San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision

[iamawesomewicked]

My point, if you were actually reading, is that circumcision is REQUIRED for Judaism. On the other hand, NOT being circumcised is NOT required for atheism. So what is YOUR point, and how many times will I have to reword it to get a direct response?

Like I said. No one is born religious. So they don't become Jewish at 8 days old. They have to accept Judaism first.

[tiagosilva29]

Like I said. No one is born religious. So they don't become Jewish at 8 days old. They have to accept Judaism first.

Apparently what matters here is that the parents accept Judaism, so the children have to deal with it. Oy vey!

[Seizure1990]

Then how can people convert to being Jewish? (not having a go, just curious).

They get circumcised later on in life then, which I'm guessing sucks royally. Obviously, you can't have been circumcised at 8 days if you weren't already, so it is what it is. However, doesn't mean there's any excuse to wait when you are able to do it the right way.

That cannot be reasonably used to justify any religious activity. If rape was an integral and mandatory part of many people's religion, it would not be deemed acceptable, so therefore the reasoning you use above holds no weight in any situation.

As has been proven, circumcising people who'd rather have a foreskin harms them. You can find examples on the Internet of people who dislike the fact their parents circumcised them and many of them would class this as harm caused toward them.

I don't know of any religion that makes rape a mandatory practice (not one that's practiced here anyways), so I'm not sure how comfortable I feel addressing this point. I also don't think rape is equivalent to snipping off the foreskin.

There are people who think vaccines cause autism, and should be banned, and I'm sure some of them were given vaccines as children too. They'd make the same argument. Am I trying to say their opinion doesn't matter? No. However, their opinion is outweighed by the opinion and needs of many, many others.

Just like people have a freedom of religion, people also have a freedom from religion. Babies do not have the capacity to decide to follow a religion and therefore their freedom from religion should be protected, in case it turns out they do not wish to follow a religion.

and how does being circumcised prevent them from this choice?

Like I said. No one is born religious. So they don't become Jewish at 8 days old. They have to accept Judaism first.

I'm going to try this one more time, and then you're on your own. I can't keep explaining this, 5 times a day, just for your absurdly dense self.

The torah says the circumcision must be done at 8 days. If the child is not circumciced at 8 days, that is a huge deal. Therefore, if the child did decide to become Jewish (and whether you'd like to believe it or not, he most likely will) that is something he would be VERY upset about. On the other hand, if the child decides otherwise, then that's fine too. I fail to see how the circumcision forces him to be Jewish. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.

Now, if you'd like to move on to other points on why circumcision should be banned despite the above, or if you'd like to point out where I am wrong in the above statement, please go on, but if you're going to continue on with this bs about freedom of religion and whatnot, just stuff it, and have a good day.

Apparently what matters here is that the parents accept Judaism, so the children have to deal with it. Oy vey!

As above. They don't have to deal with anything. They can choose to be atheist still.

[iamawesomewicked]

They get circumcised later on in life then, which I'm guessing sucks royally. Obviously, you can't have been circumcised at 8 days if you weren't already, so it is what it is. However, doesn't mean there's any excuse to wait when you are able to do it the right way.

I don't know of any religion that makes rape a mandatory practice (not one that's practiced here anyways), so I'm not sure how comfortable I feel addressing this point. I also don't think rape is equivalent to snipping off the foreskin.

There are people who think vaccines cause autism, and should be banned, and I'm sure some of them were given vaccines as children too. They'd make the same argument. Am I trying to say their opinion doesn't matter? No. However, their opinion is outweighed by the opinion and needs of many, many others.

and how does being circumcised prevent them from this choice?

I'm going to try this one more time, and then you're on your own. I can't keep explaining this, 5 times a day, just for your absurdly dense self.

The torah says the circumcision must be done at 8 days. If the child is not circumciced at 8 days, that is a huge deal. Therefore, if the child did decide to become Jewish (and whether you'd like to believe it or not, he most likely will) that is something he would be VERY upset about. On the other hand, if the child decides otherwise, then that's fine too. I fail to see how the circumcision forces him to be Jewish. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.

Now, if you'd like to move on to other points on why circumcision should be banned despite the above, or if you'd like to point out where I am wrong in the above statement, please go on, but if you're going to continue on with this bs about freedom of religion and whatnot, just stuff it, and have a good day.

As above. They don't have to deal with anything. They can choose to be atheist still.

Yes but by saying the Torah, you're assuming the child is religious from the start. But Babies are not religious at birth. They don't even know what religion or god is. Thus people are making an irreversible decision, under the threat of "god".

[Seizure1990]

Wanted to ask a question about something I just read

http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html

It's easier to keep a circumcised penis clean, although uncircumcised boys can learn how to clean beneath the foreskin once the foreskin becomes retractable (usually some time before age 5).

So before the age of 5, you can't even peel it back? I never knew this (understandably) but wouldn't that mean that even taking the whole "just roll it down and clean it" argument into consideration, you're still at a higher risk till that point?

Oh, also:

Some people claim that circumcision either lessens or heightens the sensitivity of the tip of the penis, decreasing or increasing sexual pleasure later in life. But neither of these subjective findings has been proved.

Hahahahaha

Edit: oh, and it goes on!

Perhaps one of the hardest parts of the decision to circumcise is accepting that the procedure can be painful. In the past, it wasn't commonplace to provide pain relief for babies being circumcised, but because studies have indicated that it benefits the infant to receive anesthesia, most doctors will now provide it.

We even provide anesthesia for the little tykes now! Isn't that sweet? <3

If only I were so lucky (even though I can't remember it).

Finally:

Despite the possible benefits and risks, circumcision is neither essential nor detrimental to a boy's health. The AAP and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) do not endorse the procedure as a way to prevent any of the medical conditions mentioned previously. The AAP also does not find sufficient evidence to medically recommend circumcision or argue against it.

Huh. Sounds good to me.

[Solid Knight]

You guys do realize that it's not strictly done for religious reasons, right?

[ylcard]

Yes but by saying the Torah, you're assuming the child is religious from the start. But Babies are not religious at birth. They don't even know what religion or god is. Thus people are making an irreversible decision, under the threat of "god".

Been talking to babies recently ? /s

You guys do realize that it's not strictly done for religious reasons, right?

Yeah, we do realize that but honestly I don't know why anyone would do that. But I'm not sure about the point you're trying to make here...

[Solid Knight]

Yeah, we do realize that but honestly I don't know why anyone would do that. But I'm not sure about the point you're trying to make here...

I think more people get it done for sanitation reasons than any other.

Here's some stats for the US:

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/

The report refers to sanitary reasons throughout the entire document.

I understand that Canada and Europe have substantially lower incident percentages. So, depending upon what country you're talking about, religious reasons may or may not be the primary reason why people get circumcisions.

[ylcard]

I think more people get it done for sanitation reasons than any other.

Here's some stats for the US:

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/

The report refers to sanitary reasons throughout the entire document.

I understand that Canada and Europe have substantially lower incident percentages. So, depending upon what country you're talking about, religious reasons may or may not be the primary reason why people get circumcisions.

I still don't see a point in all of this.

I couldn't care less if they ban circumcision for the rest of them as it means nothing to them, their reasons to be easily proved to be false by a simple research, while the religious circumcision can't be proven wrong, even if it came from an invisible entity that you and I don't believe in.

[Solid Knight]

I still don't see a point in all of this.

I couldn't care less if they ban circumcision for the rest of them as it means nothing to them, their reasons to be easily proved to be false by a simple research, while the religious circumcision can't be proven wrong, even if it came from an invisible entity that you and I don't believe in.

Your simple search will also list contradictory results. It then becomes a matter of the better sell.

[FloatingFatMan]

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

A question for you. Circumcision, IIRC, is a religious act, yes?

Well, if you believe in god, then you believe god made man. In which case, who are you to say god's "design" for the male form is wrong, and to deliberately change it?

Surely by circumcising, you're saying that gods design is wrong?

[seta-san]

I do completely understand that, but I reckon if I got to the age where I realised and understood I was born with a foreskin, I'd be gutted because I like having a foreskin for many reasons; maybe if I had been forcefully circumcised, I'd want a foreskin after finding out about them. By then it'd be too late. Would you like it if anything else of yours had been removed when you were born, if removing those body parts was legal? What about if your parents had a finger of yours removed; would you be fine growing up with only 3 fingers on one hand?

As I've pointed out, I reckon (but obviously cannot say for sure) that I'd hate it if I'd been circumcised. I already despise the fact I was unwillingly christened and christening didn't even harm my body.

and maybe your parents should have consulted you if you wanted in innie or an outie.

[Davo]

It's no different than cutting an umbilical cord? I'm not even going to attempt to debate with someone who doesn't even understand basic anatomy, let alone a hot button issue like this.

For non-religious folks, "why not?" is not an acceptable answer. It's genital mutilation. I personally would have preferred to have it done but I'm no better off not having it done.

[ylcard]

A question for you. Circumcision, IIRC, is a religious act, yes?

Well, if you believe in god, then you believe god made man. In which case, who are you to say god's "design" for the male form is wrong, and to deliberately change it?

Surely by circumcising, you're saying that gods design is wrong?

It would be better off asking a religious man and not me.

But as I understand it, it's a command directly from God. So yeah, maybe he failed during the brainstorming session and gave you too much skin.

Don't they also say that we were meant to be immortal as well ? But all that changed after we've been naughty a couple of times in the past. God changes stuff, you see. But still, like I said, you better be asking a religious man and not me.

"It's genital mutilation", no, under no circumstance it is genital mutilation. Female circumcision is genital mutilation, male isn't.

[Seizure1990]

A question for you. Circumcision, IIRC, is a religious act, yes?

Well, if you believe in god, then you believe god made man. In which case, who are you to say god's "design" for the male form is wrong, and to deliberately change it?

Surely by circumcising, you're saying that gods design is wrong?

As inclined said, we didn't decide anything. It says right in the Torah that we need to do this. And since the Torah was dictated to Moses, word-for-word, by God, we listen. Simple as that.

[Knife Party]

It would be better off asking a religious man and not me.

But as I understand it, it's a command directly from God. So yeah, maybe he failed during the brainstorming session and gave you too much skin.

Don't they also say that we were meant to be immortal as well ? But all that changed after we've been naughty a couple of times in the past. God changes stuff, you see. But still, like I said, you better be asking a religious man and not me.

"It's genital mutilation", no, under no circumstance it is genital mutilation. Female circumcision is genital mutilation, male isn't.

no no, technically circumcision is genital mutilation because a. skin that is naturally fit for its purpose is cut-off and dismembered from the penis. That fits a perfect description for mutilation, and is put into context of the act of circumcision. The only reason why people try to claim its 'ok', is because its accepted in a traditional sense or even religiously symbolic (ambrahamic faiths = covenant with god).

Let's not blur facts here

[Seizure1990]

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.

3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

It isn't an essential part, nor does losing it cripple you.

"Disfigure" is a relative term. I, and many others, think it's normal. Therefore, not disfigured.

3. Imperfect is, once again, a relative and objective term.

So thanks, but try following your own advice and stop blurring the facts.

edit: and this is all besides the fact that for all I care, we could call it "dick slicing" or "pecker reduction", and it still wouldn't matter to me. Doesn't change the validity of a single argument. Just semantics.

[FloatingFatMan]

As inclined said, we didn't decide anything. It says right in the Torah that we need to do this. And since the Torah was dictated to Moses, word-for-word, by God, we listen. Simple as that.

I see.

Does it give a reason for it, or is it just ordered and obeyed, without question?

[Seizure1990]

The short explanation is that it represents our covenant with God. If you want the long version, go read up on the story of Abraham and his son (not trying to be rude, it's just that I don't think its necessary to copy/paste or re-write an entire Biblical story in here :p)

edit: and for the record, NOTHING in the Jewish religion goes without question. We are a very curious, questioning people, and it is in fact strongly encouraged to ask questions about, and even challenge, your faith. That is how one's faith grows stronger.

[ylcard]

no no, technically circumcision is genital mutilation because a. skin that is naturally fit for its purpose is cut-off and dismembered from the penis. That fits a perfect description for mutilation, and is put into context of the act of circumcision. The only reason why people try to claim its 'ok', is because its accepted in a traditional sense or even religiously symbolic (ambrahamic faiths = covenant with god).

Let's not blur facts here

Naturally fit ? Take a look at yours and tell me if it looks natural to you.

I'm guessing that a haircut is also "mutilation" because hair is a part of your body, is it not ? You cut it, as in, you "dismember" it.

Go google mutilation and see the images, maybe you'll get the idea of what it actually is.

[iamawesomewicked]

Naturally fit ? Take a look at yours and tell me if it looks natural to you.

I'm guessing that a haircut is also "mutilation" because hair is a part of your body, is it not ? You cut it, as in, you "dismember" it.

Go google mutilation and see the images, maybe you'll get the idea of what it actually is.

My dick looks natural. It's even got its own little protection from dust/dirt!

[0sit0]

My dick looks natural. It's even got its own little protection from dust/dirt!

:laugh: the way it was meant to be!

[WelshBluebird]

They get circumcised later on in life then, which I'm guessing sucks royally. Obviously, you can't have been circumcised at 8 days if you weren't already, so it is what it is. However, doesn't mean there's any excuse to wait when you are able to do it the right way.

So you admit that it isn't actually needed when the kid is a baby?

Thank you for proving my point.

[ylcard]

So you admit that it isn't actually needed when the kid is a baby?

Thank you for proving my point.

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

[0sit0]

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

:rofl: :woot:

Why wouldn't "god" take it off himself if "he" didn't like it? :rofl: