German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'
- Thread starter dirtychinchilla
- Start date
circumsion is fairly innocuous, bad tattoos make a person look like an idiot. I know which I would prefer. I doubt a stupid person has any more control over what they do to themselves than a child.
If one group wants to separate itself from the rest by performing a fairly harmless ritual then I don't see the problem. Jews will always be separate and will always see themselves as different, it's not like anyone born a Jew is anything like the Chav down the road, it seems ridiculous to pretend that if we stopped them cutting themselves they would magically become just like us.
Lolreligion is not the centre of the universe.
However you see it, it's still the removal of a body part and an irreversible surgery. I don't care who's doing it, I just think that it ought to be up to the child to decide when they are old enough.
Two reasons:
Judaism. Some religions practice ritual mutilation as a form of initiation and permanent identification as a follower. Judaism is one of them. Islam likewise, as it's a spin-off from Judaism. Christianity dropped it, I don't know why. Maybe just to differentiate itself from Judaism in the early days.
Masturbation hysteria. This is the root cause of most male genital mutilation in the USA, although most of the people who inflict it on their sons don't even know that. There was an absolutely insane frenzy about masturbation in the 19th century and genital mutilation of infants (for both sexes, but especially boys) was promoted with hysterical fervour as a way to prevent people masturbating later. I know that sounds like conspiracy nutjobbery, but it was recent enough and widespread enough for their to be a huge quantity of extant original material confirming it.
No, it's a useful tactic for people to use to try to divert attention away from inconvenient points that they can't reply to.
People are not arguing that Jews shouldn't be allowed to mutilate themselves because they think their god likes it. You (and others) are using "lolreligion" as a tool to discredit the real argument by pretending that it's just "lolreligion".
The real argument is about when it is acceptable to inflict permanent mutilation on children.
The position people are really taking is that it's only acceptable when medically advisable.
Can you argue against that position, the argument that people are actually making, and not just dismiss it by saying "lolreligion"?
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,144
- Location
- Woking
Well most of us are saying it's fine if it's for medical reasons, and if people want it, but primarily that Jewish boys should not be circumcised until they or of a sufficient age to make an informed decision, and not have the decision left to their parents.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 10,263
- Location
- UK
That explains the rubbish your spouting. So were you baptized, did you have a christening when you were born?
Baptism isn't the same as genital mutilation.
I find it amusing that you have the nerve to say RDM is speaking rubbish.
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,144
- Location
- Woking
I would hope that, in fact, an atheist/agnostic would spout more rubbish considering they are unlikely to believe myths and tales created by faiths.
I am an atheist/agnostic and was christened, and I wish I hadn't been, but at least it doesn't involve permanent mutilation.
A few months ago for medical reasons and I am still recovering, though at this point it is pretty much back to normal and there is no general discomfort at all.
Not very painful at all tbh so long as I did not move around much, however after a week or so(when it was feeling much better and I thought would heal very quickly) I got a pretty nasty infection which was very painful 24/7 for about 4-5 days. After that it did heal quickly and the pain was bearable straight away and totally gone in 2-3 weeks. I imagine I would have been very happy with the recovery had I not got an infection tbh.
I did not burst the stitches, but very nearly, and it was absolute agony, as obviously erections are uncontrollable during the night. It was agony waking up during the night/in the morning!
The main cause of discomfort for me has come simply from walking around as it brushes against my boxers, though that is something I will have to just get used to. It is certainly a bit weird to have a big change like that.
As I said earlier, I would like to see it banned for children, but in my circumstances, I wish my parents had decided for me when I was younger as it would have saved me a lot of discomfort!
Last edited:
Baptism doesn't create any lasting effects; even from a religious point of view, the child can choose not to be confirmed. I was baptised and I don't bear any ill will towards my parents for this, because to an atheist like me, it means precisely squat.
It's "you're" by the way. If you are going to insult my lack of faith at least do it correctly...
I was christened before I was one, it being a few dribbles of water there was no lasting harm done. Unlike having a bit of my body being cut off. If you can honestly not see the different between a christening and circumcision then I truly fear for your ability to think.
At no point have I used the "lolreligion" card so I am unsure a to why you are bringing it up. Your dislike of tattoos is pretty irrelevant to the conversation to be honest as it is not generally done to non consenting infants. If it was, for what ever reason, I would be equally opposed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
Sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday, had a 6 hour drive to tackle.
First of all would just like to say I completely understand and can sympathise with many opinions on here regarding giving the child the choice later in life, it's perfectly reasonable. For some, these opinions are genuine, but for others it seems to be a too good opportunity to not jump on the bash religion bandwagon. Those people know who they are and so do others.
A lot of people are basing their opinions on pure misinformation and just general ignorance. For example: -
Another point I would like to make is by calling it "mutilation" and throwing the term "mutilate" around at every opportunity does NOT strengthen your case, just shows how desperate you are and I would go as far as saying it's an injustice to people who actually have been mutilated. I'm sure child beggars in India who have limbs mutilated, so they are more effective beggars, are glad the horrors of circumcision are being discussed in the same light.
One of the main reasons being offered by you guys for the term "mutilation" goes along the line of the dulling of sensitivity in the area which results in an less pleasurable experience. As mentioned by Pate & Richdog, who then went on with "supporting" evidence.
First let's put this "myth" to bed.
Montefiore Medical Center to the American Urological Association - http://www.medicirc.org/newsletter/s...mcised_man.htm
As you can see from the above evidence uncircumcised and circumcised men share the exact same sensitivity, there in no dulling in sensation and hence no dulling in the pleasurability of sex.
Why is circumcision performed and does it have any health benefits?
Primarily circumcision is performed for religious reasons by both Jews and Muslims as has all ready been mentioned in this thread. In America it is popular due to health reasons and not beacuse of religion.
Now most of you who oppose circumcisions have been clamouring for what health benefits or benefits circumcision provides. In no particular order of importance.
1) Smegma production/formation is pretty much eradicated. Given the fact I didn't even know what Smegma was until yesterday is a proving point. According too many it produces a foul smell and requires daily cleaning. Also referred too as **** cheese, which from experience girls prefer giving oral to a clean circumcised penis.
2) Bundled together from - http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html
3) As mentioned by Noughtboy -The reduction of HIV transmission by 51% to 60% ceteris paribus
http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/p...wad2011report/
4) As mentioned by Noughtboy - It reduces the risk of acquiring HPV by 35% and Herpes Simplex 2 by 28% (again both ceteris paribus)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29882368...ome-std-risks/
5) Circumcision reduces the risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI), such as a bladder infection. (NHS)
6) Circumcision reduces the risk of getting some types of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV. (NHS)
7) Circumcision reduces the risk of developing cancer of the penis. (NHS)
8) Paraphimosis
9) Balanoposthitis
10) Research in Africa found that heterosexual circumcised men are 38-66% less likely to contract HIV than uncircumcised men.
It is thought that the foreskin contains special cells that attract the cells of the HIV virus. This means that uncircumcised men who have vaginal sex with an HIV positive woman are more likely to develop the infection
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Why-is-it-necessary.aspx
11) My own personal favourite reason for circumcision is
- Prince Charles and his brothers are circumcised! Yes the future King of England is circumcised, its only patriotic to follow suit.Now for me, any one of these health benefits would warranty circumcision of any children I may have in the future. It's my opinion based off actual health benefits for my child. If you do not feel any of these health benefits warrant circumcision then please feel free to not have your children circumcised, but DONT try to force them on to us who do feel it is warranted for OUR children.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
Why wait? we dont wait for age of consent for scar inducing vaccine jabs, although they do offer even greater benifits.
My scar is particularly bad compared to others, in fact i dont wear short sleeved t-shirts because of it.
Do you think STI's are only passed around from rape
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
Personally i would hate to have circumcision done as an adult. Anyhow its besides the point, you may feel its unwarranted, others genuinely do. Deal with it.
Montefiore Medical Center to the American Urological Association - http://www.medicirc.org/newsletter/s...mcised_man.htm
As you can see from the above evidence uncircumcised and circumcised men share the exact same sensitivity, there in no dulling in sensation and hence no dulling in the pleasurability of sex.
Last edited:
Baptism is has not even remotely the same potential for harm as circumcision, the symbolism and traditions that inform the customs may be comparable, but the practices themselves are entirely dissimilar.
You are simply undermining your own argument in favour of circumcision by making such spurious comparisons to begin with.
I have been doing a little light research on the origins of the custom and it seems that the practice is thought to have derived from Egyptian customs initially in identifying various Semitic Tribes in the period of Enslavement....Herodotus talks about the practice saying "Egyptians practice circumcision for the sake of cleanliness, considering it better to be cleanly than comely". It was probably also a Rite of Passage from Boyhood to Manhood, with David Gollaher referencing an ancient Egyptian account of circumcision:
"When I was circumcised, together with one hundred and twenty men...there was none thereof who hit out, there was none thereof who was hit, and there was none thereof who scratched and there was none thereof who was scratched"
this is attributed to an Egyptian taking part in a mass circumcision around the 23rd Century BC.
He continues to explain that the surrounding Semitic tribes probably adopted the practice as time went on and their cultures were influenced by the primacy of the Egyptians.
Andrew Kitchen and anthropologist from the University of Florida, Christopher Ehret a historian from UCLA cite the movement of Semitic Tribes from the Horn of Africa into the Levant at around this time and it seems that this is a likely explanation for one of the origins of the practice......
interestingly the Romans and the Seleucid's before them found the practice barbaric and banned it on pain of death, so the practice seems to have died out at some time as the peoples dispersed.
The religious argument is more complex from a Jewish perspective as it appears even the Halacha recognises that Circumcision has inherent risks as it allows a Mother who has lost a Child due to Circumcision to be excused do the same to future sons....this is despite the arguments of orthodox Jews that it is a fundamental requirement of the Covenant of Abraham.....it is also thought that Moses was not circumcised and neither were the Jews who came out of the Desert.
There is also a modern interpretation called Brit b'li Milah which is basically Covenant without Cutting....this is supported by:
Levitcus 19:28: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor imprint any marks upon you: I am the Lord.
Deut 14:1 Ye are the children of the Lord your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.
There is also practice allowed by Halacha called Hatifat Dam Berit which is the token shedding of a drop of blood in baby boys who cannot be circumcised for health reasons....this is accepted as being consistent with the Covenant.
It seems that for any covenant to be of meaning it must be entered into knowingly and this is obviously not happening in the Brit Milah, as it is ridiculous to suggest that an 8 day old child is capable of making the complex decision to enter into the covenant and as such it is invalid.
Further more if we consider the argument of tradition and custom as put forth in the Torah....there are many acts in the Torah that are traditionally punishable by death, yet they are no longer valid customs within Judaism, these include, but are not limited to:
"Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. "
"Lev 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
"Exod 21:17 And he that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
"Deut 21:18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, that will not hearken to the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and though they chasten him, will not hearken unto them; 19
then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20
and they shall say unto the elders of his city: 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he doth not hearken to our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
Now Jews do not advocate killing homosexuals, adulterers or killing their children for disobeying them or calling them names....that would be ridiculous...so the argument for the Custom is also a little weak.
There is also and most importantly some evidence that the total removal of the foreskin was not common practice until the Second Temple Period in an effort to prevent Hellenic Jews from hiding their status, also the ceremony has changed over time as the culture and idealism of people has changed...the Metzitzah for example is not practised anymore, at least not very often and it is seen as pretty obscene in the modern world even amongst orthodox Jews.
To finish it seems that the Yahwist Text of Genesis, which is one of the earliest texts dating to 597 BCE or thereabouts makes no mention of circumcision in the Covenant at all even thought the entire text relating to the Abraham Covenant is otherwise complete, so it can be argued that it is a later addition and this adds further support to the points I mentioned earlier.
And this is what I found out and surmised in around 30 minutes or so.....
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
Because it is the parents responsibilty to whats best for his/her child. Who else is going to impose/instill decency and safety into thier child?
I suppose your like this woman then?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-reveal-sex-gender-neutral-child-Sasha.html
Sex IS a normal thing for most young people between the ages of 12 - 16. In some cases even younger.
Oh have they really? Maybe you should go back and have a read.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 19,893
- Location
- Wales
Me too. I was baptised and i actually have no idea why, neither of my parents are religious
Couldn't care less though.