The Guardian: 'A ban on male circumcision would be antisemitic'

It only makes a significant difference to that if you're having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and/or live in a country where HIV is endemic. Using a condom completely nullifies the benefits of circumcision when it comes to preventing HIV transmission. It must be thousands of times more effective.

Exactly. Circumcision is outdated, much like pork was a meat which would bring diseases when allowed to rot in the Middle Eastern sun at high temperatures, Jews and Muslims invented the notion that God doesn't want them eating pork. It's pretty dumb tying something which attempts to help people living in primitive conditions to a set of things God wants you to do.

Your bell end gets dirty when you have foreskin? Well clean it then, you dirty scrub. Your pork is bad for you? Refrigerate it or freeze it, or move to a country with a colder climate allowing pork to keep in date. Jesus, it's not hard.

Reply 41

$Avatar for ¯\(°_o)/¯$

¯\(°_o)/¯

9

Original post by ZuluJobo

I don't understand people's problem with it, it's a much sleeker look.

There's absolutely no problem with adults choosing to be circumcised :nope:

the problem is with un-consenting children being forced to go through with the procedure?
Can your God not wait till they males reach the age of 18 or is he in desperate need of young foreskin?

Reply 42

harry_007

6

Original post by Psyk

It only makes a significant difference to that if you're having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and/or live in a country where HIV is endemic. Using a condom completely nullifies the benefits of circumcision when it comes to preventing HIV transmission. It must be thousands of times more effective.

A benefit is a benefit. Not everyone has access to condoms. But anyway, why would a Jew or a Muslim care what you say?

Reply 43

Psyk

16

Original post by harry_007

A benefit is a benefit. Not everyone has access to condoms. But anyway, why would a Jew or a Muslim care what you say?

In this country everyone has access to condoms. Don't they hand them out for free at family planning clinics? If you're going round having sex with multiple people without condoms you're just plain irresponsible, whether you have foreskin or not.

I don't suppose they would care what I say. If they believe it's their religious duty to remove a part of a baby's genitals, I can't really argue against that. But if they try and justify it on medical grounds, there are legitimate arguments against that.

Reply 44

sparrowhawk4

9

Original post by harry_007

The all-knowing NHS... ooOOooOO :rolleyes:

It speaks of advantages and disadvantages. It doesn't know for sure. Have a good read yourself.

What should a Jew care what the NHS says anyway if he believes that God knows best anyway?

Stop imposing.

Have you got a better source for medical advice?

It speaks of advantages and disadvantages, but also says that the disadvantages outweigh any possible advantages. That's why it is the last resort even when the baby has a condition where circumcision might help.

Maybe a Jew might not care, but the people who make our laws should. It is not imposing for the state to intervene to protect a child, nor is it unprecedented. Should a Jehovah's witness be allowed to refuse life-saving blood transfusions on behalf of their children?

Reply 45

DorianGrayism

19

Original post by harry_007

Including Jewish Medical Paediatricians or do they not exist in your idea of a ''Western World''?

They are in the same societies.

They don't form separate societies that are used to formulate national health policies for children because of circumcision.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 46

ZuluJobo

7

Original post by ¯\(°_o)/¯

There's absolutely no problem with adults choosing to be circumcised :nope:

the problem is with un-consenting children being forced to go through with the procedure?
Can your God not wait till they males reach the age of 18 or is he in desperate need of young foreskin?

I think I'm probably one of the few people who are circumcised for non-religious reasons. Also I was joking, it does bother me that children are forced into religious traditions before they can choose for themselves. It's why I'm so glad I was never christened.

Reply 47

Kerny

14

Original post by harry_007

When did children gain the right to consent to anything? As parents, you decide everything for their child because they do not know any better because that's what being called a PARENT is all about.
But as usual, it's only when circumcision arises, these dumb arguments do not recognise its inherent hypocrisy.

Except for the fact that parents DON'T and CAN'T decide everything for their child - sexuality being an example. Do you think it is fair for a parent to forcefully make a cosmetic change to their child's genitalia, something that is innately connected to the child's sexuality, even though the boy might not want it in later life when they are an adult? Because that's when the parent's decision will most affect him - when he's all grown up, as an independant person. This is partly why circumcision is so nonsensical.

Anyway, unlike the author of that ridiculous Guardian article, I think the comparison to female genital mutilation is a qualified one. Who cares if FGM is 'worse'? The principles behing it and forced circumcision on young boys are the same. Both are forced, both are non-medical, and both are sexually repressive. Of course, we have become so accustomed to male circumcision that it has become normalized to the point that we've awarded it a nice, clean, medical-sounding euphemism of a name to mask what it really is - forcefully slicing off part of a boy's dick. Any parent who does it should be ashamed.

As for the supposed medical benefits of the procedure (outside of doing it out of medical necessity) - there is no general consensus at all. Many articles in medical journals claim it offers benefits, many others claim it offers little to no benefit. Because of this, I wouldn't give those who claim the procedure has any significant medical benefits the benefit of the doubt.

Reply 48

DeuteriumPie

12

Just anti-Semitic? Other religions, too, carry out circumcisions...

Reply 49

caravaggio2

17

Original post by DeuteriumPie

Just anti-Semitic? Other religions, too, carry out circumcisions...

Spot on. This isn't about upsetting the Jews. The Guardian has become a parody of itself. Over the last few years it has become the most anti-Semitic rag in the whole street of shame. This is not about defending the 250,000 Jews living here, but is about the 2,500,000 Muslims who would also be affected, but far far more likely to react with protests and violence if this legislation ever happened.

Reply 50

Matthew12

14

And even if they did decide to ban circumcision in this country it would be problematic for prospective male converts looking to convert to Judaism seeing as for a man circumcision is necessary to convert

Reply 51

Matthew12

14

Original post by caravaggio2

Spot on. This isn't about upsetting the Jews. The Guardian has become a parody of itself. Over the last few years it has become the most anti-Semitic rag in the whole street of shame. This is not about defending the 250,000 Jews living here, but is about the 2,500,000 Muslims who would also be affected, but far far more likely to react with protests and violence if this legislation ever happened.

The thing is that unlike Judaism where circumsion(Milah ) is binding on the male it's not in Islam really

Reply 52

ArtGoblin

16

Original post by Matthew12

And even if they did decide to ban circumcision in this country it would be problematic for prospective male converts looking to convert to Judaism seeing as for a man circumcision is necessary to convert

No it wouldn't. Adult men would still be allowed to be circumcised as they can consent. The ban would only affect the circumcision of children as they can't consent.

Reply 53

Hype en Ecosse

20

Is this an attempt to achieve with paper what other methods could not – the removal of Jews from Europe?

Are you ****ing kidding me?

Reply 54

looseseal

11

Honestly laughable seeing people claim that religious people have any right to permanently mutilate their non-consenting baby just because a piece of ancient text tells them so.

Would this be acceptable if it referred to female circumcision? Many people are saying the two acts are not comparable but they both involve some level of genital mutilation where a body part carrying thousands of nerve endings is chopped off. To say this is acceptable in modern society is an absolute joke.

I've seen articles talking of both types of circumcision and almost without fail the male form was laughed off as unimportant and largely ineffectual on the male's quality of life. Funnily enough, most of these articles seem to have been written by women - one would suggest that they should "Check their privilege" in the same way males who try to weigh in on female issues are constantly reminded.

Reply 55

Pastaferian

17

It should be banned. The boy can make his own choice when he's old enough to understand the procedure.

Original post by harry_007

And have a higher chance of getting HIV, no thanks.

There is no medical benefit to someone who is not sexually active. When a boy is old enough to be sexually active, he can make the decision himself.

Original post by harry_007

A benefit is a benefit. Not everyone has access to condoms. But anyway, why would a Jew or a Muslim care what you say?

I'm disturbed that people who claim to have (and in the vast majority of cases do have) a strong regard for human rights don't understand the horror that the rest of us feel for practices which involve mutilating non-consenting others. You should care that we care. I'm encouraged that at least one Jewish sect does not regard neonatal circumcision as essential.

Reply 56

AntiMonarchist

17

"Is this an attempt to achieve with paper what other methods could not – the removal of Jews from Europe?"

The journalist is outraged that the German MP compares FGM to circumcision (she does not by the way), then labels her and everyone who supports her as nazis.

What an absolute imbecile; hypocrisy of the highest order.

Reply 57

Apocrypha

15

This is awkward for me, I am not jewish however i was circumcised when i was age 5 (no clue why).

I actually imagine i prefer being circumcised, i think it has more benefits than having a foreskin, I think the taboo of circumcision in the UK is completely reversed in America whereby to have a foreskin would be seen as strange..