Lets ban circumcision (male too)

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I am prepared to concede that being circumsized means you require more "care" in anal sex, though apparently ripped foreskins are as painful as they are amusing to me, in "normal" sex all is good.

That's it, not only is it abuse, it's discrimination against gays!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
But that wouldnt serve the purpose of discouraging Jews and muslims from moving to ones country, now would it?

Surprisingly, the reasons for banning it aren't religious. Unlike the reasons for having it done, which stinks of indoctrination too.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


But that wouldnt serve the purpose of discouraging Jews and muslims from moving to ones country, now would it?

fine. You may find to your astonishment that the real reason people oppose infant circumcision has nothing to do with religious bias but because they find the concept of someone violating the body of a child in this way unconscionable.

In those cases in which people do this because even though they are of sound mind they believe that it is commanded by G-d that they do this to their kids then I can see allowing an exception to preserve religious freedom. All i really care about is that nobody has to grow up having been violated in this way and have to live with this rape permanently.

[MikeH]

No-one who hasn't been circumcised will ever agree it's a good idea, who would willingly have a bit of their penis chopped off? If it's done when you were young, or for medical reasons later on in life then fair enough but in most cases there's absolutely no need. And if you are curcumcised and don't understand our point of view it's because you haven't had years to grow attached to the little fella.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Morally wrong? Are you smoking something?

No. IMHO believe cutting bits off a child to be morally wrong, regardless of their sex.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
We clearly have differing definitions of abuse.

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.

[Ted Striker]

Chicks dig a circumcised unit.

It looks much cleaner.

[Whaleboy]

Well everybody I've met who resented it didn't have it done for religious or cultural reasons, rahter it was done to them for 'medical tradition' or because it had been done to their parent or some other such ****. Perhaps circumcision of infants could be allowed for religious purposes but prohibited in other cases.

Nah, I go for consistency, theres more than enough of that to allow it for religious and secular reasons.

Everyone does. I've seen a lot of cocks, mister. Porn and otherwise.

You may just be used to it?

Looks like some self-examination is in order . Personally speaking, I find uncut penises the height of ugliness... it's almost as though he has something to hide underneath a small ocean of congealed smegma...

If your parents wanted to brand you, would the state be right to intervene? I don't see much of a difference between a perminant reminder of your parents religion, through a painful process, and another perminant reminder of your religion, through a painful process. Neither has lasting physical problems, in the majority of cases.

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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drogue

IMHO, in cases where one person wants to chop bits off another, it's down to that person. Not their parents. With the exception of medical necessity, where you'd need a DNR or somesuch for them not to do it. You can choose to have it done later. You cannot choose to have it undone.

If your parents wanted to brand you, would the state be right to intervene? I don't see much of a difference between a perminant reminder of your parents religion, through a painful process, and another perminant reminder of your religion, through a painful process. Neither has lasting physical problems, in the majority of cases.

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.

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.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Morally wrong? Are you smoking something?

We clearly have differing definitions of abuse. It's the erroneous use of someone or something. The notion of erroneous is a question of the beholder, unless pragmatically mitigating circumstances apply, as in the case of female circumcision whereby GBH is the result.

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.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Looks like some self-examination is in order . Personally speaking, I find uncut penises the height of ugliness... it's almost as though he has something to hide underneath a small ocean of congealed smegma...

Are Brits really that unhygenic?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Chicks dig a circumcised unit.

It looks much cleaner.

Only if you don't clean an uncircumsized one. Wash it every day and it isn't dirty.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Chicks dig a circumcised unit.

It looks much cleaner.

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

[Ted Striker]

*throws up*

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


fine. You may find to your astonishment that the real reason people oppose infant circumcision has nothing to do with religious bias but because they find the concept of someone violating the body of a child in this way unconscionable.

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?

[Whaleboy]

Surprisingly, the reasons for banning it aren't religious. Unlike the reasons for having it done, which stinks of indoctrination too.

So now parents have no right to teach their child their religion?

No. IMHO believe cutting bits off a child to be morally wrong, regardless of their sex.

Since when did you use the notion of morality in debates? When utilitarianism reaches a conclusion you disagree with you resort to profundities?

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.

See above.