Should circumcisions be illegal?

[HaRaAYaH]

And HaRaAYaH please answer my comments and question in post # 69..

Personally, yes I do it for religious reasons. As I said before I don't advocate required circumcision. It's a personal decision that is made by the parents consulting whatever source they choose. In the United States I have that choice. I don't force my religion on you, I don't need you to force your views on me. You are 1000000% free to not circumcise your child. I personally could care less It's also the height of arrogance for people to say that others are too stupid to take all of the evidence in to account and therefore we should ban this because you are too stupid to see that my way is best for your child.

 

[4321lynx]

And HaRaAYaH please answer my comments and question in post # 69..

Personally, yes I do it for religious reasons. As I said before I don't advocate required circumcision. It's a personal decision that is made by the parents consulting whatever source they choose. In the United States I have that choice. I don't force my religion on you, I don't need you to force your views on me. You are 1000000% free to not circumcise your child. I personally could care less It's also the height of arrogance for people to say that others are too stupid to take all of the evidence in to account and therefore we should ban this because you are too stupid to see that my way is best for your child.

Show me where I say that circumcision should be banned and I will clarify, and will in fact retract such a statement.

I am merely commenting on the reasons for this procedure, and the utter lack of any medical necessity for it, at least in 99.9999% of cases IMO. Futile arguments about protection from HIV are dangerous, safe sex is better. I gather you do not think that the world or universe is some 6,000 years, give or take the odd 1,000 years, old. Why you obey a rule, stemming from the same source, that is equally as ridiculous as that idea is entirely your own business. But cafeteria religiosity is the rule these days.

Incidentally, why is Michelangelo's David uncircumcised? Old Mike knew enough to give Moses his horns, did he not know about circumcision? Or was that really a statue of one of Mike's lovers?

 

[HaRaAYaH]

Personally, yes I do it for religious reasons. As I said before I don't advocate required circumcision. It's a personal decision that is made by the parents consulting whatever source they choose. In the United States I have that choice. I don't force my religion on you, I don't need you to force your views on me. You are 1000000% free to not circumcise your child. I personally could care less It's also the height of arrogance for people to say that others are too stupid to take all of the evidence in to account and therefore we should ban this because you are too stupid to see that my way is best for your child.

Show me where I say that circumcision should be banned and I will clarify, and will in fact retract such a statement. I am merely commenting on the reasons for this procedure, and the utter lack of any medical necessity for it, at least in 99.9999% of cases IMO. Futile arguments about protection from HIV are dangerous, safe sex is better. I gather you do not think that the world or universe is some 6,000 years, give or take the odd 1,000 years, old. Why you obey a rule, stemming from the same source, that is equally as ridiculous as that idea is entirely your own business. But cafeteria religiosity is the rule these days. Incidentally, why is Michelangelo's David uncircumcised? Old Mike knew enough to give Moses his horns, did he not know about circumcision? Or was that really a statue of one of Mike's lovers?

Well the title of thread, should circumcision be legal. There is not a lack of medical benefit. There is in fact medical benefit. You just feel that the benefits do not justify the risks. We disagree about that. Your views on HIV are not shared by the World Health Organization, so I will defer to them. Nor by saying that circumcision helps prevent the spread of HIV does not mean that it's the only method. I also don't think (in fact I know) the world is not 6,000 years old. Jews have been around for about 2,500 years, but the Hebrew Year is approaching 6,000 so I just used that. The world is billions of years old. As for my personal beliefs and practices that's not Germain to the discussion other than why I do something. What Mike was thinking when he carved David, I couldn't rightly say, though the horns should prove it wasn't from personal knowledge unless you know some people with horns.

 

[fta]

Being naked is natural. I don't see you advocating nudity.

There are plenty of nudists/naturists around, even Jewish ones. Heck, even the OT prophet Isaiah walked around naked for three years.

Incidentally, why is Michelangelo's David uncircumcised? Old Mike knew enough to give Moses his horns, did he not know about circumcision? Or was that really a statue of one of Mike's lovers?

Of course, Michelangelo scholars have devoted learned treatises to "Anteater" David and "Horny" Moses.

 

[George S]

I know an adult who had to undergo a circumcision for medical reasons. He reports he misses it.

Nature or evolution has made each species good enough. Just good enough. With hips in females just big enough (and sometimes not quite big enough). Our teeth and jaw are slightly out of synch; too many teeth or too short a jaw. Children born with six fingers or a tail. Yes, we do Caesarians, remove wisdom teeth and remove that sixth finger or tail. Aposthia is a rare condition but a natural variation, so if it were a survival advantage and inheritable it would become nature's preferred penis. Historically -- evolutionarily -- the environments have decided the matter. It could be vestigial, of course. There was a reason for foreskin historically, which is, perhaps, irrelevant in modern times.

If you expect your male child to be exposed to HIV before he reaches the age when he can decide for himself, then cut it off. Otherwise there is no harm in waiting until he is 10 or so.

 

[dystopian]

Well, it's *not* 'natural' in the sense that cancer is a subversion/corruption of the base (ie; natural) state of the cells; it *is* natural in the sense that it exists and occurs in nature as a result of natural processes; which I'm assuming is along the lines of what he meant. Not that this has anything to do with how he was incorrectly assuming that my argument was "uncircumcised penises are natural, and natural = good, therefore blah blah".

Being naked is natural. I don't see you advocating nudity.

Your god, it's like you completely lack any and all reading comprehension.

Haraayah: "You're wrong because your argument is x"

Dystopian: "Actually, my argument isn't x, it's y."

Haraayah: "You're still wrong because your argument is x!"

 

[dystopian]

If you expect your male child to be exposed to HIV before he reaches the age when he can decide for himself, then cut it off. Otherwise there is no harm in waiting until he is 10 or so.

10 is way too young for him to make an informed decision.

 

[George S]

If you expect your male child to be exposed to HIV before he reaches the age when he can decide for himself, then cut it off. Otherwise there is no harm in waiting until he is 10 or so.

10 is way too young for him to make an informed decision.

Okay, 12 then.

 

[4321lynx]

10 is way too young for him to make an informed decision.

Okay, 12 then.

At 10 0r 12 the operation is not as simple as at birth, and may have a more marked psychological reaction. What that reaction is to the procedure at birth we shall probably never know.

 

[4321lynx]

There are plenty of nudists/naturists around, even Jewish ones. Heck, even the OT prophet Isaiah walked around naked for three years.

Incidentally, why is Michelangelo's David uncircumcised? Old Mike knew enough to give Moses his horns, did he not know about circumcision? Or was that really a statue of one of Mike's lovers?

Of course, Michelangelo scholars have devoted learned treatises to "Anteater" David and "Horny" Moses.

OK, I'll go along with the view that the lack of circumcision in David was just another sign of antisemitism in the church and the general population.

The "horns" appear to be the result of a mistranslation from the original Hebrew in the Catholic "Vulgate" version of the Bible.

 

[dystopian]

10 is way too young for him to make an informed decision.

Okay, 12 then.

Are you fucking kidding? What 12 year old do you know who has the intellectual and emotional maturity to make important life decisions?

At 10 0r 12 the operation is not as simple as at birth, and may have a more marked psychological reaction.

The claim that the procedure *may* be more psychologically harmful later in life as opposed to earlier is not, however, a good argument for taking away all choice and just forcing it on them as infants. Not that I think you're making that argument, but just pre-empting the possibility of someone making that argument based on what you said.

 

[George S]

Okay, 12 then.

Are you fucking kidding? What 12 year old do you know who has the intellectual and emotional maturity to make important life decisions?

At 10 0r 12 the operation is not as simple as at birth, and may have a more marked psychological reaction.

The claim that the procedure *may* be more psychologically harmful later in life as opposed to earlier is not, however, a good argument for taking away all choice and just forcing it on them as infants. Not that I think you're making that argument, but just pre-empting the possibility of someone making that argument based on what you said.

The argument I was addressing was that circumcision somehow reduced HIV infection. Even if that argument is accepted, the informed decision could be made before exposure, if that is the goal. Let us select an age when the parent fears their child may be exposed to HIV as the age to have him make his decision. Let it be the just before the age as he is likely to have unprotected sex. That may vary by society and circumstance.

In any case, infancy is too young.

 

[dystopian]

The argument I was addressing was that circumcision somehow reduced HIV infection. Even if that argument is accepted, the informed decision could be made before exposure, if that is the goal. Let us select an age when the parent fears their child may be exposed to HIV as the age to have him make his decision. Let it be the just before the age as he is likely to have unprotected sex. That may vary by society and circumstance.

In any case, infancy is too young.

Accepting the circumcision = reduced HIV infection argument as a hypothetical; this still doesn't justify springing an important life decision on someone (10-12 year old) who clearly isn't intellectually/emotionally equipped to make that choice; especially not when there's a far less complicated alternative that not only doesn't require surgery with permanent consequences, but has a much higher HIV prevention rate (100%, even) than circumcision supposedly does: namely, teaching them to wear a condom.

 

[George S]

The argument I was addressing was that circumcision somehow reduced HIV infection. Even if that argument is accepted, the informed decision could be made before exposure, if that is the goal. Let us select an age when the parent fears their child may be exposed to HIV as the age to have him make his decision. Let it be the just before the age as he is likely to have unprotected sex. That may vary by society and circumstance.

In any case, infancy is too young.

Accepting the circumcision = reduced HIV infection argument as a hypothetical; this still doesn't justify springing an important life decision on someone (10-12 year old) who clearly isn't intellectually/emotionally equipped to make that choice; especially not when there's a far less complicated alternative that not only doesn't require surgery with permanent consequences, but has a much higher HIV prevention rate (100%, even) than circumcision supposedly does: namely, teaching them to wear a condom.

Even better, of course.

 

[J842P]

The argument I was addressing was that circumcision somehow reduced HIV infection. Even if that argument is accepted, the informed decision could be made before exposure, if that is the goal. Let us select an age when the parent fears their child may be exposed to HIV as the age to have him make his decision. Let it be the just before the age as he is likely to have unprotected sex. That may vary by society and circumstance.

In any case, infancy is too young.

Accepting the circumcision = reduced HIV infection argument as a hypothetical; this still doesn't justify springing an important life decision on someone (10-12 year old) who clearly isn't intellectually/emotionally equipped to make that choice; especially not when there's a far less complicated alternative that not only doesn't require surgery with permanent consequences, but has a much higher HIV prevention rate (100%, even) than circumcision supposedly does: namely, teaching them to wear a condom.

It deserves to be repeated often: the whole HIV angle is a red herring. The vast majority of circumcisions that are performed in the West for non-religious reasons were because doctors told parents that it was more hygienic. That's what my parents were told when I was born (1988) and that's why I was circumcised. It had nothing to do with HIV. The hygiene angle only came after people in English speaking countries stopped being sexual prudes (well, compared to those nutty Victorians) and masturbation was no longer seen as a grave health and moral issue. During the 19th century and even up to the 1950s, circumcision was recommended as a preventive measure against masturbation explicitly. Indeed, this implicitely admits that male circumcision affects the sensual properties of the penis, at the very least for masturbation. If Jewish people want to keep circumcising their sons to appease their barbaric Cannanite god, well so be it. I suppose it is minor compared to the the abuse they are doing by indoctrinating their children into their religion. But please, secularists, stop buying into this nonsense. And if you did, know that many well intentioned people were also duped into it by unscrupulous medical professionals, but please stop supporting it.

 

[George S]

Accepting the circumcision = reduced HIV infection argument as a hypothetical; this still doesn't justify springing an important life decision on someone (10-12 year old) who clearly isn't intellectually/emotionally equipped to make that choice; especially not when there's a far less complicated alternative that not only doesn't require surgery with permanent consequences, but has a much higher HIV prevention rate (100%, even) than circumcision supposedly does: namely, teaching them to wear a condom.

It deserves to be repeated often: the whole HIV angle is a red herring. The vast majority of circumcisions that are performed in the West for non-religious reasons were because doctors told parents that it was more hygienic. That's what my parents were told when I was born (1988) and that's why I was circumcised. It had nothing to do with HIV. The hygiene angle only came after people in English speaking countries stopped being sexual prudes (well, compared to those nutty Victorians) and masturbation was no longer seen as a grave health and moral issue. During the 19th century and even up to the 1950s, circumcision was recommended as a preventive measure against masturbation explicitly. Indeed, this implicitely admits that male circumcision affects the sensual properties of the penis, at the very least for masturbation. If Jewish people want to keep circumcising their sons to appease their barbaric Cannanite god, well so be it. I suppose it is minor compared to the the abuse they are doing by indoctrinating their children into their religion. But please, secularists, stop buying into this nonsense. And if you did, know that many well intentioned people were also duped into it by unscrupulous medical professionals, but please stop supporting it.

Of course it is a silly argument. Our discussion was about how it is even silly if accepted!

As for the Jewish tribe? It is barbaric. A stone age ritual performed to appease a bronze age god. In any other context sucking an infant's penis is child sexual abuse. In fact a Mohel transmitted herpes this way.

 

[fta]

"Observe The Vile Masturbator"

It deserves to be repeated often: the whole HIV angle is a red herring. The vast majority of circumcisions that are performed in the West for non-religious reasons were because doctors told parents that it was more hygienic. That's what my parents were told when I was born (1988) and that's why I was circumcised. It had nothing to do with HIV. The hygiene angle only came after people in English speaking countries stopped being sexual prudes (well, compared to those nutty Victorians) and masturbation was no longer seen as a grave health and moral issue. During the 19th century and even up to the 1950s, circumcision was recommended as a preventive measure against masturbation explicitly. Indeed, this implicitely admits that male circumcision affects the sensual properties of the penis, at the very least for masturbation. If Jewish people want to keep circumcising their sons to appease their barbaric Cannanite god, well so be it. I suppose it is minor compared to the the abuse they are doing by indoctrinating their children into their religion. But please, secularists, stop buying into this nonsense. And if you did, know that many well intentioned people were also duped into it by unscrupulous medical professionals, but please stop supporting it.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng[/YOUTUBE]

 

[J842P]

It deserves to be repeated often: the whole HIV angle is a red herring. The vast majority of circumcisions that are performed in the West for non-religious reasons were because doctors told parents that it was more hygienic. That's what my parents were told when I was born (1988) and that's why I was circumcised. It had nothing to do with HIV. The hygiene angle only came after people in English speaking countries stopped being sexual prudes (well, compared to those nutty Victorians) and masturbation was no longer seen as a grave health and moral issue. During the 19th century and even up to the 1950s, circumcision was recommended as a preventive measure against masturbation explicitly. Indeed, this implicitely admits that male circumcision affects the sensual properties of the penis, at the very least for masturbation. If Jewish people want to keep circumcising their sons to appease their barbaric Cannanite god, well so be it. I suppose it is minor compared to the the abuse they are doing by indoctrinating their children into their religion. But please, secularists, stop buying into this nonsense. And if you did, know that many well intentioned people were also duped into it by unscrupulous medical professionals, but please stop supporting it.

Of course it is a silly argument. Our discussion was about how it is even silly if accepted!

I was agreeing with you. I just wanted to reiterate the point.

As for the Jewish tribe? It is barbaric. A stone age ritual performed to appease a bronze age god. In any other context sucking an infant's penis is child sexual abuse. In fact a Mohel transmitted herpes this way.

Honestly, I have no problems with the Mohel doing the metzitzah b'peh per se, aside from the risk of disease. Herpes in infants is very dangerous.

It's not child sexual abuse but part of a procedure that clearly isn't sexual in nature. Contrary to popular belief, not all contact with genitals is sexual in nature.

 

[fta]

*bump*

Florida woman jailed over trying to prevent four-year-old son's circumcision released after nine nights behind bars

Only in America?