Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

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

Scroll to see replies

Well I don't think it should be. Admittedly piercings do close up after time don't they? Where as foreskins don't grow back, so it's not quite equivalent.

I had my ears pierced when I was 5. My ears still remain pierced now I'm 23. I can't say I wear earrings very often either...

Reply 61

n00

Original post by Apocrypha

An extra sensitive part of me is gone,

Sounds pretty horrendous to me, in fact it was pretty horrendous for me.

Original post by Apocrypha

are cut people less likely to suffer from premature ejaculation?

I dunno, are cut people more likely to suffer from retarded ejaculation?

Reply 62

Apocrypha

Original post by n00

Sounds pretty horrendous to me, in fact it was pretty horrendous for me.

I dunno, are cut people more likely to suffer from retarded ejaculation?

Nope, but the American girls in my uni are in love with me right now.

Reply 63

silverbolt

Original post by GrumpyCat

It's not antisemitic. It's given children the right not to be mutilated untill they can consent.

Also why is female always wrong and male just fine n dandy? Both are wrong.

because female circumscision is done purely to remove sexual enjoyment for women - at least with men there is some medical reasoning for it.

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.

tell me - whats the medical need to put the babies penis in/near your mouth when the circumcision occurs in some of the jewish doctrines and practices.

Think ill go with the all knowing NHS over a beardy man performing fellatio on a baby.

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?

You live in the UK or the middle of the plains of Africa? That is a stupid argument to anyone living within the UK

And in response to your next point - why should non muslims and jews care about a child mutilation practice?

Reply 64

bertstare

No one gives a **** if its antisemitic

Reply 65

L i b

Don't really give two ****s about it all to be frank. It's a cosmetic change and a traditional practice. I don't see any real justification for a change in the law - particularly when faced with both religious concerns and the long period in which circumcision has been practiced.

Original post by looseseal

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.

Not only is it a fact that they do have that right, it is also something which has been done for thousands of years.

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.

That you can find something in common with the two acts does not mean they are remotely similar. They are certainly not.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 66

username937957

Circumcision is a common procedure carried out for phimosis, and other infections. Immediately saying that circumcision is disgusting and genital mutilation is very arrogant. Not only Jews have it done.

Reply 67

username917703

Original post by Bonoahx

Why would we need to point out the difference between health & religion when this thread specifically targets religion?

You can't compare circumcision for health reasons to religious reasons.

Reply 68

Kittiara

I think underage circumcision for non-medical reasons is barbaric. Who can possibly think that it's okay to remove part of a baby's penis when it's completely unnecessary to do so?

The religious argument doesn't make sense to me. If it's about establishing a bond with God (and why on Earth would God want a bit of foreskin sacrificed to Him), let the person do so when they are old enough to make that decision and commitment. An eight-day-old baby isn't religious. He cannot make that commitment or establish that bond, so for the parents to make that decision is meaningless. If you believe in that sacrifice, isn't it all the more special when you're, say, 18 and go through it knowingly and willingly?

Some argue that it's better this way, because the person involved won't remember the pain. Maybe so, but they sure feel it at the time, and who would want to make a newborn suffer like that? Newborns are supposed to feel safe, and loved. Not hurt for no good reason.

Plus, what if the person grows up and decides they don't believe in God?

I say, let religion keep their circumcision if they so choose, but, as mentioned above, let it be a voluntary act carried out at the age of consent or above. Underage circumcision should be banned, and that's not antisemitic, that's just common sense and decency.

Reply 69

Pastaferian

Original post by silverbolt

because female circumscision is done purely to remove sexual enjoyment for women - at least with men there is some medical reasoning for it.
The supposed medical benefits only kick in when someone becomes old enough to be sexually active, by which time he can make his own decision. Also, circumcisions can and do go wrong. For a newborn, there is a downside and no upside, medically speaking.

tell me - whats the medical need to put the babies penis in/near your mouth when the circumcision occurs in some of the jewish doctrines and practices.
Think ill go with the all knowing NHS over a beardy man performing fellatio on a baby.

While I would ban neonatal circumcision, I think it's wrong to push the argument by suggesting a sexual motive for this seemingly bizarre ritual.

Reply 70

Psyk

Original post by Apocrypha

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..

I don't think there's that much of a taboo about circumcision here, it's just not widely done. It's not something that gets discussed much. Also even when people are against the practice of circumcising children, I don't think they generally think there's anything wrong with being circumcised, it's just the matter of doing it to a child.

That's what I think anyway. To me it seems ethically wrong to circumcise a child without a clear medical reason. But I don't think someone who is circumcised is "mutilated" or less of a man or anything like that. I think it's perfectly valid to prefer to have a circumcised penis, I just don't think it's fair to force it on someone before they are capable of forming an opinion.

Original post by Apocrypha

An extra sensitive part of me is gone, are cut people less likely to suffer from premature ejaculation?

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a marginal difference. But delayed ejaculation can be a problem for some people too, so it's swings and roundabouts. Anyway, that doesn't have anything to do with circumcising a child because children shouldn't be having sex.

Original post by Bonoahx

I don't think anyone has suggested that. It's a completely different situation when it is done to correct a medical condition that a child is suffering from. I don't think anyone is against doing it when there is a genuine medical need.

Saying that, I've seen opinions from some doctors who disagree it's the most appropriate treatment for phimosis. But I consider that a completely separate issue which I don't have enough medical knowledge to weigh in on.