Circumcision ban is the 'worst attack on Jews since Holocaust'
Scroll to see replies
Original post by jogijogan
Yes but it does not say that they are depressed nor self conscious becuase they do not have a foreskin, foreskin or not, all men will be bithered more about size than being circumcised and we already agree that circumcision does not affect size.
I know, this is an example, not my main point. My main point is that men can be worried about their genitals, and it's unsurprising that some are uncomfortable with their circumcision. I know it may not bother many (one of my best mates was circumcised and it doesn't really bother him any more) but it could make people unhappy.
As for your point, well research show uncircumcised men are at more of a risk to suffer from cancer of the Penis UTI and other infections as stated on the NHS website.
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx
If you read it through, it lists some pretty nasty downsides to circumcision. Mainly:
- excessive bleeding and post-operation infection. Who are parents to decide whether their child faces these risks or not? Wouldn't you be bothered if your parents took it upon themselves to decide 'Naa, she can run that risk'?
- it's not ethical to do this without consent of the child
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by SpiggyTopes
The Germans making this law are no more responsible for the Holocaust than you or I.
The Germans have hardly begun to acknowledge what their grandparents did to the Jews.
Now they are feeling comfortable attacking their religion once more.
Original post by the bear
The Germans have hardly begun to acknowledge what their grandparents did to the Jews.
Have you ever apologised to a black person on behalf of our grandparents for slavery?
Original post by abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
can i remove your clitoris please? does not affect your love tunnel after all
Actually female circumcision increases long term risk of infection, showing your lack of knowledge on this subject.
Original post by A.J10
[video="youtube;U0kJHQpvgB8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8[/video]
You've got to admire their balls! How didn't they get away with that!?My personal favourite... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk
Original post by jogijogan
Actually female circumcision increases long term risk of infection, showing your lack of knowledge on this subject.
female circumcision done in an uncontrolled environment in some third world country.
Would i able to remove it in a sterile environment?
or if not, could i remove one breast please? you only need one to feed. Hell, why not remove both to prevent breast cancer
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Converse Rocker
Have you ever apologised to a black person on behalf of our grandparents for slavery?
i do it all the time, don't you?
Original post by jogijogan
Well if you were given the option of having the option of being properly circumcised or having your bones broken, i doubt you would choose the latter.
Well you need to read up on circumcision, it does not involve cutting the actual penis so do not persist with that line, it involves cutting the foreskin and does nto cause disbaility in any bodily function in urinating nor sex if circumcision is done properly.
Well you need to read up on circumcision, it does not involve cutting the actual penis so do not persist with that line, it involves cutting the foreskin and does nto cause disbaility in any bodily function in urinating nor sex if circumcision is done properly.
Actually I would rather have my arm broken, and I'm not saying that to be atnagonistic.
And as for not cutting the penis.... If I took a knife to your finger you wouldn't say "He cut my skin", you would say "he cut my finger". The foreskin is part of the penis, therefore you are cutting the penis.
As for not causing any disabililty, well disability is the wrong word but that's a hell of a lot of nerve endings gone from the most sensitive part of your body, as well as (apparently, I'm not willing to try this myself) less movement of the skin back and forth.
Original post by Converse Rocker
I know, this is an example, not my main point. My main point is that men can be worried about their genitals, and it's unsurprising that some are uncomfortable with their circumcision. I know it may not bother many (one of my best mates was circumcised and it doesn't really bother him any more) but it could make people unhappy.
If you read it through, it lists some pretty nasty downsides to circumcision. Mainly:
- excessive bleeding and post-operation infection. Who are parents to decide whether their child faces these risks or not? Wouldn't you be bothered if your parents took it upon themselves to decide 'Naa, she can run that risk'?
- it's not ethical to do this without consent of the child
If you read it through, it lists some pretty nasty downsides to circumcision. Mainly:
- excessive bleeding and post-operation infection. Who are parents to decide whether their child faces these risks or not? Wouldn't you be bothered if your parents took it upon themselves to decide 'Naa, she can run that risk'?
- it's not ethical to do this without consent of the child
Well how many children are affected by excessive bleeding and suffer infection?
As for the advantages though, it has already been proven that it reduces penis cancer, UT and other pneis asspociated infections
Original post by the bear
The Germans have hardly begun to acknowledge what their grandparents did to the Jews.
Now they are feeling comfortable attacking their religion once more.
Now they are feeling comfortable attacking their religion once more.
They have. Besides, even if they hadn't, why should they? They are not the slightest bit responsible for what happened.
Original post by A.J10
Actually I would rather have my arm broken, and I'm not saying that to be atnagonistic.
And as for not cutting the penis.... If I took a knife to your finger you wouldn't say "He cut my skin", you would say "he cut my finger". The foreskin is part of the penis, therefore you are cutting the penis.
As for not causing any disabililty, well disability is the wrong word but that's a hell of a lot of nerve endings gone from the most sensitive part of your body, as well as (apparently, I'm not willing to try this myself) less movement of the skin back and forth.
And as for not cutting the penis.... If I took a knife to your finger you wouldn't say "He cut my skin", you would say "he cut my finger". The foreskin is part of the penis, therefore you are cutting the penis.
As for not causing any disabililty, well disability is the wrong word but that's a hell of a lot of nerve endings gone from the most sensitive part of your body, as well as (apparently, I'm not willing to try this myself) less movement of the skin back and forth.
When you cut your nails do you say hey mate i cut my finger or toe, technically the nails are part of the finger and toes.
See two can play you silly game.
Its the foreskin end of.
Original post by jogijogan
Well how many children are affected by excessive bleeding and suffer infection?
As for the advantages though, it has already been proven that it reduces penis cancer, UT and other pneis asspociated infections
As for the advantages though, it has already been proven that it reduces penis cancer, UT and other pneis asspociated infections
The point is that the parents are making the decision that the child will run the risk. It's obviously a problem for some if the NHS list it as a disadvantage; aren't you sympathetic that some have a post-operation infection due to a procedure they had no choice in? I'll ask again, would it not bother you if your parents decided you would be the one running the risk?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
female circumcision done in an uncontrolled environment in some third world country.
Would i able to remove it in a sterile environment?
or if not, could i remove one breast please? you only need one to feed. Hell, why not remove both to prevent breast cancer
Would i able to remove it in a sterile environment?
or if not, could i remove one breast please? you only need one to feed. Hell, why not remove both to prevent breast cancer
Listen I don't know if your know much about female genitalks but even if done in a sterile environment, it would increase long term rosks of infection becuase the nature of the female genital is such that external liquids would be able to pass the bodily defence, there is no such problem with men, then still have skin to protect the penis without a foreskin and the clitoris is not a foreskin
Well we aren't chopping off an entire penis or casturating a baby so your breast removal is a bad example.
Original post by jogijogan
When you cut your nails do you say hey mate i cut my finger or toe, technically the nails are part of the finger and toes.
See two can play you silly game.
Its the foreskin end of.
See two can play you silly game.
Its the foreskin end of.
The nail is not living tissue, much less the same kind as the rest of the finger. The foreskin is the same skin that covers the rest of the shaft of the penis.
I do love a good game of silly buggers, but this time I believe I'm in the right rather than just being contrary.
I am literally shocked to read that article.
Those replying to the thread here are mostly uncircumcised, and not Jewish, so don't always see the problem.
Most probably the majority of American males are circumcised and perhaps that demographic would yield different responses.
But, as far as what this court in Germany has decided:
1. Jews are a race, as well as a religion. This is a matter of law. There is a conflation between religion and race.
2. Therefore, Germany is discriminating on religion directly, and race indirectly.
3. This is not a debate on the ethical practices of circumcision; it's a question as to whether the parents have the right to choose.
4. Female circumcision is genital mutilation - it cuts out a woman's clitoris, painful and makes it impossible for her to feel pleasure from sex.
5. Male circumcision is believed to be cleaner and to prevent certain STDs/STIs - perhaps washing can prevent this, but non Jewish Americans are circumcised in great numbers in part for this reason.
6. It doesn't take away male pleasure in intercourse at all. It doesn't make the penis less aesthetic - most women prefer it, since they generally prefer the look of an erect penis than an unerect one.
Regardless of 5 and 6, it is not Germany's position to make judgements against Jews given its evil and subhuman history. I would submit that it makes Germany especially with its position in the EU over countries like Greece today, look more like Nazis than they ever have done in the last 60 years.
Those replying to the thread here are mostly uncircumcised, and not Jewish, so don't always see the problem.
Most probably the majority of American males are circumcised and perhaps that demographic would yield different responses.
But, as far as what this court in Germany has decided:
1. Jews are a race, as well as a religion. This is a matter of law. There is a conflation between religion and race.
2. Therefore, Germany is discriminating on religion directly, and race indirectly.
3. This is not a debate on the ethical practices of circumcision; it's a question as to whether the parents have the right to choose.
4. Female circumcision is genital mutilation - it cuts out a woman's clitoris, painful and makes it impossible for her to feel pleasure from sex.
5. Male circumcision is believed to be cleaner and to prevent certain STDs/STIs - perhaps washing can prevent this, but non Jewish Americans are circumcised in great numbers in part for this reason.
6. It doesn't take away male pleasure in intercourse at all. It doesn't make the penis less aesthetic - most women prefer it, since they generally prefer the look of an erect penis than an unerect one.
Regardless of 5 and 6, it is not Germany's position to make judgements against Jews given its evil and subhuman history. I would submit that it makes Germany especially with its position in the EU over countries like Greece today, look more like Nazis than they ever have done in the last 60 years.
Original post by Converse Rocker
The point is that the parents are making the decision that the child will run the risk. It's obviously a problem for some if the NHS list it as a disadvantage; aren't you sympathetic that some have a post-operation infection due to a procedure they had no choice in? I'll ask again, would it not bother you if your parents decided you would be the one running the risk?
Well parents are reducing the risk of penis cancer, UTI and other infections. SO no I am not bithered that parents decide to reduce these risks, reducing these risks outweighs the small risks at the time of surgery.
Original post by jogijogan
Yes but it does not say that they are depressed nor self conscious becuase they do not have a foreskin, foreskin or not, all men will be bithered more about size than being circumcised and we already agree that circumcision does not affect size.
As for your point, well research show uncircumcised men are at more of a risk to suffer from cancer of the Penis UTI and other infections as stated on the NHS website.
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx
As for your point, well research show uncircumcised men are at more of a risk to suffer from cancer of the Penis UTI and other infections as stated on the NHS website.
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx
Have you read the comments on that page? There's a number of people who are unhappy that they were circumcised as a child.
Original post by A.J10
The nail is not living tissue, much less the same kind as the rest of the finger. The foreskin is the same skin that covers the rest of the shaft of the penis.
I do love a good game of silly buggers, but this time I believe I'm in the right rather than just being contrary.
I do love a good game of silly buggers, but this time I believe I'm in the right rather than just being contrary.
Clearly it isn't hence why it is called the foreskin and has it own name and can idenfied separtely from the shaft.
Original post by Psyk
Have you read the comments on that page? There's a number of people who are unhappy that they were circumcised as a child.
A number, yep that number being 1.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- 2023 King's Speech
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Prefer circumcised or not circumcised?
- Woman attacked by her own dog, an xl bully
- Sexual health
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Boyfriend needs circumcision
- Circumcision
- Circumcision or not
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
- Advice for tight foreskin sufferers (phimosis)
- HELP: GCSE History Edexcel Grade 9 Facts
- Rishi Sunak considering banning cigarettes for the next generation
- Using lube the first time
- Revision circumcision
- The TSR Jewish Society (J-Soc) - thread TWO
- Circumcision
- Severe phimosis
- Un sac de billes chapter by chapter
- Phimosis/frenulum breve - sex with condom possible?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
