Yes Humphrey...as I keep reiterating a child wouldn't agree of his own free will.

Given the glee some people have at owning or believing they can own another human being, it's not surprising.

I include religious indoctrination in the same bracket as any parental coercion.

It could be argued (unsuccessfully) that religious belief is no more coerced than someone having a preference for a roast over a curry, or a Sari over jeans and a blouse. If it were true then it could be shown that 'preference' has a 'truth' value. Quite how one would go about showing that, is beyond me. Over the years I have read many many attempts but few have even left the starting block before falling. The only one that makes sense that I recall is that there is no truth value with religious belief because it is taken on faith. The problem with this is that faith is an individual thing (personal faith) so to present it as being true to the clay like mind of a child cannot be regarded as anything other than lying to children.

What percentage of boy babies born to two ethnically Jewish parents are not being cut, in Israel, America, Argentina, France, the UK, etc.? A very SMALL percentage, I am sure. A growing trend? Don't bet on that trend. Sure it's fine to question traditions but that is one tradition that will not be going away.

Don't bet on that trend.

i won't

A four-week-old baby bled to death after a botched home circumcision by a nurse, a court heard today.

Goodluck Caubergs died the day after nurse Grace Adeleye carried out the procedure without anaesthetic and using only a pair of scissors, forceps and olive oil, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The 66-year-old medic is originally from Nigeria, as are the youngster’s parents, where the circumcision of newborns is the tradition for Christian families, the jury heard.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238779/Baby-boy-bled-death-botched-home-circumcision-nurse-using-scissors-forceps-olive-oil-anaesthetic.html

ALWAR: A seven-year-old boy is battling for life after a circumcision surgery went horribly wrong at a private hospital in Alwar on Thursday. The boy's genitals had to be cut off in an attempt to save his life, said sources. An FIR has been lodged against the hospital authorities after the relatives of the boy created a ruckus.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-23/india/35317962_1_circumcision-alwar-genitals

If any 'culture' results in this kind of thing then that 'culture' is to blame.

On a related note.

Poland's top court has ruled that the religious slaughter of animals is illegal, weeks before an EU law allowing the practice takes effect.

The Constitutional Tribunal said it was against Polish law to allow animals to have their throats cut and bleed to death without first being stunned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523809

Credulity is on the decline but more importantly, those who claim special rights on the grounds of their credulity are being told 'no'.

If you physically harm or cause the death of your or any child due to elective surgery then you will go to jail, period. If a professional registered expert on the 'condition' does not consider it medically necessary then the process should not be carried out. Who could argue with that?

Why limit the ban to Kosher and Halal slaughers? Are any of the animals giving CONSENT to be slaughtered in any way? I think not.

Why limit the ban to Kosher and Halal slaughers? Are any of the animals giving CONSENT to be slaughtered in any way? I think not.

Why should an animal suffer longer than it has to?

Why limit the ban to Kosher and Halal slaughers? Are any of the animals giving CONSENT to be slaughtered in any way? I think not.

Why should an animal suffer longer than it has to?

Why indeed? I couldn't care less about religious dietary rules but many people do, and that is their right.

http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/setting_the_record_straight_on_kosher_slaughter

Kosher slaughter, by principle, and as performed today in the United States, is humane. Indeed, as PETA itself has acknowledged, shechita is more humane than the common non-kosher form of shooting the animal in the head with a captive bolt, for reasons noted above. The Humane Slaughter Act, passed into law after objective research by the United States government, declares shechita to be humane. For Torah observant Jews, it cannot be any other way.

Why limit the ban to Kosher and Halal slaughers? Are any of the animals giving CONSENT to be slaughtered in any way? I think not.

Why should an animal suffer longer than it has to?

Why indeed? I couldn't care less about religious dietary rules but many people do, and that is their right.

http://www.oukosher....osher_slaughter

Kosher slaughter, by principle, and as performed today in the United States, is humane. Indeed, as PETA itself has acknowledged, shechita is more humane than the common non-kosher form of shooting the animal in the head with a captive bolt, for reasons noted above. The Humane Slaughter Act, passed into law after objective research by the United States government, declares shechita to be humane. For Torah observant Jews, it cannot be any other way.

PETA! You have got to be kidding. These guys were exposed years ago by Jon Donnis of the http://badpsychics.blogspot.com/ . You are sreiously having a laugh on this one.

Why indeed? I couldn't care less about religious dietary rules but many people do, and that is their right.

Do these people act in such a manner due to personal faith?

Why indeed? I couldn't care less about religious dietary rules but many people do, and that is their right.

Do these people act in such a manner due to personal faith?

Not sure what you're driving at. Some people follow religious rules strictly, some don't, some are atheists entirely, etc.

Why indeed? I couldn't care less about religious dietary rules but many people do, and that is their right.

Do these people act in such a manner due to personal faith?

Not sure what you're driving at. Some people follow religious rules strictly, some don't, some are atheists entirely, etc.

What is the reason behind people following religious dietary rules? If it is due to personal fait (it is) then what ground would they have to impose this on others?

A four-week-old baby bled to death after a botched home circumcision by a nurse, a court heard today.

Goodluck Caubergs died the day after nurse Grace Adeleye carried out the procedure without anaesthetic and using only a pair of scissors, forceps and olive oil, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The 66-year-old medic is originally from Nigeria, as are the youngster’s parents, where the circumcision of newborns is the tradition for Christian families, the jury heard.

http://www.dailymail...naesthetic.html

ALWAR: A seven-year-old boy is battling for life after a circumcision surgery went horribly wrong at a private hospital in Alwar on Thursday. The boy's genitals had to be cut off in an attempt to save his life, said sources. An FIR has been lodged against the hospital authorities after the relatives of the boy created a ruckus.

http://articles.time...-alwar-genitals

If any 'culture' results in this kind of thing then that 'culture' is to blame.

That is just vile. I don't care what your personal beliefs are - you have no right to mutilate other people's bodies without their informed consent.

Why indeed? I couldn't care less about religious dietary rules but many people do, and that is their right.

Do these people act in such a manner due to personal faith?

Not sure what you're driving at. Some people follow religious rules strictly, some don't, some are atheists entirely, etc.

What is the reason behind people following religious dietary rules? If it is due to personal fait (it is) then what ground would they have to impose this on others?

many religious dietary rules made sense when they were "invented"... a few thousand years ago. some of them make also sense nowadays to agnostics and atheists. a good example is an Indian who is neither a Hindu nor a vegetarian but doesn't eat beef because he honours his/her country fellows reverence for cows who supply with their milk a variety of protein nourishments and last not least the fuel to prepare meals.

many religious dietary rules made sense when they were "invented"... a few thousand years ago. some of them make also sense nowadays to agnostics and atheists. a good example is an Indian who is neither a Hindu nor a vegetarian but doesn't eat beef because he honours his/her country fellows reverence for cows who supply with their milk a variety of protein nourishments and last not least the fuel to prepare meals.

History suggests that it has more to do with tillage of the soil but it still doesn't answer my question either way.

A four-week-old baby bled to death after a botched home circumcision by a nurse, a court heard today.

Goodluck Caubergs died the day after nurse Grace Adeleye carried out the procedure without anaesthetic and using only a pair of scissors, forceps and olive oil, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The 66-year-old medic is originally from Nigeria, as are the youngster’s parents, where the circumcision of newborns is the tradition for Christian families, the jury heard.

http://www.dailymail...naesthetic.html

ALWAR: A seven-year-old boy is battling for life after a circumcision surgery went horribly wrong at a private hospital in Alwar on Thursday. The boy's genitals had to be cut off in an attempt to save his life, said sources. An FIR has been lodged against the hospital authorities after the relatives of the boy created a ruckus.

http://articles.time...-alwar-genitals

If any 'culture' results in this kind of thing then that 'culture' is to blame.

That is just vile. I don't care what your personal beliefs are - you have no right to mutilate other people's bodies without their informed consent.

The perfect post in non objectivity (value laden words like vile!). Not on a conscious level mind you. I would bet that not one man who is circumcised is not in favor of it on this thread and not one man who is not circumcised is not opposed to it. It is so simple. If you are circumcised you like it if you are not you don't.

I am right if I read all the posts correctly so let me ask. Is there one instance on this thread where a man who is circumcised is not in favor of circumcision? Is there one instance on this thread where a man who is not circumcised is in favor of circumcision?

So unless I am wrong I think the case can be made that it is impossible to be objective if you are a man who is either circumcised or not circumcised.

Naam and Notmyself and Endure all agree with the word, "Vile" I assume they are all uncircumcised. See what I mean?

That's certainly a big part of how men feel, whether they are cut or not. There are some cases of cut men who feel strongly it shouldn't have happened to them but I think it's clear only a tiny percentage of cut men are really obsessed about it. As far as as medical mishaps with the procedure, it's kind of absurd to focus on them as if they are representative of the procedure overall if done by skilled people using modern methods.

That's certainly a big part of how men feel, whether they are cut or not. There are some cases of cut men who feel strongly it shouldn't have happened to them but I think it's clear only a tiny percentage of cut men are really obsessed about it. As far as as medical mishaps with the procedure, it's kind of absurd to focus on them as if they are representative of the procedure overall if done by skilled people using modern methods.

I was cut as a baby, and frankly it has never bothered me.

Yes, circumcision can go wrong (see nasty examples above)... but so can anything else. You don't think of being electrocuted every time you have a shower... but some people have been electrocuted in showers. You don't think of dying every time you have a minor surgical procedure (I had a cyst cut out a few days ago), but some people die from just that. You don't think of having a heart attack every time you have sex... but a friend of mine did just that (on a prostitute, in his home town... and he was married).

Exceptional cases are simply not the issue.

A four-week-old baby bled to death after a botched home circumcision by a nurse, a court heard today.

Goodluck Caubergs died the day after nurse Grace Adeleye carried out the procedure without anaesthetic and using only a pair of scissors, forceps and olive oil, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The 66-year-old medic is originally from Nigeria, as are the youngster’s parents, where the circumcision of newborns is the tradition for Christian families, the jury heard.

http://www.dailymail...naesthetic.html

ALWAR: A seven-year-old boy is battling for life after a circumcision surgery went horribly wrong at a private hospital in Alwar on Thursday. The boy's genitals had to be cut off in an attempt to save his life, said sources. An FIR has been lodged against the hospital authorities after the relatives of the boy created a ruckus.

http://articles.time...-alwar-genitals

If any 'culture' results in this kind of thing then that 'culture' is to blame.

That is just vile. I don't care what your personal beliefs are - you have no right to mutilate other people's bodies without their informed consent.

The perfect post in non objectivity (value laden words like vile!). Not on a conscious level mind you. I would bet that not one man who is circumcised is not in favor of it on this thread and not one man who is not circumcised is not opposed to it. It is so simple. If you are circumcised you like it if you are not you don't.

I suspect that Goodluck Caubergs and Imran, both of who are circumcised, one of whom is dead, don't like it at all.

A four-week-old baby bled to death after a botched home circumcision by a nurse, a court heard today.

Goodluck Caubergs died the day after nurse Grace Adeleye carried out the procedure without anaesthetic and using only a pair of scissors, forceps and olive oil, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The 66-year-old medic is originally from Nigeria, as are the youngster’s parents, where the circumcision of newborns is the tradition for Christian families, the jury heard.

http://www.dailymail...naesthetic.html

ALWAR: A seven-year-old boy is battling for life after a circumcision surgery went horribly wrong at a private hospital in Alwar on Thursday. The boy's genitals had to be cut off in an attempt to save his life, said sources. An FIR has been lodged against the hospital authorities after the relatives of the boy created a ruckus.

http://articles.time...-alwar-genitals

If any 'culture' results in this kind of thing then that 'culture' is to blame.

That is just vile. I don't care what your personal beliefs are - you have no right to mutilate other people's bodies without their informed consent.

The perfect post in non objectivity (value laden words like vile!). Not on a conscious level mind you. I would bet that not one man who is circumcised is not in favor of it on this thread and not one man who is not circumcised is not opposed to it. It is so simple. If you are circumcised you like it if you are not you don't.

I suspect that Goodluck Caubergs and Imran, both of who are circumcised, one of whom is dead, don't like it at all.

Are you saying we should live our lives based on risk factors that are in the same percent of occurrence of the above two examples? Your example is too outlandish in terms of common danger to be even considered in a debate. How many people die from drinking water? Dilutional hyponatremia. I think the risk is larger. But I could be wrong. What are the fatality statistics from circumcision?

Let me repeat what I said:

"That is just vile. I don't care what your personal beliefs are - you have no right to mutilate other people's bodies without their informed consent."

I have no problem with someone who understands the risks wanting to be circumcised. I also have no problem with a male child being circumcised because of urgent medical need. I do have a big problem with 10 day old babies having an bit of their dick sliced off without having a say in the matter.

One child is dead - another child, if he lives, will go through life without genitalia. All because of 'tradition'. Don't you think that's vile?

Let me repeat what I said:

"That is just vile. I don't care what your personal beliefs are - you have no right to mutilate other people's bodies without their informed consent."

I have no problem with someone who understands the risks wanting to be circumcised. I also have no problem with a male child being circumcised because of urgent medical need. I do have a big problem with 10 day old babies having an bit of their dick sliced off without having a say in the matter.

One child is dead - another child, if he lives, will go through life without genitalia. All because of 'tradition'. Don't you think that's vile?

Let me repeat what I said, " It is so simple. If you are circumcised you like it if you are not you don't." I don't think your examples are relevant because they happen so rarely to be considered a danger when discussing the issue. There are far more problems with vaccinations than circumcisions and I had all my children vaccinated and I don't find that vile. So, in answer to your question, no I don't think it is vile. But I understand why you do.

The perfect post in non objectivity (value laden words like vile!). Not on a conscious level mind you. I would bet that not one man who is circumcised is not in favor of it on this thread and not one man who is not circumcised is not opposed to it. It is so simple. If you are circumcised you like it if you are not you don't.

I am right if I read all the posts correctly so let me ask. Is there one instance on this thread where a man who is circumcised is not in favor of circumcision? Is there one instance on this thread where a man who is not circumcised is in favor of circumcision?

So unless I am wrong I think the case can be made that it is impossible to be objective if you are a man who is either circumcised or not circumcised.

Naam and Notmyself and Endure all agree with the word, "Vile" I assume they are all uncircumcised. See what I mean?

i did not specifically agree with the expression "vile" but fully agree with your posting.

Let me repeat what I said:

"That is just vile. I don't care what your personal beliefs are - you have no right to mutilate other people's bodies without their informed consent."

I have no problem with someone who understands the risks wanting to be circumcised. I also have no problem with a male child being circumcised because of urgent medical need. I do have a big problem with 10 day old babies having an bit of their dick sliced off without having a say in the matter.

One child is dead - another child, if he lives, will go through life without genitalia. All because of 'tradition'. Don't you think that's vile?

Let me repeat what I said, " It is so simple. If you are circumcised you like it if you are not you don't." I don't think your examples are relevant because they happen so rarely to be considered a danger when discussing the issue. There are far more problems with vaccinations than circumcisions and I had all my children vaccinated and I don't find that vile. So, in answer to your question, no I don't think it is vile. But I understand why you do.

The majority of people who have their children vaccinated do so because evidence supports the fact that it reduces the probability of their children catching a specific disease. The majority of people who have their children circumcised do so because their particular magic book tells them to do so.

As I've said previously I have no problem with circumcision in itself but I'm very dubious about many of the reasons for doing so...

Let me repeat what I said:

"That is just vile. I don't care what your personal beliefs are - you have no right to mutilate other people's bodies without their informed consent."

I have no problem with someone who understands the risks wanting to be circumcised. I also have no problem with a male child being circumcised because of urgent medical need. I do have a big problem with 10 day old babies having an bit of their dick sliced off without having a say in the matter.

One child is dead - another child, if he lives, will go through life without genitalia. All because of 'tradition'. Don't you think that's vile?

Let me repeat what I said, " It is so simple. If you are circumcised you like it if you are not you don't." I don't think your examples are relevant because they happen so rarely to be considered a danger when discussing the issue. There are far more problems with vaccinations than circumcisions and I had all my children vaccinated and I don't find that vile. So, in answer to your question, no I don't think it is vile. But I understand why you do.

The majority of people who have their children vaccinated do so because evidence supports the fact that it reduces the probability of their children catching a specific disease. The majority of people who have their children circumcised do so because their particular magic book tells them to do so.

As I've said previously I have no problem with circumcision in itself but I'm very dubious about many of the reasons for doing so...

Not necessarily "the magic book", Endure. My parents had me cut because they decided that the best evidence available at the time indicated that it was in the interests of my health to do so.. In my opinion, they were right to do so (irrespective of any arguments posters may adduce as to why circumcision of a baby is wrong). Parents have to make decisions on behalf of their children; sometimes they will make wrong decisions, but society cannot lay down rules for everything.

The health risk, though it exists, is minimal. Living in itself is dangerous, and, having got into my 70s without any major hitches, mutilated as I am, I don't think I've done too badly.

Yup those magic books. It certainly is an interesting subject. I believe there is even a question in Trivial Pursuit about circumcision.

When I was based in the Philippines I had 3 or 4 requests from staff for the day off so they could take their sons for "Tuli" I would ask what's this all about another bloody holiday ? then be told I'm taking my son to be cut, I'd scratch my head thinking did I forget he just had a newborn son ?????? nope they do it at the age of 8-13 it's considered a right of passage.

Strange ? I think so.....

Parents have to make decisions on behalf of their children; sometimes they will make wrong decisions, but society cannot lay down rules for everything.

As an adult I felt no need to have my right leg, it caused me immense psychological problems for many years so I had it cut off and now I'm happy. I'm going to have the right leg of my 2 week old son cut off so he (thankfully) does not have to go through the same trauma. Does anyone have a problem with this?

Maybe it is a class thing. http://www.circinfo....istinction.html

"In Britain a class distinction is associated with circumcision." "The British Royal Family and the upper classes are circumcised and the lower classes and those who left school before 17 much less so [O'Farrell et al., 2005]."

"Circumcision was common amongst the royal families of other European countries, many of which intermarried with each other and the British Royal Family."

"Socio-economic stratification is seen in the USA as well. The US National Health and Lifestyle Survey saw higher circumcision rates among whites and the better-educated [Laumann et al., 1997]. There was little difference between different religious groups. In the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004, for those born in the 1970s, circumcision rate was 96% in men with an annual household income of greater than $55,000."

"Similarly, in Australia, the higher socio-economic-educated groups in society had higher rates of circumcision [Richters et al., 2006]."

Thus, in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised."

Parents have to make decisions on behalf of their children; sometimes they will make wrong decisions, but society cannot lay down rules for everything.

As an adult I felt no need to have my right leg, it caused me immense psychological problems for many years so I had it cut off and now I'm happy. I'm going to have the right leg of my 2 week old son cut off so he (thankfully) does not have to go through the same trauma. Does anyone have a problem with this?

Sometimes, even in TV, you have to use common sense.

You might try cutting off your head; it would solve all sorts of problems for you, though I don't think society agrees. BTW, I've seen it done on a Chinese movie... quite a sight; yes, I do mean the character cutting off his own head!

Maybe it is a class thing. http://www.circinfo....istinction.html

"In Britain a class distinction is associated with circumcision." "The British Royal Family and the upper classes are circumcised and the lower classes and those who left school before 17 much less so [O'Farrell et al., 2005]."

"Circumcision was common amongst the royal families of other European countries, many of which intermarried with each other and the British Royal Family."

"Socio-economic stratification is seen in the USA as well. The US National Health and Lifestyle Survey saw higher circumcision rates among whites and the better-educated [Laumann et al., 1997]. There was little difference between different religious groups. In the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004, for those born in the 1970s, circumcision rate was 96% in men with an annual household income of greater than $55,000."

"Similarly, in Australia, the higher socio-economic-educated groups in society had higher rates of circumcision [Richters et al., 2006]."

Thus, in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised."

What am I? Irremediably upper. I won't tell you all my titles, as that would destroy my anonymity.