Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

German court rules circumcision to be a crime

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christianlady)
    Hello Psyk,

    Not all people are incredibly individualistic. There are people who very much enjoy the traditions passed on by their forefathers.
    Then they will be free to follow the tradition when they are able to decide that for themselves. When your child is an infant, you have no idea if they will want to take part in those traditions, so I don't see how the chance that they might want to is justification from taking that choice away from them.

    (Original post by Christianlady)
    Concerning the foreskin, it is indeed "skin". It is not like amputating a finger or leg or a penis.
    It is a piece of skin that does serve a purpose, albeit a fairly minor one. There are other pieces of skin on the body that don't serve especially important purposes, yet as far as I know, it's not legal to have them removed from a child without a medical need.

    (Original post by Christianlady)
    When I was younger, my tonsils were taken due to a decision by my parents. I was not asked, "Honey, would you like your tonsils removed?" I didn't have any say in the matter, but I remember trying very hard to be brave and a "big girl" through the process. I am no worse for no longer having my tonsils, as far as I know.

    Do I get mad at my parents for their decision of having my tonsils removed? Nope. Now, maybe later scientists will discover that having tonsils is for the most part better than not having tonsils, but I can tell you without a doubt that my life has in no way deteriorated due to the fact I no longer have tonsils, which are made out of lymphoid tissue.
    Why were your tonsils removed though? Did you get tonsillitis? I recognise that sometimes there are medical reasons to perform surgery on a child. Sometimes that will mean removing their foreskin, I have no problem with that.

    I don't know much about the medical consequences of tonsillitis, so maybe there is a case for pre-emptive medical treatment. I don't see a similar case for removing the foreskin. It can help prevent STDs, but that is insignificant when compared to using condoms, or abstaining for sex until you're in a stable relationship. There's also phimosis (foreskin that is too tight essentially), but there's no need for pre-emptive treatment as it can just be treated when it becomes a problem.

    (Original post by Christianlady)
    I consider circumcision of removing the foreskin on a boy's penis to be similar to the decision of removing the tonsils of a child: to be a decision that parents can make.

    Since I'm not a guy and cannot speak on the experience of having either a circumcised or uncircumcised penis lol, I can note that my husband who has had a circumcised penis since before he could remember, he has no issues with being circumcised anymore than I have any issues with my tonsils being removed as a child.
    The thing is, your husband can't speak of the experience either. He doesn't know what it's like to be uncircumcised. I don't know what it's like to be circumcised, but at least I have the option to find out. I can tell you that being uncircumcised has it's advantages, and I'm sure being circumcised does too. So since both have their advantages and disadvantages, I think it's a choice that should be left to the individual.

    (Original post by Christianlady)
    What religious sects are against circumcision please? I did not know that.
    Some Christians believe it is wrong:

    http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/

    I realise it's a minority view, but it's still a valid view. Even if they don't join a religious group that is against circumcision, it still seems unfair that they might grow up and follow a religion (or none) that doesn't require circumcision. Then you have removed their foreskin for religious reasons, for a religion that they don't even believe in.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Then they will be free to follow the tradition when they are able to decide that for themselves. When your child is an infant, you have no idea if they will want to take part in those traditions, so I don't see how the chance that they might want to is justification from taking that choice away from them.
    Hello Psyk,

    Children don't tend to decide many things for themselves. For example, my parents never ever asked me if I wanted to celebrate Christmas or Easter. They just did and interestingly enough, both of those holidays included very nice incentives for children to greatly enjoy those traditions.

    Being a parent includes making decisions of which traditions they will follow when raising their own children.
    My husband has a big issue with celebrating Christmas with presents and Christmas trees/lights. Even though his family celebrated it that way (and they didn't ask his permission), he has decided that his kids will not celebrate Christmas with presents and Christmas trees/lights. As his wife and the potential mother of his children, I basically had to decide if I wanted to follow my family's Christmas tradition (which includes gifts and Christmas tree/light decor in abundance) or his view. I chose I can live just fine with that.

    Now, it is possible someday if we have children, they will ask me, "Hey! Why didn't y'all do what our grandparents do, have presents and Christmas trees/lights in your houses???" I will answer, "Your father does not believe it is right because a, b, and c, whereas your grandparents love those traditions because of reasons 1, 2, and 3. I am neutral, and when you are old enough to have our own home, you can most definitely decide what/if/how to celebrate for Christmas. However, when you are under our roof, we will abide by your Dad's new traditions. When we go to relatives' houses, we will abide by theirs. When someday you are grown up and in your house, and we come to visit you, we will abide by your traditions that you as an adult will have decided."

    Basically, to answer your point above, one important thing to note about parents and children are that parents make many decisions for their children.

    Another example is rules. My parents had many rules for their children, including not jumping on the bed. I personally found that rule to be ridiculous, but they didn't ask me or give me a choice as to if I wanted that rule or not. My sister once defied that rule and accidentally fell of the bed, getting hurt in the process. She got in trouble, but my parents thought the pain she felt due to her fall was enough of a punishment. I tried to go around it once by jumping on a friend's bed in her own house, and I got in trouble, though I didn't fall off or get hurt. So, parents have the right to make rules, follow traditions, and make decisions without asking children their choice, because they are parents.

    It is a piece of skin that does serve a purpose, albeit a fairly minor one. There are other pieces of skin on the body that don't serve especially important purposes, yet as far as I know, it's not legal to have them removed from a child without a medical need.
    What purpose does the piece of skin on the penis serve? Is there anything that one can't do unless he has the foreskin that is very important? Thanks.


    Why were your tonsils removed though? Did you get tonsillitis? I recognise that sometimes there are medical reasons to perform surgery on a child. Sometimes that will mean removing their foreskin, I have no problem with that.
    I had tonsillitis. After my tonsils were removed, guess what? No more tonsillitis!

    I don't know much about the medical consequences of tonsillitis, so maybe there is a case for pre-emptive medical treatment. I don't see a similar case for removing the foreskin. It can help prevent STDs, but that is insignificant when compared to using condoms, or abstaining for sex until you're in a stable relationship. There's also phimosis (foreskin that is too tight essentially), but there's no need for pre-emptive treatment as it can just be treated when it becomes a problem.
    There are indeed medical cases for removing the foreskin. However, the main reason for Jewish people to remove the foreskin of boys is because of the command God gave to Abraham and his descendants. So, it is more than a mere medical procedure like when my parents decided to have my tonsils removed. It is also a sign of identity for a group of people.

    The thing is, your husband can't speak of the experience either. He doesn't know what it's like to be uncircumcised. I don't know what it's like to be circumcised, but at least I have the option to find out. I can tell you that being uncircumcised has it's advantages, and I'm sure being circumcised does too. So since both have their advantages and disadvantages, I think it's a choice that should be left to the individual.
    It would be interesting to hear from people who experienced both. However, just as I don't agree that children should always be able to choose instead of their parents making decisions for them, so I don't agree that circumcision should be banned. Now, it is most definitely good for doctors who provide the medial service of circumcision to adequately explain the pros and cons of circumcision.

    Some Christians believe it is wrong:

    http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/

    I realise it's a minority view, but it's still a valid view. Even if they don't join a religious group that is against circumcision, it still seems unfair that they might grow up and follow a religion (or none) that doesn't require circumcision. Then you have removed their foreskin for religious reasons, for a religion that they don't even believe in.
    Actually, it is not a Christian belief for a Gentile to be circumcised, though many Gentile Christians, especially in the USA and Latin America, do practice circumcision.

    Acts 15 clearly states that Gentiles who follow Jesus do not need to get circumcised, and a few letters of Paul (who was circumcised Jewish male) also make that case.

    However, just as there are people today who can through surgery change their bodies from male to female and visa versa, so it is possible that eventually someday, people can get a foreskin if that is so important to them.

    I wonder if a person can get tonsils again... (not that I'm interested in getting tonsils.)

    Thanks for the interesting discussion.


    Real quick, I found this site:
    http://www.circumcisioninformation.c...stimonies.html

    What do you think of the testimonies of the people who have been circumcised at different times in their lives?

    Ok, I really have to go now!
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christianlady)
    Hello Psyk,

    Children don't tend to decide many things for themselves. For example, my parents never ever asked me if I wanted to celebrate Christmas or Easter. They just did and interestingly enough, both of those holidays included very nice incentives for children to greatly enjoy those traditions.

    Being a parent includes making decisions of which traditions they will follow when raising their own children.
    My husband has a big issue with celebrating Christmas with presents and Christmas trees/lights. Even though his family celebrated it that way (and they didn't ask his permission), he has decided that his kids will not celebrate Christmas with presents and Christmas trees/lights. As his wife and the potential mother of his children, I basically had to decide if I wanted to follow my family's Christmas tradition (which includes gifts and Christmas tree/light decor in abundance) or his view. I chose I can live just fine with that.

    Now, it is possible someday if we have children, they will ask me, "Hey! Why didn't y'all do what our grandparents do, have presents and Christmas trees/lights in your houses???" I will answer, "Your father does not believe it is right because a, b, and c, whereas your grandparents love those traditions because of reasons 1, 2, and 3. I am neutral, and when you are old enough to have our own home, you can most definitely decide what/if/how to celebrate for Christmas. However, when you are under our roof, we will abide by your Dad's new traditions. When we go to relatives' houses, we will abide by theirs. When someday you are grown up and in your house, and we come to visit you, we will abide by your traditions that you as an adult will have decided."

    Basically, to answer your point above, one important thing to note about parents and children are that parents make many decisions for their children.

    Another example is rules. My parents had many rules for their children, including not jumping on the bed. I personally found that rule to be ridiculous, but they didn't ask me or give me a choice as to if I wanted that rule or not. My sister once defied that rule and accidentally fell of the bed, getting hurt in the process. She got in trouble, but my parents thought the pain she felt due to her fall was enough of a punishment. I tried to go around it once by jumping on a friend's bed in her own house, and I got in trouble, though I didn't fall off or get hurt. So, parents have the right to make rules, follow traditions, and make decisions without asking children their choice, because they are parents.
    The massive difference between those examples are that they are not irreversible. If you celebrate Christmas with your children, you are not forcing them to celebrate Christmas for the rest of their lives. They can still choose not to when they are an adult. Parents do often make decisions for their children, but those decisions are not usually completely permanent and irreversible. And when they are, they are usually made out of necessity, or to prevent their child suffering.

    I'm not against parents making decisions for their children in general. They have to. But I don't think they should make decisions for their child that removes their choice in the future when they are able to make decisions for themselves (unless they have to). Celebrating Christmas doesn't do that. Making they pray and go to church doesn't do that. Telling them not to jump on the bed doesn't do that. Circumcising them does.

    And I know from personal experience jumping on the bed is bad I dislocated and fractured my elbow from doing it.

    (Original post by Christianlady)
    What purpose does the piece of skin on the penis serve? Is there anything that one can't do without the foreskin that is very important? Thanks.
    It protects the glans from being desensitized from being constantly rubbed by clothing. That won't be a problem for some people, in fact some may prefer it because it means they might last longer in bed. However occasionally people have the opposite issue. Due to it being desensitised they find it difficult to have sex. Rarely a problem, but it does happen.

    And I know from personal experience it feels good when someone runs their tongue around the inside of the foreskin (after giving it a good clean obviously). It can also make masturbation easier because there is more "give", so you can make longer strokes without the need for any lubrication.

    (Original post by Christianlady)
    I had tonsillitis. After my tonsils were removed, guess what? No more tonsillitis!
    As I thought. I have no problem with removing a child's foreskin when it's done to treat a medical condition. So your example of having your tonsils removed is actually equivalent to circumcising a child to treat phimosis, which I'm not arguing against.

    (Original post by Christianlady)
    There are indeed medical cases for removing the foreskin. However, the main reason for Jewish people to remove the foreskin of boys is because of the command God gave to Abraham and his descendants. So, it is more than a mere medical procedure like when my parents decided to have my tonsils removed. It is also a sign of identity for a group of people.
    Well I don't personally believe religious freedom should automatically trump every other freedom.

    (Original post by Christianlady)
    It would be interesting to hear from people who experienced both. However, just as I don't agree that children should always be able to choose instead of their parents making decisions for them, so I don't agree that circumcision should be banned. Now, it is most definitely good for doctors who provide the medial service of circumcision to adequately explain the pros and cons of circumcision.
    So the entire argument can be summed up as:

    (Original post by Flair91)
    It comes down to to whether you think the religious freedom of the parents is more or less important then the bodily intergrity of a child who cannot consent.

    (Original post by Christianlady)
    Actually, it is not a Christian belief for a Gentile to be circumcised, though many Gentile Christians, especially in the USA and Latin America, do practice circumcision.

    Acts 15 clearly states that Gentiles who follow Jesus do not need to get circumcised, and a few letters of Paul (who was circumcised Jewish male) also make that case.
    I'm not really qualified to discuss Christian theology, so I don't have a position on whether that is the "correct" Christian belief. However some people do believe it, so to them it is part of their religion regardless of whether they are following Christianity "correctly".

    (Original post by Christianlady)

    However, just as there are people today who can through surgery change their bodies from male to female and visa versa, so it is possible that eventually someday, people can get a foreskin if that is so important to them.

    I wonder if a person can get tonsils again... (not that I'm interested in getting tonsils.)

    Thanks for the interesting discussion. Have to go now!
    Well if/when it becomes possible to reliably reconstruct foreskin, I might adjust my opinion
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christianlady)
    It would be interesting to hear from people who experienced both. However, just as I don't agree that children should always be able to choose instead of their parents making decisions for them, so I don't agree that circumcision should be banned. Now, it is most definitely good for doctors who provide the medial service of circumcision to adequately explain the pros and cons of circumcision.
    If circumcision were harmless I would agree with you, but since it is extremely harmful and painful, I think it should be illegal. Before you make another post, you should realy go to youtube and see one done on an infant. You'll probably be too sick you your stomach to finish watching it from beginning to end.

    Circumcision causes the keratinization of the glans, which causes sensation loss. If this didn't happen, men would literally be screaming with every footstep as they tried to walk because they wouldn't be able to tolerate the sensation of the glans rubbing on the inside of their underwear. The process of keratinization starts after circumcision and progresses for decades and leaves men with only a fraction of the sensation they were born with.

    You and your husband may have an ok sex life now (although not as good as it should be), but when you get older and can't provide the same degree of lubrication you can now as a young woman, and your husband continues to lose sensation as a result of keritinization, you're going to be experiencing pounding sex, dry unpleasant sex, and vaginal abrasion problems and/or lesions that are commonly heard from older women sex partners of circumcised men.

    Oh and your site you linked to is a circumfetish site, the guy who created the site calls himself "dr LaCock". If you are going to link to a circumfetish site, at least find one that makes somewhat of an effort to look like a legitimate medical site.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    If circumcision were harmless I would agree with you, but since it is extremely harmful and painful, I think it should be illegal. Before you make another post, you should realy go to youtube and see one done on an infant. You'll probably be too sick you your stomach to finish watching it from beginning to end.

    Circumcision causes the keratinization of the glans, which causes sensation loss. If this didn't happen, men would literally be screaming with every footstep as they tried to walk because they wouldn't be able to tolerate the sensation of the glans rubbing on the inside of their underwear. The process of keratinization starts after circumcision and progresses for decades and leaves men with only a fraction of the sensation they were born with.

    You and your husband may have an ok sex life now (although not as good as it should be), but when you get older and can't provide the same degree of lubrication you can now as a young woman, and your husband continues to lose sensation as a result of keritinization, you're going to be experiencing pounding sex, dry unpleasant sex, and vaginal abrasion problems and/or lesions that are commonly heard from older women sex partners of circumcised men.

    Oh and your site you linked to is a circumfetish site, the guy who created the site calls himself "dr LaCock". If you are going to link to a circumfetish site, at least find one that makes somewhat of an effort to look like a legitimate medical site.
    Yeah, seems like quite a biased site.

    I think the comments on here are quite interesting:

    http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumc...dvantages.aspx

    You've got a range of opinions. Many are happy they are circumcised, many are happy they are uncircumcised, some are unhappy about it either way, and there are some people who got circumcised but are glad they got to make the choice themselves.

    I think it's safe to say that experiences of being circumcised vs. uncircumcised do vary. It should come down to personal preference, and that means leaving children uncircumcised so they can make the choice themselves when they are older and when it actually affects them. Most people who are circumcised as an infant will be fine with it later on in life. But what if your child is one of the few that have problems with it?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christianlady)

    What do you think of the testimonies of the people who have been circumcised at different times in their lives?
    Hello ChristianLady,

    I'm not swayed by the testimonies of men who are happy with the fact that they were circumcised. Whether or not they grew up to "accept" their condition and are thus not troubled by it bears on influence on the discussion of whether or not the permission of the child (when they have not reached full maturity and cannot make a sound choice on the matter) should be first sought before the procedure is carried out.

    What about the adult gay men who are absolutely happy with their sexuality but suffered homophobic bullying and rejection from religious families when they were younger? The fact that they might be happy with their situation in later life is no excuse for the immoral acts done to them when they were young.

    The tone of your posts suggest that circumcision is no big issue. - You likened it to the removal of your tonsils which is almost an insult to the intelligence of the debate.

    I'm *almost* tempted to give a retort to your views which I heard from pro-choice advocates when debating with Catholic priests. The retort was simply "no ovaries = no opinion". In this case it would be, "no penis = no opinion".

    Of course that would be a simplistic retort and as a parent your views are very important within this debate!

    But at the risk of sounding sexist I find it a little odd to hear a woman give the impression that circumcision is no big deal for the young boy at stake. I don't want to degrade your opinions purely on the grounds of your sex, but you'll never have to suffer the procedure yourself, so please have some empathy for the boys that have to go through this pain without an understanding of what is going on or without having first given their permission.

    You strike me as a very empathetic person so I'm puzzled as to why your religious views should trump the physical and mental well-being of the child, - although you did once try to make the case that there was some moral merit to the story of God's command to Abraham that he should sacrifice Isaac. So with the greatest amount of respect to your views, I feel that there is little common ground between us on this particular issue.

    The rights of the child to bodily integrity outweigh the rights of the parents to religious freedom, this cannot be stated enough.

    P.S My tone might sound antagonistic but I find the idea that "religion trumps everything" abhorrent in the case of the well-being of children. What if I said "due to my faith in Santa Claus, I will ask a doctor to cut the foreskin off of my baby boy"? You'd think I was insane and cruel.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I spent the last couple days thinking of a secular alternative to the practice of circumcision which is not permitted by society. The best I came up with is tattoos.

    We would never allow parents to tattoo a baby (I'm fairly sure even tattooing on religious grounds would be disallowed as well) so why would we allow them to cut the foreskin off? Both would permanently alter the physical body - even though a tattoo could be lasered off in adulthood there would still be permanent scarring.

    Again, religion trumps everything.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I know the ADL will be clamouring to call the Germans anti-semites and no doubt refer to their history.
    • 30 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    I know the ADL will be clamouring to call the Germans anti-semites and no doubt refer to their history.
    They are calling for it to be protected as a religious practice
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    My son will be circumcised.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carter78)
    .

    (Original post by Psyk)
    .

    (Original post by Christianlady)
    .
    There is really no point in using valuable time to reply to this 'Christianlady', guys. A brief glance over her posting history reveals a deluge of bigotry, arrogance and condescension. Her posts usually contain so much superfluous s**t that I really question whether she has any other social outlet (I really do not care about her father-in-laws interest in fishing).

    I'm going to try and get a half-decent, non sugar-coated response from her one last time though. So, regarding circumcision;

    http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/q...ised_1_1419367
    ^ An innocent, unconsenting, unsuspecting and totally dependent baby died after suffering huge blood loss as a result of this 'simple procedure'. Don't kid yourself into thinking that this was a one-off. Is this acceptable, 'Christianlady'? Shall I defend the parents or the lifeless baby?

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...pes-infection/
    ^ Between November 2000 and December 2011, eleven babies contracted HERPES through their ritualistic circumcisions, because the mohel was allowed to suck on the bleeding penis. This is in New York alone. Is that sickening, peadophillic torture or a parental right?

    http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-c...ch-year-in-us/
    Research indicates that at least 100 perfect baby boys are killed by circumcision every year in the USA alone. Terrible complications include anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection.

    'Christianlady' - if you can sit at your computer and advocate this torturous, destructive and wholly sinister practice, then you are certainly NO CHRISTIAN. Your sanctimonious defense of this aberration of human rights is frankly disgusting to me. Yes, your husband may be totally fine with being circumcised and love f**king, but the operation that was enforced on him could potentially have been a very harrowing, deforming and tragic abomination. All of those hundreds of babies hinted to above will never grow up, because their parents were too stupid to love and raise them as they were meant to be.

    Anyway,you posted just a few days ago that "since reading the responses to this thread come to the conclusion that I have no more desire to go to the UK, either to study or to be a tourist, and I will encourage others to not go to the UK as well". I suppose you will be leaving this forum then now then, and stop posting your vile bilge disguised as flowery rhetoric? You don't fool anybody.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoholicPolyglot)
    I'm a Muslim and I see circumcision as encouraged in Islam but certainly not compulsory (basically, it's not considered sinful if one does not practise it/not get it done) and in the modern day we now know that circumcision has no partiuclar medical/health benefits which is why there is no need to circumcise children. If an adult decides they want to be circumcised then that is their choice which is very different to having it done to your child who is in no position to consent. Another reason as to why I do not completely agree with circumcision is because it may go horribly wrong if it's in the hands of someone unprofessional.
    i hope i give you some insight in this topic:

    The health benefits:

    Dr. Muhammad 'Ali al-Baar (a member of the Royal College of Surgeons in the UK and a consultant to the Islamic Medicine department of the King Fahd Centre for Medical Research in the King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah) says in his book al-Khitaan (Circumcision):

    "Circumcision of newborn boys (I.e., within the first month of life) brings numerous health benefits, including:

    1 – Protection against local infection in the penis, which may result from the presence of the foreskin, causing tightening of the foreskin, which may lead to retention of urine or infections of the glans (tip) of the penis – which require circumcision in order to treat these problems. In chronic cases, the child may be exposed to numerous diseases in the future, the most serious of which is cancer of the penis.

    2 – Infections of the urethra. Many studies have proven that uncircumcised boys are more exposed to infection of the urethra. In some studies the rate was 39 times more among uncircumcised boys. In other studies the rate was ten times more. Other studies showed that 95% of children who suffered from infections of the urethra were uncircumcised, whereas the rate among circumcised children did not exceed 5%.

    In children, infection of the urethra is serious in some cases. In the study by Wisewell on 88 children who suffered infections of the urethra, in 36 % of them, the same bacteria was found in the blood also. Three of them contracted meningitis, and two suffered renal failure. Two others died as a result of the spread of the micro-organisms throughout the body.

    3 – Protection against cancer of the penis: the studies agree that cancer of the penis is almost non-existent among circumcised men, whereas the rate among uncircumcised men is not insignificant. In the US the rate of penile cancer among circumcised men is zero, whilst among uncircumcised men it is 2.2 in every 100,000 of the uncircumcised population. As most of the inhabitants of the US are circumcised, the cases of this cancer there are between 750 and 1000 per year. If the population were not circumcised, the number of cases would reach 3000. In countries where boys are not circumcised, such as China, Uganda and Puerto Rico, penile cancer represents between 12-22 % of all cancers found in men; this is a very high percentage.

    4 – Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Researchers found that the STDs which are transmitted via sexual contact (usually because of fornication/adultery and homosexuality) spread more among those who are not circumcised, especially herpes, soft chancres, syphilis, candida, gonorrhea and genital warts.

    There are numerous modern studies which confirm that circumcision reduces the possibility of contracting AIDS when compared to their uncircumcised counterparts. But that does not rule out the possibility of a circumcised man contracting AIDS as the result of sexual contact with a person who has AIDS. Circumcision is not a protection against it, and there is no real way of protecting oneself against the many sexually transmitted diseases apart from avoiding fornication/adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality and other repugnant practices. (From this we can see the wisdom of Islamic sharee'ah in forbidding fornication/adultery and homosexuality).

    5 – Protection of wives against cervical cancer. Researchers have noted that the wives of circumcised men have less risk of getting cervical cancer than the wives of uncircumcised men.

    Health Benefits taken from: al-Khitaan, p. 76, by Dr. Muhammad al-Baar.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mohsanrabbani)
    i hope i give you some insight in this topic:

    The health benefits:

    1 – Protection against local infection in the penis, which may result from the presence of the foreskin, causing tightening of the foreskin, which may lead to retention of urine or infections of the glans (tip) of the penis – which require circumcision in order to treat these problems. In chronic cases, the child may be exposed to numerous diseases in the future, the most serious of which is cancer of the penis.
    Washing properly when showering avoids this.

    (Original post by mohsanrabbani)
    2 – Infections of the urethra. Many studies have proven that uncircumcised boys are more exposed to infection of the urethra. In some studies the rate was 39 times more among uncircumcised boys. In other studies the rate was ten times more. Other studies showed that 95% of children who suffered from infections of the urethra were uncircumcised, whereas the rate among circumcised children did not exceed 5%.
    Again, wash when showering.

    (Original post by mohsanrabbani)
    3 – Protection against cancer of the penis: the studies agree that cancer of the penis is almost non-existent among circumcised men, whereas the rate among uncircumcised men is not insignificant. In the US the rate of penile cancer among circumcised men is zero, whilst among uncircumcised men it is 2.2 in every 100,000 of the uncircumcised population. As most of the inhabitants of the US are circumcised, the cases of this cancer there are between 750 and 1000 per year. If the population were not circumcised, the number of cases would reach 3000.
    If you were to remove the hands of people when they were born then you would see a dramatic reduction in the rates of cysts on hands. :rolleyes:

    This might seem like a ludicrous comparison, but simply removing a piece of the body so that the chances of a possible cancer forming in the future is ridiculous.

    Anyway you say yourself that penile cancer among men in America would rise to 3000 if all of them were not circumcised. Well 3000 out of 155 million men (I'm making an estimate of roughly half of the US population) is a minuscule percent, something like 0.02%. This does not seem like a large enough number to worry about or solve simply by advocating the removal of the foreskin from every male in the US.

    (Original post by mohsanrabbani)
    4 – Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Researchers found that the STDs which are transmitted via sexual contact (usually because of fornication/adultery and homosexuality) spread more among those who are not circumcised, especially herpes, soft chancres, syphilis, candida, gonorrhea and genital warts.
    Wear a condom during sex. This seems a smaller inconvenience than removal of the foreskin.

    (Original post by mohsanrabbani)
    There are numerous modern studies which confirm that circumcision reduces the possibility of contracting AIDS when compared to their uncircumcised counterparts. But that does not rule out the possibility of a circumcised man contracting AIDS as the result of sexual contact with a person who has AIDS. Circumcision is not a protection against it, and there is no real way of protecting oneself against the many sexually transmitted diseases apart from avoiding fornication/adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality and other repugnant practices. (From this we can see the wisdom of Islamic sharee'ah in forbidding fornication/adultery and homosexuality).
    A, Wear a condom. Simple.
    B, How many baby boys do you know practicing homosexuality and adultery?
    C, You have disgraceful and old-fashioned views (the parts I have highlighted in the paragraph above).

    (Original post by mohsanrabbani)
    5 – Protection of wives against cervical cancer. Researchers have noted that the wives of circumcised men have less risk of getting cervical cancer than the wives of uncircumcised men.
    Wearing a condom is a far more suitable solution than the mutilation of young boys.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mohsanrabbani)
    x
    Are there any percentage occurance figures for that study? Apart from penile cancer with a rate of 0.0022% in the uncircumcised USA, the rest only look at the number of circumcised from those who already have the ailment. It's all very well saying uncircumcised men are twice as likely to get X, but if the rate of X is tiny then there's a stronger case for appendoctomies at birth where appendicitis has a lifetime risk of 6.7% to 8.6%
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carter78)
    Washing properly when showering avoids this.



    Again, wash when showering.



    If you were to remove the hands of people when they were born then you would see a dramatic reduction in the rates of cysts on hands. :rolleyes:

    This might seem like a ludicrous comparison, but simply removing a piece of the body so that the chances of a possible cancer forming in the future is ridiculous.

    Anyway you say yourself that penile cancer among men in America would rise to 3000 if all of them were not circumcised. Well 3000 out of 155 million men (I'm making an estimate of roughly half of the US population) is a minuscule percent, something like 0.02%. This does not seem like a large enough number to worry about or solve simply by advocating the removal of the foreskin from every male in the US.



    Wear a condom during sex. This seems a smaller inconvenience than removal of the foreskin.



    A, Wear a condom. Simple.
    B, How many baby boys do you know practicing homosexuality and adultery?
    C, You have disgraceful and old-fashioned views (the parts I have highlighted in the paragraph above).



    Wearing a condom is a far more suitable solution than the mutilation of young boys.


    I see you mention the word condom a few times. So a non circumcised individual needs to wear a condom all the time with his wife?
    • 30 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mohsanrabbani)
    I see you mention the word condom a few times. So a non circumcised individual needs to wear a condom all the time with his wife?
    Why would someone have to worry about STD protection with their wife? None of the benefits to circumcision will apply to a monogamous relationship.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mohsanrabbani)
    I see you mention the word condom a few times. So a non circumcised individual needs to wear a condom all the time with his wife?
    For your 3rd & 4th example (which both focussed on STD's). You said that circumcision was a good tactic to employ against the spread of STD's. - I think a condom would be a much more effective tactic.

    I presume you are circumcised yes? If you had the choice to have sex with a HIV positive woman, would you rather have sex with or without a condom? Would you really want to trust your health in the fact that you are circumcised?

    Your 5th example:

    Again, if we discuss the issue from the theory of the man carrying an infection, then wearing a condom would reduce the risk of cervical cancer. An infection doesn't care if you are married or not.

    Regardless, many couples do wear condoms for the purpose of not getting pregnant. So married couples wearing condoms is hardly uncommon.

    Also, women have regular appointments with their gynecologists, where they undergo tests to screen for STD's and other infections. If the wife has gone to the doctor and has "passed the test" and is healthy, then if she were to have unprotected sex with her husband then the couple would feel safe in the knowledge that there is no infection being passed between them. (In some cases men also get tested regularly, although not as common as women unfortunately).

    I would prefer to be in a trusting relationship where both partners are confident in the knowledge to have sex (with or without condoms) without risking infection - because of testing. I would not prefer the alternative which is circumcision at birth.

    In short, the first scenario is based on respect, trust and sexual maturity. The second option (circumcision) is a drastic measure which basically says "you can't be trusted, therefore we will mutilate your penis".
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carter78)
    For your 3rd & 4th example (which both focussed on STD's). You said that circumcision was a good tactic to employ against the spread of STD's. - I think a condom would be a much more effective tactic.

    I presume you are circumcised yes? If you had the choice to have sex with a HIV positive woman, would you rather have sex with or without a condom? Would you really want to trust your health in the fact that you are circumcised?

    Your 5th example:

    Again, if we discuss the issue from the theory of the man carrying an infection, then wearing a condom would reduce the risk of cervical cancer. An infection doesn't care if you are married or not.

    Regardless, many couples do wear condoms for the purpose of not getting pregnant. So married couples wearing condoms is hardly uncommon.

    Also, women have regular appointments with their gynecologists, where they undergo tests to screen for STD's and other infections. If the wife has gone to the doctor and has "passed the test" and is healthy, then if she were to have unprotected sex with her husband then the couple would feel safe in the knowledge that there is no infection being passed between them. (In some cases men also get tested regularly, although not as common as women unfortunately).

    I would prefer to be in a trusting relationship where both partners are confident in the knowledge to have sex (with or without condoms) without risking infection - because of testing. I would not prefer the alternative which is circumcision at birth.

    In short, the first scenario is based on respect, trust and sexual maturity. The second option (circumcision) is a drastic measure which basically says "you can't be trusted, therefore we will mutilate your penis".
    Humans have been getting circumcised since Moses time, and before that. Jesus was also circumcised. What am trying to say for over 2000 years humans have lived life being circumcised, so why are people in this forum going crazy and opposing it. I have never met someone saying they would like there foreskin back.


    Since I have never had the opportunity of meeting my foreskin I cannot comment on my experience, but I take it with foreskin it's more time consuming when cleaning your penis?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    The massive difference between those examples are that they are not irreversible. If you celebrate Christmas with your children, you are not forcing them to celebrate Christmas for the rest of their lives. They can still choose not to when they are an adult. Parents do often make decisions for their children, but those decisions are not usually completely permanent and irreversible. And when they are, they are usually made out of necessity, or to prevent their child suffering.
    Hello Psyk,

    Good point.

    I'm not against parents making decisions for their children in general. They have to. But I don't think they should make decisions for their child that removes their choice in the future when they are able to make decisions for themselves (unless they have to). Celebrating Christmas doesn't do that. Making they pray and go to church doesn't do that. Telling them not to jump on the bed doesn't do that. Circumcising them does.
    I'm glad to know you're not against parents making decisions for their children in general.

    Circumcision is not considered horrible by many men whose parents had them circumcised as babies.

    And I know from personal experience jumping on the bed is bad I dislocated and fractured my elbow from doing it.
    Yikes!

    Similarly, I hope you understand that when God commanded Abraham to circumcise himself and the males in his household, it helped the Jewish people in regards to cleanliness and preventing penis issues.. Abraham lived a long time ago, where plumbing was not as advanced as today, nor were the medical fields as advanced of course. Abraham's descendants (both of Isaac's and Ishmael's) also wandered the desert. Now, can you imagine sand getting in your foreskin, with no nice shower just waiting for you to clean yourself?

    It protects the glans from being desensitized from being constantly rubbed by clothing.
    My husband, who is circumcised, has no problem with his glans. They are very sensitive and he has no problem in that area lol. He does however wear Hanes boy short type underwear. I don't know if that is a factor which protects his glans?
    That won't be a problem for some people, in fact some may prefer it because it means they might last longer in bed. However occasionally people have the opposite issue. Due to it being desensitised they find it difficult to have sex. Rarely a problem, but it does happen.
    Hmm. To me, that doesn't sound like a huge enough issue to make uncircumcision better than circumcision... my husband last as long as he wants in bed but it is important to note that this is due to him controlling himself, and yes many times he doesn't want to control himself very long. Quickies and long lovemaking times are both in his area of expertise (as his wife, I know this by experience.)

    And I know from personal experience it feels good when someone runs their tongue around the inside of the foreskin (after giving it a good clean obviously). It can also make masturbation easier because there is more "give", so you can make longer strokes without the need for any lubrication.
    My husband loves oral sex and doesn't feel the need to have a foreskin. He doesn't care about not having it, since his penis is perfectly able to feel, so... As for masturbation, i don't really know about that in his case lol. He is one of those kinds of men who prefers the real thing to his hand.

    As I thought. I have no problem with removing a child's foreskin when it's done to treat a medical condition. So your example of having your tonsils removed is actually equivalent to circumcising a child to treat phimosis, which I'm not arguing against.
    The above is so important, because it is important to note that circumcision can actually be a good thing. If done correctly, circumcision also can be a preventative way to prevent a medical condition to actually even be experienced by the child in the first place. I think the only bad circumcisions are the botched ones, the ones where doctors mess up in some way.


    Well I don't personally believe religious freedom should automatically trump every other freedom.
    Germany is taking away the religious freedom of Jews. it is so true that history often repeats itself, and it makes me sad that it didn't even take all that long before some excuse to start persecuting the Jewish people has taken root in a country "famous" for killing thousands of Jews not even 100 years ago. How long as it been since the Holocaust?

    I personally believe religious freedom is very important, because it helps people respect people who believe differently than they. For example, for so long Europe had issues between people of different religious groups killing each other and all those who were not of their specific religious belief. This is unacceptable and promotes hatred. Religious freedom is so important because it helps people understand that respecting other people who believe differently than one includes NOT KILLING THEM. Now, Nazi Germany did not start the genocide of thousands of European Jewish people by killing them. Rather, they started by making laws that targeted them.




    I'm not really qualified to discuss Christian theology, so I don't have a position on whether that is the "correct" Christian belief. However some people do believe it, so to them it is part of their religion regardless of whether they are following Christianity "correctly".
    Being circumcised in no way prevents any person from being a Christian. Paul, who was circumcised, preached against circumcision for Gentile males, yet he himself was circumcised. So, being circumcised does not in any way prevent a person from being Christian. Being circumcised does not in any way prevent a person from being Christian either. Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day. His apostles, all Jewish, were circumcised. Circumcision doesn't make a person Christian or unChristian. Circumcision also doesn't make a person Jewish or not Jewish. It is simply a command God gave to Abraham and his descendants, and those who follow it do so for a variety of reasons, including love and respect for their ancestors and what their ancestors believed. Others do so as a preventative or curative procedure for medical conditions.


    Well if/when it becomes possible to reliably reconstruct foreskin, I might adjust my opinion
    Lol. Well, I wouldn't be surprised if someday, that will be possible!
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ninth2)
    There is really no point in using valuable time to reply to this 'Christianlady', guys. A brief glance over her posting history reveals a deluge of bigotry, arrogance and condescension. Her posts usually contain so much superfluous s**t that I really question whether she has any other social outlet (I really do not care about her father-in-laws interest in fishing).

    I'm going to try and get a half-decent, non sugar-coated response from her one last time though. So, regarding circumcision;

    http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/q...ised_1_1419367
    ^ An innocent, unconsenting, unsuspecting and totally dependent baby died after suffering huge blood loss as a result of this 'simple procedure'. Don't kid yourself into thinking that this was a one-off. Is this acceptable, 'Christianlady'? Shall I defend the parents or the lifeless baby?

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...pes-infection/
    ^ Between November 2000 and December 2011, eleven babies contracted HERPES through their ritualistic circumcisions, because the mohel was allowed to suck on the bleeding penis. This is in New York alone. Is that sickening, peadophillic torture or a parental right?

    http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-c...ch-year-in-us/
    Research indicates that at least 100 perfect baby boys are killed by circumcision every year in the USA alone. Terrible complications include anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection.

    'Christianlady' - if you can sit at your computer and advocate this torturous, destructive and wholly sinister practice, then you are certainly NO CHRISTIAN. Your sanctimonious defense of this aberration of human rights is frankly disgusting to me. Yes, your husband may be totally fine with being circumcised and love f**king, but the operation that was enforced on him could potentially have been a very harrowing, deforming and tragic abomination. All of those hundreds of babies hinted to above will never grow up, because their parents were too stupid to love and raise them as they were meant to be.

    Anyway,you posted just a few days ago that "since reading the responses to this thread come to the conclusion that I have no more desire to go to the UK, either to study or to be a tourist, and I will encourage others to not go to the UK as well". I suppose you will be leaving this forum then now then, and stop posting your vile bilge disguised as flowery rhetoric? You don't fool anybody.
    Hello Ninth,

    Jesus said the following: (I boldened some.)

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...06&version=NIV
    Luke 6

    27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

    32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to learn and grow. By God's grace, I will follow Jesus' teachings and love and pray for you, no matter what slander you write about me, or hatred you have for me, even though you don't know me.

    As for going to the UK, nope I have no more desire to go. My husband and I have decided to just stay in the USA in order to study and for vacation. (There are many wonderful universities and vacation spots in the USA... why go somewhere else?) I can study Gaelic in the USA!

    As for supporting the right of Jewish Orthodox parents' to circumcise, if you want to say that makes me not a Christian, could you please define your definition of a Christian? Do you believe Jesus was not circumcised? Why? Do you believe the 12 apostles and Paul were not circumcised? Why? What do you think concerning Acts 15? Thanks.

    Peace and God bless you

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 10, 2012
New on TSR
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.