San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision

[iamawesomewicked]

If they have no interest, then ask them what they are interested in.

[Calum Veteran]

If you think Baptisms and Christenings should be banned too, then does that mean we should ban sending our kids to extracurricular activities? What if they have no interest in soccer, or painting?

Sending a child to soccer practice when he or she has the ability to understand what he or she is doing is completely different to the idea of christening an unconsenting baby. Maybe if you'd compared it with the idea of sending a baby to soccer practice, you could possibly be onto something, but even then I doubt it.

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

Sending a child to soccer practice when he has the ability to understand what he's doing is completely different to the idea of christening a baby. Maybe if you'd compared it with the idea of sending a baby to soccer practice, you could possibly be onto something, but even then I doubt it.

Not wishing to take your comments lightly, but I keep wondering what is the harm at all in christening a baby? If you do believe, then you will be thankful you were christened. If you don't believe, then it means nothing. It's just water and words you will never remember.

I'm afraid I don't understand why baptism is being compared to circumcision. I support the rights of parents to have either ceremony (or both) performed (and I know that this is an area of contention), but I don't know that they are the same. Circumcision is a permanent change. Baptism can mean everything or nothing--it's up to the child to define what it means when he or she comes to understand it.

[Calum Veteran]

Not wishing to take your comments lightly, but I keep wondering what is the harm at all in christening a baby? If you do believe, then you will be thankful you were christened. If you don't believe, then it means nothing. It's just water and words you will never remember.

I'm afraid I don't understand why baptism is being compared to circumcision. I support the rights of parents to have either ceremony (or both) performed (and I know that this is an area of contention), but I don't know that they are the same. Circumcision is a permanent change. Baptism can mean everything or nothing--it's up to the child to define what it means when he or she comes to understand it.

My point with baptisms/christenings lies with the idea that the process could have real consequences. It's not about what people believe in, it's about the idea that the religion could be "the real one." It could be that God exists and it could be that he wishes us all to follow Christianity only (thus meaning that is the true religion and what it says goes in the eyes of God). If that came to light, then it would probably mean everything to everyone who is christened whether they were a believer or nonbeliever before. It's not about believing because if it turns out God exists and advocates Christianity only, disbelieving would be not agreeing with facts. If all of that happened, then me being christened would have tainted me; it would have joined me into a religion I don't wish to be a part of. It would have joined me into a religion led by an entity I disagree with completely. I'm sure a lot of other people would feel that way as well.

Of course, as I always point out: If God does exist, I very much doubt he advocates Christianity, but I'm speaking hypothetically. If God exists and he advocates Christianity's teachings, I would not support, follow, or praise him; I also would be devastated that I was forced to join his religion at a time I could not consent.

[Seizure1990]

so because you cannot be sure what the child will want to be, the child isn't allowed to be anything.*

Seems fair.

*saying "he can wait till he makes his own decision" is nonsense, because these religions clearly state when it should take place. If if it was allowed to be done at any time, it would say so.

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

In my last post here, I said that it was difficult to compare baptism with circumcision because the latter represented a permanent change. Actually, I do see the two as related.

I don't see circumcision as crippling. Is there anyone out there who has been circumcised who feels he's been crippled?

Like baptism, circumcision will either mean something or nothing. If you have been baptised as an infant and grow up to feel Christian, then it will mean something. If you don't feel Christian, then baptism means nothing. Same could be said for circumcision (just substitute another religious tradition).

[Calum Veteran]

so because you cannot be sure what the child will want to be, the child isn't allowed to be anything.*

Seems fair.

*saying "he can wait till he makes his own decision" is nonsense, because these religions clearly state when it should take place. If if it was allowed to be done at any time, it would say so.

No. Because we cannot be sure what the child will want to be, it is immoral to remove a part of his body (that he might like to keep) in the hope he follows a certain path. The religions state when it should take place, but that just means those religions are unfair. There's nothing we can do about unfair religions. We shouldn't be allowed to harm others just because religions are unfair.

I ask again: Would you advocate making it legal to remove the foreskins of every baby born over the world just in case it turns out that baby wishes to follow a religion that requires it? That means every single person in the world would have their foreskin removed without their consent just in case they decide to follow a certain religion at some point in their life. That idea is ridiculous, which means it is also ridiculous to remove the foreskin of any baby just in case he decides to follow a religion that requires it. I have pointed out that their parents being religious may have absolutely no impact on the life they wish to lead, so that reason cannot be used.

In my last post here, I said that it was difficult to compare baptism with circumcision because the latter represented a permanent change. Actually, I do see the two as related.

I don't see circumcision as crippling. Is there anyone out there who has been circumcised who feels he's been crippled?

Maybe it isn't about feeling crippled. Maybe it's about wanting to have a foreskin and realising that you were actually born with that foreskin before it was removed without your consent.

Like baptism, circumcision will either mean something or nothing. If you have been baptised as an infant and grow up to feel Christian, then it will mean something. If you don't feel Christian, then baptism means nothing. Same could be said for circumcision (just substitute another religious tradition).

Except, as I have just pointed out: It could very well mean something to those who aren't religious if it turns out God is real and he wishes us to follow Christianity. I have been christened which essentially means I was joined into the Christian religion without my consent. If it turns out God exists and wishes us to follow the Christian religion, I will feel tainted because I don't wish to be associated with such immoral teachings.

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

If it turns out God exists and wishes us to follow the Christian religion, I will feel tainted because I don't wish to be associated with such immoral teachings.

Okay, mate. I do get you and follow you. But I'm having a bit of trouble with that particular sentence. Can you help?

[Calum Veteran]

Okay, mate. I do get you and follow you. But I'm having a bit of trouble with that particular sentence. Can you help?

At risk of this turning into a debate about religion or homosexuality, I will answer that question because it will help give context as to why I would feel tainted if it became fact that God exists and he wishes us to follow Christianity.

Christians, and some other religions, follow the Bible. Upon reading, it becomes clear that the Bible contains many immoral values. The book of Leviticus, which God apparently dictated to Moses, is one of the worst examples of these values. That book states that God believes it is fine to stone misbehaving children; it is wrong to wear two different types of thread at the same time; it is an abomination to eat shellfish; and homosexuality is wrong. This link has some more information about both Exodus and Leviticus: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html. A lot of Christians and other religious people assert that the Old Testament is no longer relevant, but I don't buy that denial; if they believe some parts of the Bible should be followed, why should the Old Testament be ignored? Despite their denial about some aspects of the Bible (even though it clearly states those ideals within), a lot of them still maintain God believes homosexuality to be wrong, which is one of the main reasons I deem Christianity as a whole immoral, and is also one of the main reasons I would refuse to follow it even if God showed himself and told us to. If God exists, he created people to be homosexual giving them no opportunity to change their sexuality, so if he deems it wrong then the fact he allowed them to be homosexual is wholly unfair.

I ask everyone: Please do not reply directly to this post. I was merely replying to James's question in order to give some context to my point about being tainted.

[Seizure1990]

It bothers you that the bible forbids shellfish? I give up, you've clearly got something going on beyond the scope of this issue.

[Ambroos]

Maybe, since circumcision is useless, you could all think about the medical costs that could be saved. I don't know what kind of costs are involved with it, but for something completely unnecessary it's pretty weird. All those health care resources could be much better spent on people who actually need medical treatment instead of just parents who want a useless circumcision for their kids.

[Calum Veteran]

It bothers you that the bible forbids shellfish? I give up, you've clearly got something going on beyond the scope of this issue.

Why comment on the shellfish issue only? As I pointed out in my above post, the Bible doesn't only forbid shellfish, it forbids a lot of other completely acceptable things, thus promoting immoral values. You give up because you obviously have no logical reasoning to justify circumcising unconsenting infants as 'fine'.

Maybe, since circumcision is useless, you could all think about the medical costs that could be saved. I don't know what kind of costs are involved with it, but for something completely unnecessary it's pretty weird. All those health care resources could be much better spent on people who actually need medical treatment instead of just parents who want a useless circumcision for their kids.

Excellent point. That's another reason I'm against it. I don't know what it's like in USA, but in the UK, I'm quite sure people are allowed to get circumcisions on the NHS (their state healthcare system); this means the taxpayer is paying for them to be able to practice some of their religious requirements, which is very wrong in my opinion.

[Nihilus]

About the "permanetly damaging surgery", the "damaging" part is simply a lie to make the sentence look "strong" (if you know what I mean).

Overall they're a bunch of retards that should be ignored. Or.. laughed at, hah.

Well, it isn't really an outright lie.

"the complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings?many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males."

Given the available evidence having a foreskin just makes sex easier, and more comfortable for both parties. Removing it provides no real benefit.

Like baptism, circumcision will either mean something or nothing. If you have been baptised as an infant and grow up to feel Christian, then it will mean something. If you don't feel Christian, then baptism means nothing. Same could be said for circumcision (just substitute another religious tradition).

I'm an atheist. I was baptised. It annoys me slightly. Point annulled?

Excellent point. That's another reason I'm against it. I don't know what it's like in USA, but in the UK, I'm quite sure people are allowed to get circumcisions on the NHS (their state healthcare system); this means the taxpayer is paying for them to be able to practice some of their religious requirements, which is very wrong in my opinion.

Well said, and I agree completely.

Although IMHO, if it wasn't provided as a service by the NHS, I would expect some kind of legislation very strictly controlling who could or couldn't perform such operations. Or provide it as an NHS service with a nominal fee.

[ylcard]

Well, it isn't really an outright lie.

"the complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings?many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males."

Given the available evidence having a foreskin just makes sex easier, and more comfortable for both parties. Removing it provides no real benefit.

I'm an atheist. I was baptised. It annoys me slightly. Point annulled?

Well said, and I agree completely.

Although IMHO, if it wasn't provided as a service by the NHS, I would expect some kind of legislation very strictly controlling who could or couldn't perform such operations. Or provide it as an NHS service with a nominal fee.

Consider the context in which it was said, they didn't mean it like there COULD be complications, they meant that the surgery IS damaging, no matter what the outcome may be, like every single time it is done it is "damaging". So it is a lie.

I won't blame you for not reading the whole thread, but we provided counter arguments (read: proof) that the "sex" issue it is not conclusive, as there are other studies that prove otherwise.

And like I said before, I'm mainly arguing for the religious point of circumcision, not the secular one that do it for the "health benefits" (even though there are studies that prove that there are, I personally don't care much for them), so if it IS paid by taxes, it should only be available for religious reasons.

[Jebadiah]

100% percent of the benefits on this page http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/GFM-EN.pdf can be PREVENTED by having a healthy personal hygiene. And that link is from one of your very own money grabbing, circumcision promoting mother ****ers.

All that you have to do is clean your penis every day of your life or when it is dirty for some reason or after you have had sex or after you have masturbated or after you have played some sweaty sports. That's it and you will be okay for your entire life. Is that so tough for you? If that's too tough for you to handle, you're just, plain and simple, LAZY. And you just assume your baby is going to be as lazy as you are, so you just cut his foreskin off also.

The human race survived through a lot tough ****.

With or without foreskin? We both know it was WITH foreskin for 99.99999999% of the people who have survived so far, which makes your health benefits bull **** moot. 100% of the species of animals out there [, not including humans,] have also survived with the foreskin on their penises and vaginas, and they don't have doctors, health benefits, religious idiots, traditionalists, etc. to tell them otherwise. I am talking about zillions of living creatures with foreskins who have survived millions of years. None of the species became extinct because of having foreskins.

This simply means that nobody *NEEDS* to do anything to the foreskin. It's all in your damn head that you feel like following a stupid religion or tradition. There's a term for it OCD - Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

If you have a fashion sense, you would put a ring on it (which is also a bad idea), but you won't cut it off. LOL Is that what you're scared of? That your baby would grow up and put a ring on the foreskin? LMAO!

Well there's your problem, stop thinking of the foreskin as a body part, think of it as foreskin. Oh wait..

Then what the **** is a foreskin if not a body part? Such a dumbass comment.

[ylcard]

Take a chill pill. None of that block of text makes any sort of argument, it's littered with curse words and general insults, mixed with some irrelevant issues.

Also, props for using percentages, it really shows you know your stuff.

[Jebadiah]

Take a chill pill. None of that block of text makes any sort of argument, it's littered with curse words and general insults, mixed with some irrelevant issues.

Also, props for using percentages, it really shows you know your stuff.

Props to you for posting another NOTHING reply. Good job. You must do well in life with nothing logical to contribute.

By the way, if you're not blind, you can see that there were only 3 curse words and all of which were censored, which makes your "littered with curse words" statement MOOT. Grow up and get over it. Your replies are "littered with stupidity". See what I did there?

Obviously, you just want to evade the reality about the subject because you're stuck with your dogmatic line of thought. Please stop spreading FUD to those who want to learn about the blind faith that surrounds circumcision. Thank you!

[ylcard]

If you want a second opinion go ask anyone to take a look at your replies and tell you if you're being reasonable or not, you're bordering on personal attacks and actual arguments are really hard to find amidst the countless insults thrown at me and my "arguments".

Like I said, take a chill pill.

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

I know it's a bit late and things have moved on, but I wanted to say that I've switched my position on this issue.

My main objection to banning circumcision was that it disrespected religious tradition. But now I see that there are Jewish people out there who do not perform circumcision. They do a 'brit shalom', or 'covenant of peace', ceremony to accomplish the same end that circumcision does, but without the cutting.

I'm also thinking about the bible generally. It's got so many laws and rules that seem absurd to us today. Maybe it's time for circumcision to join some of the other strange things there in the bin of history.

[Hum]

Why would a 'God' design the male body with that extra bit of flesh, if 'He' wanted it sliced off, the day you are born ? ;)

[Jebadiah]

I'm also thinking about the bible generally. It's got so many laws and rules that seem absurd to us today. Maybe it's time for circumcision to join some of the other strange things there in the bin of history.

This right here is exactly what circumcision is all about.

[Subject Delta]

What I find most amusing is that people never seem to stop and ask why God created us with these parts in the first place if he wants them removed :laugh:

[Seizure1990]

Just shove it already, you know absolutely nothing about what your talking about. It's a huge part of Judaism, so of COURSE we discuss why we do it, as opposed to just leaving it alone.

If you want to make actual points go on, but can your completely irrelevant stupidity and assumptions. It only makes you seem like an ignoramus.

[iamawesomewicked]

Just shove it already, you know absolutely nothing about what your talking about. It's a huge part of Judaism, so of COURSE we discuss why we do it, as opposed to just leaving it alone.

If you want to make actual points go on, but can your completely irrelevant stupidity and assumptions. It only makes you seem like an ignoramus.

LOL.

We've posted points.. countless times. Seems like you won't accept anything other than your own diluted religions view on anything.

We seem to have struck a nerve.

So. Why would God make humans have something that would have to be cut off within a week? How does that make any sense?

[Seizure1990]

LOL.

We've posted points.. countless times. Seems like you won't accept anything other than your own diluted religions view on anything.

We seem to have struck a nerve.

So. Why would God make humans have something that would have to be cut off within a week? How does that make any sense?

I was responding in specific to Delta's post. Many points were posted in counter to yours as well. You haven't struck any nerves, so don't feel too proud of yourself. Delta struck a nerve though, but it wasn't because of any skillful debating on his part.

Furthermore, I've already had enough arguing with you in particular. It always goes in circles. I'm happy to let someone else answer you though... or not. I don't really care.