Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

mike1921

New member
Oct 17, 2008
1,292
0
0
Boba Frag said:
mike1921 said:
Boba Frag said:
Koroviev said:
Boba Frag said:
Koroviev said:
Boba Frag said:
wow, the religion thing is nearly getting this thread out of hand...

Anyway, I respect the right of the Jewish community to engage in the practice- I understand it's done by someone who's been specially trained in the correct surgical techniques and a small amount of local anaesthetic can be used as well.

I'm not circumcised as I'm Catholic, although there's no prohibition on it in my religion, it's just not practised very much.

A non-Jewish friend of mine had the procedure done as a child, but for medical reasons.
Doesn't really seem to factor in daily life, so it's no big deal.

I think our attention should be directed towards people who practice it without the appropriate medical training or supervision.
There have been a few tragic cases in Dublin where a child has bled to death as a result of a botched circumcision as part of a non-Jewish ritual, amongst newly immigrant families originating from African nations.

Furthermore- female circumcision IS genital mutilation, and is utterly barbaric.
I don't have detailed reports or links to share, so I can't comment much on the matter, although it has cropped up in the Irish media on occasion that asylum seekers from war torn nations in Africa have claimed that such a fate awaits their daughters if they are deported.
I respect the right of parents to share and practice their faith with their children, but I think it crosses the line when they want to permanently alter their child for the sake of it. First, it is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I mean, think about it. What if I am part of some obscure religion that calls for Johnny's ears to be clipped at the top? I assure you that my religion has been around for at least 1000 years and I think he can clean less of an ear better. Does that seem like a good idea?
All very well, but religions have for centuries involved rites and rituals which appear rather kooky to outsiders.

The Romans thought early Christians actually ate flesh and drank blood when celebrating Eucharist, after all.

Also, I agree with your point, although at the same time we can't just lump in a religious practice that's carefully monitored with the same kind of mutilation by witch-doctors.

I'm not really qualified to argue the Jewish position on it, and I also realise that the same goes for tribal rituals.

However, I will say that while I'm uncomfortable with the idea of it being done to me, at the same time it's not a harmful procedure when correctly performed on a male child.

It's done in an extremely humane manner in the Jewish faith, but I cede your point about altering of the body. I would point out that the parents consent on this matter.

That's really something to be argued between a person born into the Jewish faith and a Rabbi, though.
All very well to object, but are you honestly going to start calling people who practise the ritual barbarians?

Why don't we ask people who've actually had it done at infancy?
No, they are not ritual barbarians. When they base their argument on tradition, they are simply appealing to tradition. In that case, they are illogical. Calling them ritual barbarians would amount to an ad hominem fallacy.

So now people can't have traditions because it's not logical?
Most human social behaviour isn't logical.

In any case, it is none of our damn business.
No, they can't justify actions just because of tradition. I don't need to justify putting a christmas tree in my house because it hurts no one. I do however need to justify putting someone else through surgery.
It's hardly surgery.

I think this thread has gone totally off track and is just showcasing people's fear and misunderstanding.
Ok, a medical procedure? Does it make a difference? You don't justify medical procedures or surgery with tradition
 

JTLW

New member
Jan 23, 2009
60
0
0
I just remembered that I didn't explain how I voted.

I voted candy.

It really isn't a blanket thing. I don't think they should be banned in any way, shape or form, but the parents should have all the medical consequences, positive and negative, explained to them. After the age of 16, if the person in question wants it done, let 'em.

However, I personally feel that circumcision in children should be left at least for a couple of years. If everything is hunky dory, health-wise, then leave it be. If it is to be done for religious reasons, go for it.

The reason I say wait, is because the foreskin may be removed for health reasons that may never occur in the child's life. It took a few years for the problems with mine to become apparent. When infections and bleeding and pain are occurring, it's time to take some action.

And frankly, I like the look of my penis better after being circumcised, compared to uncut.
 

Koroviev

New member
Oct 3, 2010
1,599
0
0
Boba Frag said:
Koroviev said:
Boba Frag said:
Koroviev said:
Boba Frag said:
Koroviev said:
Boba Frag said:
wow, the religion thing is nearly getting this thread out of hand...

Anyway, I respect the right of the Jewish community to engage in the practice- I understand it's done by someone who's been specially trained in the correct surgical techniques and a small amount of local anaesthetic can be used as well.

I'm not circumcised as I'm Catholic, although there's no prohibition on it in my religion, it's just not practised very much.

A non-Jewish friend of mine had the procedure done as a child, but for medical reasons.
Doesn't really seem to factor in daily life, so it's no big deal.

I think our attention should be directed towards people who practice it without the appropriate medical training or supervision.
There have been a few tragic cases in Dublin where a child has bled to death as a result of a botched circumcision as part of a non-Jewish ritual, amongst newly immigrant families originating from African nations.

Furthermore- female circumcision IS genital mutilation, and is utterly barbaric.
I don't have detailed reports or links to share, so I can't comment much on the matter, although it has cropped up in the Irish media on occasion that asylum seekers from war torn nations in Africa have claimed that such a fate awaits their daughters if they are deported.
I respect the right of parents to share and practice their faith with their children, but I think it crosses the line when they want to permanently alter their child for the sake of it. First, it is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I mean, think about it. What if I am part of some obscure religion that calls for Johnny's ears to be clipped at the top? I assure you that my religion has been around for at least 1000 years and I think he can clean less of an ear better. Does that seem like a good idea?
All very well, but religions have for centuries involved rites and rituals which appear rather kooky to outsiders.

The Romans thought early Christians actually ate flesh and drank blood when celebrating Eucharist, after all.

Also, I agree with your point, although at the same time we can't just lump in a religious practice that's carefully monitored with the same kind of mutilation by witch-doctors.

I'm not really qualified to argue the Jewish position on it, and I also realise that the same goes for tribal rituals.

However, I will say that while I'm uncomfortable with the idea of it being done to me, at the same time it's not a harmful procedure when correctly performed on a male child.

It's done in an extremely humane manner in the Jewish faith, but I cede your point about altering of the body. I would point out that the parents consent on this matter.

That's really something to be argued between a person born into the Jewish faith and a Rabbi, though.
All very well to object, but are you honestly going to start calling people who practise the ritual barbarians?

Why don't we ask people who've actually had it done at infancy?
No, they are not ritual barbarians. When they base their argument on tradition, they are simply appealing to tradition. In that case, they are illogical. Calling them ritual barbarians would amount to an ad hominem fallacy.

So now people can't have traditions because it's not logical?
Most human social behaviour isn't logical.

In any case, it is none of our damn business.
When you are trying to argue a point, it really is best to be logical.
Indeed, but it's also best to draw examples, show some evidence of harmful practice, have a persuasive argument and show a genuine understanding of different cultures and their right to practice whatever they wish if it's not harming anyone.

And don't argue that the practice is harming children. That would be a logical point to make, if an obvious one.

Logic and rational are not the same thing and are somewhat condescending when used to judge, and that's exactly what your position is doing, another group of people's beliefs and culture.
We're talking about people, not programming here.
I have nothing against the people, it is the practice that I oppose. I really don't see what you are getting at. I am not condemning any culture in its entirety, I am simply taking issue with a practice that I think is impractical and unfair.
 

Thy Doctor

New member
Nov 5, 2010
60
0
0
Eh I know a few guys who had to have it done when there older because it becomes infected. I'd much rather have it done as a baby then older... I don't understand why everyone is against it
 

Kortney

New member
Nov 2, 2009
1,960
0
0
mirasiel said:
Both are done for the benefits of the parents beliefs, no?
Nope. One is done by the parents belief that if they do not do this then their son will not pass on to the afterlife (whatever it is in the Jewish religion, I'm not sure of it all) and one is done because it looks better. One is more than a simple preference, it is an absolute imperative to Jewish people.

You want to ban that? Heh. Sounds a little fascist to me. Jewish people are not circumcised by people in hospitals, they are circumcised by trained people of their own faith. It's freedom of religion.

I'm Islamic and the Qur'an does not once mention circumcision, so it's more of a social thing within an Islamic society. I know many Muslims who are not circumcised.
 

Kortney

New member
Nov 2, 2009
1,960
0
0
Fagotto said:
So if we decide that kids should have a certain degree of bodily autonomy then it should apply equally regardless of people's personal beliefs.
No it shouldn't. Hundreds of cultures and religions across the globe do things to their bodies because of their beliefs - it doesn't mean we all have to either do it or not for it to be fair.

Fagotto said:
The fact that we wouldn't allow someone to sacrifice someone else for their religion goes to prove my principle.
You think that proves your principle? Wow. You set quite flimsy criteria for yourself. Last time I checked killing another human being is very different to circumcision. Obviously if people were in serious danger because of religion, then legislation would have to step in - which it does quite often.

Fagotto said:
I am not saying it is the same, but it shows the principle that law overrides religious belief does not violate freedom of religion.
If circumcision was banned in the Jewish community, that would be a direct breach in the freedom of religion. It is a practice carried out entirely within the religion. Hospitals don't have to encourage it, nor does anyone else. It doesn't effect you or the health system in any major way. Let them be.
 

Thy Doctor

New member
Nov 5, 2010
60
0
0
I'm still confused... It seems those making such a huge deal out of it are the ones who are not circumcised. He'll I'm circumcised and I don't complain because frankly it doesn't matter, I'll never know what it's like to be uncut but in the same way those who are uncut will never know what it is like to be cut. I've never met someone who was mad because there Peter is shaped differently.
 

Kortney

New member
Nov 2, 2009
1,960
0
0
Fagotto said:
So basically you want to use the law to ban a group of religions people who have nothing to do with you from circumcising their babies, who also have nothing to do with you.

Uh huh. Might I suggest you get a hobby? It's not hurting anyone. They believe they have to do it. Banning it would cause serious, serious repercussions and would ironically lead to more human rights violations than keeping it legal would - but hey, you obviously don't understand any of it.

I think you need to sort out your priorities, there are many more alterations made to the body in other cultures that are more damaging than male circumcision is. The about lip discs? What about neck rings? Do you want to go into their cultures with your narrow minded view and tell them that's wrong too?

If Jewish people don't want to be circumcise their infants, then they can make that decision for themselves, as a community. Now you may say "BUT BABIES CAN'T GIVE CONSENT!" no, but they grow up as happy people and still believe that it was necessary. It's not hurting you. It's not hurting them.
 

Kortney

New member
Nov 2, 2009
1,960
0
0
Fagotto said:
It has as much to do with me as any other interaction between people. Don't be absurd and pretend just because it doesn't directly affect me I shouldn't be against it.
It's not hurting you and it's not hurting them (beyond short term pain that they forget). Why should you want to interfere? Because you think it's wrong?

Further, alarmist posturing doesn't impress me. Oooh serious serious repercussions could happen because you say so! And of course I just don't understand it, I couldn't because I disagree with you.
So you think Israel, one of the most aggressive and efficient military forces in the World, commanded entirely by hardcore Jews would appreciate the banning of circumcision? There wouldn't be any riots? People wouldn't die? Hah. You'd have to be a moron to think that.

I'd like to see you actually go to Israel and say that. It remains one of the scariest places I have ever been to - and I've been to some awful places.

Lol? Make less assumptions. Or stop taking those mind reading lessons, they aren't working.
Well answer the question. If you want to ban male circumcision you may as well ban the things that actually do serious harm like lip discs and neck rings. Yes? It would be logical to assume so. So basically you want to ban anything that you don't agree with because.... you say so? Because it's "wrong"?

Here is a newsflash. I don't agree with circumcision one little bit. If I have a son they will certainly not be circumcised. I just realise that it is my little opinion and I can't apply my thoughts on "right and wrong" to other people, to other religions and to other cultures. Because people think differently to you and you must acknowledge that. Applying the way you think and your morals to other people's religion can only end in disaster.

They still believe it was necessary? I am amazed to learn that you know what all kids circumcised for religious reasons everywhere think. Regardless, violation of rights is a type of harm so they are being harmed. Also I am amazed that you think that cutting a piece of flesh off doesn't hurt.
First of all where did you get the impression that I think it doesn't hurt? You made it up? Yeah? Cool.

Judaism is the only religion I know of that actually makes it a requirement to be circumcised. If circumcision was a problem, there would be members of the Jewish faith demanded that it be stopped. There would be public awareness groups. Just like how in Islamic there are thousands of people right now protesting against "sexist" attitudes within Islamic communities. But there isn't. Why? Because they don't see a problem with it. They believe it is necessary. It doesn't actually do any real permanent harm beyond making the penis slightly less sensitive.

Stop trying to play Captain Planet. The quicker your realise that people have different cultures to you the better. I'd understand your case if Jewish people were making you circumcise your children. I'd understand your case if Jewish people didn't want to be circumcised. But neither is true.

My advice to you is:

A: Don't be involved in the Jewish faith.
B: Don't have your sons circumcised.
C: Get off your arse and go to Israel and make a statement to a Rabbi there.
 

Thy Doctor

New member
Nov 5, 2010
60
0
0
I thinking banning it is going overboard. If you really need the consent of a child to do an operation then let's ban tonsil extraction, adnoid removal, and tubes. While were at it... The parents have no right to name their child. At age 18 they can choose the name they want.

Sorry that was ridiculous but this "controversy" is a personal matter. You can't just ban it
 

Stollos

New member
Sep 6, 2010
196
0
0
No, I do not believe circumcision should be banned. I believe its a choice to be made by the parents of the child, and a decision to be made after proper consultation with the physician/doctor performing the procedure. Whether the parents make this decision based on religious factors, the medical benefits of choosing not to/to circumcise, or because of the fee involved with the procedure (when I was born, my parents told me there was a surplus fee involved which factored into the choice they made), its definitely not a thing that should be legislated against/banned.

Banning circumcision, in my opinion, would be as bad as making it compulsory. Leave the choice to the parents, and if anything, ensure that practicing physicians/doctors/surgeons are qualified enough to give sound advice and outline the risks and benefits of either path of action to the parents of the baby (which I'm sure they already are).

Kortney said:
Snip. *snicker*
Also very good points. Especially
It's not hurting you and it's not hurting them (beyond short term pain that they forget). Why should you want to interfere?
And for the record, I would not choose circumcision for my son(s).
 

Aurgelmir

WAAAAGH!
Nov 11, 2009
1,566
0
0
aseelt said:
Circumcision slows the spread of HIV as the foreskin is prone to tearing and thus allowing entry of HIV. So no, it shouldn't be banned.
Condoms slows the spread of HIV even better, your argument is mute.
Condoms also slows the spread of pregnant girls A LOT better than a cicumsision :p



You see, just because something does something good, doesn't make it any less wrong.

Cosmetic circumsision is done because people think it looks better.
And the reason for it to become common practice in the US (outside Jewish culture) was simple:
Some Christian people was crazy scared of masturbation.
Children tend to grab themselves down there even from an early age.
Kids that got cut didn't grab them selves as much.
So from that day on, people in the USA started cutting into their children.

They also invented Cornflakes to combat masturbation ;)


So yeah... tradition and stopping the spread of HIV are bad bad bad arguments


Stollos said:
Banning circumcision, in my opinion, would be as bad as making it compulsory. Leave the choice to the parents, and if anything, ensure that practicing physicians/doctors/surgeons are qualified enough to give sound advice and outline the risks and benefits of either path of action to the parents of the baby (which I'm sure they already are).
Lets impose Kants categorical imperative on this, you are in fact saying:
You are saying it is okey for parents to give their new born child cosmetic surgery.


Honestly!? There is no good reason to do it, so why should child molestation be the choice of the parents? And not the child?



Oh yeah, and someone mentioned it would be against Freedom of Religion to ban circumsision for Jews.
Well I have news for you people. MOST COUNTRIES STILL BAN THINGS THAT ARE DEEMED BAD!
I mean does the USA allow polligamy? NO! Not even Utah really does. Even though a lot of religions thinks its a-okey to have more than one wife, the state say; Nope not allowed.

So Freedom of Religion card: Bad argument.


Cicumsising children = Child molestation.

Simple as that, you can't argue against that.
 

mike1921

New member
Oct 17, 2008
1,292
0
0
Thy Doctor said:
I thinking banning it is going overboard. If you really need the consent of a child to do an operation then let's ban tonsil extraction, adnoid removal, and tubes. While were at it... The parents have no right to name their child. At age 18 they can choose the name they want.

Sorry that was ridiculous but this "controversy" is a personal matter. You can't just ban it
See, here's the thing. Tonsil extraction, adnoid removal, and tubes aren't put in just because religion says tonsils are bad. Those procedures are done because they actually need to be done. Not for religious reasons, not for traditional reasons. Purely medical. Which is the way MEDICAL procedures and surgeries should be.
Aurgelmir said:
Oh yeah, and someone mentioned it would be against Freedom of Religion to ban circumsision for Jews.
Well I have news for you people. MOST COUNTRIES STILL BAN THINGS THAT ARE DEEMED BAD!
I mean does the USA allow polligamy? NO! Not even Utah really does. Even though a lot of religions thinks its a-okey to have more than one wife, the state say; Nope not allowed.
I would much rather polygamy be made legal than keep circumcision legal.