It's a religious liberty thing. In many countries that is still a right. And it is a fundamental right for humans.Its not that we don't care about rights, just that we believe the right to be circumcised is important also.
It really amazes me the importance people put on an excess flap of skin. If they are so against circumcision, fine, but to try and ban it for everyone... Why? The only reason I can think is that there are benefits, but such people don't want others to obtain these, so try to ban it for all.It's a religious liberty thing. In many countries that is still a right. And it is a fundamental right for humans.
As they say, "Getting circumcised was no skin off my nose, and if done correctly, would be no skin off your nose, either".This is such a first world problem it's almost laughable.
But this tradition comes from the bible
already a number of links provided demonstrating the benefits of circumcision and dispelling some of the myths
Many people actually prefer to be without it.
The stats say about 18% of men not circumcised at birth are later circumcised anyway
additional 21% who aren't wish they had been
the female partners of circumcised men are more likely to be sexually fulfilled.
The only reason I can think is that there are benefits, but such people don't want others to obtain these, so try to ban it for all.
Right, because women actually matter when it comes to mens bits? I don't think so. Men shouldn't have to cut off parts of their genitals so that some shallow woman can feel better during sex.
Not really. Such as? Even where it deals with things like slavery or rape, Christians believe the bible provides a just framework for dealing with the fallen human condition.Irrelevant. There are a lot of traditions in the Bible that we now deem barbaric or unnecessary.
True. But when there clearly exists such doubt even among experts, its immature and tyrannical to ban something just because you believe the other side to be wrong.There of plenty of links that say the exact opposite too. Links are a game of back and forth.
You can be glad for a decision your parents made for you, without knowing what exactly what it would be like had they not made the decision. That's what this means.Most circumcised people don't even know what its like to have foreskin since it was taken at a young age, so how can they 'prefer' it?
Its a choice their parents made. Had they been circumcised at birth, its an issue they wouldn't have even have known about.Yes, but that is through a CHOICE they made. No problem if they actually chose it.
I think the arrogance actually goes the other way, with thinking that circumcised men and their wives are missing out, as if something like the penis, rather than just an excess skin flap had been removed.Blame society for that. There is an arrogance and superiority complex among many circumcised people or women who have only been with circumcised men. I personally have been told how disgusting and ugly uncircumcised penis' are and thanks to inappropriate contentography, this has had an effect on many men who therefore feel inadequate until they get the procedure. not something to boast about really.
Call me a feminist, but I consider sexual relationships to be a 2 way thing. If a simple procedure like circumcision can improve satisfaction for women, in addition to the health benefits it gives both, you must surely agree this is another justification to allow it? I know your argument hinges on the importance of foreskin (which I dispute), but if this is left out of the equation, I think you would agree.Right, because women actually matter when it comes to mens bits? I don't think so. Men shouldn't have to cut off parts of their genitals so that some shallow woman can feel better during sex.
This is what I'm talking about. The decision needs to be made for the child.This is probably your worst and most petty take yet.
Nobody is even trying to say it should be completely banned. It should be banned for children who can not make the decision and no parent should be able to decide that for a child.
Anything else wouldn't just be about an excess skin flap, wouldn't be in the bible, wouldn't have the stated benefits and wouldn't have been practiced for thousands of years without problem.If this was any other procedure you'd be all up in arms about a childs rights.
If we were discussing removing part of the male organ, I'd be against it. But its just foreskin, excess skin covering the male organ at birth. Kinda different. Parents can't decide to cut off earlobes or random bits of skin, as this provides no benefit, isn't in the bible, and hasn't been practiced for thousands of years. Circumcision does, is, and has.If its just a flap of skin, then no reason why parents can't decide to cut off earlobes, bits of random skin on the body that aren't needed, right? Or are you saying its only okay if its the penis?
Nope, because I am not saying every male should be circumcised. I'm just saying children have the right to choose (i.e. have parents make that choice for them).You say we make a big deal out of a piece of skin, yet you seem obsessed over what is done to peoples penis' to the extent where you advocate chopping bits of it off. You're just the same but on the opposite side.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?