Norway debates banning male circumcision

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

It's really quite fortunate that you feel that way, don't you think? I mean, imagine if you felt differently. You'd be pretty much screwed.

Why?

I think not liking something about your body is a very common experience, but I wouldn't describe people who feel that way as "screwed". Learning to live with things when you would rather they be different is a near universal experience.

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

Except that circumcision is permanent, and is inflicted on another person who can't give consent. Unlike burkas, which can just be taken off at will whenever you like.

Just about everything your parents choose for you is permanent. If they take you to church, send you to Catholic school, teach you to eat vegetables, make you play a musical instrument...it all has a life-long effect on who you are. What's so unique about this one thing?

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

You can have any cultural bias you like as far as I'm concerned. What you can't do, IMO, is extend your cultural bias to the mutilation of your children.

It's your cultural bias that makes you describe circumcision as "mutilation". I have been circumcised, but I have not been mutilated. One third of the worlds male population has also been circumcised, very few of them consider themselves to have been mutilated either.

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

If parents wanted to have a large "Jesus Saves" tattooed on their kid's chest, I'd call it child abuse. If their whole religion did the same thing on direct orders from god, it's still child abuse. If their culture just did it as a norm and saw no problem with it, it's still child abuse.

I just watched a documentary on the Amish. I have no idea if they practice circumcision or not, but the effect of being raised Amish is a whole lot greater than the effect of being circumcised.

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

In my world, you just don't get to cut pieces off babies like that without good reason.

This is so silly. You make it sound like it's just random pieces being cut off, like there are children losing noses, feet or ears. It's a tiny piece of skin.

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

And it never fails to amuse me that the people who are fine with male circumcision are often so hotly against female circumcision.

I'll challenge you here the same way I challenged Roykan. Define your terms here, what specific practices are you referring here when you speak of female circumcision?

[Rufo]

Originally Posted by Rat

I know that. I just like the fact that so many people get Switzerland and Sweden mixed up, presumably because they begin with the same two letters. Oddly, people rarely get the United States of America and the United Arab Emirates mixed up.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Oops! Thanks for the catch!

It's a weirdly common mixup. I don't see Sweden passing a law like that, fortunately.

Quote:

While certainly any death is very significant to the family of the decadent, one death among millions in a population is "very little harm" overall. I think it might be difficult to identify any activity that carried zero risk.

Death is an extreme on a range of more likely complications. It may be a relatively safe procedure for a form of surgery, but that's not the point. The point is that there is a risk of complications, some of which are severe, which could be completely avoided by not performing the procedure.

What sort of procedures would you say parents should not be allowed to have arbitrarily performed on their children?

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

And it never fails to amuse me that the people who are fine with male circumcision are often so hotly against female circumcision.

It's commonly agreed by people on both sides of the debate that the procedures done on girls tend to be unquestionably damaging to a far greater degree. I don't think this is a double standard as much as it's a question of where people draw the line.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Rufo

It's commonly agreed by people on both sides of the debate that the procedures done on girls tend to be unquestionably damaging to a far greater degree. I don't think this is a double standard as much as it's a question of where people draw the line.

Google "genital nicking".

[truethat]

Believing in God has been "the norm" for thousands of years. People finally coming to their senses is not an attack on someone's cultural and religious practices, it's called evolution and progress.

I personally prefer the look of a circumcized penis. I know it's the norm but it's a permanent physical mutilation that is not needed. If you believe your God wants you to do this, then do it as an adult. Just like Abraham did.

Rabbis are constantly upgrading laws and reinterpreting the Torah with the Halakhah so stop pretending this is some impossible thing to get around Mycroft.

[Rufo]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Google "genital nicking".

Thank you, that revealed a part of this debate I was unfamiliar with. I see hypocrisy has run rampant on that issue and I assume this is what Seismosaurus was referring to.

That said, no discussion benefits from a false equivalence between male and female circumcision.

[linebreak]

Originally Posted by truethat

I personally prefer the look of a circumcized penis. I know it's the norm but it's a permanent physical mutilation that is not needed. If you believe your God wants you to do this, then do it as an adult. Just like Abraham did.

Rabbis are constantly upgrading laws and reinterpreting the Torah with the Halakhah so stop pretending this is some impossible thing to get around Mycroft.

I don't mean to be rude, but unless you are trying to be dishonest, you seem to know very, very little about Judaism.

[linebreak]

Originally Posted by Rat

I wouldn't say it's an over-simplification, but it seems misleading. The reason I am tentatively in favour of its banning is not that it does not hold the same religious significance, no. The reasons for banning it have been well explained by other posters. I do not, however, hold the significance that it has to Jews (or Muslims, or whatever) to be a good defence for keeping it. If it's wrong, then it's wrong whether or not it has significance for Jews (or Muslims, or whatever); if it's not, then that significance is irrelevant.

That's a great point. I have to think about it.
For the sake of the argument, though, I think there might be a slight flaw in the reasoning.
I don't think you can separate so easily the reasons for doing something, and whether it is [objectively] wrong. In your reasoning, first you decide if it's wrong, and then you look at the reasons behind it. In this specific case, I feel like that doesn't work.

For example, depriving children of certain experiences might normally be wrong, but if it follows some sort of ascetic religion with a larger purpose than the deprivation itself, doesn't that change the morality a little?

Lopping off a kid's foreskin might be wrong. To Jews, though, honoring a covenant with God is good, and an important and early way to do that is circumcision. Doesn't that change things?

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by floghammer

Does Norway currently ban female genital mutilation?

Yes, of course it does.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Define your terms. Exactly what practice do you refer to here?

Since both our countries have banned all forms of female infant genital mutilation, I'm referring to all practices involving cutting or mutilating the genitals of little girls.

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by linebreak

Lopping off a kid's foreskin might be wrong.

Might?

Quote:

To Jews, though, honoring a covenant with God is good, and an important and early way to do that is circumcision. Doesn't that change things?

No. Invisible friends should have no say in the laws of a country. We don't allow other people to use their imaginary friends to justify denying blood transfusions and other essential medical treatments to their children, so genital mutilation in any form shouldn't get a pass.

[Rolfe]

Obviously, there are certain cases where religiously-mandated mutilations are so extreme that pretty much everyone agrees they should be banned. Then again, few people seem that bothered about ear piercing, religious or not.

The debate boils down to a shouting match between those who believe circumcision is on a par with ear piercing so why not, and those who believe it's on the "extreme enough to ban" side of the scale. Having looked at what's involved when a previous thread was on the go, I'm firmly in the latter camp. For the very simple reason that if this were being done to farm or pet animals for minimal-to-no benefit even when it didn't go wrong, it would undoubtedly be banned.

The "genital nicking" thing is interesting, though. There we have an attempt to minimise the extent of a mutilation in order to move it towards the ear-piercing end of the scale and yet still satisfy the religious that something is being done. And as far as I can see most of the reaction is "you are a sick person even to suggest interfering with a baby girl's genitalia, even if it is a minor procedure!"

But at the same time far more serious interference with baby boys' genitalia is being condoned, even though deaths definitely occur and the prevalence of undesirable sequelae seems fairly high.

And no, I don't bloody care how bloody religious you are. Religious practices are symbolic, and if the way you've done it for centuries is no longer acceptable by society's norms, for very good reason I might add, then bloody well find some different symbolism.

Rolfe.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by linebreak

I don't mean to be rude, but unless you are trying to be dishonest, you seem to know very, very little about Judaism.

Instead of saying it is "wrong" tell me what's wrong with it. I don't know very much about Judaism but I do know some things.

So correct what I've gotten wrong.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Megalodon

No. Invisible friends should have no say in the laws of a country.

How many nations have religious vilification laws?

[GrandMasterFox]

Originally Posted by linebreak

For example, depriving children of certain experiences might normally be wrong, but if it follows some sort of ascetic religion with a larger purpose than the deprivation itself, doesn't that change the morality a little?

No. Why on earth would it?

Originally Posted by linebreak

Lopping off a kid's foreskin might be wrong. To Jews, though, honoring a covenant with God is good, and an important and early way to do that is circumcision. Doesn't that change things?

NO
The fact you even need to ask that made me cry inside...
Religion does not belong in any legal debate period.

It's the same as saying that parents who refuse to send their kids to a decent doctor can be put away but if they cry "that's our religion" it's suddenly okay?

In other words, either it's something that okay for everyone regardless of religion or its something that's banned for everyone regardless of religion.

[GrandMasterFox]

Also just to put my 2 cents in...

I'm personally in the hopes that this silly custom will disappear from the world or have its existence justified by actual medical reasons.

But I would prefer if it happens naturally rather than by any form of legality. I mean what sort of punishment should we give parents who circumcised their kids against the hypothetical law?

As far as risks go, I'm not sure about the actual harm in numbers. Yes, children can die but I haven't seen the stats on how many out of how many tries does that occur (and no, saying just once is enough is bs). If that is the big issue then you can just make sure that you need to be a certified person for that procedure.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

As far as risks go, I'm not sure about the actual harm in numbers. Yes, children can die but I haven't seen the stats on how many out of how many tries does that occur (and no, saying just once is enough is bs). If that is the big issue then you can just make sure that you need to be a certified person for that procedure.

Let's just suppose that the stats say that there is a non-zero death rate, and that certification doesn't have any significant effect on the statistics. What would you consider an acceptable death rate?

Same question to everybody else who feels that circumcision is on any level acceptable. What death rate are you comfortable with?

Dave

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Because you're so smart you're just gobsmacked by anyone who doesn't instantly agree with you?

Sorry Rolfe, doesn't work that way. If you want to outlaw something that causes very little harm yet is of enormous cultural significance to millions of people, I think you need more than that.

Perhaps you should quantify the "very little harm" you find acceptable? How many dead infants per million of population perhaps? How many days hospitalisation?

Originally Posted by Mycroft

So somehow my personal experience with the subject invalidates my opinion on it?

No. It's just irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

You might as well say that someone who grew up eating whale blubber or fried locusts is "culturally biased" because they don't understand how other people find those foods yucky.

Utterly false analogy. We're talking about unanesthetised mutilation of the penises of babies with commensurate risks of infection, serious problems and sometimes death. And you consider this comparable to food fads?

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I certainly don't mind speaking for Jewish people. What gives you the right to tell me or anyone our cultural values are wrong? We have a practice here that does very little harm, does some good, is of enormous cultural significance to millions of people...who are you to dictate to others what their choices should be?

If your "cultural values" require the mutilation of the genitals of children then I'm quite happy to call them wrong on the grounds of basic morality.

Originally Posted by AdMan

So wait until the boy turns 18 and stop making the choice for him.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Oh why stop there? Let's go to ancient Maya where the custom was to run a string covered in broken glass through the urethra of the king to create pain induced hallucinations to foretell the future.

All these customs are just like removing a piece of skin during infancy so the person doesn't even remember it.

Unless of course they suffer complications or die of course.

Originally Posted by linebreak

<snip>The practice of circumcision isn't baseless, though, and even if you yourself don't find significance in the values that lead to circumcision, that's not necessarily cause for taking action against it.

So you consider tradition to be sufficient justification for genital mutilation?

Originally Posted by linebreak

For those in agreement with the ban: Do you see the ban as a trivialization of Jewish morals?

I consider such a ban as irrelevant to the views of any religion but in accordance with simple human dignity.

Originally Posted by linebreak

Not a victim mentality, Rolfe. A practice might not sit well with us, but banning it is trivializing another group's morals/traditions. Might not sit right with us, but then again, that's why we're not part of that people, and we don't have to be.

So where do your draw the line at things that are justified by religious tradition? Should xians be allowed to kill homosexuals because of their traditions and scriptures? Jews seem to have ignored that requirement quite easily.

ETA: Interestingly according to a recent Harretz article circumcision isn't standard amongst even Israeli Jews with about 4.8% of male babies uncircumcised despite the societal pressures.

Originally Posted by Rat

I know that. I just like the fact that so many people get Switzerland and Sweden mixed up, presumably because they begin with the same two letters. Oddly, people rarely get the United States of America and the United Arab Emirates mixed up.

Well Sweden and Switzerland are closer.

Originally Posted by floghammer

Does Norway currently ban female genital mutilation?

Yes.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by CORed

They're not. If you don't keep ear rings in them, they heal. I suppose there is some minor scarring that you could call "lifelong" if you really wanted to stretch it.

I haven't worn an earring since I was like 17 (27 now). The hole is still there.

[Rolfe]

I'm also against allowing ear piercing of children too young to ask for it to be done (at the very least). But at least we can probably agree that the mutilation of ear piercing is a lot lower down the severity scale than circumcision.

Rolfe.

[abaddon]

OK, I do get annoyed when I see a toddler with pierced ears.

On the circumcision issue, if FGM is abhorrent, then MGM is equally abhorrent.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

I often wonder what I am missing out on with that bit of skin that was sheered from my body in my sensitive bits.

I ask thie question and never get an answered.

The skin on the underside near the tip, and the tip, are sexually sensitive. The skin around the lower shaft is not. Is the foreskin like the former or the latter?

If the latter, I propose war against religion and the freak god Yahweh.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm also against allowing ear piercing of children too young to ask for it to be done (at the very least). But at least we can probably agree that the mutilation of ear piercing is a lot lower down the severity scale than circumcision.

Rolfe.

IIRC, and a quick check seems to confirm this, in the UK a person under 16 cannot consent to a genital piercing as this constitutes and indecent assault but circumcision with parental consent seems to be OK. Though even parental consents seems to be insufficient to allow a minor to be tattooed.....

Well maybe the Grace Adeleye trial and the influence of Peaches Geldof will help end the practice.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Beerina

I ask thie question and never get an answered.

The skin on the underside near the tip, and the tip, are sexually sensitive. The skin around the lower shaft is not. Is the foreskin like the former or the latter?

If the latter, I propose war against religion and the freak god Yahweh.

It's... different. But I'd say closer to the former. Maybe a little bit more sensitive than that.

But the main thing is that it protects the head of the penis, and keeps it moist. The reason it needs protection is because it is very sensitive, and without the protection it becomes less sensitive.

Ask any uncircumcised guy if he'd want to go with the head exposed for an entire day. He wouldn't like that, simply because the head is too sensitive. It would feel extremely uncomfortable.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

ETA: Interestingly according to a recent Harretz article circumcision isn't standard amongst even Israeli Jews with about 4.8% of male babies uncircumcised despite the societal pressures.

I dug up the article..

Haaretz: Even in Israel, more and more parents choose not to circumcise their sons.

Quote:

When their first child, a son, was born 11 years ago, it was clear to Eran Sadeh, now 42, and his partner, Maya, 40, that he would be circumcised.

“We arranged it with a mohel [ritual circumciser] and then I started to look for information and references about the man on the Internet,” says Eran, a former lawyer-turned-computer instructor in a software company. But while surfing the Web, he came across a world of information about circumcision. “For the first time in my life I learned what’s cut, how it’s cut and what the risks are. I didn’t have a clue until then. The word was just another check mark on the list of tasks related to the birth. I treated it almost as a bureaucratic process. But the new information I came across shook me, and I knew I wasn’t capable of inflicting that on my son.”

So, as we've seen in the USA, a little education goes a long way in this matter.

[linebreak]

(truehat I sent you a PM)

I know that circumcision is a really charged topic. This thread has phrases like "You're sick," and "That post made me cry inside." That seems a little unhelpful in this debate, and I hope we can stick to real arguments, but I get why this affects people so deeply. I'm playing Devil's Advocate until I make up my own mind on the issue.

Banning circumcision is a trivialization of Jewish morals. I think on some level everyone can agree on that. The difference is that those pro-ban do not view that trivialization as a bad thing. Really, disagreeing with anything is placing one's own morals/priorities above those of someone else. Since you don't personally care about Judaism, it does not matter to you that banning circumcision makes being Jewish impossible -- but that does matter, to a lot of people. It really is the same thing as banning Judaism. I'm not making a moral judgment one way or the other on that legislation, just describing the situation at this point. Maybe banning Judaism is worth it if it means no more infant circumcision?

Calling circumcision "mutilation" is certainly accurate, but the term carries a certain charge that I don't think does justice to the nature of the act in this case. I know that in some minds it is really easy (circumcision = mutilation and mutilation = bad so . . .) but that really does ignore a huge part of it. If that's where your brain stops at this debate, I get that there's no debate from here, so the rest of this post won't really apply to you.
Simplifying like that ignores the debate, though. Jews have eliminated inhumane practices over the years, and a lot of Jews are smart and compassionate people, and yet they keep circumcision. It is one of the most essential parts of being Jewish.

I've grown up with a lot of male, Jewish friends. I've personally never met anyone who is upset about their circumcision, and I would assume (without concrete numbers) that vast majority of Jewish males are perfectly fine with it as a matter of course. (If there are studies that I'm missing, please let me know. That would add a lot to the debate.)

Having outsiders "save" a group of people from a practice with which they themselves have no problem -- does that not seem backward? (Again, could be a weak point if Jewish males are making a movement against their own circumcisions.)

A thought experiment (honestly looking for responses) -- You're in some remote forest on a different continent, and you stumble upon an undiscovered group of people, untouched by western civilization. They practice circumcision, and have been for thousands of years. Not being circumcised means that the boy will be exiled from his tribe and cannot be part of his people.
Do you interfere and pass legislation for them that bans circumcision?

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by linebreak

Banning circumcision is a trivialization of Jewish morals. I think on some level everyone can agree on that. The difference is that those pro-ban do not view that trivialization as a bad thing.

That's not completely true. I think most simply see it as irrelevant. Religious belief can't trump the welfare of children.

Originally Posted by linebreak

Having outsiders "save" a group of people from a practice with which they themselves have no problem -- does that not seem backward?

Western nations and organizations have made a strong stance on the infanticide of girls in India and China. Is that backwards too?

Originally Posted by linebreak

A thought experiment (honestly looking for responses) -- You're in some remote forest on a different continent, and you stumble upon an undiscovered group of people, untouched by western civilization. They practice circumcision, and have been for thousands of years. Not being circumcised means that the boy will be exiled from his tribe and cannot be part of his people.
Do you interfere and pass legislation for them that bans circumcision?

When it comes to legislation, I'm only arguing for it in my country. Legislation in other countries will have to be up to the people who live there.

In your example, I would certainly try to educate them on the facts of circumcision and try to persuade them to stop.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by linebreak

Banning circumcision is a trivialization of Jewish morals. I think on some level everyone can agree on that.

No, I cannot agree with that on any level. It doesn't trivialise one moral imperative to determine that another supersedes it.

Repeating my earlier question, what death rate as a result of circumcision do you consider acceptable?

Dave

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by linebreak

Banning circumcision is a trivialization of Jewish morals. I think on some level everyone can agree on that.

You think wrong.

If mutilating the genitals of a child is wrong, it's wrong. Same thing as regards cutting the throat of an animal and leaving it to die in agony when far more humane slaughter methods are available.

Things people thought were perfectly peachy in the Bronze Age should never be regarded as unchallengeable.

I'm interested to know that there's such a high percentage of Israeli Jews deciding against circumcision.

Rolfe.

[truethat]

linebreak I hope you don't mind me posting some of what you sent me in the PM here. You stated I didn't know anything about Judaism and was wrong. When I asked what I was wrong about you sent this to my PM

Quote:

Basically, Rabbis can't change Halachah -- at least not really. Reform and Conservative Judaism does try to adapt the rules to modern day life, that's true, but Orthodox Jews definitely don't (actually, that's a debate too right now! There are varying levels of Orthodoxy..)

The changes, too, are not exactly CHANGES. The Rabbis try to re-interpret the wording of the law, and that really only works when there is room for interpretation.

To make things more difficult (and this is the most important), Rabbis can ONLY re-interpret laws from the Oral Torah (Talmud & Gemarah), and the covenant of circumcision is found directly in the Written Torah. That is pretty much untouchable.

Plus, none of the changes are random, and changing a law is incredibly tough with a lot of debate. But saying that Jews can get around circumcision by changing the law doesn't really work.

Then, saying that one can get circumcised as an adult like Abraham did also isn't viable. It's not a choice, really -- Judaism has incredibly precise rules about 'when and how,' so it's not really up to an individual.

Anyway, hope that was clear. Sorry again for just dismissing your post in the thread without writing why I disagree.

The precise rules of where and when a person can get circumcized can absolutely be adjusted to modern society. There is no reason for a child to be circumcized as a baby. In keeping with the original Jewish tradition a case could certainly be made to emulate Abraham.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah

And there are cases that already circumvent the 8 day requirement. See above.




Arguing in favor of the super orthodox is not going to work either because oral suction practices are filthy and perverted and would not be allowed to be done under any other circumstances.

Quote:

In addition to milah (the actual circumcision) and priah, mentioned above, the Talmud mentions a third step, metzitzah, or squeezing some blood from the wound. As opposed to milah, a Divine law, and priah, a Rabbinic law, metzitzah is a Rabbinic injunction meant to protect the health of the baby: As understood by medical science of the time, this would prevent infection.

As Rabbinic injunctions regarding health are taken quite seriously- more so than even religious law- metzitzah came to be regarded as an essential part of the brit milah ceremony. In general, however, Rabbinic statements about medicine and health have long been regarded as non-binding when modern medical science contradicts them. In the case of brit milah, there are modern antiseptic and antibiotic techniques- all used as part of the brit milah today- which definitely accomplish the intended purpose of metzitzah, which is now known to not necessarily help itself. However, since metzitzah does not in and of itself cause any harm, and as it is so enshrined in practice, it is generally practiced to this day as well.

Less commonly practiced, and more controversial, is metzitzah b'peh, (alt. mezizah), or oral suction,[10][11] where the mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound. The traditional reason for this procedure is to minimize the potential for postoperative complications,[12][13] although the practice has been shown to pose a serious risk of spreading herpes to the infant.[14] Beginning in around the 18th Century, however, it was known that this technique itself can spread infection (ironically, prevention of which was the very reason metzitzah was instituted) and harm the baby. Thus, it became quite common in the Jewish world to perform metzitzah via a safe method, such as a sterilized glass tube. This removes all risk and is almost the universal practice today, although some ultra-Orthodox communities, most notably Hassidic Jews and some communities in Israel, continue to use the oral method.

I really hate when people tell me I'm wrong when I'm not wrong. It is very possible for Rabbi's to reinterpret the law.

[Beerina]

Modern medical utility is not the motivating force. That is a rationalization.

Cutting off the breasts is a wonderful prophylactic against breast cancer, and would no doubt be a darn sight more effective at saving lives...if saving lives was anyone's actual concern rather than just irrelevant justifying narative to support religious desires.

I thought the religious were sinning if lying, such as touting the health benefits when you really believe the position because of religion.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Why?

Because there would be no way you could undo it.

Quote:

I think not liking something about your body is a very common experience, but I wouldn't describe people who feel that way as "screwed". Learning to live with things when you would rather they be different is a near universal experience.

Yes it is. It is not, however, something to be embraced to the extent of deliberately inflicting mutilation upon others without their consent.

Really, this principle is pretty sound. If I raped a woman and said "Well sure, she'll be traumatised for the rest of her life. But hey, we all have to live with things we don't want to, so what's the big deal really?" nobody would take it at all seriously. If I were having my children's eyes removed at birth and saying "Oh come on, blind people can lead a very full life, so how is this any kind of big deal?" nobody would take it at all seriously.

The principle that you don't hack body parts off children on the grounds that "we all have problems so why shouldn't they" is an absolute absurdity... unless it's cutting pieces off the genitals. Then it's okay. Why? Well... it just is. All the reasons that people would laugh at - or be horrified by - in other cases simply become okay.

Well, not if it's a little girl's genitals that are being mutilated of course. That's still horrific. It's only okay to mutilate boys.

Quote:

Just about everything your parents choose for you is permanent. If they take you to church, send you to Catholic school, teach you to eat vegetables, make you play a musical instrument...it all has a life-long effect on who you are. What's so unique about this one thing?

If I grow up and find that those things are not to my liking, I can undo them. I can stop going to church, I can expand my education in directions my Catholic school didn't, I can decline to eat any more vegetables, I can stop playing my musical instrument.

If I find myself disliking my circumcision, I don't have those options. Or any options, really.

Quote:

It's your cultural bias that makes you describe circumcision as "mutilation".

No it isn't; it's merely my desire for accuracy.

Quote:

I have been circumcised, but I have not been mutilated.

Yes you have.

Quote:

One third of the worlds male population has also been circumcised, very few of them consider themselves to have been mutilated either.

What they consider themselves to be isn't really the issue.

Quote:

This is so silly. You make it sound like it's just random pieces being cut off, like there are children losing noses, feet or ears. It's a tiny piece of skin.

This rather cuts both ways. If it really is such a tiny insignificant piece of skin, what is the harm in leaving it alone until the kid is 18 and can decide for himself? How can it be so important to the parents to remove it, given that you've just declared that it doesn't matter?

Quote:

I'll challenge you here the same way I challenged Roykan. Define your terms here, what specific practices are you referring here when you speak of female circumcision?

Any that involve cutting pieces off of female genitalia.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

It's... different. But I'd say closer to the former. Maybe a little bit more sensitive than that.

But the main thing is that it protects the head of the penis, and keeps it moist. The reason it needs protection is because it is very sensitive, and without the protection it becomes less sensitive.

Ask any uncircumcised guy if he'd want to go with the head exposed for an entire day. He wouldn't like that, simply because the head is too sensitive. It would feel extremely uncomfortable.

Let me rephrase the question: If one (gently) rubbed just the head, one could orgasm. If one could rub the underside skin, one could orgasm. If one rbbed the base or the scrotum, one probably woulr not.

If one very carefully rubbed the foreskin, without stimulating the head or the underside, could one orgasm? Also, different sides, or inner or outer surface, if these things vary.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Let me rephrase the question: If one (gently) rubbed just the head, one could orgasm. If one could rub the underside skin, one could orgasm. If one rbbed the base or the scrotum, one probably woulr not.

If one very carefully rubbed the foreskin, without stimulating the head or the underside, could one orgasm? Also, different sides, or inner or outer surface, if these things vary.

Uncircumcised masturbating is actually rubbing the foreskin. But you're rubbing it against the head so that doesn't answer your question.

I'm not sure how you could rub the foreskin without stimulating the head. When retracted, the foreskin sort of blends into the shaft. Though that part is a bit more sensitive than the shaft itself, my best answer would be no. It's not that sensitive, in itself.

The inside of the foreskin is more sensitive than the outside.

ETA: But as said before, the main purpose of the foreskin is to protect the head, because it's so sensitive. That keeps the head more sensitive than with those who are circumcised. How much more I couldn't say, as I've only experienced being uncircumcised. But from just trying to walk around with the head exposed, I would guess quite a bit.

[Rolfe]

I saw some photographs last time this was discussed. The circumcised penis looked very damaged. The head was dry and keratinised and very unnatural-looking.

Rolfe.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Uncircumcised masturbating is actually rubbing the foreskin. But you're rubbing it against the head so that doesn't answer your question.

I'm not sure how you could rub the foreskin without stimulating the head. When retracted, the foreskin sort of blends into the shaft. Though that part is a bit more sensitive than the shaft itself, my best answer would be no. It's not that sensitive, in itself.

The inside of the foreskin is more sensitive than the outside.

ETA: But as said before, the main purpose of the foreskin is to protect the head, because it's so sensitive. That keeps the head more sensitive than with those who are circumcised. How much more I couldn't say, as I've only experienced being uncircumcised. But from just trying to walk around with the head exposed, I would guess quite a bit.

I'm uncut and a couple of times a day the foreskin gets pulled back, exposing the head, and that causes an itchy, irritating feeling. If I'm in public I have to get somewhere private very quickly to adjust it.

[boooeee]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Excellent idea.


Quite a lot possibly according to some studies; from the Frisch, Lindholm and Grřnbćk study (IntJouEpid14JUN2011):


http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=5185

Can you provide a link to this?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Rufo

Death is an extreme on a range of more likely complications. It may be a relatively safe procedure for a form of surgery, but that's not the point. The point is that there is a risk of complications, some of which are severe, which could be completely avoided by not performing the procedure.

As I said previously, many activities that are mostly harmless hold some degree of extreme risk. The example I gave was a man who died from playing video games. Yes, the small amount of risk can be completely avoided by not having the procedure, but the small amount of risk from video games can be completely avoided by not playing them at all, as the not-so-small amount of risk from swimming can be completely avoided by not swimming, etc.

Originally Posted by Rufo

What sort of procedures would you say parents should not be allowed to have arbitrarily performed on their children?

Logically I don't see that my making a list of allowed procedures helps or hurts any argument, so I will decline. If you think it's relevant, you're welcome to make your own list and explain your own reasoning behind it.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by truethat

Rabbis are constantly upgrading laws and reinterpreting the Torah with the Halakhah so stop pretending this is some impossible thing to get around Mycroft.

That may or may not be true, but if we assume it is, it's for them to do on their own, not for revisions to be forced upon them from the outside.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

As I said previously, many activities that are mostly harmless hold some degree of extreme risk. The example I gave was a man who died from playing video games. Yes, the small amount of risk can be completely avoided by not having the procedure, but the small amount of risk from video games can be completely avoided by not playing them at all, as the not-so-small amount of risk from swimming can be completely avoided by not swimming, etc.

If anyone made their infant children play video games without their approval, you would have a point. As is, your analogy fails.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

That may or may not be true, but if we assume it is, it's for them to do on their own, not for revisions to be forced upon them from the outside.

Um no it doesn't quite work that way, the Rabbis don't get to make the law for the rest of the world based on their beliefs. They revise their practices in accordance to medical updates. Unless you think we should still allow herpes to be given to baby boys?

There is no medical reason to perform a circumcision. Justifying it is the same as justifying any other sort of mutilation. Like people forcing their children to wear disks in their lips or foot binding or other cultural traditions that are born of ignorance and made up gods.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by linebreak

That's a great point. I have to think about it.
For the sake of the argument, though, I think there might be a slight flaw in the reasoning.
I don't think you can separate so easily the reasons for doing something, and whether it is [objectively] wrong. In your reasoning, first you decide if it's wrong, and then you look at the reasons behind it. In this specific case, I feel like that doesn't work.

I think important considerations is both how wrong is it as well as is it wrong from everyone's point of view. I personally think high heels are awful and women shouldn't wear them, and that children's dance costumes are often overly sexualized, but many people disagree with me, so I may voice my opinions, but I don't try to force other people to change their behavior.