda graphic. Since someone else link on a previous page has been deleted because of that I rather not go against any forum rules. Look it up yourself.
... America?
You mean USA? Cause the whole of America is certainly not behind that notion.
Which is entirely irrelevant. The medical community's fondness for a procedure has no bearing on whether or not the procedure is unethical/should be illegal, which is what this debate is about.
Oh my god, sorry for using fondness...They are not behind it and pediatrics within that community regard it as non-essential and possibly and infringement in bodily integrity of the child. All in the papers that where posted.
"Vital sensitivity"? Look, it's nice to have a foreskin and all, but "vital?" Come on. Let's stop being silly. Yeah, it's nice to have extra sensitivity during sex. It's certainly not vital, however, and it's ridiculous for a person harping on about the necessities of surgery to flip around and talk about how medically essential the damn foreskin is.
All of the clitoral hood isn't essential either, should that be removed too? By the way, I never used the word essential or even implied that it is. Many body parts are not "essential", we still don't remove them on a minor without sound reason. But ok, "vital" is the wrong word. How about "full sensitivity"? That ok?
Of course it isn't.
Ah, of course, sure. Why exactly? Can't do more than post sources(which you still didn't in any way besides the rather non scientific opinion of the APA).
The foreskin is not only non-essential, it may actually be more beneficial to have it removed. It is certainly not vital. That is what science actually says.
Ah, it may actually be? Really? How do you know that? Also, sorry again for using the wrong word, it certainly is not vital, but it is also not vital and hardly more beneficial without it. By the way, if vital is an important aspect, guess what also is not really "vital"? The CH removed at CHR. Does this mean you agree with CHR?
I don't know. I guess cleanliness is a reason, and indeed, apparently there is a reduced risk of disease that comes with circumcision, and long with the general "***** is easier to clean" thing. But I'm not sure why Christians circumcise their children, and in this day and age I'm really not sure why Gentiles in general choose to.
Cleanliness? Are you serious??? My god(just an expression, non believer here), such a ridiculous notion.....
But the fact is people do. I don't get it, but then, here's the thing: not getting why people doing something is not valid reason to make it illegal.
It's not about not getting it, that's just the icing on the cake. It's them performing a prodcedure without clear medical reason on a minor, that's the problem here.
Which is an asinine response to my question of what is allowed by parental consent. In America, we allow surgeries on children with parental consent. Hence my question: do you believe any surgery on a person under the legal age of consent is wrong? If not, why should we allow any kind of surgery at all, but not circumcision?
Not any surgery is allowed. A MD will not (let's leave out illegal stuff) remove your child's foot for example just because you gave your consent. Without clear medical reason, parental consent is cute and all, but a MD who upholds his oath will not perform everyhing the parents ask if it serves no purpose. I already wrote this many times.
By the way, I always meant that the procedure is demanded by parents, therefore implying consent on their part. I never meant that the MD says the procedure is necessary and asks for their consent, that's a different case alltogether.
Circumcision does serve a purpose. It's not vitally necessary medically, true, but we allow surgeries that aren't on children so that point is moot.
Which purpose? And what do you mean with "we allow surgeries that aren't on children"? Protecting a minor from parental stupidity and allowing some personal stupidity are 2 different things. You can cut yourself all you want, it is not illegal. Start cutting your child and it becomes illegal. Same procedures, different subjects. Same rule applies here.
You do realize I was talking to Nodrog when I wrote that, right?
But what I said to him also applies to you: you have demonstrated no reason that circumcision should not be allowed. Saying, "I don't like it" or "I don't understand it" or "I think it's weird" are not reasons for it to be banned.
Nor has any compelling case been made for female genital mutilation being analogous to circumcision, which is Nodrog's argument and remains currently unsubstantiated by anything.
Yes, I did notice that, emphasize was on "I have" meaning reasons were supplied already. Should have wrote it in bold.
I actually demonstrated many a reason, you just don't accept them. I also supplied links to medical/scientific papers to, which you haven't at all, except for the case of CHR, which again is mostly not safe for work due to pictures of vaginas. I never stated that my opinion is reason for it, I gave plenty evidence (in form of links) why it's just not good. No, I will not copy out of these papers, sorry if that is required here. But a lot of these papers have a clear and short abstract covering the main points, so it really shouldn't take long to read through it.
You are certainly not. For reference: expressing bewilderment at Jews regarding the circumcision as important is analogous to expressing bewilderment that "the guy on the plus sign" is a big deal in a Christian discussion. It displays a lack of understanding of the entire point behind the religion.
Why is it the same? You did not specify that at all!
"It displays a lack of understanding of the entire point behind the religion." How did you miss that?
Of course it isn't.
Why?
Because you're banning a fundamental ritual of the religion. This has been repeatedly said.
It's a fact now?
How have you not done any research on Judaism by now?
By the way, to the orthodox it is apparently also important to let Rabbis suck the blood after performing the cir, I guess this practice must also be allowed and very important to religious freedom, even if some boys die afterwards.
How in the hell did you manage to research this but still have no idea whatsoever about why circumcision is important in Judaism? It's like going to a Buddhist discussion and saying, "So I guess there's some discussion on suffering in this."
Oh my god, sorry for using fondness...They are not behind it and pediatrics within that community regard it as non-essential
Irrelevant details. They don't encourage it, nor should they, nor did I ever claim they were. They are, speaking as a whole, neutral on the subject. The point is there is no widespread condemnation of it, nor is there valid reason to regard it as something that should be illegalized.
and possibly and infringement in bodily integrity of the child. All in the papers that where posted.
We could argue that, yes. But unless you want to ban any surgery or medical procedure on a minor, I don't see how the argument holds.
All of the clitoral hood isn't essential either, should that be removed too? By the way, I never used the word essential or even implied that it is.
Look up the word "vital." It astounds me that you can even admit that you used the wrong word and yet still act like it's my fault that you made a mistake.
The foreskin isn't essential. Saying it's "vital" and then saying it's medical fact is garbage. And then being bewildered when someone points out it's not medical fact is further ridiculousness stacked on top of this.
Of course it isn't.
Ah, of course, sure. Why exactly? Can't do more than post sources(which you still didn't in any way besides the rather non scientific opinion of the APA).
The definition of the word "vital," which you yourself just stated.
Ah, it may actually be? Really? How do you know that?
Scientific findings showing a reduced chance of disease. I say may be because this is a controversial thing, obviously.
Cleanliness? Are you serious???
Circumcision for hygienic reasons is common amongst gentiles and has been for a very long time. Was and still is a standard practice in America. And this is not untrue: science does back this up in terms of reduced chance of disease, and then there's the obvious of the ***** being a lot easier to clean without the foreskin.
It's not about not getting it, that's just the icing on the cake. It's them performing a prodcedure without clear medical reason on a minor, that's the problem here.
America allows cosmetic surgery on minors. You have no argument here.
Not any surgery is allowed. A MD will not (let's leave out illegal stuff) remove your child's foot for example just because you gave your consent. Without clear medical reason, parental consent is cute and all, but a MD who upholds his oath will not perform everyhing the parents ask if it serves no purpose. I already wrote this many times.
An MD may refuse treatments, but the fact remains that America allows cosmetic treatments to minors, so your argument continues to be nonexistent.
By the way, I always meant that the procedure is demanded by parents, therefore implying consent on their part. I never meant that the MD says the procedure is necessary and asks for their consent, that's a different case alltogether.
Yes it is, which is why I'm confused as to why you brought up procedures without parental consent. I didn't.
Which purpose?
Religious, hygienic.
And what do you mean with "we allow surgeries that aren't on children"?
We allow surgeries that aren't vitally medically necessary on children.
Start cutting your child and it becomes illegal.
Not necessarily, see above.
I actually demonstrated many a reason, you just don't accept them.
Many a reason for what? What are you even arguing at this point? Because to the best as I can tell, your argument seems to be that it's illegal to perform circumcision on a child. Which is factually false because it isn't illegal to do so. You keep repeating, "You can't do that," when the fact is it happens all the time, and is perfectly legal.
[quote]Because you're banning a fundamental ritual of the religion. This has been repeatedly said.
Can't be that fundamental if more and more Jews(in Israel for example) are forgoing it.
How in the hell did you manage to research this but still have no idea whatsoever about why circumcision is important in Judaism? It's like going to a Buddhist discussion and saying, "So I guess there's some discussion on suffering in this."
Had that article already read when I posted the Jews against circumcision link 2 comments before, was just a matter of looking into browser history.
Irrelevant details. They don't encourage it, nor should they, nor did I ever claim they were. They are, speaking as a whole, neutral on the subject. The point is there is no widespread condemnation of it, nor is there valid reason to regard it as something that should be illegalized.
Again, read the articles and papers I posted, many of them are arguing why exactly it should be illegalized.
We could argue that, yes. But unless you want to ban any surgery or medical procedure on a minor, I don't see how the argument holds.
What? How is that even comparable? Surgeries that are medically necessary are not considered infringement on bodily integrity.
The foreskin isn't essential. Saying it's "vital" and then saying it's medical fact is garbage. And then being bewildered when someone points out it's not medical fact is further ridiculousness stacked on top of this.
I already admited that vital is the wrong word, I also was not bewildered at the pointing out it's not considered vital, I was bewildered at you saying "it may actually be more beneficial to have it removed" since you didn't quote anything to further prove that( besides the not really scientific sound page of the APA)
Circumcision for hygienic reasons is common amongst gentiles and has been for a very long time. Was and still is a standard practice in America. And this is not untrue: science does back this up in terms of reduced chance of disease, and then there's the obvious of the ***** being a lot easier to clean without the foreskin.
By the way, another link regarding the special case of circumcition in the USA. By the way, the science that backs it up by finding a rather small reduced chance of infection and desease is much, much younger than the practice of widespread circumcision in the USA. They basically did it before they even had anything backing the procedure, besides the "cure" for masturbation.
America allows cosmetic surgery on minors. You have no argument here.
Ah ok, that's different then. But why should that not be subject to change? Clitoral hood reduction could also be seen as a cosmetic surgery(not that I am advocating for it being performed on minors, just making a comparison).
Many a reason for what? What are you even arguing at this point? Because to the best as I can tell, your argument seems to be that it's illegal to perform circumcision on a child. Which is factually false because it isn't illegal to do so. You keep repeating, "You can't do that," when the fact is it happens all the time, and is perfectly legal.
I brought many a reason backed up by information from professionals explaining why circumcision without medical reason should not be allowed and indeed be considered illegal, regardless of religion. My argument was never that it IS illegal, but that it should be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How does it even make sense?
"I'm all-powerful and created the universe to my design."
"These things are sinful and wwill remove you from my presence."
"It is in your nature to sin- you cannot help but sin"
"I will die for you to save you from the sin"
God created the whole set-up. His "sacrifice" is meaningless because:
a) it's not really a sacrifice. He knows he's God. He knows he going to be ressurected. A few ours of pain on the cross? Big whup.
b) If he's so all-powerful, he could just change the rules without all the bull*****.
c) condemning people to an eternity of torment, absence from God, or non-existance is not love. Again, he has all the power, so he has all the choice.
The whole set-up is textbook abuse. The abuser holds all the power and creates an artifical scenario that makes them look wonerful and the victim look awful (to themselves), but any true objective examination of the facts shows it's all bull*****.
If that God exists, he is small and petty despite his overwhleming power. He is not all-loving, all-powerful, or all-knowing, and I am not on his side.
Fortunately, there are a host of other reasons that indicate he doesn't exist any more than the thousands of other gods with equal evidence that you and I both don't believe in.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
Base on this page, isn't circumcision prevent HIV?
One Dream, One Vision and One Purpose will make you Achieve your Goal. - partly from Tiberian Sun
The one who wins is not the fastest, smartest or the strongest, It's the person who thinks he can win. - From Think and Grow Rich
Not according to this study:
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/200/3/370.full
In fact, according to the following data, some of the highest reported HIV/AIDS populations reside within countries that reguarly circumcise their infant boys. Swaziland is one such country and nearly 28% of the population is infected! Conversely, not nearly as many British citizens are circumcised and they've settled on 81, at 0.33% infection:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html
The conclusion that one might draw is that there's not a meaningful correlation between male circumcision and reduced STI contraction.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
To be fair, correlation does not equal causation. While rate of circumcision has no meaningful correlation with disease contraction, that doesn't mean that circumcision isn't useful for preventing disease. Other factors, notably, use of contraceptives, would affect this result.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Much more interesting is that the foreskin is abundant with nerve endings which are important for receiving stimuli and therefore sexual intercourse.
In regards to that, I feel much, MUCH!!! more inclined to trust medicinal/biological studies than social studies in that regard. I really don't care if so and so many men were asked if they miss their foreskin or not, such questionaires are completely useless when you wheigh them against actual studies about the human body.
So yes, circumcising baby boys without medical necessity is pretty much barbaric and idiotic, especially if the only argument for it is marginally better prevention of contracting diseases, notably diseases the boy in question hardly will get before he is old enough to decide how his ***** should look!
I can't fathom why people would force such an irreversible change onto their own child! (Most) religions are harmless in comparison to that!
By the way, there is also a comparable female circumcision (clitoral hood reduction, no link cause NSFW), but do you see that done to young girls in western countries? No, cause it's horrible to do that without their consent.
There's a few religions for which this debate can happen, and Christianity isn't one of them.
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
I never said it did. I just said it didn't meaningfully correlate with STI rates. Yes, removing the foreskin does lower the disease infection rate, technically. Technically, removing your testicles reduces the risk of testicular cancer. The problem is that better solutions exist (such as condoms and basic hygiene) that don't require the removal of a large portion of an infant male's *****. It's an ethical issue of consent, but also it just doesn't pragmatically make sense.
Doesn't circumcision of infant boys originate from religious thinking?
I wanted to go on a rant about how this double standard is very troubling to me, but I think since it largely wouldn't involve religion, it's somewhat out of the scope of this debate.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
The former is a procedure that the medical community is largely ambivalent toward, and is regarded as not harmful and possibly having some medical benefits. The latter is a procedure universally objected to by the medical community because it is very harmful and has no medical benefits.
This is the opposite of a double standard.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Wasn't talking about female genital mutilation but CHR, which can be considered as the lowest form of female circumcision. Granted, the example was just hypothetically speaking since CHR is more for mature woman, but still, the comparison is valid.
The medical community in Europe is NOT ambivalent towards circumcision, they even tried to make it harder in Germany to perform circumcision without an MD, but guess what, since little boy penises are such an important part of certain religions, it immediately got shut down and called "antisemitc" and the advocates against it "Nazis"
Sure, because trying to protect defenseless kids from their fundamentalist parents is such a horrible thing to do..But oh, freedom of religion and doing whatever the **** you want within it, great concept.
Arguing that this makes the medical community anti-circumcision is using the US Medical Community's opposition to midwives as being anti-birth.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The Canadian Paediatric Society's official position from their web site is that they are against it being used routinely for every newborn, because "the benefits and harms are evenly balanced", but they are not blanket "anti-circumcision".
http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision
Food for thoughts
Here the German case by BBC. Note that, apparently, "Circumcision is an ancient ritual that is fundamental to our individual faiths and we protest in the strongest possible terms against this court ruling". Wow, just wow. It is fundamental! Nothing more harmful to jewish faith than an intact *****.
@brasswire: Your comment came while I had mine open, so read the link if you are interested, there are a few Canadians included as well. "Benefits and harms are evenly balanced" is a pretty remarkable statement by the way, since most foreskin related diseases are pretty rare already. Routine apendix removal would save more lifes, although that is a much more invasive procedure.
You know absolutely nothing about Judaism, do you?
The correct answer is yes, the banning of circumcision is incredibly harmful to the practice of Judaism, to the point where it can certainly be argued that a ban against circumcision is a ban against Jews, and is indeed a violation of the freedom of religion.
Agreed. Putting regulations to ensure the procedure is done safely is fine, but unless circumcision is universally bad (which it isn't) then violating it as a religious practice is unfair restriction of people's freedom of religion. Freedom of religion should only be impaired when the freedom is to murder, steal, rape, discriminate, financially exploit people (I'm looking at you televangelists), etc - something that should always be against regulation. If people's religious practice is not clearly harmful, then it should be generally allowed. If people's religious practice IS clearly harmful, then it should not be allowed.
My biggest contention with the teaching of religion to children is how often the teaching (intentionally or accidentally) involves psychological manipulation, through the exploitation of cognitive biases and emotional connection. Religious beliefs should be taught moderately, without emphasizing the belief to be fact, or appealing strongly to emotion. Otherwise, it is easily possible for the child to be near incapable of ever rejecting that belief. It is near requirement for any strongly held belief to be rejected for the person to be emotionally comfortable with it, if they are fundamentally emotionally attached to that belief, you may have to emotionally overwhelm them in order for them to actually critically think about it. This is not a good thing. Religious belief is personal, not societal. Hence, it should be induced by personal views not from societal pressures. This is true in the same way you shouldn't teach children to be scientists or teach children to be liberals, you should only expose them to science and expose them to liberalism. Teach children about religion, don't teach children to be religious.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Sorry, I'm just getting to this now.
Also, I lied. This is related to religion. The double standard is that we do not make concessions for female circumcision based on religious grounds, yet we do for male circumcision. Why is that? Because one is tied to Judaism? Why is that relevant? I know you've already distinguished one as mutilation and one as circumcision, but what is the actual difference there? Both are the removal of portions of an infant's genitals for what is essentially a cosmetic procedure; to distinguish that individual as a member of a certain culture or faith.
I found this video to be relevant. It's part of a broader subject, the specific topic of circumcision starts at 3:20.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmAKQLFUlI8
Explain to me why forcibly removing the foreskin of an infant boy's ***** (I remind you, at GREAT physical and possibly psychological duress to the child) takes precedent over human right to bodily integrity? Again, we scoff at and denounce even the pricking of an infant girl's clitoris with a needle, but we find no moral qualms with the complete removal of an entire portion of an infant boy's *****. We find this socially normal.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
And lest you claim double standard, no, it is not a double standard, because male circumcision and female circumcision are not equivalent. As I stated before, one is regarded as medically unnecessary but relatively benign - possibly even having some health benefits in point of fact. The other is regarded as entirely harmful and having zero medical benefits and is universally decried by medical institutions.
Freedom of religion. The government cannot lawfully encroach upon peoples' expression of religion without a valid cause for doing so, because that violates the fundamental liberties this government was created to protect.
That's not the only reason, of course. We do allow circumcisions to people who are not Jewish. But that goes back to liberty: what is the justification for the government forbidding such a procedure?
I've already distinguished the two. One is considered - by the professional medical community at large, mind - to be medically unnecessary, but not necessarily harmful, and possibly beneficial. The other is considered harmful and decried.
There is also the magnitude of the damage. A properly-performed circumcision results in some obvious and understandable short-term pain but a person is able to live a perfectly normal life afterward with no complications. Female genital mutilation can cause health complications for the rest of a woman's life.
So shouldn't we, by your logic, forbid any surgeries performed on anyone younger than the age of 18, the age of consent? If not, why shouldn't a parent be allowed to elect to have a circumcision performed on his/her child, but still allowed to elect to perform any other surgery on a child?
You have yet to demonstrate why we should have moral qualms with it. I've actually demonstrated a distinction. You have not. Also, you seem to want to ignore my doing so, which I'm thinking has to do with the fact that you, again, provide no reasons why we should forbid circumcision.
Erm, yes they do if they are to be performed not on yourself but on your child. Even if it is just yourself, a doctor still might refuse surgery if it serves no good purpose, neither physical nor psychological, like for example removing all your healthy limps because you feel that you should have been born without them. Please don't see this as a jab against transgendered people, it is not the same. At least where I'm from this is the case.
I am certainly no expert, but stating that it would be a ban against Jews is ridiculous. There are whole groups of jews dedicated to modernizing their religion in many aspects, including circumcision. Those people apparently still consider themselves jews but are opposed to archaic practices, pretty similar to all kinds of people throughout history who did the same to their religion. Christianity was also modernized pretty often, even if the current pope is not that forward thinking.
Did you read through any papers I provided? It's not universally helpfull either, and performing surgery on another person without immediate!(that's the key word here) positive results or high certainty of preventing further harm in the future is a questionable procedure in any case.
You could also perform appendectomy on every child because it would prevent it ever getting appendicitis, but you don't do you? Yes I know, invasive procedure, still, the benefits would be guaranteed.
And as I have stated before, female circumcision hase many stages/levels with one of them being CHR, which can be part of Vaginal Rejuvenation Plastic Surgery, which you probably have heard of. CHR has medical benefits but is only voluntary and only after you are psychologically screened. Mind that in no way have I ever meant the (misnamed) female circumcision when it's actual body mutilation. Problem in dialog is that there usually is only on degree of male circumcision while there are 4 established ones for woman.
Also mind that the comparison was purely hypothetical, since CHR is probably not possible to do safely on non elderly woman.
Please specify the "we". I gave you many sources why the medical community is not that fond of unnecessary circumcision, one of them specifically debunks the "professionals" who gave their opinion to the USA PA as beeing culturally biased and not scientifically sound in their study. Really, please read at least the abstracts, or buy the whole paper if you got the money and the interest to spare.
I wouldn't call it normal or healthy if you are missing a portion of your ***** which adds vital sensitivity to your ***** and also keeps the glans from desensitizing throughout your life. Granted, you still have fun(of course!), but you will never be able to experience the same possible magnitude as one with a fully intact *****. That's just hard science thout any opinion added. Granted, everything totally depends on your sex life anyway and I would not call it a "complication", but there is a measurable(in terms of amount of nerve cells) difference between and intact and not intac *****.
Now the added opinion I stated many times already: I find it highly questionably for a parent WITHOUT RELIGIOUS REASON compelling them to do that to their boy. Why would you? Penile cancer rates are actually not significantly lower in countries with high degree of circumcision, and every other "advantage" is purely dependant on your childs sexual savy later on in life. Infection rates of highly circumcised western! countries are also not significantly better than those of non-cir western countries, so what's the point?
That's an asinine comparison, it is already forbidden(again, where I am from, no idea where you might hail) to perform surgeries on some child without the parents consent AND without medical reason. NO MD in their right mind would perform a surgery on your child if it serves no purpose whats-o-ever, except for circumcision.
I actually have demonstrated and also cited different sources. You have not, and you obviously also ignored my doing so.
You are certainly not. For reference: expressing bewilderment at Jews regarding the circumcision as important is analogous to expressing bewilderment that "the guy on the plus sign" is a big deal in a Christian discussion. It displays a lack of understanding of the entire point behind the religion.
Of course it isn't.
Although, fellow forumites, this would be a good time for an aside: there is a saying "a law against yarmulkes is a law against Jews," right? Because Google is completely unhelpful at helping me find the source of it.
That you found a website of a group of Jews who do not agree with circumcision does not change the fact that circumcision is a fundamental ritual of Judaism, and that restricting it would be restricting the religious liberties of most observant Jews.
For you, perhaps. Not so for The American Academy of Pediatrics.
Cite source?
... America?
Which is entirely irrelevant. The medical community's fondness for a procedure has no bearing on whether or not the procedure is unethical/should be illegal, which is what this debate is about.
"Vital sensitivity"? Look, it's nice to have a foreskin and all, but "vital?" Come on. Let's stop being silly. Yeah, it's nice to have extra sensitivity during sex. It's certainly not vital, however, and it's ridiculous for a person harping on about the necessities of surgery to flip around and talk about how medically essential the damn foreskin is.
Of course it isn't.
The foreskin is not only non-essential, it may actually be more beneficial to have it removed. It is certainly not vital. That is what science actually says.
Yeah, this is really right up there with the heart, brain, lungs, and the other vital organs, isn't it? [/sarcasm]
I don't know. I guess cleanliness is a reason, and indeed, apparently there is a reduced risk of disease that comes with circumcision, and long with the general "***** is easier to clean" thing. But I'm not sure why Christians circumcise their children, and in this day and age I'm really not sure why Gentiles in general choose to.
But the fact is people do. I don't get it, but then, here's the thing: not getting why people doing something is not valid reason to make it illegal.
Which is an asinine response to my question of what is allowed by parental consent. In America, we allow surgeries on children with parental consent. Hence my question: do you believe any surgery on a person under the legal age of consent is wrong? If not, why should we allow any kind of surgery at all, but not circumcision?
Circumcision does serve a purpose. It's not vitally necessary medically, true, but we allow surgeries that aren't on children so that point is moot.
You do realize I was talking to Nodrog when I wrote that, right?
But what I said to him also applies to you: you have demonstrated no reason that circumcision should not be allowed. Saying, "I don't like it" or "I don't understand it" or "I think it's weird" are not reasons for it to be banned.
Nor has any compelling case been made for female genital mutilation being analogous to circumcision, which is Nodrog's argument and remains currently unsubstantiated by anything.
Why is it the same? You did not specify that at all!
Why?
So you can't even find anything to support that claim?
It's a fact now? By the way, to the orthodox it is apparently also important to let Rabbis suck the blood after performing the cir, I guess this practice must also be allowed and very important to religious freedom, even if some boys die afterwards.
Again, did you read the paper? It even states that the AAP is pretty backwards in that regard, supported by many pediatricians with different cultural and national background. They pretty much debunked the 8(pretty small group) experts who consulted the AAP in that regard. So no, it's not "me".
I have also stated(getting exhausted now) that pretty much every link I could provide is not safe for work and kinda graphic. Since someone else link on a previous page has been deleted because of that I rather not go against any forum rules. Look it up yourself.
You mean USA? Cause the whole of America is certainly not behind that notion.
Oh my god, sorry for using fondness...They are not behind it and pediatrics within that community regard it as non-essential and possibly and infringement in bodily integrity of the child. All in the papers that where posted.
All of the clitoral hood isn't essential either, should that be removed too? By the way, I never used the word essential or even implied that it is. Many body parts are not "essential", we still don't remove them on a minor without sound reason. But ok, "vital" is the wrong word. How about "full sensitivity"? That ok?
Ah, of course, sure. Why exactly? Can't do more than post sources(which you still didn't in any way besides the rather non scientific opinion of the APA).
Ah, it may actually be? Really? How do you know that? Also, sorry again for using the wrong word, it certainly is not vital, but it is also not vital and hardly more beneficial without it. By the way, if vital is an important aspect, guess what also is not really "vital"? The CH removed at CHR. Does this mean you agree with CHR?
Cleanliness? Are you serious??? My god(just an expression, non believer here), such a ridiculous notion.....
It's not about not getting it, that's just the icing on the cake. It's them performing a prodcedure without clear medical reason on a minor, that's the problem here.
Not any surgery is allowed. A MD will not (let's leave out illegal stuff) remove your child's foot for example just because you gave your consent. Without clear medical reason, parental consent is cute and all, but a MD who upholds his oath will not perform everyhing the parents ask if it serves no purpose. I already wrote this many times.
By the way, I always meant that the procedure is demanded by parents, therefore implying consent on their part. I never meant that the MD says the procedure is necessary and asks for their consent, that's a different case alltogether.
Which purpose? And what do you mean with "we allow surgeries that aren't on children"? Protecting a minor from parental stupidity and allowing some personal stupidity are 2 different things. You can cut yourself all you want, it is not illegal. Start cutting your child and it becomes illegal. Same procedures, different subjects. Same rule applies here.
Yes, I did notice that, emphasize was on "I have" meaning reasons were supplied already. Should have wrote it in bold.
I actually demonstrated many a reason, you just don't accept them. I also supplied links to medical/scientific papers to, which you haven't at all, except for the case of CHR, which again is mostly not safe for work due to pictures of vaginas. I never stated that my opinion is reason for it, I gave plenty evidence (in form of links) why it's just not good. No, I will not copy out of these papers, sorry if that is required here. But a lot of these papers have a clear and short abstract covering the main points, so it really shouldn't take long to read through it.
Because you're banning a fundamental ritual of the religion. This has been repeatedly said.
How have you not done any research on Judaism by now?
How in the hell did you manage to research this but still have no idea whatsoever about why circumcision is important in Judaism? It's like going to a Buddhist discussion and saying, "So I guess there's some discussion on suffering in this."
Irrelevant details. They don't encourage it, nor should they, nor did I ever claim they were. They are, speaking as a whole, neutral on the subject. The point is there is no widespread condemnation of it, nor is there valid reason to regard it as something that should be illegalized.
We could argue that, yes. But unless you want to ban any surgery or medical procedure on a minor, I don't see how the argument holds.
Look up the word "vital." It astounds me that you can even admit that you used the wrong word and yet still act like it's my fault that you made a mistake.
The foreskin isn't essential. Saying it's "vital" and then saying it's medical fact is garbage. And then being bewildered when someone points out it's not medical fact is further ridiculousness stacked on top of this.
The definition of the word "vital," which you yourself just stated.
Scientific findings showing a reduced chance of disease. I say may be because this is a controversial thing, obviously.
Circumcision for hygienic reasons is common amongst gentiles and has been for a very long time. Was and still is a standard practice in America. And this is not untrue: science does back this up in terms of reduced chance of disease, and then there's the obvious of the ***** being a lot easier to clean without the foreskin.
America allows cosmetic surgery on minors. You have no argument here.
An MD may refuse treatments, but the fact remains that America allows cosmetic treatments to minors, so your argument continues to be nonexistent.
Yes it is, which is why I'm confused as to why you brought up procedures without parental consent. I didn't.
Religious, hygienic.
We allow surgeries that aren't vitally medically necessary on children.
Not necessarily, see above.
Many a reason for what? What are you even arguing at this point? Because to the best as I can tell, your argument seems to be that it's illegal to perform circumcision on a child. Which is factually false because it isn't illegal to do so. You keep repeating, "You can't do that," when the fact is it happens all the time, and is perfectly legal.
Can't be that fundamental if more and more Jews(in Israel for example) are forgoing it.
Had that article already read when I posted the Jews against circumcision link 2 comments before, was just a matter of looking into browser history.
Again, read the articles and papers I posted, many of them are arguing why exactly it should be illegalized.
What? How is that even comparable? Surgeries that are medically necessary are not considered infringement on bodily integrity.
I already admited that vital is the wrong word, I also was not bewildered at the pointing out it's not considered vital, I was bewildered at you saying "it may actually be more beneficial to have it removed" since you didn't quote anything to further prove that( besides the not really scientific sound page of the APA)
By the way, another link regarding the special case of circumcition in the USA. By the way, the science that backs it up by finding a rather small reduced chance of infection and desease is much, much younger than the practice of widespread circumcision in the USA. They basically did it before they even had anything backing the procedure, besides the "cure" for masturbation.
Ah ok, that's different then. But why should that not be subject to change? Clitoral hood reduction could also be seen as a cosmetic surgery(not that I am advocating for it being performed on minors, just making a comparison).
I brought many a reason backed up by information from professionals explaining why circumcision without medical reason should not be allowed and indeed be considered illegal, regardless of religion. My argument was never that it IS illegal, but that it should be.