Lets ban circumcision (male too)

[Geronimo]

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?

Lotm, castration is a harmless permanent change (eunichs of almost every mammal species including primates tend to live a bit longer than their intact brethern) but would not castration still constitute a violation? Just because something doesn't kill or disable you doesn't make it harmless.

As for the pain, thank god hospitals are starting to wake up to the need to use at least topical pain relief on kids when they do this. I really don't want to hear about it if circumcision in jewish communities doesnt make use of pain relief, I really would rather not know that. In any case pain passes, circumcision does not. It lasts even longer than life.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Some do some don't. Seems to depend on where they are from.

I have taken an informal poll many times.

They overwhelmingly liked the cut unit.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by 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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drogue

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.

Its a permanent change, but its NOT mutilation, if the uncircumsized state isnt privileged as "natural". Therefore the objection is that it causes (temporary) pain. But parents are allowed to inflict temporary pain as part of parenting to achieve certain parenting objectives. Ergo its not the pain either. Somehow when the temporary pain is paired with a permanent change, this is transformed not only into abuse, but the least moral thing you could do.

[MikeH]

Most medical reasons for it have gone away with modern hygiene and medical advances. Nowadays there's absolutely no good reason so it's wrong.

[Whaleboy]

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.

If it was forced upon a child with the ability to be self-determined, for sure it would not be a consistent action, however a baby is not. Furthermore, it is not an inscription since no changes to the childs body that remains after the operation has occured, merely a piece of skin removed.

Your answer about morality doesn't answer

Nor was it meant to. I was suprised to see you resort to that which we have previously agreed is a fallacy in argument.

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.

Expanded from my previous post...

Except that one is outweighed by functionality, the degree of show, and the fact that it is less conspicuous.... one is inflicted, another is simply a question of individual difference, like a birthmark, which the parent can change like an education where the child cannot determine itself.

[Pekka]

But I'm not really fanatic about it. If you have a cut penis, I don't think any less of you. Good for you. IF you're happy with it, that's all that really counts. And it's yours, so you should be happy with it

penises

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Lotm, castration is a harmless permanent change (eunichs of almost every mammal species including primates tend to live a bit longer than their intact brethern) but would not castration still constitute a violation? Just because something doesn't kill or disable you doesn't make it harmless.

er cause it prevents you from having children? See also FGM. Circumcision has no effects like the above.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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.

No, my definition of what natural is without outside stimulus. Without intervention, a child would not be circumsized. I believe unless someone consents, it should not be allowed to be done. It's up to the person if they're religious: they should be left as they are until they decide if they are religious, and then follow any irreversable practices. That child shouldn't be indoctrinated into a religious unless that child decides it wants it.

Also, your argument could apply to female genital mutilation for religious reasons. That could be what's natural too, according to their religion.

That child isn't Jewish by choice yet. If he wants to be Jewish, he can choose to. If he doesn't, he should have to have a perminant reminder of it.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Pekka
But I'm not really fanatic about it. If you have a cut penis, I don't think any less of you. Good for you. IF you're happy with it, that's all that really counts. And it's yours, so you should be happy with it

penises

Mine is like a fine piece of art.

Da Vinci, Picasso, Michaelangelo, these are just some of the works that can be compared

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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.

Among Jewish men who were born in the USSR adult circumcision was not uncommon. I doubt ANY of them thought positively about the Soviet laws that prevent them from being circumsized as infants.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


I have taken an informal poll many times.

They overwhelmingly liked the cut unit.

You can't take a meaningful poll. Chicks don't want to tell you what you don't want to hear when it's something you could do nothing about. And Chicks learn to love whatever is attached to the man they love. They usually don't seem to be as shallow about this kind of thing as most guys are. Anyway if being cut meant a guy was more likely to get some then evolution would have easily removed the foreskin entirely by now.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
why not ban spanking

Er... we do. Physical abuse of children is physical abuse of children, and circumcision should certainly be part of it.

Hiding behind culture is all the more common for bigots and violent conservatives these days isn't it? "Homosexuality is not part of the Zimbabwean culture..." etc.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


I have taken an informal poll many times.

They overwhelmingly liked the cut unit.

I've never been turned down for being intact. That argument smacks of blue-balled desperation.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Have you ever witnessed a Jewish circumcision? Negligible pain is caused to the infant, incomparable to that of a ripped foreskin.

Yes, but comparable to having a part of your body removed with a scalpel, since that's what it is. Not exactly painless.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I thought you did agree with spanking?

No.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Just as you once said that killing a child by its parents removing food was legitimate since it is the parents perogative.

Wow, poisoning the well today aren't we?