Lets ban circumcision (male too)

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
*throws up*

yeah I kinda wish i hadn't read that either.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
As you may be aware, in Judaism and Islam its not just a reminder, but a serious requirement of the religion.

I know nothing about the lasting effects of branding, or whether its easier done in infancy than later, or whatever, since its not in fact the practice of any major civilizations. In the case of circumcision it IS the historic practice of two major world religions, and the principle advocates for banning it are people who are either Christian or of Christian background.

I'm neither of the last two. I don't believe religion is a reason to allow something that isn't allowed for others, which is why i believe religious acts that are cruel to animals should also be banned. I don't agree with indoctrination, or something that marks you out as a religion when you haven't chosen to belong to a religion, and I especially don't agree with mutilating someone's body without their consent.

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The contrast with FGM should be clear - large numbers of those who had FGM as children want it banned - virtually no one who was circumcized for religious reasons wants it banned - there have to be reasons for this, and the fact has to be as relevant as abstract logical calculus.

Oh I agree, it's nowhere near as bad as that, that has lasting consequences. However it is still chopping bits of you off without your consent.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


smoking something isn't morally wrong (although I have never taken a puff because I value my health) but whacking parts off of other peoples bodies without their consent is as morally wrong as anything can get. In one action you permanently violate their privacy (which everybody cares so much about), their freedom, their property, and their bodily integrity. There aren't many immoral things that do as thorough a job as that.

parents violate their childrens privacy all the time, in much more serious ways. Youre privileging something you call "bodily integrity" - which as far as I can tell is nothing more than a fetish of your particular culture.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Chicks dig a circumcised unit.

It looks much cleaner.

Depends on the chick.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Asher
Are Brits really that unhygenic?

No. I'm sure some are, but most people I know shower regularly.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
but why is a harmless permanent change a "violation" or, astoundingly, a "rape" apart from a cultural bias, on behalf of a culture that does NOT perform such acts. As for pain, why not ban spanking, or brussel sprouts, or dozens of things parents impose on their kids?

It's not harmless. It's mutiliating their body, and causes pain. Spanking I don't agree with either. Brussel sprouts are evil, however do not cause perminant mutilation.

[Whaleboy]

smoking something isn't morally wrong (although I have never taken a puff because I value my health) but whacking parts off of other peoples bodies without their consent is as morally wrong as anything can get. In one action you permanently violate their privacy (which everybody cares so much about), their freedom, their property, and their bodily integrity. There aren't many immoral things that do as thorough a job as that.

Nah, its just that whenever someone starts jacking off about morality the bull**** alarm sounds loud and clear.

However, you fail to address my argument earlier, equating circumcision to parental right to bring up their child, not assault or abuse.

Are Brits really that unhygenic?

Suffice that if you ever go to Northampton, avoid a gay bar called the Boston Clipper

[Gangerolf]

I never told the doctors to remove my umbilical cord. Bastards

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drogue
I don't agree with indoctrination, or something that marks you out as a religion when you haven't chosen to belong to a religion, and I especially don't agree with mutilating someone's body without their consent.

But to Jews its not mutilation. This is the way we're MEANT to be, and to be kept the other way is unnatural. Its not right to keep your child the way he wasnt meant to be, even if its reversible later. Your definition of what is mutilation is culturally biased, being based on a definition of what is natural that excludes the possibility that certain religious traditions you dont share are true.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Suffice that if you ever go to Northampton, avoid a gay bar called the Boston Clipper

I just avoid England.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
So now parents have no right to teach their child their religion?

They're wlecome to teach them religion, but not to inscribe a perminant mark of that religion on them, before they've had a chance to choose for themselves.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
See above.

Your answer about morality doesn't answer

What's the difference between having a religious symbol perminantly branded on you, or a part of your body cut off as a perminant religious symbol, regardless of whether it's abuse or not? Neither has lasting physical consequences. Both cause pain. Both are irreversable, barring a skin graft.

[Whaleboy]

It's not harmless. It's mutiliating their body, and causes pain. Spanking I don't agree with either. Brussel sprouts are evil, however do not cause perminant mutilation.

Have you ever witnessed a Jewish circumcision? Negligible pain is caused to the infant, incomparable to that of a ripped foreskin. I thought you did agree with spanking? Just as you once said that killing a child by its parents removing food was legitimate since it is the parents perogative.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Have you ever witnessed a Jewish circumcision? Negligible pain is caused to the infant.

Is this a joke?

I've been to a Bris before, the baby's screams hurt my ear...it seemed very very cruel to me.

[Pekka]

Most people that defend chopping penises are cut themselves. Tells you about something doesn't it . Because men with foreskin RARELY EVER want to get rid of it. Because we know something you don't.

They absolutely demand that uncut penises are dirty, which is weird, I guess they never heard of shower.

Why would you make your penis lesser, just because.. uhmm... nothing? The medical beneficies are SO marginal it's a joke.

It looks better? For some it does, for some it don't. Come here with a cut penis and you're the weirdo puke penis.
And that's stupid too. Because if someone says a cut penis or uncut penis, if you really think that the other is a lot uglier than the other, then you have a problem in the head and tells you something about you and nothing about the penis itself. Jeesh, it's only natural, the foreskin.

Besides, a huge penis is thought as good looking. Why don't you go get bigger penises? And anyone claiming they're hung like horse besides Ted Striker is a liar anyway.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
I never told the doctors to remove my umbilical cord. Bastards

If that's to me, I did use the caveat of medical necessity, which I think works the other way round. It can be done unless you've said not to.