San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision

[CyberManifest]

How dirty are you that you've got bacteria growing in there?

I guess I ment to say germs, everything has germs on it even after you wash thoroughly, it's just nature.

[Seizure1990]

I never said it was absurd about religion. I said it was absurd about religious argument, and any argument for that matter. It's a logical copout, because using it makes it literally impossible to ever be wrong. Anything bad that ever happens to your allies is a test, but the exact same bad events happening to an enemy are a punishment. It creates a comfortable little bubble of delusion where you never have to question your own upbringing.

You can defend it all you want, but it just makes you incapable of developing any real perspective on religious conflict. Anyone could look at the drama between the Jewish and Arab worlds in the middle east and see two groups of people that both think their faith is 100% true and righteous. Anyone on either side will see their victories as God-given and their failures as either tests of faith or part of a larger sequence of events that will ultimately lead to a God-given victory.

That is why it's a copout. Because it's illogical. It can never be conclusive, and encourages endless arguments where both sides either engage in it and believe themselves to be right, or one side recognizes the absurdity OF THE METHOD OF ARGUMENT and just gives up.

I partially agree with you, but just fyi, Arab-Israeli conflict is barely a religious matter at all, which makes me wonder.

The fact of the matter, there IS an actual explanation, but my feeling was that most people here seriously don't care. The general opinion from the other side seems to be "religion doesn't count" so I didn't see how sitting here and explaining it in depth would help. If I showed you in the Torah why we do this, would you go, "oh, ok."? Or would you just sit and argue and find reason to discredit the reason provided, and just go in an endless loop from there too?

Whether there is a reason or not is not the point, nor is the specifics on the reason relevant. For one reason or another, and it doesn't matter why, this is an integral part to Judaism. Restricting it from us is nothing short of religious persecution. From a purely subjective point of view, Circumcision is an inconsequential procedure that while possibly having no benefits (and that is debatable), doesn't have any negative side effects worth seriously mentioning either. So given that, what are you trying to accomplish by irking the Jewish population?

And it isn't about "Hey, leave us poor Jews alone" either. This is about religion in general, and a complete lack of respect for it. Do you need to believe in God like I do? Most certainly not, but I expect my beliefs to be respected, just as I do yours. And I certainly don't see how the government has any right to step in and disrespect it, least of all.

[DrJohnSmitherson]

No child should be circumcised unless there is a clear medical issue. What if the child grows up and wishes he hadn't had the procedure! TOO LATE!! Let the child decide when they are old enough. Common sense people... :rolleyes:

[Seizure1990]

No child should be circumcised unless there is a clear medical issue. What if the child grows up and wishes he hadn't had the procedure! TOO LATE!! Let the child decide when they are old enough. Common sense people... :rolleyes:

What if the child grows up and wishes s/he could have been allowed to eat meat, but the parents force a vegetarian diet on them?

Mind you, this actually DOES cause damage to many children, unlike circumcision. And it also happens.

Some pretty ****ed up priorities here.

[iamawesomewicked]

What if the child grows up and wishes s/he could have been allowed to eat meat, but the parents force a vegetarian diet on them?

Mind you, this actually DOES cause damage to many children, unlike circumcision. And it also happens.

Some pretty ****ed up priorities here.

Vegetarian Diets can be fixed by supplements, Vitamins.

[Seizure1990]

Vegetarian Diets can be fixed by supplements, Vitamins.

It doesn't work like that. Go do research on it, before just making stuff up.

Many children who are forced into vegetarian diets end up with malnutrition, even if the parents think they're giving them enough.

Stop basing your arguments on ****.

[Solid Knight]

But the lord of the rings doesnt try to pass itself off as anything but fiction.

Fine then, Martin Luther King Jr's "I have a dream" speech then.

[Knife Party]

Yours may be natural, but mine's cleaner which I'm sure you'll disclaim as also being "not natural."

I'm perfectly fine with your claim of 'cleanliness superiority'..... just can't seem to find the part where you actually address my previous statement...

[ylcard]

Something interesting I read in a document released by the WHO.

Benefits

If circumcision is being done for reasons other than the treatment of a specific medical problem, the health benefits are primarily preventive, and may only be realized long after the procedure.

Circumcision may reduce the risk of acquiring some infections and related complications, but does not guarantee complete protection.

Some of these conditions are common, while others are less so, and the degree of risk of the individual is likely to depend on his behaviour and the community to which he belongs.

Although the strength of the evidence varies by disease, the benefits of circumcision include the following:

? It is easier to keep the penis clean.

? There is a reduced risk of urinary tract infections in childhood.

? Circumcision prevents inflammation of the glans (balanitis) and the foreskin (posthitis).

? Circumcision prevents the potential for scar tissue on the foreskin, which may lead to phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (swelling of the retracted foreskin resulting in inability to return the foreskin to its normal position).

? There is a reduced risk of some sexually transmitted infections (STIs), especially ulcerative diseases, such as chancroid and syphilis.

? There is a reduced risk of becoming infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

? There is a reduced risk of penile cancer.

? There is a reduced risk of cancer of the cervix in female sex partners.

Risks

As for any surgical procedure, there are risks associated with circumcision. While the benefits of circumcision may be wide-ranging and long-term, any problems generally occur during or soon after the procedure.

They include:

? pain;

? bleeding;

? haematoma (formation of a blood clot under the skin);

? infection at the site of the circumcision;

? increased sensitivity of the glans penis for the first few months after the procedure;

? irritation of the glans;

? meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the urethra);

? injury to the penis;

? adverse reaction to the anaesthetic used during the circumcision.

These complications are rare when circumcision is performed by well trained, adequately equipped, experienced health care personnel, and are usually easily and rapidly resolved.

Data from controlled trials show that fewer than 1 in 50 procedures result in complications.

[FloatingFatMan]

^ You forgot the reduced sensitivity for the male during intercourse if you're circumcised.

[ylcard]

^ You forgot the reduced sensitivity for the male during intercourse if you're circumcised.

I haven't, I just copied the text directly from the PDF and pasted it here, formatted it for easier reading experience for the impatient ones here too.

Regardless..

1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00979.x/abstract;jsessionid=1341F44897D55484129357629D92FB83.d02t03

2. http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/masood1/

3. http://www.arch-espanoles-de-urologia.es/apartados/sumarios/popup.php?ano=2009&id=62-09-18

4. http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/children/circumcision.html ("No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction.")

Sorry, I closed all other links and can't be arsed to look through them again to find the exact quote to make it more obvious, only the last one.

Just pulled the 4 sources off Wikipedia. It seems that you're wrong mate :)

[Seizure1990]

^ You forgot the reduced sensitivity for the male during intercourse if you're circumcised.

That's every bit as muddled crap as you and the others are claiming the whole cleanliness thing is.

How can you even test such a thing? Lol!

[WelshBluebird]

IT IS NEEDED BECAUSE HIS GOD COMMANDED HIM TO DO SO, BLOODY HELL

Actually, I never admitted that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

So again, how is that that people can convert then? If they weren't snipped as a baby, then if it is a required part of the religion, surely you should not be able to convert to it?

And again, there are also other things that are "required by religion" that we do not accept anymore. Stoning as a punishment (as already mentioned in this thread) is one of them.

But still, isn't it a good thing that they don't take EVERYTHING from the bible and apply it IRL ? Shouldn't you be happy about it ? It's not like stoning and circumcising is the same, why should both be treated the same by the law ?

The point is that if one thing that is "required" by religion is not followed anymore, why is the other thing?

But I'm curious, why should you take the Bible as 100% literal or 100%, err - "metaphorical" ? (Bah.. no idea what word to use in such context).

Well if you are going to do that, how do you decide?

Yours may be natural, but mine's cleaner which I'm sure you'll disclaim as also being "not natural."

Considering I had a shower not long ago, I disagree.

[iamawesomewicked]

That's every bit as muddled crap as you and the others are claiming the whole cleanliness thing is.

How can you even test such a thing? Lol!

Dont circumcise people at birth. That's how.

[Seizure1990]

So again, how is that that people can convert then? If they weren't snipped as a baby, then if it is a required part of the religion, surely you should not be able to convert to it?

Do want me to sit here and give you an entire Judaism lesson? Go read up on it yourself. There's no sense in explaining this, because it won't matter to you anyways. Suffice to say there is an explanation, and your questions are irrelevant.

And again, there are also other things that are "required by religion" that we do not accept anymore. Stoning as a punishment (as already mentioned in this thread) is one of them.

And as I said "the laws of your land are yours as well".

Stoning is against the law here, therefore, it isn't practiced.

Well if you are going to do that, how do you decide?

The Rabbis all sit together and discuss it.

[The Rev]

I don't think it needs to be banned outright..... Just needs to be disallowed until the boy is old enough to make the choice himself.

[WelshBluebird]

Do want me to sit here and give you an entire Judaism lesson? Go read up on it yourself. There's no sense in explaining this, because it won't matter to you anyways. Suffice to say there is an explanation, and your questions are irrelevant.

Fair enough. I still think the fact you can convert to it means that circumcision is not required at birth. But I'll let it go.

And as I said "the laws of your land are yours as well".

Stoning is against the law here, therefore, it isn't practiced.

So surely the same would be true if circumcision at birth was made illegal?

The Rabbis all sit together and discuss it.

So its somewhat random then? (in that it just relies on the opinions on a few people and what they can agree or disagree on).

You see, that is part of the problem I have with religions. There is nothing to decide what parts of the books to take as literal, what parts to take as metaphor, and what parts to ignore totally. That is why you get different split off groups for most religions.

[Seizure1990]

So surely the same would be true if circumcision at birth was made illegal?

a) it isn't yet. That's what we are debating.

b) I admit to oversimplifying. If our government made a law saying "You have to eat pork once a day", then we wouldn't follow suit. Civil disobedience, etc. The same would hold true for this, I imagine. On the other hand, things like stoning are very serious offences. In addition to all that, the directive to stone adulterers doesn't affect one's own religion. It is a matter of the community. And since we are part of a community that forbids such things, well, yea. On the other hand, keeping us from circumcising affects us and only us. Our choice to circumcise does not affect anyone outside the baby him/herself, and the family.

Those are the differences that I see.

So its somewhat random then? (in that it just relies on the opinions on a few people and what they can agree or disagree on).

You see, that is part of the problem I have with religions. There is nothing to decide what parts of the books to take as literal, what parts to take as metaphor, and what parts to ignore totally. That is why you get different split off groups for most religions.

Are you seriously glossing over the fact that our government works EXACTLY the same way? Hello? Congress?

[WelshBluebird]

a) it isn't yet. That's what we are debating.

b) I admit to oversimplifying. If our government made a law saying "You have to eat pork once a day", then we wouldn't follow suit. Civil disobedience, etc. The same would hold true for this, I imagine. On the other hand, things like stoning are very serious offences. In addition to all that, the directive to stone adulterers doesn't affect one's own religion. It is a matter of the community. And since we are part of a community that forbids such things, well, yea. On the other hand, keeping us from circumcising affects us and only us. Our choice to circumcise does not affect anyone outside the baby him/herself, and the family.

Those are the differences that I see.

But the same is true for stoning. Assuming you only use the punishment on other followers of the religion, you are only affecting those in your religion.

I accept that there obviously is a huge difference between stoning and eating pork / circumcision, but surely the underlying theory should stay the same? If two things are said to be required by the religion, then following one but ignoring the other is a bit hypocritical / questionable.

That is where you can get splits in religions (and of course when you do, you get the question of which one is "right").

Are you seriously glossing over the fact that our government works EXACTLY the same way? Hello? Congress?

Except they aren't debating what parts of a (IMO fictional) book to take literally, which parts to take as metaphor and which parts to ignore. Actually, I am slightly wrong because you have a very strict constitution in the US, and many laws have to tip toe around it. But i think my point still stands.

Government discuss what is best for the country, taking new and existing ideas etc etc. Religions take parts of an old book and choose to ignore some of it. That is the difference IMO.

I think we've gone off topic enough now tbh.

[Seizure1990]

But the same is true for stoning. Assuming you only use the punishment on other followers of the religion, you are only affecting those in your religion.

I accept that there obviously is a huge difference between stoning and eating pork / circumcision, but surely the underlying theory should stay the same? If two things are said to be required by the religion, then following one but ignoring the other is a bit hypocritical / questionable.

That is where you can get splits in religions (and of course when you do, you get the question of which one is "right").

Except they aren't debating what parts of a (IMO fictional) book to take literally, which parts to take as metaphor and which parts to ignore. Actually, I am slightly wrong because you have a very strict constitution in the US, and many laws have to tip toe around it. But i think my point still stands.

Government discuss what is best for the country, taking new and existing ideas etc etc. Religions take parts of an old book and choose to ignore some of it. That is the difference IMO.

I think we've gone off topic enough now tbh.

Stoning others is not to do with one's own identity. It was a law for the sake of the community. Thus, if the community bans it, we'll abide. On the other hand, circumcision (and eating pork) are very personal.

Also, yes, it's your opinion, so why are you bringing it up? That's irrelevant. Anyways, the two are closer then you think. Lawyers and judges are always reinterpreting laws, and extending or retracting their scope. Same goes for the constitution, though not as often. Not only that, but they are constantly ADDING and REMOVING laws, which the bible doesn't do. How is it any different? I still don't see.

[Davo]

Ya know, 18 pages later and I'm not sure why this rages on. All we keep getting are:

"Circumcision is the right way because of religion"

"But what if you're not religious?"

...and infinite loop. I always like back and forth and different viewpoints but this is flippin' ridiculous. Here are some FACTS:

* Banning circumcision infringes upon the religious rights of those whom have that as one of their core practices. The debate on whether it's divinely inspired or barbaric is tangential.

* Circumcision is genital mutilation. It is NOT akin to cutting of hair (which regenerates), cutting the umbilical cord (which is attached to someone else), or removing failing organs (which possess a genuine health risk).

* Uncircumcised penises are, by design, more sensitive so there is no argument in terms of that. Exposed nerve endings will inherently become less sensitive over time.

As for my personal opinion, it's an outdated practice both in my rational conclusion and from a religious standpoint, where mine says Christ abolished the literal practice of it.

[ylcard]

Ya know, 18 pages later and I'm not sure why this rages on. All we keep getting are:

"Circumcision is the right way because of religion"

"But what if you're not religious?"

...and infinite loop. I always like back and forth and different viewpoints but this is flippin' ridiculous. Here are some FACTS:

* Banning circumcision infringes upon the religious rights of those whom have that as one of their core practices. The debate on whether it's divinely inspired or barbaric is tangential.

* Circumcision is genital mutilation. It is NOT akin to cutting of hair (which regenerates), cutting the umbilical cord (which is attached to someone else), or removing failing organs (which possess a genuine health risk).

* Uncircumcised penises are, by design, more sensitive so there is no argument in terms of that. Exposed nerve endings will inherently become less sensitive over time.

As for my personal opinion, it's an outdated practice both in my rational conclusion and from a religious standpoint, where mine says Christ abolished the literal practice of it.

Those are not facts, if they are, then you'd be wise to provide sources.

I found 4 links that prove otherwise.

Circumcision is a surgiral procedure, it's a fact. Google mutilation to see what it is.

We're not even talking about Christianity here, we're talking about Judaism, by the way.

[Seizure1990]

Uncircumcised penises are, by design, more sensitive so there is no argument in terms of that. Exposed nerve endings will inherently become less sensitive over time.

Unproven.

[Davo]

Those are not facts, if they are, then you'd be wise to provide sources.

I found 4 links that prove otherwise.

Circumcision is a surgiral procedure, it's a fact. Google mutilation to see what it is.

You found a source to prove that freedom of religion isn't supported by the Constitution? Would love to see it.

Mutilation and surgery are not mutually exclusive, such as in the case of amputation. Mutilation by dictionary definition means, "to...make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts..."

As for my last point...are you serious? Ear drums, amputated limbs, gums with no teeth, etc. are all proof that skin or some other covering keeps the nerve endings from creating intense sensations when exposed. Science is my source for that one.

I would freakin' LOVE to see your four sources that outclass the US Constitution, Merriam-Webster dictionary, and general medicine. However, I put forth the caveat that they have to be American. If they aren't, then we aren't comparing apples to apples and thus my points on the dictionary and Constituion won't apply.

We're not even talking about Christianity here, we're talking about Judaism, by the way.

Oh thanks for the tip. I must have been thinking of that other Jewish religion when I said that banning circumcision would infringe upon Constitutional rights.

[Davo]

Unproven.

http://www.hearingaids101.com/noise-induced-hearing-loss.aspx

How hearing loss occurs from the desensitization of nerve endings in the ear

http://www.drbirnbaum.com/Ronald%20Birnbaum%20toothbrush_abrasion.htm

Why people end up with sensitive teeth

For more extreme examples, look at weathered rocks or bare feet.

That's without even going into talk of the actual penis itself. Reports vary but from what I've read from various sources, the foreskin has between 2/3 to 85% of the total nerve endings in the penis because they run horizontally and not vertically. Mathematically that makes an uncircumcised one more sensitive.

Lastly, *ask* someone with an uncircumcised penis. You only have one penis in your life and that's only if you're born with one. I could go into hundreds of penis-related anecdotes, but you seem to want facts so I'll stop here.