• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision

Recommended Posts

Calum    820

Your implication that it's such a light-weight matter to simply write off or change a part of our religion is not nice, to make an understatement.

I certainly haven't implied that. I understand it is a very important issue, and a lot of people wouldn't be happy with not being able to follow what their religion tells them; however, I also understand that no matter how many people believe in a certain concept, if that concept harms anyone in society, it has to be outlawed.

But I am now, and I am also aware that it was supposed to have happened at the age of 8 days. Having failed to meet this requirement is something I would have been upset about. I am not anywhere near the only one like this. I'm not sure why you keep avoiding this issue.

I didn't mean to come across as if I was avoiding the issue, I just thought my posts explained why I don't see this as a problem. It's as simple as this: We cannot be sure a baby wants to be religious and wants to follow a religion that tells them they should have their foreskin cut off. You may not be happy if you grow up to realise you'd like to follow the Jewish religion, but whose fault would that have been? No one's. It is absolutely impossible to predict that a child will certainly want to follow any religion, so therefore that child should not be harmed in the name of a religion they may not even decide to follow.

As far as I know, that's false, so I'm not even gonna bother.

http://www.homosexualsagainstsharia.com/information/videos/prof-of-islam-execute-homos

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/16237/vanderbilt-muslim-professor-says-gays-must-be-executed/

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/38622

Now may you comment on this point, please?

I could answer that question, but I doubt you care about the answer, just as you couldn't care less about the idea of religion actually being important to people, even if it isn't to you.

Of course I care about the answer which is why I am a part of this debate. My mind is always open and I am ready to change it at any point. The concept of people being able to practice their religion is very important to be, but the concept of preventing harm being caused to others is more important, just like I belive it should be. So please may you answer my question now?

Yes. But far less then the other side. If you have a reason for somehow deciding that the needs of those few are more important then the other hand, even when out-numbered many times over, then speak up, because you haven't so far.

I was sure I'd stated my reason. My reason is simple: The deed is irreversible, so if you harm someone in this way, they are damaged for life. I'd like to see some proof that the majority are fine with this, please. The majority may be fine with it because they're not bothered, but that would also mean they wouldn't be bothered if their parents hadn't had their foreskins removed. The amount of religious people is declining which means many whose parents are religious do not follow in those footsteps.

But harming the people who do believe in God so you can protect those that don't - that is ok. I see, interesting.

No, I'm not advocating harming anyone at all. As I have pointed out many times, there is no way to prove an 8 day old child is going to want to be religious, therefore he is in no way being harmed if someone does not perform a circumcision on him. If this child decides to be religious later in life, it is no one's fault he was not circumcised because no one would have been able to predict, with certainty, that he wanted to be religious. It really is as simple as this. The people who wrote the Torah made it very hard for circumcision to be moral, so it is them you should be blaming; in fact, they are the only people you can blame.

The major point I got out of this is that protecting the rights of the people is top priority, until it comes to protecting the rights of the religious.

Then you read my post wrongly. The main point you should have got is: Protecting the rights of everyone is top priority, including the rights of the religious; however, if religious people's traditions harm others, those traditions cannot be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tiagosilva29    952
You're right, a vaccine could potentially kill you while a circumcision won't. Ever.
I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
Are you suggesting a baby who is 8 days old is able to give any inclination that he or she would like to be religious?
I'm agnostic/atheist (census terms), but was baptized under the roman catholic rite when I was one year old. As such, I am a member of the roman catholic church and despite all the letters of apostasy sent, they seem reluctant to remove me from their numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James7    659

All this talk of circumcision is getting damn sexy. Now I want one! :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ylcard    142

I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Heh, alright, one baby died because of herpes, not because of the circumcision.

And besides, it was pretty damn obvious that my post was just contrary for the sake of it, otherwise I'd have a link to an article where a baby died because of a vaccine or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ylcard    142

Are you suggesting a baby who is 8 days old is able to give any inclination that he or she would like to be religious? If so, I'm surprised you don't realise that a baby of that age does not have the capacity to understand the concept of religion, let alone agree to be part of one.

Wow, what an excellent rebutal of my point and an unarguable idea you present here /sarcasm. It is immoral because it is removing a body part of a person who has not consented. Would you like it if someone removed a body part of yours without your consent? How about if someone removed one of your fingers while you were sleeping (placed you under anesthetic so you didn't feel anything)? You wouldn't find that a tad immoral?

Of course irreversible doesn't always dictate awful, immoral, and disgusting, but in this case it is. If you think it's fine to just go around removing people's body parts without their consent, and causing them unneeded pain, then I personally think you need to review your morals and values. It's fine for parents to make some decisions for their children; required decisions that the child is unable to make. But there is no way circumcision is a required decision; it's a choice by the parent and is thus not something that is needed. The kind of decisions it is fine for the parent to make is what kind of lunch the child has or something; after all, the child requires food and cannot make himself or herself lunch.

It makes me laugh that you articulate your points in this kind of manner because it really does imply a lack of intelligence, and a lack of intelligence is what I believe is one of the main reasons people follow the kind of right-wing views that promote intolerance and prejudice. I'm being intolerant of religion in this case because their tradition causes harm to many people, but I'm not intolerant of religion in general; they should be able to believe in what they like and practice what they like as long as what they are doing is not harming anyone. It has nothing to do with being a liberal and I wouldn't even class myself as a liberal; my political views are more moderate.

What makes you think my opposition of circumcision has anything to do with me not wanting one? Of course it doesn't. I'm so against it because it causes harm to others, so suggesting I just "don't get one" won't help because others are still being harmed and having their body parts removed without their consent.

1. No, I'm not suggesting that. I meant that what if they grow up and decide that they want to be religious, it's an important part of Judaism (I don't even know why Muslims do it, and personally don't care) and who are you to decide when a person gets circumcised ? You're arguing that he should have the choice, but in reality you're enforcing your own "choice" on the baby and his parents. It's important to the parents, it's their baby, they can go ahead and get him a tattoo for all I care, it's none of your ****ing business.

2. I don't consider the skin on my penis a "part of my body" the way you think it is, it's not an arm or a finger, your example is ridiculous. I'd be ****ed as hell if someone took a part of my body that I need, but I wouldn't be ****ed if my parents had me circumcised when I was 8 days old. I find it silly that anyone would be angry about something that was done to him when he was 8 days old, let alone something as trivial as removing skin. I saw an article or two about couples that use (or rather "abuse") the ritual for their benefit because they're splitting up, so if a Jewish father decided that he wants his son to be circumcised then his wife (doesn't matter what religion she follows) will use that fact against him as if he tried to murder their son, but if they had stayed together she wouldn't make a fuss about it, no one does, it's something that both parents have to agree about, at least that's my understanding. Kinda beside the point here.. but wth :)

3. How is it awful ? It's clearly not awful as it is done by many people around the world. Oh wait.. it's your opinion ! Immoral, could it be that it's another opinion of a closed-minded Atheist ? Remember that I'm an Atheist as well, so I have no bias for religion here, and you saying you're open minded is such a blatant lie, if you were open minded you wouldn't force your "open-minded" opinions on them. Like I said before, it's not a body part, it's a part of your body, big difference.

Un-needed pain is somewhat irrelevant, because adults will suffer the same (if not more) as an infant.

I personally think you should take your morals and values and apply them to yourself and your family, not others. Don't judge others, by the way.

It's not a medical procedure, it's a religious ceremony, obviously it's not required by you and your way of life, but it IS by theirs.

If the infant grows up to be an Atheist, he's free to not circumcise his son. But then his son will be more religious than his father and blame him for not circumcising him at the proper age. Too much ? Yeah.. I guess.

4. You don't like it that I swear ? I'd say I'm sorry but honestly, it's not like I'm trying to offend you, that's the way I talk, I rarely use the "English is my third language", but hell, it is. Sorry if I'm not educated enough to articulate my points in a more delicate style to appease your gentle soul.

You're beign intolerant based on false-facts and skewed views on religion based on your prejuidice, while in reality, it does NOT harm anyone. The worst thing about it is that it's done without the baby's consent.

You missed my point, must be because of the way I articulated my points (ahem), I didn't mean that you want to be circumcised, I meant that you don't want others to be circumcised. Oh wow, it is worded kinda wrong, so uh, it's confusing, but anyway, point was - if you don't want them to be circumcised, fine, but you have no right to force your views on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Derf    217

They also do it here in Canada, but I don't think it's as common as it is in the US.

At their height, circumcision rates were over 80% in Ontario making it higher than the U.S. average.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry.I'm agnostic/atheist (census terms), but was baptized under the roman catholic rite when I was one year old. As such, I am a member of the roman catholic church and despite all the letters of apostasy sent, they seem reluctant to remove me from their numbers.

Baptism only lasts until you are old enough to choose for yourself (the age of discretion). It is an insurance policy against sudden death before you are considered mature enough to make your own decision as to whether or not you want to join the Catholic Church. Did you go through the Confirmation Sacrament?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hum    6,934

I would prefer to remain natural.

You are born with a foreskin -- leave it alone. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davo    146

As has already been said, circumcision is done for all the wrong reasons. It's accepted genital mutilation. Doctors think of it as taking off a screen protector because "it might get dirty".

The question everyone's afraid to ask is: has Obama really been circumcised, as he claims? Where's the proof?

/thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ViperAFK    797

The question everyone's afraid to ask is: has Obama really been circumcised, as he claims? Where's the proof?

:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DDStriker    19

Ban circumcision being a no-consent-necessary/mandatory procedure but don't ban it altogether.

I think that was the point just to restrict it till the child reaches 18 years old and can decide for them self if i read it correctly

I see that abortion came up, so sorry if this exact point is already floating around, but many people think abortion is evil, and equivalent to murder. The mother is basically forcing their child's death, which I'd say is far worse then circumcision. Guess we should get to banning abortion then!

edit: also wanted to add that, as an individual, I'm very happy that I was circumcised at 8 days old, as prescribed by the Torah. I'm Jewish, and that's what Jews do. In fact, if I WEREN'T, I'd not feel too good about it. It's my identify after all. I'm not the only one who feels like this.

So your penis is your identity and some book written by some human stating you had to be circumcised at 8 days old makes you feel happy?

I'm sure they could just change the Torah to say circumcision is to be done at 18 years of age that is if the child (now adult) accepts it i'm sure it won't impact the integrity of the story

1. No, I'm not suggesting that. I meant that what if they grow up and decide that they want to be religious, it's an important part of Judaism (I don't even know why Muslims do it, and personally don't care) and who are you to decide when a person gets circumcised ? You're arguing that he should have the choice, but in reality you're enforcing your own "choice" on the baby and his parents.

That is exactly the point of this article who are YOU to decide when a person gets circumcised, Seizure1990 speaks of the Torah stating 8 days, who are (whoever wrote it) to decide when a person gets circumcised?

Misinformed parents should not be the ones to decide unless they have a damn good reason other than religion one of the more pathetic reasons i've heard from parents wanting to perform the circumcision was that "it looks better" what kind of crappy excuse is that?

It's important to the parents, it's their baby, they can go ahead and get him a tattoo for all I care, it's none of your ****ing business.

No they can't.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2009/05/26/father_tattoo_toddler.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ylcard    142

I think that was the point just to restrict it till the child reaches 18 years old and can decide for them self if i read it correctly

So your penis is your identity and some book written by some human stating you had to be circumcised at 8 days old makes you feel happy?

I'm sure they could just change the Torah to say circumcision is to be done at 18 years of age that is if the child (now adult) accepts it i'm sure it won't impact the integrity of the story

That is exactly the point of this article who are YOU to decide when a person gets circumcised, Seizure1990 speaks of the Torah stating 8 days, who are (whoever wrote it) to decide when a person gets circumcised?

Misinformed parents should not be the ones to decide unless they have a damn good reason other than religion one of the more pathetic reasons i've heard from parents wanting to perform the circumcision was that "it looks better" what kind of crappy excuse is that?

No they can't.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2009/05/26/father_tattoo_toddler.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

Who am I ? I'm the baby's parent.

Who are you ? Nobody.

/thread ?

Edit: Hah, loved that added "misinformed", how are they misinformed ?

Seriously, not a single person in this thread can come up with a serious argument as to why it should be banned.

Infants can't consent to vaccines.

Pain is irrelevant because you'll feel it no matter how old are you.

Infants won't remember this experience.

It's an important religious ceremony.

The only time it should be prevented is if it's done for the wrong reasons, such as the ridiculous example above where the parents think it looks better. Being a religious ceremony, it should only be allowed to those that do it because of its religious importance and not anything else. That's my opinion, at least.

Missed the part where I said "for all I care" ? I also couldn't care less about your link, as it's irrelevant, considering you missed my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OuchOfDeath    26

It doesn't matter if you're the baby's parent. There are things you cannot do to the baby because the baby has certain rights. If you malnourish it, leave it alone(unsupervised), physically assault it, cut off a part of its body, you will face criminal prosecutions for it and you will lose custody. It just so happens that cutting off a part of the penis is exempt from these laws because culture has a way of keeping insane practices going and going for no real reason. Your argument is simply invalid. It does not matter that you are the parent, you cannot do whatever you please to another human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ylcard    142

It doesn't matter if you're the baby's parent. There are things you cannot do to the baby because the baby has certain rights. If you malnourish it, leave it alone, physically assault it, cut off a part of its body, you will face criminal prosecutions for it and you will lose custody. It just so happens that cutting off a part of the penis is exempt from these laws because culture has a way of keeping insane practices going and going for no real reason. Your argument is simply invalid. It does not matter that you are the parent, you cannot do whatever you please to another human being.

Errr, yes it does matter if you're the baby's parent.

As a parent you get to decide everything until that baby turns 18. Everything.

I removed part of your argument on acount of being ridiculusly irrelevant, not sure why you'd bring those issues up at all other than making it look like circumcision is the same as the above mentioned "things".

How is the American culture related to circumcision ? It's not a cultural thing, it's a religious thing. Not sure what you're on about there. Talk about going and going for no real reason -- how about people start letting others live in peace instead of pushing their "liberal" way of life on them ? I don't go around and force my beliefs on silly Orthodox Jews that pray to an invisible god, I couldn't care less, it's their business. How about you do the same and don't support this nosense of a proposal.

No one in this thread has implied that you can do whatever you please to another human being. What's your point ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OuchOfDeath    26

No one in this thread has implied that you can do whatever you please to another human being. What's your point ?

This is my point:

Errr, yes it does matter if you're the baby's parent.

As a parent you get to decide everything until that baby turns 18. Everything.

No. You cannot. Neither legally nor morally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dknm    11

It shouldn't be all about tradition; the motivation sums it up quite nicely.

Not feeling anything -as a baby- is paper-thin; you're already a sentient being, in no way impaired from reacting to stimuli such as pain. Having no recollection is something else.

Same goes for girls' ear piercing. Both are your decisions to make-not a parent's ; good intentions/customs hardly justify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seizure1990    252

I certainly haven't implied that. I understand it is a very important issue, and a lot of people wouldn't be happy with not being able to follow what their religion tells them; however, I also understand that no matter how many people believe in a certain concept, if that concept harms anyone in society, it has to be outlawed.

Your concept of banning circumcision harms many people, as Inclined already pointed out in spades. Your inability to grasp that concept is astounding. Chances are, if the parents are religious enough to get the circumcision done in the first place, the child will likely follow that route too. I am not trying to say that this is 100% the case, but if I were making bets... This, coupled with the fact that so few people, including atheists, feel so strongly about it, not to mention all the religious people who DO feel strongly about it in the opposite direction...

Look at it like this. No matter which way go, someone is going to be hurt (I guess). So if that is the case, why are you regulating it? Any regulation at all is actually is basically saying Group A is more important then Group B, just arbitrarily because your closed mind says so. As it is, no side has been chosen, and that is how it should stay.

I didn't mean to come across as if I was avoiding the issue, I just thought my posts explained why I don't see this as a problem. It's as simple as this: We cannot be sure a baby wants to be religious and wants to follow a religion that tells them they should have their foreskin cut off. You may not be happy if you grow up to realise you'd like to follow the Jewish religion, but whose fault would that have been? No one's. It is absolutely impossible to predict that a child will certainly want to follow any religion, so therefore that child should not be harmed in the name of a religion they may not even decide to follow.

Right. You aren't sure. So why are you barring him from the possibility of being religious? I hope you realize you are essentially persecuting against the Jews and Muslims, since you are robbing them of a VERY important rite in their culture. For every circumcised baby that actually gets upset about it later in life, I'll show you a hundred who would have been very, very upset later on in life if they hadn't been. You claim to be touting choice, but you are really just deciding straight-up that nobody can be Jewish the way they were meant to. An atheist can be circumcised or not - it doesn't change who he is. But according to Judaism, this is an extremely vital ritual to one's identity.

Maybe this is hard to understand as an atheist, I dunno.

There have been plenty of atheists who used completely secular ideology to do horrendous things, so what in God's name is your point? I'm not going in any lengths on this, because I can't even bear to go down such an ignorant, offensive conversation path. All you're doing is proving further what an ignorant, close-minded person you are.

Of course I care about the answer which is why I am a part of this debate. My mind is always open and I am ready to change it at any point. The concept of people being able to practice their religion is very important to be, but the concept of preventing harm being caused to others is more important, just like I belive it should be. So please may you answer my question now?

You keep talking about preventing harm, but you still don't understand that yuu are also causing harm by banning this. I'm tired of addressing this.

I was sure I'd stated my reason. My reason is simple: The deed is irreversible, so if you harm someone in this way, they are damaged for life. I'd like to see some proof that the majority are fine with this, please. The majority may be fine with it because they're not bothered, but that would also mean they wouldn't be bothered if their parents hadn't had their foreskins removed. The amount of religious people is declining which means many whose parents are religious do not follow in those footsteps.

Declining? Maybe, I don't know, or don't care. But we're still here, and not in insignificant numbers either, so try not to write us off yet. How obnoxious.

No, I'm not advocating harming anyone at all. As I have pointed out many times, there is no way to prove an 8 day old child is going to want to be religious, therefore he is in no way being harmed if someone does not perform a circumcision on him. If this child decides to be religious later in life, it is no one's fault he was not circumcised because no one would have been able to predict, with certainty, that he wanted to be religious. It really is as simple as this. The people who wrote the Torah made it very hard for circumcision to be moral, so it is them you should be blaming; in fact, they are the only people you can blame.

Er, actually, he [ib]is[/b] going to be want to be religious. But curious grammar mistakes aside...

Yes, it is someone's fault then. It's the fault of people like you who would ban it (not that it will succeed, thank God)

Who's morals? Your morals? And why are your morals more weighty then anybody else's morals? I hate to break it to you, but your morals are pretty darn skewed in comparison to most everyone else's. The vast majority of people are either pro-circumcision (and not all of them are religious, mind you), or simply don't care. So remind me why your personal morals are so important.

Then you read my post wrongly. The main point you should have got is: Protecting the rights of everyone is top priority, including the rights of the religious; however, if religious people's traditions harm others, those traditions cannot be allowed.

So, uh, the rights of the atheists are more important then the rights of the religious. Got ya, Mr. Open Minded.

So your penis is your identity and some book written by some human stating you had to be circumcised at 8 days old makes you feel happy?

I'm sure they could just change the Torah to say circumcision is to be done at 18 years of age that is if the child (now adult) accepts it i'm sure it won't impact the integrity of the story

Yes, that is my identity. What about it? And the Torah wasn't written by a human. It was dictated by God, directly to Moses. I know you may not believe so, but that is your belief, and not mine.

That is exactly the point of this article who are YOU to decide when a person gets circumcised, Seizure1990 speaks of the Torah stating 8 days, who are (whoever wrote it) to decide when a person gets circumcised?

And who are you to decide then? Lol.

Misinformed parents should not be the ones to decide unless they have a damn good reason other than religion one of the more pathetic reasons i've heard from parents wanting to perform the circumcision was that "it looks better" what kind of crappy excuse is that?

Because it looks better? While I agree with that statement, that isn't the only non-religious reason out there. I've never even heard that one seriously used as a reason, so, uh, whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DDStriker    19

Who am I ? I'm the baby's parent.

Who are you ? Nobody.

/thread ?

Edit: Hah, loved that added "misinformed", how are they misinformed ?

Baby's Parent meet the country you live in, here are my laws and you must follow or suffer the consequences.

If you strike/neglect your child i will take them from you and place them with someone more competent

Don't like the rules, leave.

/thread

Religious people just share a common belief it's not their own and is something instilled to them at birth wasn't it the Christians who said the earth was flat? surely if a god existed he/she would of given them the right information about that one? people gulp these stories up like it's fact and are unable to apply reasoning to those beliefs that they believe in so much.

That is how they are misinformed this also applies to those assuming it reduces the risk of HIV by even a significant amount to justify having the operation done

Seriously, not a single person in this thread can come up with a serious argument as to why it should be banned.

Infants can't consent to vaccines.

Pain is irrelevant because you'll feel it no matter how old are you.

Infants won't remember this experience.

It's an important religious ceremony.

The only time it should be prevented is if it's done for the wrong reasons, such as the ridiculous example above where the parents think it looks better. Being a religious ceremony, it should only be allowed to those that do it because of its religious importance and not anything else. That's my opinion, at least.

The issue is humans have rights (not really an issue it's a good thing) and human rights should be prioritized over any religious act. I've seen my fair share of religion related stupidity (suicide bombings, refusing medical treatment for child that then later dies because praying doesn't do ****, malnutrition) no doubt these are just neglectful parents however i wouldn't put it past religion playing some role on their actions

Why should children be tethered to their parents for life? you ask for serious argument as to why it should be banned yet you provide no real reason why it shouldn't be other than for religious people doing crazy things and if this law was to be passed they would continue to perform this act using other possibly more dangerous methods

How can you compare vaccines to circumcision? One helps you the other does not

Or you won't feel it at all if you never have it?

Oh ok so they won't remember it thats great i'm sure that line of reasoning works with pedophiles too (and no i'm not comparing the two just saying its a crap excuse to make)

The only valid reason and it's a religious one..bravo

A valid argument for your one valid point is when the child grows up shouldn't that child have the right to choose if they wish to be part of this religion or not without any real physical damage being done?

I also couldn't care less about this ban people will still do it anyway because they want their offspring to follow in their religion for whatever reason it's just my opinion (and others) of this is that doing it for religious reasons/importance whatever is the wrong reason, I do agree with your last statement though regarding restricting the act to those to deep in it (religious) and those who are having complications and may require this procedure

Missed the part where I said "for all I care" ? I also couldn't care less about your link, as it's irrelevant, considering you missed my point.

Yes i did miss the "for all I care" part unfortunately. However my link is still important to this discussion why are tattoos a punishable offence yet circumcision is not?

they are both useless and permanent changes (at least with a tattoo you can induce more pain and remove it using laser technology) it's a worthy point to discuss IMO

Yes, that is my identity. What about it? And the Torah wasn't written by a human. It was dictated by God, directly to Moses. I know you may not believe so, but that is your belief, and not mine.

moses wrote it and if i'm correct was human but let's not get into these fairy tales you are willing to do something to your child based on some story that is most likely not true and assume its the right thing to do yet...ugh nvm you are heavily religious and this won't have any effect

And who are you to decide then? Lol.

I'm more real than your god however i'm not the one that's deciding :).

Because it looks better? While I agree with that statement, that isn't the only non-religious reason out there. I've never even heard that one seriously used as a reason, so, uh, whatever.

Other than for a medical problem what other non-religious reasons are out there? I didn't think there was any other then the ludicrous one i mentioned however that isn't valid and is just plain stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ylcard    142

@DDStriker

1. Circumcisio != striking/neglecting your child. I hate it when people use examples that are completely off topic and irrelevant to make their argument look really important as if it's a matter of life and death. Could you PLEASE argue about the circumcision part and not stirking/neglecting/malnutritioning your child ?!

2. It's bordering on random religion rambling, I don't see how it shows that they're misinformed, they simply follow their religious tradition, it's not like I agree with them that it's important and should be done, but it's their religion, their ceremony, their child. Not yours.

3. Those are very broad terms you're using, considering Freedom of Religion is a part of Human Rights, its' contradictory at best to say that Human Rights > Religion. They're the same. What you perhaps meant to say, is that SOME rights are more important than others, and it's obviously true, some people value rights in a differnet order, you can't put a standard to it, as every Atheist, including myself, will put Religion at the lowest place as I simply don't care. But anyway, once again you started going on about irrelevant issues...

4. Hah, lovely, why on earth should I provive a reason for it to NOT be banned ? That's not how it works, that would be silly. But to humor you, it shouldn't be banned because it's an important religious ceremony, has been for thousands of years, it doesn't hurt anyone as a whole, only whne done incorrectly or by someone who is not trained to do it properly, it removes SKIN and not something you'd actually need later in life. While irreversible, its social impact is neglible because it's in your bloody pants, hence the only one who can see it is your partner and you, and if she has a problem with it then I guess you need to move on. So basically, it HAS ZERO effect on your life, except of its MAJOR importance in the religious scene. So there you go.

5. I'm comparing the consent in the matter, not the benefits of what you are consenting to.

6. I'm not sure how is that an argument, I said that it's irrelevant because all ages feel the pain afterwards and you can't use it as an argument against circumucsion at 8 days old because it'll still be there if the person is 8 years old. (the pain / the argument).

7. Being contrary ? Wow, awesome. Not remembering a "painful" expereince is a huge plus, it's a powerful pain relief medicine, you, of course, won't see it way, but for some reason I don't care lol

8. So that's your argument, because it's a religious argument it's ... what ? That one just reeks of bias against religion, even if we find articles proving that it has health benefits you'd still come back with the "it's a religious thing, WAH!" ?

9. That child can still choose to NOT be religious, having a circmucised penis doesn't lock him into one religion for life. It's as simple as not going to the Temple to pray, not observing the holidays and so on. Circmucision doesn't mean you're religious.

10. Tattoos are different because they serve no religious importance in Judaism, they might be in other religious, in Africa for example, I have no problem them doing it over there. Hell, tattoos are forbidden by the Torah. Although you can simply go to a Rabbi and ask to do one and he'll say yes you may.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DDStriker    19

1. Circumcisio != striking/neglecting your child. I hate it when people use examples that are completely off topic and irrelevant to make their argument look really important as if it's a matter of life and death. Could you PLEASE argue about the circumcision part and not stirking/neglecting/malnutritioning your child ?!

Hold on You are the only one making that link, I'm responding to your claim of "me" being "Nobody" where me is representing San Francsico body and they can damn well intervene and tell you what you can't do to your child and i gave you examples of where this is currently in effect (striking/neglecting) etc don't make the association because you believe it's the case to consider striking/neglecting as the same as circumcision is idiotic

My point is clear you may think you have 100% control over your child but that is not true you have to follow rules and morals and if this law passes circumcision will become one of those rules not to say it is equal to the above mentioned

2. It's bordering on random religion rambling, I don't see how it shows that they're misinformed, they simply follow their religious tradition, it's not like I agree with them that it's important and should be done, but it's their religion, their ceremony, their child. Not yours.

Stop pointing this back at me as if i'm the one who is pushing this law its their child but they must respect the law in whatever country they are in if they don't like it then they can do something perhaps vote against this ban?

3. Those are very broad terms you're using, considering Freedom of Religion is a part of Human Rights, its' contradictory at best to say that Human Rights > Religion. They're the same. What you perhaps meant to say, is that SOME rights are more important than others, and it's obviously true, some people value rights in a differnet order, you can't put a standard to it, as every Atheist, including myself, will put Religion at the lowest place as I simply don't care. But anyway, once again you started going on about irrelevant issues...

What i meant was the human rights of another human surpass your religious beliefs and should be done in the best interest of the child (which at that age does not care nor can they understand religion)

Yes some rights are more important than others however i was just referring to the rights the child is entitled to not just that of its parent, i don't understand what you mean by irrelevant issues these are highly relevant if you can't see the association then please highlight the sentences that you don't understand so that i may clarify them don't just pass them off it makes your statements look weak

4. Hah, lovely, why on earth should I provive a reason for it to NOT be banned ? That's not how it works, that would be silly. But to humor you, it shouldn't be banned because it's an important religious ceremony, has been for thousands of years, it doesn't hurt anyone as a whole, only whne done incorrectly or by someone who is not trained to do it properly, it removes SKIN and not something you'd actually need later in life. While irreversible, its social impact is neglible because it's in your bloody pants, hence the only one who can see it is your partner and you, and if she has a problem with it then I guess you need to move on. So basically, it HAS ZERO effect on your life, except of its MAJOR importance in the religious scene. So there you go.

Why is it so bizarre to defend such a pointless act? Of course it's how it works you give me a good reason for mutilating someone and i'll tell you why it shouldn't be done it's just that simple, the best thing you can come up with is that it's a religious ceremony...news flash that doesn't make it right i mean how would you even know if it doesn't hurt anyone if you haven't had it done for your self? and hell rather then take the risk of "when done incorrectly" why not just not do it at all? it removes skin and nerve endings

Your excuse for "it's in your bloody pants" is pathetic hell you only need one testicle lets remove it it's in your bloody pants noone will see it and if your partner can't accept it then you need to move on. Again you say it has zero effect in capitals HOW THE HELL WOULD YOU KNOW?

as for this MAJOR importance crap you keep spouting let me guess you support arranged marriages or ones pairing a child with an adult yes this is drifting a bit away from the circumcision but it points out how stupid the claim is to say religious importance should define child's life

5. I'm comparing the consent in the matter, not the benefits of what you are consenting to.

Consent wouldn't be needed for something that is actually proven to help and not cause a permanent mutilation that can wait for the child to be older

Just because they want to have the child consent for one thing doesn't mean they want it for all things can you not see how the two differ? :s

6. I'm not sure how is that an argument, I said that it's irrelevant because all ages feel the pain afterwards and you can't use it as an argument against circumucsion at 8 days old because it'll still be there if the person is 8 years old. (the pain / the argument).

What pain are you referring to? there is no "afterwards" if the individual does not have the circumcision at all

7. Being contrary ? Wow, awesome. Not remembering a "painful" expereince is a huge plus, it's a powerful pain relief medicine, you, of course, won't see it way, but for some reason I don't care lol

If you don't care so much why are you in this topic? also if its done properly there is no real pain just discomfort so i don't really support the pain argument but more so its just an unnecessary operation like giving a child a face lift (which has been done) albeit a permanent one though

8. So that's your argument, because it's a religious argument it's ... what ? That one just reeks of bias against religion, even if we find articles proving that it has health benefits you'd still come back with the "it's a religious thing, WAH!" ?

Wait what? don't give me that crap my point was your only support for this act is religion which is pathetic i completely support this procedure if its required for medical reasons and finding biased articles about health benefits doesn't count again i'm all for peoples right to choose if they wish to have a circumcision or not thats it only they may decide FOR THEM SELF no one else again unless its absolutely required for health reasons and not just some hunch without any supporting facts

9. That child can still choose to NOT be religious, having a circmucised penis doesn't lock him into one religion for life. It's as simple as not going to the Temple to pray, not observing the holidays and so on. Circmucision doesn't mean you're religious.

Of course it doesn't mean that but it comes down to your rights to not have had that circumcision in the first place you should be the one to decide you are not identical to your mother and father you do have your own brain your own thought process and when you are old enough can have a completely different mind set then your parents you should be free to exercise your right to have this done or not

10. Tattoos are different because they serve no religious importance in Judaism, they might be in other religious, in Africa for example, I have no problem them doing it over there. Hell, tattoos are forbidden by the Torah. Although you can simply go to a Rabbi and ask to do one and he'll say yes you may.

Religion aside though there are plenty of non-religious people performing this act even here in australia so without any "religious importance" should this ban apply to those individuals until the child is 18? IMO it should

If there is some major health benefit to the procedure then i'm all for it (like with vaccinations) until that day it's just a taboo, form over function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carmatic    54

But it's performed by "professionals", is it not ? It's like that here, but it's unimagineable that it'll be banned in Israel :p

"It's excruciatingly painful and permanently damaging surgery that's forced on men when they're at their weakest and most vulnerable"

That's only half truth, while it is in a way forced on the "man", it's not excruciatingly painful, that's either of two things, flat out lie or someone who is quite older than 8 days (when it is actually performed, not "10 minutes after I'm born" as one person said/implied..) so yeah, it'll hurt, root canal hurts like a bitch, for lack of a better term, but I don't see them having a petition to ban root canals.

so, having a natural part of your body is as bad as having an infection ..

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

to look strong, or to look incomplete, disfigured and mutilated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tiagosilva29    952
Did you go through the Confirmation Sacrament?
Did every thing by the book, all forced. All done when I was underage. But at least I was not circumsized or tattooed. It would be a bitch to wake up every day to a permanent mark of something that I am not related to, something that was imposed to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kingroach    3

All I see in this thread is a people who were never circumcised bitching. Is there anyone who was circumcised and unhappy with it? I know I am ok with it and all the people who I know was circumcised is ok with it. Why don't these SF'ers gets at least 100 signature from unhappy circumcised persons before trying to create a issue where there is none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davo    146

If you're going with that non-sensical stance, I've actually encountered a lot of people who are circumcised that marvel at me being uncircumcised. Like they're missing out or something.

However, it's not uncircumcised people bitching about not being circumcised. It's circumcised people bitching about it being unclean, unnatural, and other fallacies, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's Dead Jim    2,017

its pretty bizzare in this day and age tbh,

"hey we're the best tribe coz we've got no foreskin",

"Nah, we're the best tribe coz we've got foreskin".

So why is circumcision this done? any rational logical explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seizure1990    252

moses wrote it and if i'm correct was human but let's not get into these fairy tales you are willing to do something to your child based on some story that is most likely not true and assume its the right thing to do yet...ugh nvm you are heavily religious and this won't have any effect

I'm more real than your god however i'm not the one that's deciding :).

They aren't fairy tales, and you aren't any more real. Go on and prove otherwise. :)

If your argument is going to rest upon the assertion that there is no God, then I am afraid you are using some terribly flawed logic, on multiple levels.

Edit: Who said it has anything to do with being better? Don't make stuff up.

All I see in this thread is a people who were never circumcised bitching. Is there anyone who was circumcised and unhappy with it? I know I am ok with it and all the people who I know was circumcised is ok with it. Why don't these SF'ers gets at least 100 signature from unhappy circumcised persons before trying to create a issue where there is none.

This too. I keep saying it, but maybe I'm trying to be too flowery about it. Everyone who has a problem with it seems to be uncircumcised. Really funny, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.