you really must be joking? do you really think that people should only focus on one issue or is it a case that because you disagree with some peoples opinion you want to stop the discussion al together. how narrowminded of you.

Standard M.O. Shut the discussion down. If you can't - play the victim card - either gay or Jewish depending on the circumstances...

Making circumcision illegal in FACT is a form of persecution against good Jews and Muslims and religious freedom/TOLERANCE in general. Not a card. A fact. Hands off!

Dude, I don't have to power or interest to shut the discussion down. It's a silly discussion though because people have taken firm sides in a dogmatic way, like the abortion controversy. The side calling it a barbaric practice are not going to convince people thinking this should be a free choice for parents unless they having something really fresh and new in EVIDENCE. And they don't. People who RESPECT the freedom for parents, doctors, and public health officials in high risk countries are also not going to convince anyone that this procedure is no big deal and yes quite often BENEFICIAL.

So like abortion, sure the same tired circular arguments can be argued for thousands of pages, and the result will be the same as when you started. I have confidence the misguided PC brigade on this issue will make little global progress on this though so in my view blowing this up into a big "moral" crusade is just an annoyance. Jews won't accept it. Muslims (who have such huge global numbers) won't accept it. There is morality on BOTH sides of the issue so it MUST remain legal.

OK, the laws are one thing. I think there is nothing wrong with the anti-circumcision people continuing to try to convince parents not to do it or pro-circumcision people talking about the benefits and the tolerance issues. As long as the parents still retain the CHOICE. Again, similar to abortion.

my view is a fetus is not a baby, therefore not a person, once the fetus has gestated enough to function alone outside of the womb then it becomes a viable human being.

9 out of 10 babies born at 28 weeks survive and some as little as 20 weeks have lived. As medicine progresses, they will be born even earlier. Abortion is legal in many places for 24 weeks and some places until the baby is born. Are they not viable human beings?

you really must be joking? do you really think that people should only focus on one issue or is it a case that because you disagree with some peoples opinion you want to stop the discussion al together. how narrowminded of you.

Standard M.O. Shut the discussion down. If you can't - play the victim card - either gay or Jewish depending on the circumstances...

Making circumcision illegal in FACT is a form of persecution against good Jews and Muslims and religious freedom/TOLERANCE in general. Not a card. A fact. Hands off!

Dude, I don't have to power or interest to shut the discussion down. It's a silly discussion though because people have taken firm sides in a dogmatic way, like the abortion controversy. The side calling it a barbaric practice are not going to convince people thinking this should be a free choice for parents unless they having something really fresh and new in EVIDENCE. And they don't. People who RESPECT the freedom for parents, doctors, and public health officials in high risk countries are also not going to convince anyone that this procedure is no big deal and yes quite often BENEFICIAL.

From a religious perspective, what's wrong with foreskins, by the way? Is there any explanation for why God gave us one, if its redundant and to be removed? The umbilical cord, which, similarly, is normally removed, has a clear purpose and is subsequently redundant. But I don't know why God gave us a foreskin, if we don't need it.

SC

From a religious perspective, what's wrong with foreskins, by the way? Is there any explanation for why God gave us one, if its redundant and to be removed? The umbilical cord, which, similarly, is normally removed, has a clear purpose and is subsequently redundant. But I don't know why God gave us a foreskin, if we don't need it.

SC

The Abrahamic edict (source of this for Muslims and Jews and remember Christians started as Jews for many centuries) to cut is not related to biological science per se any more than prohibition of shellfish eating. The Jews back then were a small tribe. Tribes throughout the world, then and now, have odd customs. When they are indeed barbaric, societies should act. When they are morally ambiguous, rather trivial, and have benefits like circumcision, choice and tolerance is in order.

From a religious perspective, what's wrong with foreskins, by the way? Is there any explanation for why God gave us one, if its redundant and to be removed? The umbilical cord, which, similarly, is normally removed, has a clear purpose and is subsequently redundant. But I don't know why God gave us a foreskin, if we don't need it.

SC

The Abrahamic edict (source of this for Muslims and Jews and remember Christians started as Jews for many centuries) to cut is not related to biological science per se any more than prohibition of shellfish eating. The Jews back then were a small tribe. Tribes throughout the world, then and now, have odd customs. When they are indeed barbaric, societies should act. When they are morally ambiguous, rather trivial, and have benefits like circumcision, choice and tolerance is in order.

But is there any purpose to it, from a theological perspective, or is it just a custom which sets Semites aside from their neighbours?

Is it something that God obliges Jews and Muslims to do, and is there any parablic justification for this, or for why God gave us a foreskin in the first place?

Or is it entirely secular?

SC

The practice predates Jews in many tribal cultures.

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm#Brit

Like so many Jewish commandments, the brit milah is commonly perceived to be a hygienic measure; however the biblical text states the reason for this commandment quite clearly: circumcision is an outward physical sign of the eternal covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. It is also a sign that the Jewish people will be perpetuated through the circumcised man. The health benefits of this practice are merely incidental. It is worth noting, however, that circumcised males have a lower risk of certain cancers, and the sexual partners of circumcised males also have a lower risk of certain cancers.

The commandment is binding upon both the father of the child and the child himself. If a father does not have his son circumcised, the son is obligated to have himself circumcised as soon as he becomes an adult. A person who is uncircumcised suffers the penalty of kareit, spiritual excision; in other words, regardless of how good a Jew he is in all other ways, a man has no place in the World to Come if he is uncircumcised.

my view is a fetus is not a baby, therefore not a person, once the fetus has gestated enough to function alone outside of the womb then it becomes a viable human being. prior to that it relies on the incubator (mother) & her rights take precedent as they should. But as a circumcision can only take place on a living human baby that has already gestated & separated from the incubation of the mother then this has nothing to do with the disucssion at hand.

Some 38 of the 50 US states that have fetal homicide laws on the books disagree with your view. If a person commits an assault that kills a fetus at nearly any stage of development, including inception, they can be charged with homicide. There are exceptions for legal abortions going wrong but that is due to the fact that abortion is considered legal in accordance with Roe v. Wade. Federal law trumps state law.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Article continues here: http://www.ncsl.org/...state-laws.aspx

Sorry if you consider my post off topic. I don't believe it is, but your vote outweighs mine.

It is thanks. This topic is not about abortion but about circumcision, thanks. circumcision is not done in the womb so really it just seems a hijack

female genital circumcision is also a cultural practice, should it be allowed? gosh, so is stoning adulterers. maybe we should all get behind that one too.

female genital circumcision is also a cultural practice, should it be allowed? gosh, so is stoning adulterers. maybe we should all get behind that one too.

I have already addressed this.

There is no such thing as female circumcision as Sheryl pointed out on the health forum.

The mutilation done to females in some tribal societies should be illegal. It IS brutality. Yes there are cultural sensitivities, but there is no ambiguity about that one.

To suggest that is equivalent to male circumcision is intellectually dishonest and obviously totally wrong. It is the same kind of insulting daft line of argument that opponents of gay marriage use when they say if we let gays marry, then someone will want to marry a goat, should we make that legal too.

DIFFERENT things are DIFFERENT things. Judge each separately.

Stoning DUH also of course should be illegal. That one is over the top, beyond the pale.

Different things are different things. Male circumcision is NOT brutality and it is something which should be tolerated and yes in some countries PROMOTED.

Thanks for making the abortion case for me JT.

Now as to your hyper defensiveness. None of this is a personal attack on you. You can calm down. It is possible for people to have differing opinions and to discuss them without taking it personally.

Lets all remember that cheers.

Right. So aren't stoning and female mutilation similarly off topic to a thread about male circumcision?

The practice predates Jews in many tribal cultures.

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm#Brit

If a father does not have his son circumcised, the son is obligated to have himself circumcised as soon as he becomes an adult.

And that is absolutely fine, so why not leave it to him to make the choice as soon as he becomes an adult?

in other words, regardless of how good a Jew he is in all other ways, a man has no place in the World to Come if he is uncircumcised.

I do find that bit weird though. I can't believe God (if there is one) would condemn a man who may have devoted his life to helping others, just cos he never got circumcised.

Different things are different things. Male circumcision is NOT brutality and it is something which should be tolerated and yes in some countries PROMOTED.

Well I am a male and i disagree. If someone had cut me, I would have considered it brutality and non of their <deleted> business to touch and remove ANY part of my body without there being an urgent medical need.

If there is a religious Jew reading this, he might comment. Don't hold your breath. I don't think religions are about rationality. Who said they were?

Different things are different things. Male circumcision is NOT brutality and it is something which should be tolerated and yes in some countries PROMOTED.

Well I am a male and i disagree. If someone had cut me, I would have considered it brutality and non of their <deleted> business to touch and remove ANY part of my body without there being an urgent medical need.

I can tell you this confidently. The vast majority of men who were cut as infants not only have no objection to it, they don't hold any ill feelings to their parents, and are so happy with their "condition" that they generally favor doing the same if they have baby boys as well. Hardly as traumatic as some people are painting it.

134 replies plus mine...

Different things are different things. Male circumcision is NOT brutality and it is something which should be tolerated and yes in some countries PROMOTED.

Well I am a male and i disagree. If someone had cut me, I would have considered it brutality and non of their <deleted> business to touch and remove ANY part of my body without there being an urgent medical need.

I can tell you this confidently. The vast majority of men who were cut as infants not only have no objection to it, they don't hold any ill feelings to their parents, and are so happy with their "condition" that they generally favor doing the same if they have baby boys as well. Hardly as traumatic as some people are painting it.

The fact that you have stated "The vast majority" means that there are some, no matter how few, who do object. Unfortunately for them, no matter how loud they scream the wrongs from the rooftops, it's too late to do anything about it. And that is why it should be left to the boy to decide later on.

As long as we are at it, I would like to object to being spanked when I was a child. I can actually remember that and it has not prevented any diseases.

As long as we are at it, I would like to object to being spanked when I was a child. I can actually remember that and it has not prevented any diseases.

You mean you don't like being spanked? That's odd.

Different things are different things. Male circumcision is NOT brutality and it is something which should be tolerated and yes in some countries PROMOTED.

Well I am a male and i disagree. If someone had cut me, I would have considered it brutality and non of their <deleted> business to touch and remove ANY part of my body without there being an urgent medical need.

I can tell you this confidently. The vast majority of men who were cut as infants not only have no objection to it, they don't hold any ill feelings to their parents, and are so happy with their "condition" that they generally favor doing the same if they have baby boys as well. Hardly as traumatic as some people are painting it.

The fact that you have stated "The vast majority" means that there are some, no matter how few, who do object. Unfortunately for them, no matter how loud they scream the wrongs from the rooftops, it's too late to do anything about it. And that is why it should be left to the boy to decide later on.

Yeah make onerous laws persecuting major religions because of a few exceptions. No! If societies do this they will be facing putting good Jews and Muslims in prison for following their faith and customs. That is wrong. Yes Jews and Muslims will keep doing it, the same way that when you make abortion illegal, you get back alley ones.

As long as we are at it, I would like to object to being spanked when I was a child. I can actually remember that and it has not prevented any diseases.

In Europe there are laws in place to stop the spanking of children so why shouldn't there be one to stop people mutilating children?

As long as we are at it, I would like to object to being spanked when I was a child. I can actually remember that and it has not prevented any diseases.

In Europe there are laws in place to stop the spanking of children so why shouldn't there be one to stop people mutilating children?

I'm surprised that JT thinks his spankings have not prevented any diseases. All I can conclude is that he has actually suffered every disease imaginable, which makes me slightly reticent about carrying on too close a conversation, even via an anonymous internet forum.

SC

As long as we are at it, I would like to object to being spanked when I was a child. I can actually remember that and it has not prevented any diseases.

In Europe there are laws in place to stop the spanking of children so why shouldn't there be one to stop people mutilating children?

I'm surprised that JT thinks his spankings have not prevented any diseases. All I can conclude is that he has actually suffered every disease imaginable, which makes me slightly reticent about carrying on too close a conversation, even via an anonymous internet forum.

SC

Not funny.

As long as we are at it, I would like to object to being spanked when I was a child. I can actually remember that and it has not prevented any diseases.

In Europe there are laws in place to stop the spanking of children so why shouldn't there be one to stop people mutilating children?

Because two major religions, many doctors for health reasons, and world health organizations don't consider male circumcision to be unacceptable in the least.

As long as we are at it, I would like to object to being spanked when I was a child. I can actually remember that and it has not prevented any diseases.

In Europe there are laws in place to stop the spanking of children so why shouldn't there be one to stop people mutilating children?

The spanking of children was not part of the desert dogma so there was no block of people asking for special treatment. A perfect example of 'special treatment' is Halal which would be illegal if not being given special dispensation

As long as we are at it, I would like to object to being spanked when I was a child. I can actually remember that and it has not prevented any diseases.

In Europe there are laws in place to stop the spanking of children so why shouldn't there be one to stop people mutilating children?

The spanking of children was not part of the desert dogma so there was no block of people asking for special treatment. A perfect example of 'special treatment' is Halal which would be illegal if not being given special dispensation

The spin of an oppressive rationale. Civil rights, religious freedom within reason, called special treatment when in reality is only normal humane treatment. The same BS used against gay people. Europe with it's bloody history of "special treatment" against Jews and Muslims would do very well to avoid a repeat.

Yeah make onerous laws persecuting major religions because of a few exceptions. No! If societies do this they will be facing putting good Jews and Muslims in prison for following their faith and customs. That is wrong. Yes Jews and Muslims will keep doing it, the same way that when you make abortion illegal, you get back alley ones.

yeah... why not play the religious card?

Yeah make onerous laws persecuting major religions because of a few exceptions. No! If societies do this they will be facing putting good Jews and Muslims in prison for following their faith and customs. That is wrong. Yes Jews and Muslims will keep doing it, the same way that when you make abortion illegal, you get back alley ones.

yeah... why not play the religious card?

How could you not when people are actively trying to make illegal something that is so vital and basic to Jews and Muslims? It is not a card. It is real.

Again, nothing wrong with public propaganda to persuade people not to do it as long as there is freedom to say the other side, such as health benefits. But making it illegal for Jews and Muslims, that is not acceptable!

As long as we are at it, I would like to object to being spanked when I was a child. I can actually remember that and it has not prevented any diseases.

In Europe there are laws in place to stop the spanking of children so why shouldn't there be one to stop people mutilating children?

The spanking of children was not part of the desert dogma so there was no block of people asking for special treatment. A perfect example of 'special treatment' is Halal which would be illegal if not being given special dispensation

The spin of an oppressive rationale. Civil rights, religious freedom within reason, called special treatment when in reality is only normal humane treatment. The same BS used against gay people. Europe with it's bloody history of "special treatment" against Jews and Muslims would do very well to avoid a repeat.

So you object to having laws which apply to everyone regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation, race, nationality, colour etc? It is not I who calls for special treatment dear chap.

So you object to having laws which apply to everyone regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation, race, nationality, colour etc? It is not I who calls for special treatment dear chap.

Wrong. I think male circumcision should legal for everyone, in all countries, and also legal for parents to authorize it for infants. I also fully support international health efforts to promote widespread circumcision in countries with very high HIV risk. My position is clear and consistent. For people who oppose this medical procedure, they should be free to broadcast their views, but not free to mess with people's freedom to do this often BENEFICIAL procedure, including restrictions of the rights of parents to authorize it at the most ideal time which is infancy.