Post Reply
Page 1 of 136  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 136 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Should Infants Be Ritually Mutilated?
2 years ago  ::  Aug 01, 2012 - 2:53PM #1
mindis1
Posts: 7,525

The past few weeks there have been numerous articles on the issues hovering around a German court ruling that circumcision is tantamount to grievous bodily harm.


The following article reports that upon this ruling, a couple of hospitals in Switzerland have said they would temporarily cease performing circumcisions, and an Austrian provincial governor has issued a recommendation to hospitals to stop performing circumcisions. On the other hand, some MPs in Germany have called for the government to “protect religious circumcision.” The article notes that the practice of circumcision is “observed by both Muslims and Jews on religious grounds,” and the article begins:


Austria's Jewish community (IKG) said Monday it was working jointly with its German and Swiss counterparts to keep religious circumcision legal, after repeated calls for an end to the practice.


news.yahoo.com/jewish-communities-coordi...


Interestingly, circumcision has always been more popular in the US than in Europe. When I was growing up, we were told that circumcision was done for “hygienic” reasons. One time when I told my Sri Lankan friend this, he rolled his eyes.


So, does anyone have any objection to outlawing the mutilation of infant boys in the US, even when done “on religious grounds,” just as we would outlaw a “religious” practice of cutting off an infant’s ear or toe?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 01, 2012 - 3:02PM #2
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

I'm circumsized, and have no complaints. My little Private Ryan has worked just fine, in all the usual applications. 


Franky, I don't think there's much to miss in having to deal with smegma. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 01, 2012 - 3:18PM #3
farragut
Posts: 3,940

Had i the choice to do it over from infancy, I would be clipped.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 01, 2012 - 3:23PM #4
Erey
Posts: 18,435

I do have objections to this because I have never known a circumcised man or boy who wished he had that ugly forskin back.  So leave it alone.  If I knew a bunch of discontented circumcised men I might buy into the argument.  But I know none.  This is misguided meddling in the first degree. 


 


My uncircumcised nephew dealt with painful infections in his foreskin.  When I was pregnant wh my son a man worked a few cubicles down from me who is a Phd in Public Health.  His wife was pregnant at the same time.  He is Mexican, raised in Mexico where circumcision is not very common.  He declared that any son of his woudl be circumcised because he saw too many issues with men having infections.    As it happened, I gave birth a little late.  His wife gave birth a little early and we had our sons just a few hours apart in the same hospital and they were circumcised together side by side.  Both boys grew up to be very pleased with thier penises.


 


There is a reason jewish law required circumcison - because it is cleaner and prevents infections.  Also, there have been other nonabrahamic religions that practised circumcision for the cleanliness and the health factor. 


Now they say it reduces the likelihood  of transmitting  the  HIV virus

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 01, 2012 - 3:54PM #5
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Living in the 21st century, it is very hard to belive that hygiene cannot be achieved in less bloody ways. But then, it requires teaching of hygiene "rituals" that may just be too uncomfortable for certain communities...


As far as the Euro-Americo divide goes: it's like with female leg shaving and such stuff - the more the surface counts, the more you're into it.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 01, 2012 - 3:58PM #6
TemplarS
Posts: 6,599

Aug 1, 2012 -- 3:02PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I'm circumsized, and have no complaints. My little Private Ryan has worked just fine, in all the usual applications. 






Ditto!


 


I think this a misguided extension of the response to the much more egregious issue of female genital mutilation.


There is plenty of evidence that the latter causes harm (in fact, as I understand it, part of the reason is to deny females the pleasures of genital stimulation).  To call this procedure (as some do) "female circumcision" is not correct.  So to ban the common analogous male procedure seems to me an erroneous attempt at some sort of pseudo male-female equal treatment.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 01, 2012 - 4:02PM #7
3neez
Posts: 8,468

I don't recall ever hearing from those circumsized at birth any recollection of it. I think they look much cuter with a head rather than resembling a tube

"When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for the others. It is the same when you are stupid." - Ricky Gervais

“In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, For then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” - Mark Twain
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 01, 2012 - 4:03PM #8
Erey
Posts: 18,435

"  So to ban the common analogous male procedure seems to me an erroneous attempt at some sort of pseudo male-female equal treatment."


 


That is what I think it is all about.  Just misguided meddling

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 01, 2012 - 4:08PM #9
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

"Mutilation" is not an accurate term.


Mutilation involves damaging the body's apperance and/or some manner of its function.


Again, as a circumsized man, I don't see either of those applying to me and my penis. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 01, 2012 - 4:14PM #10
rocketjsquirell
Posts: 15,319

The phrasing of the OP shows that the OP poster has little or no understanding  or appreciation of   1. the circumcision process, 2. the religious reasons for circumcision or 3. anything else having to do with the subject. Circumcision is not mutilation any more than piercing ears is mutilation, actually less as it has medical benefits, while ear piercing has no known benefits at all. 


The efforts to stop circumcision of new born male children has nothing to do with "bodily integrity" or the prevention of "mutilation" it is what it has always been. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 136  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 136 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook