Religious Circumcision Banned in Germany. Discuss.

[Neverender]

http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=765342&vId=
(http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=765342&vId=)
It's about damned time some country banned it. Genital mutilation for religious purposes has no place in the modern world.

And it doesn't matter what you believe, no one should ever have looked at a baby and said, "My, what a beautiful creation. So perfect. Now hand me the sharpened stone for the genitals so I may do the work of the Lord." It was thought up to repress sexual pleasure; To deprive a male child as far as possible of the oppurtunity to explore and experience such pleasure.

Do you support this? Do you believe it should apply worldwide?


And yes, I do call it Mutilation, because that's what it is.
mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

[StoppingTime]

http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=765342&vId=
(http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=765342&vId=)
It's about damned time some country banned it. Genital mutilation for religious purposes has no place in the modern world.

And it doesn't matter what you believe, no one should ever have looked at a baby and said, "My, what a beautiful creation. So perfect. Now hand me the sharpened stone for the genitals so I may do the work of the Lord." It was thought up to repress sexual pleasure; To deprive a male child as far as possible of the oppurtunity to explore and experience such pleasure.

According to Judaism, that isn't at all why male babies are circumcised.
And yes, it is mutilation.... of a unnecessary flap of skin.
Regardless of whether one has a foreskin or not, their ability to reproduce is not significantly changed. And sure, there is a possibility that the doctor could screw something up, but that could happen down the road with phimosis, or any other problem that only occurs with the foreskin.

Long story short, the "organ" (if you can call it that) isn't vital, so I don't see why it really matters. I don't think it should be banned.

[Neverender]

Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. The five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin. The transitional region from the external to the internal foreskin is the most sensitive region of the fully intact penis, and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.

Do not violate the rights of your child. Let him decide himself when he reaches the age of reason.

[Korashk]

It's about time someplace banned this practice. The only person who should get to decide whether or not you get cosmetic surgery is you.

[Neverender]

And yes, it is mutilation.... of a unnecessary flap of skin.
Regardless of whether one has a foreskin or not, their ability to reproduce is not significantly changed.

If a Muslim were to come in here and begin Advocating the removal of a girl's clitoris. What would you say? That's an "unnecessary" flap of skin too so far as Reproduction is concerned.

Although I don't care about Reproduction in this instant. I care about removing the grip of Religion from Society and the ultimate freedom of every single person on this forum. And that includes freedom from sexual repression.

[StoppingTime]

After reading around, there have been mixed reports on whether men notice increased or decreased sexual pleasure. So, I wouldn't say for sure (though there have been findings that show it is true) that it decreases sexual pleasure.
If it was a more vital piece of skin, there would be a problem.

And, I'm just wondering, what would the age of reason be?
In regard to the new argument: that is unrelated to circumcision of the penis, so why bring it up?
As for "removing the frip of religion from society" argument, doesn't that sound a bit unfair? There are some people who want to be religious. Why bother them? This procedure has not been proven to decrease any kind of pleasure, or increase it.

[Neverender]

After reading around, there have been mixed reports on whether men notice increased or decreased sexual pleasure. So, I wouldn't say for sure (though there have been findings that show it is true) that it decreases sexual pleasure.
If it was a more vital piece of skin, there would be a problem.

The purpose is to dull sexual pleasure. That's why it's there. That's the whole idea behind it.

And, I'm just wondering, what would the age of reason be?

Personally, I say 16. Legally would probably be 18.

In regard to the new argument: that is unrelated to circumcision of the penis, so why bring it up?
It's the same meaning. The same concept, the same idea. It's allegorical to the topic.

As for "removing the grip of religion from society" argument, doesn't that sound a bit unfair? There are some people who want to be religious. Why bother them?

No. They can be as religious as they want, I just don't want them doing irrepairable damage to the genitals of an infant in the name of god.

This procedure has not been proven to decrease any kind of pleasure, or increase it.

You just said "So, I wouldn't say for sure (though there have been findings that show it is true) that it decreases sexual pleasure."

[StoppingTime]

The purpose is to dull sexual pleasure. That's why it's there. That's the whole idea behind it.

Not according to most religions, it isn't.



Personally, I say 16. Legally would probably be 18.

That seems reasonable, if I were on that side of this argument.


It's the same meaning. The same concept, the same idea. It's allegorical to the topic.

I'm no expert on female "circumcision" according to other religions, so I really don't know.



No. They can be as religious as they want, I just don't want them doing irrepairable damage to the genitals of an infant in the name of god.

Then they can't be as religious as they want, can they?



You just said "So, I wouldn't say for sure (though there have been findings that show it is true) that it decreases sexual pleasure."[/quote]

Right. There have been mixed findings. Neither side has been proven. (I agree, that was a bit rhetorical of me to say)

[Neverender]

Not according to most religions, it isn't.
Officially that's true. Unoffically that's what it's original purpose is.



That seems reasonable, if I were on that side of this argument.
Very well.


I'm no expert on female "circumcision" according to other religions, so I really don't know.

They take a knife and slice off the Clitoris, the most sensitive part of the Female anatomy. The complete purpose of that IS to decrease sexual pleasure so the girl is less inclined to have sex or masturbate and break the hymen, and therefore she will be "purer" for the imam or whoever her suitor happens to be. It's well documented throughout the middle east.


Then they can't be as religious as they want, can they?
It's not their right to physically alter other humans in the name of their religion. Regardless of whether it's their children or not.


Right. There have been mixed findings. Neither side has been proven. (I agree, that was a bit rhetorical of me to say)
Meh, we all screw ourselves with conflicting sentences once in a while.

[ImCoolBeans]

It's about time someplace banned this practice. The only person who should get to decide whether or not you get cosmetic surgery is you.

Yeah that's basically my take on it. I'm not heartbroken over the fact that I'm basically only circumcised because I was born in the good ole USA, but I do think that it's just unnecessary mutilation of something that works just fine without it being done. Not to mention the horrible pain the baby goes through when that sensitive area gets a nice chunk of skin cut off just because it's the norm. Circumcision should only really need to be done if there are medical issues with the foreskin.

[StoppingTime]

According to who exactly, is that the unofficial reason?
Female circumcision, no matter what type, is a much more invasive procedure, with many more risk and health factors than that of male circumcision.

The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.
Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, infertility as well as complications in childbirth increased risk of newborn deaths.
Source (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/index.html).
This is not the case with male circumcision, however.

[Neverender]

According to who exactly, is that the unofficial reason?
According to people who are able to see past the words of "God's representatives" on Earth.

This is not the case with male circumcision, however.


"The estimated 1% to 3% incidence of complications after newborn circumcision covers only the immediate postoperative period prior to the infant's discharge from the hospital. The reported risks are hemorrhage in 1%, infection - occasionally leading to sepsis - in 0.5%, meat[iti]s and meatal stenosis, u[r]ethrocutaneous fistula, adhesions between the glans and remaining prepuce, secondary phimosis, and cosmetically unsatisfactory results. The rate of subsequent repeat surgery to correct adhesions of the glans, meatal stenosis, fistula, and phimosis with buried penis is unknown, but our practice at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia includes about two such cases per month. While this is not a large percentage of the total number of circumcisions preformed, it is a significant number of children undergoing surgery for the complication of this operation. "

- Schwartz, et al. "Pediatric Primary Care: A Problem-solving Approach" pp 861-862.

(At 1.25 million circumcisions of newborns in the US per year, a 0.5% infection rate amounts to 6000 cases per year, and a 4% overall rate of complications requiring treatment represents 48,000 patients experiencing avoidable morbidity.) "

[StoppingTime]

Acquired phimosis, if left untreated, can lead to several complications. Chronic complications include discomfort or pain during urination or sexual intercourse. The urinary stream can be impeded, resulting in dribbling and wetness after urination. During sexual intercourse, or even during a simple erection, the patient could experience strong pain because of overextension of the foreskin. Pain may occur when a partially retractable foreskin retracts during intercourse and chokes the glans penis.

Along with:

Penile cancer: Timing of circumcision could also be extremely important. Although it may sound impossible, infant circumcision seems to decrease the risk of penile cancer, while the same procedure done later does not. Fortunately, penile cancer is a rare disease in the United States, with an incidence of 1.5 per 100,000 people. Direct proof of the connection is the fact that the lowest incidence has been reported in Muslims and Jews, and both of these groups have high rates of neonatal circumcision.

Source. (http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Circumcision_____health_benefits___a516.html)

The pros and cons are basically equal. So, to remove a non vital piece of skin, or to keep it, leads to about the same risk for complications.

[Neverender]

The pros and cons are basically equal. So, to remove a non vital piece of skin, or to keep it, leads to about the same risk for complications.

"Let's put our baby through the pain of taking off the foreskin and at the risk of quick, untimely death so he will have a less risk of getting a rare cancer in the future"

There are not 48,000 new cases of Penile Cancer in the Developed World every year. (I say developed because in the developing world, people don't care about laws anyways, hence the 10% Slavery rate in Mauritania for example.)

[StoppingTime]

I didn't say there were 48,000 new cases. But to have phimosis alone could be incredibly painful, and that pain is over a much longer time than a circumcision.

[Neverender]

I didn't say there were 48,000 new cases. But to have phimosis alone could be incredibly painful, and that pain is over a much longer time than a circumcision.

You said "The pros and cons are basically equal."

So I said there were 48,000 Cases of Hospitalization where the life of the infant is in danger for Circumcision mistakes alone. And that's only in the US. Imagine in the unsanitary conditions elsewhere in the developing world. I think that enormous number outweighs the possibility of rare cancers.

The pros and cons are therefore not very equal, in my humble opinion.

[deadpie]

"Let's put our baby through the pain of taking off the foreskin and at the risk of quick, untimely death so he will have a less risk of getting a rare cancer in the future"

I'm 99.9999 percent sure that parents don't think that when they decide to go with this surgery. They're thinking what would be in the best interest for you longterm; not 'let's butcher our sons dick because we're so fucking evil gangster fuckers'. Plus, they have lots of scientific and medical evidence that proves other wise that might just persuade them. Of course, anything with penis is going to be controversial though. It makes sense why people think this surgery would be possibly wrong and be skeptic. Nothing wrong with being skeptic. Nothing wrong with choosing not to perform the surgery if no medical problems come of that! No problem having the surgery done either. Less medical problems to worry about, even if some of them are rare. I read in an article most deaths from newborn circumcisions aren't because of the actual surgery but because of the anesthesia. You might not notice, but that happens all the time on rare occasions in any type of surgery or anytime anesthesia has to be used.

[Jupiter]

If a Muslim were to come in here and begin Advocating the removal of a girl's clitoris. What would you say? That's an "unnecessary" flap of skin too so far as Reproduction is concerned.


If you are talking about what I think you are talking about, then they do that to make sexual intercourse less pleasurable to the male so that the women do not get raped. This is not fair to the women, why don't they just put something on the male instead. Because males do have a little bit of restraint, for the most part.

Although I don't care about Reproduction in this instant. I care about removing the grip of Religion from Society and the ultimate freedom of every single person on this forum. And that includes freedom from sexual repression.

I don't care who you think you are. Religion is going to stay in this world. I promise you that it won't ever cease to exist, it might be in the background, but whatever. What makes you think that the babies honestly care if their penis gets somethin' cut off at the young age?


______
The point is, I don't debate well and I'd like to leave it at this; If you don't like babies being circumcised, don't have your child be circumcised.

[Neverender]

Above all, to the people saying "Who cares?" A lot of people in this room at this moment would care if someone cane in here and sliced off their foreskin. Just because a baby can't stop you doesn't mean you should do it.

If you are talking about what I think you are talking about, then they do that to make sexual intercourse less pleasurable to the male so that the women do not get raped. This is not fair to the women, why don't they just put something on the male instead. Because males do have a little bit of restraint, for the most part.
That's wrong. You're not telling me now that they cut off the labia and clitoris of young girls, often with a sharp stone or knife, they then stitch and sew through the surrounding skin and bound the entire thing up with heavy twine, leaving a small opening for menstrual blood.
Only to be broken by Male force on the bridal night, only so that the male feels less pleasure.
None of those parts give males sexual pleasure. The resulting pain, stench, shame, the loss to womanhood, the infections, the deaths and you're telling me it's for the males.


I don't care who you think you are. Religion is going to stay in this world. I promise you that it won't ever cease to exist, it might be in the background, but whatever. What makes you think that the babies honestly care if their penis gets somethin' cut off at the young age?

You would never have thought of ever taking a knife to the penis of a young child if it wasn't for religion (Ignoring medical issues, I mean for any healthy baby boy(. No one would have ever done it. It's completely unthinkable without the guise of Religion because Religion makes people do cruel and wicked things. The idea that it's still widely practiced in the US, make people think for some reason that it's somehow justifiable.

Imagine you find me as a 50 year old man sucking the penis of a baby boy. I ask you to picture that. Ah, but I have an explanation. I am a Jewish Mohel. An appointed circumciser and foreskin remover. My authority comes from an ancient text, which commands me to take a baby boy's penis in my hand, cut around the prepuce and complete the action by taking his penis in my mouth, sucking off the foreskin, and spitting out the piece of skin with a mouthfull of Blood and Saliva.
In 2007 as a result of one particular Mohel, was found to have given Genital Herpes to several small boys and directly causing the deaths of two of them. Why? Because of archaic Religious practices of Circumcision.


______
The point is, I don't debate well and I'd like to leave it at this; If you don't like babies being circumcised, don't have your child be circumcised.

If I don't like babies being circumcised I'm not going to stand around watching them have their most personal areas hacked apart because their parents find it aesthetically pleasing or the religion dictates they do it.

dn3cBilg06g

[StoppingTime]

Above all, to the people saying "Who cares?" A lot of people in this room at this moment would care if someone cane in here and sliced off their foreskin. Just because a baby can't stop you doesn't mean you should do it.

Can you prove that? And I don't mean going into P101 and asking. Because sure, people may care in the beginning. This is for two reasons.
1. After a few weeks, they most likely will say that it doesn't make any sexual difference.
2. If it is done when the child is a newborn, then they "won't know what they are missing" per se. So, they could say they want a foreskin back, but then, realize that it is unnecessary.


That's wrong. You're not telling me now that they cut off the labia and clitoris of young girls, often with a sharp stone or knife, they then stitch and sew through the surrounding skin and bound the entire thing up with heavy twine, leaving a small opening for menstrual blood.

Yes, this practice should be banned seeing as it is a much more invasive procedure.




You would never have thought of ever taking a knife to the penis of a young child if it wasn't for religion (Ignoring medical issues, I mean for any healthy baby boy(. No one would have ever done it. It's completely unthinkable without the guise of Religion because Religion makes people do cruel and wicked things. The idea that it's still widely practiced in the US, make people think for some reason that it's somehow justifiable.

Can you prove it never would have happened without religion? I'm sure people would have noticed that it can solve medical problems.


Imagine you find me as a 50 year old man sucking the penis of a baby boy. I ask you to picture that. Ah, but I have an explanation. I am a Jewish Mohel. An appointed circumciser and foreskin remover. My authority comes from an ancient text, which commands me to take a baby boy's penis in my hand, cut around the prepuce and complete the action by taking his penis in my mouth, sucking off the foreskin, and spitting out the piece of skin with a mouthfull of Blood and Saliva.
In 2007 as a result of one particular Mohel, was found to have given Genital Herpes to several small boys and directly causing the deaths of two of them. Why? Because of archaic Religious practices of Circumcision.

If you're going to make religion sound disgusting, at least do it right. THe Mohel literally takes the smallest bit of blood for a freaking split second, and the boy's penis is then cleaned.

[Thunderstorm]

Really? this is the fight you're putting up? Cirucumcision should be banned because it deprives males of pleasure? That's wrong. There are so many way to pleasure your self, and foreskin isn't needed for all of them.

I could care less if I was circumcised. I think banning it is just an anti-semitic move by this country. Sure, some kids who are cirumsised wonder about what it's like to have that foreskin. In the long run though, who freaking cares!!!! It's healthier to not have the foreskin, you are less prone to infections and rash. What has this world come to? Depriving people of religious rights? Just saying , that will never happen in the US. That's why the pilgrims came here. To escape religious persecution. Next thing you know, the Israeli governement's going to ban circumcision! :mad:

[Neverender]

Really? this is the fight you're putting up? Cirucumcision should be banned because it deprives males of pleasure? That's wrong. There are so many way to pleasure your self, and foreskin isn't needed for all of them.

Read all the posts. Read into the fucking symbology. Read betweent he lines. There are many ways to pleausre yourself with Foreskin and it isn't the right of the parents to remove it before you have the chance. If you want to take off your foreskin as an adult go right ahead, just don't do it to your kids because you want to change them to meet your personal tastes.

I could care less if I was circumcised. I think banning it is just an anti-semitic move by this country.
Germany? Anti-Semetic? 21st century? NOPE. NOPE. NOPE. Catholics get circumcised too, and Evidently you don't know what you're talking about to call Germany anti-semetic. As an Ethnic German that's probably one of the most childish things I've heard.

all of my wats

Sure, some kids who are cirumsised wonder about what it's like to have that foreskin.
They wouldn't have to wonder if you didn't cut it off.

In the long run though, who freaking cares!!!!
People who've had their foreskin removed

It's healthier to not have the foreskin, you are less prone to infections and rash.
That's debatable.

What has this world come to? Depriving people of religious rights? Just saying , that will never happen in the US. That's why the pilgrims came here. To escape religious persecution. Next thing you know, the Israeli governement's going to ban circumcision! :mad:

Religious rights should have no say when it involves mutilating a child's genitals. It isn't persecution to keep a Knife wielding man who is Religious away from your child's penis. And even if it is Persecution by some definitions, who cares? It's religion. It was mankind's first attempt to explain the universe, first attempt at morals, first attempt at science, first attempt at ethics. But we're past that now; though for some odd reason some people cling to that idea.

And saying that the country founded on Jewish Zionism is going to be the next to illegalize Circumcision is balls-to-the-wall crazy. The Israeli parliament is busy awaiting the second coming of God by creating a fundamentalist Jewish state and pushing local Arabs out. It'll start the third world war but it won't stop circumcision.

[Thunderstorm]

Read all the posts. Read into the fucking symbology. Read betweent he lines. There are many ways to pleausre yourself with Foreskin and it isn't the right of the parents to remove it before you have the chance. If you want to take off your foreskin as an adult go right ahead, just don't do it to your kids because you want to change them to meet your personal tastes.


Germany? Anti-Semetic? 21st century? NOPE. NOPE. NOPE. Catholics get circumcised too, and Evidently you don't know what you're talking about to call Germany anti-semetic. As an Ethnic German that's probably one of the most childish things I've heard.

all of my wats


They wouldn't have to wonder if you didn't cut it off.


People who've had their foreskin removed


That's debatable.



Religious rights should have no say when it involves mutilating a child's genitals. It isn't persecution to keep a Knife wielding man who is Religious away from your child's penis. And even if it is Persecution by some definitions, who cares? It's religion. It was mankind's first attempt to explain the universe, first attempt at morals, first attempt at science, first attempt at ethics. But we're past that now; though for some odd reason some people cling to that idea.

And saying that the country founded on Jewish Zionism is going to be the next to illegalize Circumcision is balls-to-the-wall crazy. The Israeli parliament is busy awaiting the second coming of God by creating a fundamentalist Jewish state and pushing local Arabs out. It'll start the third world war but it won't stop circumcision.

Aren't you a wily one Neverender.

I could care less aout the fact that I was circumcised. I am jewish and do no care!!!! It's not a big deal. You're acting like it's a punishable crime fo removing foreskin, and based on religion, it isn't

Yeah I'm an ethnic german too. My great grandparents on my mother's side were stripped of their medical business and left germany before WW2. I'm glad to enforce my religious purposes.

No, pople who've had there foreskin removed don't even really have contact with people who haven't and we don't care!

No, it's not debatble. Any of this.

[Listed MIA]

It's healthier to not have the foreskin, you are less prone to infections and rash.

yeah, its probably healthier for women not to have breasts either. save them from getting breast cancer. oh yeah, and we should probably just all get rid of our tonsils and appendixes when we're babies too, since those are pretty much useless.

People, stop calling foreskins useless!!!! if you don't have one then you don't know what they do... seriously, i can't even imagine how it would work if you didn't have one :confused:

i think germany banning it is a step in the right direction. hasn't some other country like finland or something already banned it?

i don't think people are arguing against religious wackos. its more the fact that an innocent baby - who has no say in the matter is subjected to a violent act when they are just days old, WITHOUT ANAESTHETIC. fair enough if your bible or whatever says you have to have it done then wait till you're an adult and get it done under a proper general anaesthetic.

[StoppingTime]

Read all the posts. Read into the fucking symbology. Read betweent he lines. There are many ways to pleausre yourself with Foreskin and it isn't the right of the parents to remove it before you have the chance. If you want to take off your foreskin as an adult go right ahead, just don't do it to your kids because you want to change them to meet your personal tastes.

I'm not really sure "many ways" is true. And, once again, it has not been proven that it makes the penis any less sensitive.


Germany? Anti-Semetic? 21st century? NOPE. NOPE. NOPE. Catholics get circumcised too, and Evidently you don't know what you're talking about to call Germany anti-semetic. As an Ethnic German that's probably one of the most childish things I've heard. [/quote]

I agree. Germany wasn't really ever anti-Semitic (at least not in the way you're thinking, Citiboi5) The Nazis were.
And yes, it's true that other religions are circumcised. Some parents don't even do it for religion, it's just "what's done" most commonly today, and they don't want their son to feel "out of the loop."


They wouldn't have to wonder if you didn't cut it off.


And the vast majority would figure out pretty quickly they didn't care.


Religious rights should have no say when it involves mutilating a child's genitals.

Even if it doesn't do any harmful damage the majority of the time?


It isn't persecution to keep a Knife wielding man

You're making it sound much more invasive than it really is. "Knife wielding" isn't really a term I'd use to describe someone who is giving a circumcision.


who is Religious away from your child's penis. And even if it is Persecution by some definitions, who cares?

The people being persecuted....


It's religion. It was mankind's first attempt to explain the universe, first attempt at morals, first attempt at science, first attempt at ethics. But we're past that now; though for some odd reason some people cling to that idea.

Clearly, not everyone is "past that," and they don't need to be either.


And saying that the country founded on Jewish Zionism is going to be the next to illegalize Circumcision is balls-to-the-wall crazy.

Yea, the US wasn't founded on Zionist principles....


The Israeli parliament is busy awaiting the second coming of God by creating a fundamentalist Jewish state and pushing local Arabs out. It'll start the third world war but it won't stop circumcision.

I'm not even going to go here...

[Neverender]

I'm not really sure "many ways" is true. And, once again, it has not been proven that it makes the penis any less sensitive.
Logically it doesn't make sense for it to not become less sensitive. But fuck it

I agree. Germany wasn't really ever anti-Semitic (at least not in the way you're thinking, Citiboi5) The Nazis were.
And yes, it's true that other religions are circumcised. Some parents don't even do it for religion, it's just "what's done" most commonly today, and they don't want their son to feel "out of the loop."

Anti-semitism is illegal in Germany, and idiots who think the country hasn't changed in 60 years get right on the bad side of me, which is why I responded so sharply to Citiboi5. Anyways, we're all aware that the out-of-the-loop arguement is easy to demolish when the practice dies off.

And the vast majority would figure out pretty quickly they didn't care.
I don't care if 999,999 out of a million don't care. If there's a single person who had their foreskin removed without their consent and isn't happy about it it overcomes those who don't care



Even if it doesn't do any harmful damage the majority of the time?

Yes

You're making it sound much more invasive than it really is. "Knife wielding" isn't really a term I'd use to describe someone who is giving a circumcision.

I'm sorry. Scalpel-Wielding. (Although I don't expect them to use anything more than sharp stones or knives outside of the Developed world)

The people being persecuted....
It's like Polygamy. The government doesn't care when they throw Polygamists in jail


Clearly, not everyone is "past that," and they don't need to be either.

They do if we're ever going to not end up destroying ourselves as a species. Religion is not my cup of tea. It makes pleasant and normal people do and say wicked and evil things.

Yea, the US wasn't founded on Zionist principles....

I'm talking about Israel because Citiboi5 brought it up. The US was founded on Secular principles.

I'm not even going to go here...
Well it's true is it not?

[Thunderstorm]

yeah, its probably healthier for women not to have breasts either. save them from getting breast cancer. oh yeah, and we should probably just all get rid of our tonsils and appendixes when we're babies too, since those are pretty much useless.

People, stop calling foreskins useless!!!! if you don't have one then you don't know what they do... seriously, i can't even imagine how it would work if you didn't have one :confused:

i think germany banning it is a step in the right direction. hasn't some other country like finland or something already banned it?

i don't think people are arguing against religious wackos. its more the fact that an innocent baby - who has no say in the matter is subjected to a violent act when they are just days old, WITHOUT ANAESTHETIC. fair enough if your bible or whatever says you have to have it done then wait till you're an adult and get it done under a proper general anaesthetic.

Well obviously it works, because there are people ho can get pleasure without there foreskin

[StoppingTime]

Logically it doesn't make sense for it to not become less sensitive. But fuck it

So we'll leave this argument at a stalemate.


I don't care if 999,999 out of a million don't care. If there's a single person who had their foreskin removed without their consent and isn't happy about it it overcomes those who don't care.

But how is it fair to have a world like that? Where people who now aren't allowed to be circumcised may have other problems with their penis. These people outweigh the one in 9999999 million who just "doesn't like it."


I'm sorry. Scalpel-Wielding. (Although I don't expect them to use anything more than sharp stones or knives outside of the Developed world)

Then how do you expect them to follow a law like this?


It's like Polygamy. The government doesn't care when they throw Polygamists in jail

Removing a flap of skin and polygamists aren't exactly the same thing, or even closely related according to what the government does. Do I think polygamy should be legal? Yes.


They do if we're ever going to not end up destroying ourselves as a species. Religion is not my cup of tea. It makes pleasant and normal people do and say wicked and evil things.

Not always. You can't group all religious people into wicked and evil.


Well it's true is it not?

No. They aren't kicking Arabs out left and right. If you ask any Arab living in Israel, they'll tell you their life there is better than it would be in the UAE.
But yes, I'd like to see a government there run by both Israeli and Arab leaders, but that's a different debate.

[Neverender]

Well obviously it works, because there are people ho can get pleasure without there foreskin

Who says they get the same pleasure?



Not always. You can't group all religious people into wicked and evil.
Not all Religious people are, but all Religion is.




On another unrelated note, I am so vehemently against this because I try to live by the idea of "Hide your face and weep should you dare to harm a child." Let your child circumcise himself when he turns 18 if he so desires.

[Korashk]

Neverender, you're kind of overstating what circumcision is by using emotionally charged language. It's not helping you win the argument because most people don't consider circumcision mutilation, and it arguably isn't. It's also disingenuous to compare it to Female Genital Mutilation. They may be similar procedures, but to essentially claim that they're interchangeable is just false.

Yeah, I'm against the practice because their are few benefits and the negatives of having a foreskin are for the most part pretty easy to fix. Couple this with the fact that the process is minor surgery that kills an estimated ~110 infants a year and forcing it on an infant is basically unjustifiable. Keep your arguments cool and you're more likely to have a good debate.

Cityboi5, the right to religious freedom doesn't include the right to force your religious views and practices on another person. That includes the Jewish and Muslim practice of infant circumcision.

[Neverender]

Cityboi5, the right to religious freedom doesn't include the right to force your religious views and practices on another person. That includes the Jewish and Muslim practice of infant circumcision.

That's what I'm generally trying to say throughout this thread. Only problem is that I'm too good at utilizing language as an effective emotional medium to display my actual thoughts on it. I'm well aware I'm overstating the negatives, but I don't know how not to do that. The same way I could never argue against Gay Marriage or against the Seal hunt for example.

[Thunderstorm]

Who says they get the same pleasure?



Not all Religious people are, but all Religion is.




On another unrelated note, I am so vehemently against this because I try to live by the idea of "Hide your face and weep should you dare to harm a child." Let your child circumcise himself when he turns 18 if he so desires.

You're really stubborn, you know that?

Also, thy do it when you're na infant, instead of 18, because at 18 you will feel the pain. It hurts so much, you can't pleasure your self for at least a few days.

also, as long as they get a feeling, that's fine with me. It doesn't matter how pleasureable it is, it matter if they can feel it.

[Listed MIA]

Also, thy do it when you're na infant, instead of 18, because at 18 you will feel the pain. It hurts so much, you can't pleasure your self for at least a few days.

What are you saying? babies don't feel pain? or its okay to do whatever you want to them cos they won't remember it?

[Smeagol]

Okay, here's my personal take : let the guy decide. If I was a guy, I don't know what I'd do... but anyways..

They're babies, they have no say. If they want to have their foreskins removed for any reason, health or religion, hey, let them do what they want. Especially if you do it for religious reasons, because what if that kid doesn't want to be part of that religion?

[Neverender]

You're really stubborn, you know that?

shh.

Also, thy do it when you're na infant, instead of 18, because at 18 you will feel the pain. It hurts so much, you can't pleasure your self for at least a few days. Are you telling me infants don't feel pain? Just because you're too young to remember it doesn't mean it isn't insufferable.

also, as long as they get a feeling, that's fine with me. It doesn't matter how pleasureable it is, it matter if they can feel it.
What's fine with you certainly is not fine with everybody.

[Smeagol]

I'll wring your neck.

Neverender, I don't mean to be rude or to overstep my boundaries, but can you please keep this polite? Before mods get involved?

[Neverender]

Neverender, I don't mean to be rude or to overstep my boundaries, but can you please keep this polite? Before mods get involved?
I thought of that as perfectly acceptable. Whoops

[Thunderstorm]

I thought of that as perfectly acceptable. Whoops

You think of everything as perfectly acceptable in your world!

[Neverender]

You think of everything as perfectly acceptable in your world!

I don't care for morals or what someone thinks is socially acceptable. I'll swear and call someone every name under the sun. I talk on here exactly the way I talk in real life.

[Thunderstorm]

I don't care for morals or what someone thinks is socially acceptable. I'll swear and call someone every name under the sun. I talk on here exactly the way I talk in real life.

Well ain't that pertty? Yes, I know I spelled it wrong. If you did talk on here like you did in real life, wouldn't you be gone already?

[Smeagol]

Can you please keep this on topic??? Both of you!

[Thunderstorm]

Can you please keep this on topic??? Both of you!

Fine. since Smeagol asked kindly!

[Mirage]

Locked, I am tired of the fighting guys.

:locked: