Circumcision

Exial · Mar 5, 2011

Reconsider my position? The only thing that will make me reconsider my atheism is evidence. Until evidence of gods existence is found I will remain atheistic, in exactly the same way I am atheistic towards ghosts, leprechauns and unicorns.

Regarding religious circumcision my attitude will not change unless Judaism is verified by indisputable evidence, until then I still consider it a barbaric act that should not exist in the 21st century.

Umaro · Mar 7, 2011

Skaloop said:
If Jewish parents want to circumcise their sons, so be it. I think it's misguided and unnecessary, but they obviously don't, so I'm OK with that. But plenty of non-Jews get circumcised, and they don't have the religious reasons to fall back on. I'm not for outlawing the practice, but I am all for reducing it when it's done for reasons of aesthetics or selfish pride.

So what happens when the Jewish baby grows up and decides he doesn't want to be circumcised? "Too bad, your parents should have been more open minded?" Yeah, that'll fix things. Plenty of men are strongly upset about having that done to them, and there is no way to reverse it really.

plmarquette · Mar 10, 2011

isn't there a link between cervical cancer and uncircumcised males... not cleansing area between foreskin and glans...

selfinflikted · Mar 10, 2011

Umaro said:
So what happens when the Jewish baby grows up and decides he doesn't want to be circumcised? "Too bad, your parents should have been more open minded?" Yeah, that'll fix things. Plenty of men are strongly upset about having that done to them, and there is no way to reverse it really.

This, exactly. I wish I'd had the choice. Granted, I would've probably still gone through with it later in life, but at least I would've had the choice.

Isambard · Mar 10, 2011

rsduncan said:
Well, Jewish friends, look out in another decade or so!!!

I think it's clear that you are an archenemy of G-d. What's He to do with you???

Would you be fine with female circumcision? What about tattooing children with swastikas for religious reasons?

justaguy78 · Mar 10, 2011

I am cut and would say it is something that shouldn't be allowed without the male's consent, especially if it is done for religious reasons. Note that not everyone who has their son cut is religious since there are supposed hygienic benefits to it.

Me personally, had I had a say in it then I'd have probably still got cut. I have never seen one in person but in pics/on film uncut penises look way too freaky and I don't like the idea of less hygienic aspect of there being the foreskin.

selfinflikted · Mar 10, 2011

justaguy78 said:
I am cut and would say it is something that shouldn't be allowed without the male's consent, especially if it is done for religious reasons. Note that not everyone who has their son cut is religious since there are supposed hygienic benefits to it.

Me personally, had I had a say in it then I'd have probably still got cut. I have never seen one in person but in pics/on film uncut penises look way too freaky and I don't like the idea of less hygienic aspect of there being the foreskin.

Well, it's a bit ridiculous to do this for purely religious reasons, imo. Take my case for instance: My parents had the procedure done on me as an infant for purely religious reasons. Now, I'm an atheist. Way to go, mom and dad.

Satt · Mar 10, 2011

The people that say it's NOT ok to cut off a piece of skin AFTER babies are born, are the same people who say that it IS ok to kill them BEFORE they are born...makes perfect sense. I mean, it's about the baby's body AFTER birth, but it's about the parent's BEFORE. Awesome.

selfinflikted · Mar 10, 2011

Satt said:
I mean, it's about the baby's body AFTER birth, but it's about the parent's BEFORE. Awesome.

More or less, yep.

plmarquette · Mar 11, 2011

female circumcision is horrible...removing major and minor labia, removing [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]... in some 3rd world cultures, major health and dismemberment issue...not a good thing...

male circumcision, usually for both health -- male and female issue, and also as a reminder of the covenant with God... most men would look out of place with a foreskin in place, and many kids would tease only child who is "different"

with all the things we have to talk about here... this to me is a "non issue"

selfinflikted · Mar 11, 2011

plmarquette said:
female circumcision is horrible...removing major and minor labia, removing [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]... in some 3rd world cultures, major health and dismemberment issue...not a good thing...

male circumcision, usually for both health -- male and female issue, and also as a reminder of the covenant with God... most men would look out of place with a foreskin in place, and many kids would tease only child who is "different"

with all the things we have to talk about here... this to me is a "non issue"

I feel differently. I think it is a perfectly worthy issue to discuss. Besides, "most" men still have their foreskin. Only certain parts of the world still keep this custom, while most of the planet doesn't partake in this particular ritual, iirc.

OGM · Mar 11, 2011

selfinflikted said:
I feel differently. I think it is a perfectly worthy issue to discuss. Besides, "most" men still have their foreskin. Only certain parts of the world still keep this custom, while most of the planet doesn't partake in this particular ritual, iirc.

It is not popular in most Western countries at all anymore. Actually one of the main reasons it got popular in the U.S. was because of that insane Dr. Kellogg.

I have a hypothical. It I was in a religion that called for the removal of a babies earlobes right after birth...Do you think the U.S. government would allow it? Factors to consider:

Earlobes probably serve even less of a purpose than foreskins.
Religious freedom.

Which begs the question:
Why does the United States have such a higher rate of circumcisions than most other industrialized countries?

Aradia · Mar 11, 2011

For all the whining about whether it's moral or immoral, is anyone going to offer up some actual reasoning behind their opinion? And, perhaps even more importantly, why their opinion ought to be forced upon other people?

Rebekka · Mar 11, 2011

I don't think it's right to mutilate a baby; it's better to wait until he's old enough to ask for it himself. I'd make an exception for medically necessary circumcisions.

Over here, infant circumcision is nonexistent, except for muslims and jews.

Veritas · Mar 11, 2011

Exial said:
Is religious circumcision ethical?

Is it right to remove a babies foreskin without consent for religious reasons?

In my view, this is unlawful genital mutilation.

Removing a small piece of skin is not genital mutilation. That's what they do to females by removing the ENTIRE genitalia. And the reason's for both are completely different.

Exial said:
The child. A persons body does and and always belong to that person. How old they are is irrelevant.

So who does?

They are unable to give consent because they have no way of communicating their answer. Therefore we should not cut off portions of their genitalia until they can decide for themselves if they wish this to be the case.

Based on your logic then, I would assume that you are categorically against abortion.

selfinflikted · Mar 11, 2011

Veritas said:
Removing a small piece of skin is not genital mutilation. That's what they do to females by removing the ENTIRE genitalia. And the reason's for both are completely different.

I'd categorize it as mutilation. I guess it depends on what one considers mutilation. According to a few definitions of the word I've read, it fits the definition perfectly.

OGM · Mar 11, 2011

Veritas said:
Removing a small piece of skin is not genital mutilation. That's what they do to females by removing the ENTIRE genitalia. And the reason's for both are completely different.

Not necessarily. Some operations only involve removal of the clitoral hood and/or parts of the labia (labiaplasty). The clitoral hood and foreskin both serve functions. People aren't born with useless parts you know.

selfinflikted · Mar 11, 2011

dnp200450 said:
People aren't born with useless parts you know.

That's not necessarily true either

Veritas · Mar 11, 2011

Considering that the WHO recommends routine Circ in developing countries to reduce the spread of AID's and other STI's, I think a very good case for medical reason's can be made.

WHO Recommends Circumcision, Citing HIV Data : NPR

Circumcision Guards Against STDs - US News and World Report

Aside from the obvious hygeine and odor issue, women have a stake in this. Uncircumcised men are much more likely to transmit STI's to women because the foreskin harbors viruses, bacteria and yeasts. In addition, for women there is a clear preference:

Argument: Women prefer cleaner circumcised penis - Debatepedia

Veritas · Mar 11, 2011

dnp200450 said:
Not necessarily. Some operations only involve removal of the clitoral hood and/or parts of the labia (labiaplasty). The clitoral hood and foreskin both serve functions. People aren't born with useless parts you know.

Do you know anything about female genetalia and sexual response? The foreskin is NOT the same thing. Besides, you really need to read what is actually done and under what conditions to females in many countries. To equate circumcision to FGM is absurd!

Circumcision

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Under Deck

Nihilist Extrodinaire

justaguy78

Guest

Under Deck

Senior Member

Under Deck

Veteran

Under Deck

Newbie

Regular Member

meow meow meow meow meow meow

1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism

Under Deck

Newbie

Under Deck

1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism

1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency