Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
darkmoonlady

S.F Circumcision ban vs. Religious Freedom

167 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I don't understand how it can be so widely supported in non-religious terms myself. It serves no logical purpose outside of aesthetics and lowers sensitivity.

It makes about as much sense as removing your fingernails and toenails because studies show a complete absence in-grown nails and dirt when they're removed, and it looks aesthetically pleasing too!

So you did not read the thread, at least by this post that`s what I get. Fingernails and toenails well ok toe nails not sure of but they do serve a purpose. Maybe we have toe nails due to the fact we probaly used them to scratch behind our ears years a long time ago lol. As far as non religious circ`s it is a medical procedure done mostly my doctors. I was snipped and if I`m jewish it`s news to me.

Lowers sensitivty lol yup, you did not read the thread. It`s subjective.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, if your nails are removed as a kid, you won't notice any difference as an adult.

As a medical procedure, nearly every pediatric journal I've looked up recommends against it for purely aesthetic reasons.

Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not against it.

I take the advice of the australian medical association. A parent should get medical advice and act in the interest of the child. personally i know circumscision of a young child leaves no trace, mentally. I never even knew i was circumscised until i was over 20. Every young boy /man i saw naked in showers etc looked the same as me, becuase well over 90% of baby boys were circumscised in Australia (for purely medical reasons) in the period when i was born.

Why do you think people complain about them? some going OTT calling them sick?

I dont think circumscision should be performed just for religious reasons

It kicked off long ago..in the Jewish faith.. that's where it became commonly done ...it caught on.. It was mentioned in the bible.. I gather that's where they got the idea from?..Well it seems that way... You only have to read a recent article posted on here about a woman after reading the bible, took a box-cutter / Stanley blade.. to do this to her infant son... She was stupid.. Stanley blades are dead sharp and can easily cut it clean off with the wrong move.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-Circumcision Group Publishes "Anti-Semitic" Comic

The San Francisco group attempting to make infant circumcision a misdemeanor crime has published a comic strip the ADL and others are calling anti-Semitic. Titled "Foreskin Man," the comic pits a blond hair, blue eyed superhero (Foreskin Man) against characters such as "Dr. Mutilator," "Mohel Man" and a gun-wielding Orthodox Jewish man named Jorah. The comic book was created by Matthew Hess, the president of the Male Genital Mutilation Bill group and one of the leaders of the "intactivists," the anti-circumcision group whose measure will be on the November ballot. ... If passed the ballot would make circumcisions a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to one year in prison in San Francisco.

You can view a list of all the characters on the website for "Foreskin Man," though be forewarned that the site is very slow to load. Clicking on an image will bring you to a brief bio for each character, such as this one for Monster Mohel:

Source

I just looked at that comic and it is definitely anti-semitic to a huge extent.

Why would this group be spreading an anti-semetic message via this comic book when most circumcisions in the U.S. are done for secular reasons?

This just shows how desperate some of these anti-circ groups are, they need to villify their opposition to make an emotional appeal to their audience. Truly ignorant people will buy into this, but those who actually know the truth will just be turned off, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't understand how it can be so widely supported in non-religious terms myself. It serves no logical purpose outside of aesthetics and lowers sensitivity.

It makes about as much sense as removing your fingernails and toenails because studies show a complete absence in-grown nails and dirt when they're removed, and it looks aesthetically pleasing too!

Then you havent read any of the medical literature.

Circumscision in Australia was NEVER a religious practice or issue, yet in the mid 1900s almost every male infant was circumcised on medical advice, just like all children were vaccinated compulsorily at school. Then in the sixties and seventies human liberalism and individual rights began to supercede socal responsibilities and people began to take a more individaul look at circumcision (and at child vaccinations)

Also medical opinion changed somewhat as social conditions and access to modern amenties grew

(When i was a child i had one bath a week using a wood chip fired heater that roared like a dragon. Because i was the oldest, I got the fresh water. my 3 siblings went in the same water after me. Like most homes then, the house had no hot water on tap, and hot water came from a "fountain" (cast iron black kettle) on the stove. Today kids can have two showers a day and many do.

Also if you got an infection there were no antibiotics to treat it. They were just coming in after ww2 and were limited and expensive.

Before the 1940's an infection was not an inconvenience. It could, and likely would, kill you.

Today in australia there are medical opinions for and against, but there is strong evidence for many medical advantages. (It still reduces the rates of infection despite modern hygeine and antibioics making these less serious .) However there is now a strong enmotional /cultural distaste for circumscision .

The latest advice from the AMA is that males should not be "compulsorily" circumscised as a matter of general practice, but that parents should be made aware of the advantages and disadvantages, and then allowed to chose on medical grounds as individuals.

Thats a far cry from places where all male circumscision is made illegal. In effect that is a governmental control over parents right to chose appropriate medical treatment for their children.

And so a man who had considerable problems with infections as an adult and decided to get circumscised as an adult could not chose to have his son circumscised to prevent similar problems.

Quite a lot of Australians still live remote from modern hygeine and medical help. Others cant afford things like the cost of power and water. Circumscision is still a direct benefit to males in those conditions. (The reason why it was introduced as a practice in the first place )

The medical advice i have read (and my personal experience, even though i have nothing to compare it with, is that circumscision does not noticeably reduce sensitivity )

Even if it did so, for most men, especially young ones, that would be an advantage in their sex life, not a disasadvantage :devil:

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='Beckys_Mom' timestamp='1308416462' post='3956051']

Why do you think people complain about them? some going OTT calling them sick?

All part of the new liberalism and human rights thrust. People still judge with their hearts instead of their minds . but their hearts have cahnged direction :innocent: Same thing with child vacinations. These used to be mandated by the govt and every child received them from birth , through school to adulthood. (for free) Then some people objected and it became voluntary. Now many childen get sick, and some die, because some parents fear or distrust vaccinations (and some even see it as part of government control over them)

It kicked off long ago..in the Jewish faith.. that's where it became commonly done ...it caught on.. It was mentioned in the bible.. I gather that's where they got the idea from?..Well it seems that way... You only have to read a recent article posted on here about a woman after reading the bible, took a box-cutter / Stanley blade.. to do this to her infant son... She was stupid.. Stanley blades are dead sharp and can easily cut it clean off with the wrong move.....

It kicked off long before then. Australian aboriginal people have probably been practicing circumcision for 20000 years or more. They certainly were when 'discovered' by white people. They devloped it for the same reasons, and under the dsame conditions, as the jews. It was not a religiois reason but a health one. Later it became a part of religious practice just as many health concerns become ritualised in religious practice.

I suspect it was also used by many nomadic and pastoral peoples, long before and independent of the jews, precisely because it kept males healthier more comfortable and living longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All part of the new liberalism and human rights thrust. People still judge with their hearts instead of their minds . but their hearts have cahnged direction :innocent: Same thing with child vacinations. These used to be mandated by the govt and every child received them from birth , through school to adulthood. (for free) Then some people objected and it became voluntary. Now many childen get sick, and some die, because some parents fear or distrust vaccinations (and some even see it as part of government control over them)

It kicked off long before then. Australian aboriginal people have probably been practicing circumcision for 20000 years or more. They certainly were when 'discovered' by white people. They devloped it for the same reasons, and under the dsame conditions, as the jews. It was not a religiois reason but a health one. Later it became a part of religious practice just as many health concerns become ritualised in religious practice.

I suspect it was also used by many nomadic and pastoral peoples, long before and independent of the jews, precisely because it kept males healthier more comfortable and living longer.

Mark this down in BM v's Mr Walker history -- All of that was an interesting read ( for once lol)....

Thankfully I am not equipped for having the chop lol

Yes MW you can go ahead and faint now lol w00t.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark this down in BM v's Mr Walker history -- All of that was an interesting read ( for once lol)....

Thankfully I am not equipped for having the chop lol

Yes MW you can go ahead and faint now lol w00t.gif

:rofl:

A lot of cultural practices started from common sense and "natural discovery." Then wise "men" put them into religious laws and practice in an effort to make them part of the culture and keep the society safer and healthier. This was before books or even writing was invented, and all practices were passed on from generation to generation as individual and collective wisdom.

How to keep all males a bit healthier and living longer? Make it a religious practice that they are all circumscised a t birth. How to avoid certain dangerous foods? Make it a religious duty not to eat them.

People follow religious duties even when they dont understand the logic behind them. So they dont have to be educated or knowedgeable in order to practice safe behaviours, if they follow them from religious belief. Its how pretty much all pre "civilised" societies operated.

(Or alternatively people "lost sight of" or forgot the original logical reasons for them and started to think of them as a "gift from god" or "the wisdom of god"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how is comparing a vacine or other medication a better comparison to circumcision then child molestation?

Vacines have a medical reason.

There are some vaccines that are given for diseases that a child has less chance of getting than penile cancer (in an uncircumcised male), yet those vaccines are still given. Should they? They hurt and can have complications, so if you are not a hypocrite you should want them banned as well. . .seeing as though they aren't technically medically necessary. . .unless you find that small risk enough to get your child vaccinated. . .in which case, a parent, seeing as though it is a risk upon THEIR child, should not have the right taken away from them as to what future medical risks they don't want their child to be exposed to.

As for some of the other posts on here talking about the "outright lies" concerning benefits of circumcision. . .

In recent years, health officials have been scrambling to figure out how to circumcise about 50 million men across Africa — where 70 percent of the world's HIV-infected population lives. "Circumcision is unlike a vaccine," said Dr. Renee Ridzon, an AIDS expert at the Gates Foundation. "It has certain challenges."

I highly doubt they'd been spending that much time on trying to figure out how to circumcise the men if it didn't have any benefit. . .

Kim Dickson, an AIDS expert at the World Health Organization, said mass circumcision could prevent about 4 million adult HIV infections between 2009 and 2025.
"Circumcision will likely avert far more deaths per dollar spent than other things we're spending HIV money on," said Philip Stevens, of the London-based think tank International Policy Network.

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are an ever growing number of men with sexual dysfunction who are saying that they were injured by being circumcised. That alone should give one pause to say why do a procedure that has no medical need on an infant before they can grow up and make the choice themselves. There is no one who is saying they cannot have it once they reach the age of consent, however taking a piece of a childs body with out their consent or ability to understand what they are losing is wrong. I suppose an extreme example, lop off a pinkie toe, they'll grow up not knowing any different, they don't intrisically need it and can live happily with out it. Oh and it's mandated by an ancient tradition to boot so don't question it.

Sorry but that seems easy to say that someone doesn't need a piece of their anatomy that is causing them no harm, but instead is sliced off in the name of religion or some archaic idea of cleanliness.

If you reach the age of adulthood and say okay I don't want this foreskin anymore, by all means have it done. Done to an infant no choice is wrong. Whether a child remembers it or not that is their body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are an ever growing number of men with sexual dysfunction who are saying that they were injured by being circumcised. That alone should give one pause to say why do a procedure that has no medical need on an infant before they can grow up and make the choice themselves. There is no one who is saying they cannot have it once they reach the age of consent, however taking a piece of a childs body with out their consent or ability to understand what they are losing is wrong. I suppose an extreme example, lop off a pinkie toe, they'll grow up not knowing any different, they don't intrisically need it and can live happily with out it. Oh and it's mandated by an ancient tradition to boot so don't question it.

Sorry but that seems easy to say that someone doesn't need a piece of their anatomy that is causing them no harm, but instead is sliced off in the name of religion or some archaic idea of cleanliness.

If you reach the age of adulthood and say okay I don't want this foreskin anymore, by all means have it done. Done to an infant no choice is wrong. Whether a child remembers it or not that is their body.

Since when do children have a choice. Does a child have a choice to be born in a country that can not feed it. Does a child have a choice to be born into a country of war. Does a child have a choice not to be indoctrinated into an archaic religion that does not snip the tip. Could you post a link to your claim that men have sexual dysfunction due to the snip or are you just grasping at straws.

If you bring religion into this argument then you must also be against religion forced on a child as that has life long effects. Mental abuse is far worse then a simple snip at birth that some morons say cause PTSD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when do children have a choice. Does a child have a choice to be born in a country that can not feed it. Does a child have a choice to be born into a country of war. Does a child have a choice not to be indoctrinated into an archaic religion that does not snip the tip. Could you post a link to your claim that men have sexual dysfunction due to the snip or are you just grasping at straws.

If you bring religion into this argument then you must also be against religion forced on a child as that has life long effects. Mental abuse is far worse then a simple snip at birth that some morons say cause PTSD.

I think that is highly insulting to those who say they have been harmed by circumcision, and I'm not talking PTSD I'm talking about physical discomfort all the way to sexual dysfunction because of it. What I'm saying is that there is no medical reason behind it. Men live their entire lives with their foreskin and are happy with it. Saying that you know your child doesn't need it before they even reach sexual maturity is the same as saying those young girls in Islamic countries do not need a clitoris because their parent said so???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think at least 80% of the circumcisions in the U.S. are not done for religious purposes. They are done because it is what their Dads have had done before them. And the dr. when I had my son did not give me much if any (I don't remember any) information about it or really ask me much about it. Just gave me the paperwork to sign. I regret letting it happen to my baby boy when he was only a day old. When I had my second son we did not have it done. But then despite my efforts to keep the area cleansed he was reccomended by a urologist to have it done. At least he was three years old, and sedated. But still... I think if more information was available about it being a choice for new parents, and not required it would become less and less popular. I just wish I was more educated then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is highly insulting to those who say they have been harmed by circumcision, and I'm not talking PTSD I'm talking about physical discomfort all the way to sexual dysfunction because of it. What I'm saying is that there is no medical reason behind it. Men live their entire lives with their foreskin and are happy with it. Saying that you know your child doesn't need it before they even reach sexual maturity is the same as saying those young girls in Islamic countries do not need a clitoris because their parent said so???

Complications can happen during any surgical procedure, even removing one's tonsils, although circumcision has a complication rate that is very, very low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are an ever growing number of men with sexual dysfunction who are saying that they were injured by being circumcised. That alone should give one pause to say why do a procedure that has no medical need on an infant before they can grow up and make the choice themselves. There is no one who is saying they cannot have it once they reach the age of consent, however taking a piece of a childs body with out their consent or ability to understand what they are losing is wrong. I suppose an extreme example, lop off a pinkie toe, they'll grow up not knowing any different, they don't intrisically need it and can live happily with out it. Oh and it's mandated by an ancient tradition to boot so don't question it.

Sorry but that seems easy to say that someone doesn't need a piece of their anatomy that is causing them no harm, but instead is sliced off in the name of religion or some archaic idea of cleanliness.

If you reach the age of adulthood and say okay I don't want this foreskin anymore, by all means have it done. Done to an infant no choice is wrong. Whether a child remembers it or not that is their body.

The basic problem with this is that i would happily have a circumcision as a very young child, knowing i will never remember it, and it will protect me from many things through life but i would not have it as an adult because my self awareness and memory is developed to a point where i would never forget it and it jus tmight scar me emotionally. Its also like vaccinations (if you accept its medical benefits) its best done as young as possible.

Parents have not just a right but a duty and an obligation to do what they honestly believe is best for their child,

The argument again comes back to the medical advantgaes conferred by circumcision, vs any disadvantages. Id never heard of any sexual disfunction(and EVERY male I grew up with was circumcised in a clinic or hospital by a medical doctor)) but, if true, that would have to be weighed against benefits, as is the case with vaccinations. Very rarely a vaccination can kill a child, but not vaccinating children kills many of them.

The concept of allowing chldren to grow up and make decisions for them selves is a furphy. Societies are structured around the innate nature of adults and children to give parents or other adults authority to act on the behalf of children. Children do not have many personal rights because they lack the data base of knowledge/experience and also of reasoning abilty to make informed choices..

A society cant wait for children to grow into adults to begin their health programmes, education, or development of ethics and moralities. These begin at birth and are the resonsibilty of the appropriate adults in a child's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic problem with this is that i would happily have a circumcision as a very young child, knowing i will never remember it, and it will protect me from many things through life but i would not have it as an adult because my self awareness and memory is developed to a point where i would never forget it and it jus tmight scar me emotionally. Its also like vaccinations (if you accept its medical benefits) its best done as young as possible.

Parents have not just a right but a duty and an obligation to do what they honestly believe is best for their child,

The argument again comes back to the medical advantgaes conferred by circumcision, vs any disadvantages. Id never heard of any sexual disfunction(and EVERY male I grew up with was circumcised in a clinic or hospital by a medical doctor)) but, if true, that would have to be weighed against benefits, as is the case with vaccinations. Very rarely a vaccination can kill a child, but not vaccinating children kills many of them.

The concept of allowing chldren to grow up and make decisions for them selves is a furphy. Societies are structured around the innate nature of adults and children to give parents or other adults authority to act on the behalf of children. Children do not have many personal rights because they lack the data base of knowledge/experience and also of reasoning abilty to make informed choices..

A society cant wait for children to grow into adults to begin their health programmes, education, or development of ethics and moralities. These begin at birth and are the resonsibilty of the appropriate adults in a child's life.

If you are surrounded by men who have had circumcisions, then you're all the same. You're all going to agree and you're not going to have any real idea what the advantages/disadvantages are from someone that's not been circumcised.

I agree that a child should be vaccinated, since vaccinations have proven benefits but circumcision? Less so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are surrounded by men who have had circumcisions, then you're all the same. You're all going to agree and you're not going to have any real idea what the advantages/disadvantages are from someone that's not been circumcised.

I agree that a child should be vaccinated, since vaccinations have proven benefits but circumcision? Less so.

The first comment is true, but i see it as an argument that circumcision does no harm. Sexual disfunction would have been detected (And it was, in many non -circumcision related areas). Basically, apart from other forms it did not exist .Circumcision caused no discernable sexual disfunction in generations of children. Sensitivity is another issue but i dont see persoanlly how increased sensitivity would ever have been of advantage to me. :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first comment is true, but i see it as an argument that circumcision does no harm. Sexual disfunction would have been detected (And it was, in many non -circumcision related areas). Basically, apart from other forms it did not exist .Circumcision caused no discernable sexual disfunction in generations of children. Sensitivity is another issue but i dont see persoanlly how increased sensitivity would ever have been of advantage to me. :devil:

Lol, Mr.Walker. Nobody wants to be the "minute man", right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first comment is true, but i see it as an argument that circumcision does no harm. Sexual disfunction would have been detected (And it was, in many non -circumcision related areas). Basically, apart from other forms it did not exist .Circumcision caused no discernable sexual disfunction in generations of children. Sensitivity is another issue but i dont see persoanlly how increased sensitivity would ever have been of advantage to me. :devil:

Again, how do you know it doesn't cause harm? How do you know you're not missing out on some sensitivity? Fact is you ddon't. You were circumcised when you were a baby (as were many around you) so you have no idea what was lost from you, you all just accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, how do you know it doesn't cause harm? How do you know you're not missing out on some sensitivity? Fact is you ddon't. You were circumcised when you were a baby (as were many around you) so you have no idea what was lost from you, you all just accept it.

How do you know if we are missing out on much? Can you switch into a circumcised male's body and experience sex, then compare notes? How do you know that there is such a huge difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know if we are missing out on much? Can you switch into a circumcised male's body and experience sex, then compare notes? How do you know that there is such a huge difference?

By the same token, how do you there's not a huge difference either?

I don't speak from experience, but there's been numerous studies to suggest sensitivity is lessened to a certain degree. To me that alone is reason not to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the same token, how do you there's not a huge difference either?

I don't speak from experience, but there's been numerous studies to suggest sensitivity is lessened to a certain degree. To me that alone is reason not to do it.

I guess, I don't, but, then again, I have no complaints either.

I have seen studies the suggest the difference is sensitivity negligible. I suppose someone who is more qualified will have to do a meta-analysis and find out if there is a large difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20110621.1915

The true God asked Abraham in Genesis 17:10-14 to circumcise all man child (all male) in his household, to wit (King James Version):

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Abraham was circumcised when he was ninety years old, and so were the other man child in his household circumcised, as stated in Genesis 17:23-27.

The command came from the true God. So it must be good. Please ask the Jews and the Muslims who were circumcised when they were eight days old of their experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20110621.1915

The true God asked Abraham in Genesis 17:10-14 to circumcise all man child (all male) in his household, to wit (King James Version):

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Abraham was circumcised when he was ninety years old, and so were the other man child in his household circumcised, as stated in Genesis 17:23-27.

The command came from the true God. So it must be good. Please ask the Jews and the Muslims who were circumcised when they were eight days old of their experiences.

:rolleyes:

Not all 'commands from the true god' are good when given any thought and just because a command is supposed to come from god that doesn't mean it's good.

And also if foreskin bothered god so much than it would be within his power to stop us having any.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20110621.1915

The true God asked Abraham in Genesis 17:10-14 to circumcise all man child (all male) in his household, to wit (King James Version):

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

The command came from the true God. So it must be good. Please ask the Jews and the Muslims who were circumcised when they were eight days old of their experiences.

If god did not feel males needed the foreskin...then he could have left it out when he was creating males lol laugh.gif

And not every command god gave was good

Edited by Beckys_Mom
1 person likes this

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  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.