• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel attacks Council of Europe move to restrict male circumcision

Status
Not open for further replies.
Many men who became circumcised as adults report that sex is less pleasurable than before.


Another good reason to have it done when he is a baby, if that is even true...
 
Another good reason to have it done when he is a baby, if that is even true...

So that they are ignorant that something has been lost, even though it has? Sounds real ethical.
 
I believe it was "restricted", not "outlawed".



I have a better question. Why is the brit milah okay just because it's an "ancient religious tradition"? Imagine a world where circumcision was rarely performed, and only when medically necessary. Now imagine, in the year 2014, a religious group comes along and with the advent of the brit milah, rabbi sucking blood from the genitals and the whole shabang, claiming it was part of their covenant with God. Do you really think most countries would say, "Yep, that makes sense!", and allow it?

How much do we allow in the name of religion? I realize that the U.S. has a fetish for cut cocks which prevents most of its people from seeing this issue clearly, but if you can, try to put it aside. Why does this religious practice get the ok, but if a non-Jew did something like this to a baby they would probably end up in jail for sex crimes and assault?

Why is it ok for one group to do this to a baby's genitals, but not another? Why, in general, do parents get to opt for this elective, unnecessary procedure when the child is at an age where they can't vocalize dissent?

Look, dude, you can equate it to all sorts of crazy crap and say "what if" but details matter to me and they always have. It's a minor thing, like having a baby's ears pierced (which is quite common and cultural where I live). All this, it's the same as having all your teeth and toes pulled out is getting ridiculous. I get that you cannot fathom why anyone has any religious beliefs and that it offends you that people have them. That does not make you right. Your religion may be more about appearances because you're fine with children suffering in the name of something as shallow as "looking better". Your issue here is not concern for the kids, but for sticking it to religion.
 
A washed penis is a clean penis and less likely to give an infection.

What does this have to do with Israel?

I'm not a statist. This is about medical ethics.


I took it as being against Jewish tradition, but look at it as a medical procedure that most Americans, Jewish or not, have done on their male children...
 
Look, dude, you can equate it to all sorts of crazy crap and say "what if" but details matter to me and they always have. It's a minor thing, like having a baby's ears pierced (which is quite common and cultural where I live). All this, it's the same as having all your teeth and toes pulled out is getting ridiculous. I get that you cannot fathom why anyone has any religious beliefs and that it offends you that people have them. That does not make you right. Your religion may be more about appearances because you're fine with children suffering in the name of something as shallow as "looking better". Your issue here is not concern for the kids, but for sticking it to religion.

You are so obtuse it's impossible to really have this debate with you. First of all, children have a right to refuse dental procedures. Second, if they consent, they can have their mouth numbed or be put under, unlike newborn babies. Third, what business does Israel have telling Europe what to do when its laws have zero bearing on Israel's laws? Fourth, Council of Europe is a toothless organization, an as the article said, they encourage public debate - kind of like the one we're having right now. And lastly, if you are against female circumcision it's a worth cause but apparently if you're against male circumcision you're either an anti-semite, a statist, or just value the unclean.

The UN does not support universal circumcision. More than a majority of the world's men are uncircumcised and live just fine. Let's face the facts, that aside from religious koolaid and certain countries like America where cut cocks are fetishized as "normal", this practice is considered deviant.

I would question ANY religious belief that involves forcing an unnecessary medical procedure on an infant. Sorry that critical thinking skills offend you! (No wait, I'm not.)
 
I took it as being against Jewish tradition, but look at it as a medical procedure that most Americans, Jewish or not, have done on their male children...

I happen to be against the brit milah by proxy of being against elective circumcision in general. We would not do this to girls so we should not be doing it to boys either. Bodily sovereignty reigns supreme. I'm only in favor of parents being able to override that if there's a genuine medical need.
 
You are so obtuse it's impossible to really have this debate with you. First of all, children have a right to refuse dental procedures. Second, if they consent, they can have their mouth numbed or be put under, unlike newborn babies. Third, what business does Israel have telling Europe what to do when its laws have zero bearing on Israel's laws? Fourth, Council of Europe is a toothless organization, an as the article said, they encourage public debate - kind of like the one we're having right now. And lastly, if you are against female circumcision it's a worth cause but apparently if you're against male circumcision you're either an anti-semite, a statist, or just value the unclean.

The UN does not support universal circumcision. More than a majority of the world's men are uncircumcised and live just fine. Let's face the facts, that aside from religious koolaid and certain countries like America where cut cocks are fetishized as "normal", this practice is considered deviant.

I would question ANY religious belief that involves forcing an unnecessary medical procedure on an infant. Sorry that critical thinking skills offend you! (No wait, I'm not.)

You're too emotionally invested in your contempt for religion you cannot look at yourself, and your own hypocrisies objectively. To compare male circumcision to female is just sad. Female genital mutilation is done so that women are less likely to feel anything sexual (hence cutting away the clitorus). To compare the two cheapens what FGM really is about. Children cannot give consent or withhold it. A child may not want his cavities drilled but we don't leave things like that up to children. In the US, parents still get to make decisions regarding their children's upbringing. Finally, where do you get the idea that newborns cannot be numbed? I know for a fact they can and are.
 
I happen to be against the brit milah by proxy of being against elective circumcision in general. We would not do this to girls so we should not be doing it to boys either. Bodily sovereignty reigns supreme. I'm only in favor of parents being able to override that if there's a genuine medical need.



Fine, but it really isn't any of your business what other people do, and I don't think that circumcision can be equated with female genital mutilation..
 
I happen to be against the brit milah by proxy of being against elective circumcision in general. We would not do this to girls so we should not be doing it to boys either. Bodily sovereignty reigns supreme. I'm only in favor of parents being able to override that if there's a genuine medical need.

So, what state centers do you think children should be taken to to be raised correctly and without the influences of their stupid parents? Surely circumcision can't be the only thing that offends you. Some parent's may (are you sitting down for this?) take their children to church.
 
You're too emotionally invested in your contempt for religion you cannot look at yourself, and your own hypocrisies objectively. To compare male circumcision to female is just sad. Female genital mutilation is done so that women are less likely to feel anything sexual (hence cutting away the clitorus). To compare the two cheapens what FGM really is about. Children cannot give consent or withhold it. A child may not want his cavities drilled but we don't leave things like that up to children. In the US, parents still get to make decisions regarding their children's upbringing. Finally, where do you get the idea that newborns cannot be numbed? I know for a fact they can and are.

Let me break this down for you. I'm not against religion, and pitching that useless argument is just an attempt to obfuscate. I spent the better part of my life as a member of a Church. We have many laws against bodily harm, from minor to the worst possible, and those laws don't have exceptions no matter what a person's faith is. We should evaluate circumcision based on its merits using secular data, and then form policy based on that. If it's determined that it's unnecessary, then it's universally unnecessary. That is my argument.

We live in the information age, the age of truth. Whatever is truth is truth. We don't make exceptions because of some person's holy book. There are plenty of things from leviticus that are scientifically unsubstantiated, and aren't allowed anymore. Circumcision is just one more of those old world leftovers that people don't want to part with, no matter how much data proves its insignificant effectiveness.

I'm against elective circumcision, not religion. The benefits of circumcision as touted by its supporters are vastly overstated and typically only used to cover up an aesthetic appeal. So let's be honest, because that's what this is about. In the case of Americans, uncut cocks are ugly. They believe their baby boys were born imperfect, so they have the most sensitive flesh on their body sliced into. If it weren't for years upon years of tradition, we would all look at this for the simple unnecessary barbarity that it is..

I'm not the one with an emotional investment here. I've consulted the science, and the medical literature. In the past 50 years we've gone from it being routine, to it being elective, to it being not recommended unless medically necessary. The next step is to simply disallow it.

The comparison to FGM is obvious. You're just biased. Removal of the clitorial hood is anatomically analagous to male circumcision, but it's considered FGM and outlawed. So don't call me a hypocrite. Get your facts straight first.

What do you have against letting boys grow up and decide for themselves?
 
So, what state centers do you think children should be taken to to be raised correctly and without the influences of their stupid parents? Surely circumcision can't be the only thing that offends you. Some parent's may (are you sitting down for this?) take their children to church.

You can try to defame me with this ill-thought-out logic, but all it does it degrade the veracity of your original arguments.

You'd be hard pressed to find another medical procedure that we perform on new borns without their consent that I would be against, along the lines of the same criteria that I am against circumcision.

Keep grasping though. :shrug:
 
Fine, but it really isn't any of your business what other people do, and I don't think that circumcision can be equated with female genital mutilation..

If something is scientifically questionable and perhaps medically unethical, then it's the job of government to investigate and perhaps do legal reform.

Saying that it's not my business isn't really addressing whether or not elective circumcision is warranted. Again, you go for the personal attack without really addressing the core content of this debate. If you can't defend circumcision itself then you have already lost the argument.
 
I took it as being against Jewish tradition, but look at it as a medical procedure that most Americans, Jewish or not, have done on their male children...

The practice is declining as old myths about cleanliness, STDs, etc., have been debunked. This is a Newsweek article which may be of interest: Circumcision Rate in the U.S. Declines as Attitudes Change (1) - Businessweek

Basically, about 55% of male babies are circumcised now, compared with 65% a couple of decades ago.

Personally, I think circumcision is a decision the government should have no part in; that said, I did not allow my own son to be circumcised. Circumcision was not part of his father's family customs, and I was grateful because I do view it as a genital mutilation on an infant, a process that sometimes goes horribly and irrevocably awry. Any unnecessary cutting procedure on a newborn has risks, and I personally would prefer children are allowed to make their own decision once they are grown. Once the decision has been made for them, it cannot be undone.

Yes, I also abhor piercings on infants, although a pinhole in the earlobe will heal, but a foreskin is not going to grow back.

That said, it is also a religious custom, and as such it should never be outlawed by any government because it would infringe on the religious freedoms of its populace. It does seem odd to me, however, that God would carefully fashion a perfectly nice foreskin, then command his followers to lop it off at birth! :lol: People do seem to become rabid on both sides whenever this issues comes up... no pun intended, lol!
 
You can try to defame me with this ill-thought-out logic, but all it does it degrade the veracity of your original arguments.

You'd be hard pressed to find another medical procedure that we perform on new borns without their consent that I would be against, along the lines of the same criteria that I am against circumcision.

Keep grasping though. :shrug:

I'm serious. What other decisions do you want removed from parents?
 
I'm serious. What other decisions do you want removed from parents?

Is this some attempt at a slippery slope argument for something I never even said?

Stop making straw men. There's a lot more that I wrote that is owed the courtesy of a reply.
 
The practice is declining as old myths about cleanliness, STDs, etc., have been debunked. This is a Newsweek article which may be of interest: Circumcision Rate in the U.S. Declines as Attitudes Change (1) - Businessweek

Basically, about 55% of male babies are circumcised now, compared with 65% a couple of decades ago.

Personally, I think circumcision is a decision the government should have no part in; that said, I did not allow my own son to be circumcised. Circumcision was not part of his father's family customs, and I was grateful because I do view it as a genital mutilation on an infant, a process that sometimes goes horribly and irrevocably awry. Any unnecessary cutting procedure on a newborn has risks, and I personally would prefer children are allowed to make their own decision once they are grown. Once the decision has been made for them, it cannot be undone.

Yes, I also abhor piercings on infants, although a pinhole in the earlobe will heal, but a foreskin is not going to grow back.

That said, it is also a religious custom, and as such it should never be outlawed by any government because it would infringe on the religious freedoms of its populace. It does seem odd to me, however, that God would carefully fashion a perfectly nice foreskin, then command his followers to lop it off at birth! :lol: People do seem to become rabid on both sides whenever this issues comes up... no pun intended, lol!

You seem a little less biased, so I'll ask you.

If circumcision is not okay, and is indeed barbaric, then why does religion get a free pass?

Normally I'd be the first to respect people's traditions, but why do they get to trump medical ethics in this case? If it's wrong to cut genitalia then why is it right if religious people do it?

Can someone please answer this without foaming at the mouth about how I hate religion? Cause I don't.
 
You seem a little less biased, so I'll ask you.

If circumcision is not okay, and is indeed barbaric, then why does religion get a free pass?

Normally I'd be the first to respect people's traditions, but why do they get to trump medical ethics in this case? If it's wrong to cut genitalia then why is it right if religious people do it?

Can someone please answer this without foaming at the mouth about how I hate religion? Cause I don't.

Religion gets a free pass because this country was founded on freedom of religion, and I personally wouldn't have it any other way. Government needs to butt out of religious traditions, unless human sacrifice is involved.

Do I personally find certain religious traditions offputting? Sure. But it's really none of my business. I am not a religious person, but I would start quaking in my boots if the liberty of those who are religious came under official government attack... for any reason. I'm sure you can understand why.
 
Religion gets a free pass because this country was founded on freedom of religion, and I personally wouldn't have it any other way. Government needs to butt out of religious traditions, unless human sacrifice is involved.

Do I personally find certain religious traditions offputting? Sure. But it's really none of my business. I am not a religious person, but I would start quaking in my boots if the liberty of those who are religious came under official government attack... for any reason. I'm sure you can understand why.

I completely agree, but we already restrict freedom of religion in some ways. Some events require permits, especially where they put public safety at risk. Certain ceremonial objects, like knives and daggers, can't be worn in government buildings even though those religions say that the adherent must wear them at all times. Many followers come from countries with very strict religious rules about relations between men and women, how women should be treated, etc... i.e. Shariah law, but we don't let men imprison women in their homes.

I hate government statism, I really do... but this is about medical ethics. I don't feel it would be a slippery slope for the government to re-examine the question of circumcision for everyone, if the secular data points to it being unnecessary. Statistically, more boys get botched circumcisions than uncircumcised men get HIV.

Simply touting freedom of religion is not enough to convince me. I'm sorry. I need to hear a better argument.
 
I completely agree, but we already restrict freedom of religion in some ways. Some events require permits, especially where they put public safety at risk. Certain ceremonial objects, like knives and daggers, can't be worn in government buildings even though those religions say that the adherent must wear them at all times. Many followers come from countries with very strict religious rules about relations between men and women, how women should be treated, etc... i.e. Shariah law, but we don't let men imprison women in their homes.

I hate government statism, I really do... but this is about medical ethics. I don't feel it would be a slippery slope for the government to re-examine the question of circumcision for everyone, if the secular data points to it being unnecessary. Statistically, more boys get botched circumcisions than uncircumcised men get HIV.

Simply touting freedom of religion is not enough to convince me. I'm sorry. I need to hear a better argument.

Well, you're not going to hear one from me. :shrug: I don't like circumcising infants any more than you do, but quite frankly it's not the government's business to be telling parents they aren't allowed to have their infant boys circumcised any more than it would be the government's business to force circumcision on every infant boy regardless of the parents' wishes.
 
It doesn't bother you that you were mutilated without your consent?



Perhaps the best way to stop this barbaric practice is by instigating legal action. When doctors understand they can be sued for it then and only then will it stop.
I'm not particularly bothered by it, but I would have every right to be, were I so inclined. Why should parents be able to cut off pieces of their child for no other reason but to appease their god? Would you support this in every situation, or just when it involves you?


So shall we continue to allow the brutal practice of twisting kids teeth over a period of years and maybe even extracting them (I had four permanent teeth pulled by my quack orthodontist) in the name of asthetics? I'm curious what other things you don't think parents should get to decide for children your "free society". What if they teach *gasp* religion? Probably better to remove kids from their parents and let folks like you raise them correctly, amiright?

LOL, they're cutting off pieces of the child for religious reasons. Please, tell me, would you be OK with it if Alpacism was a growing religion that cut off the lower half of children's ears to appease their god? Are there ZERO limits to what a parent can do to a child for you?

Braces are not permanent, cutting off a piece of you is. Now, as I stated in my original post, I'm circumcized like most Americans and it doesn't upset me at all, but we have to recognize that you can't just cut off pieces of kids bodies for no other reason but deity appeasement.
 
There is a bunch of subtle sneaky passive-aggressive suckers in this thread and I'm only on the 4th post. It's kind of fun. :2dancing: I really like it here. I think I will continue to read the rest of the comments. This is probably going to prove to be very entertaining.

Well. You certainly look as though you were enjoying yourself. Have fun.
:2wave:
 
Another good reason to have it done when he is a baby

What NL said in response to this, I couldn't have put better.

if that is even true

True? Did you know that one justification for it in Victorian England was to "cure" masturbation?
 
The practice is declining as old myths about cleanliness, STDs, etc., have been debunked. This is a Newsweek article which may be of interest: Circumcision Rate in the U.S. Declines as Attitudes Change (1) - Businessweek

Basically, about 55% of male babies are circumcised now, compared with 65% a couple of decades ago.
.
Personally, I think circumcision is a decision the government should have no part in; that said, I did not allow my own son to be circumcised. Circumcision was not part of his father's family customs, and I was grateful because I do view it as a genital mutilation on an infant, a process that sometimes goes horribly and irrevocably awry. Any unnecessary cutting procedure on a newborn has risks, and I personally would prefer children are allowed to make their own decision once they are grown. Once the decision has been made for them, it cannot be undone.

Yes, I also abhor piercings on infants, although a pinhole in the earlobe will heal, but a foreskin is not going to grow back.

That said, it is also a religious custom, and as such it should never be outlawed by any government because it would infringe on the religious freedoms of its populace. It does seem odd to me, however, that God would carefully fashion a perfectly nice foreskin, then command his followers to lop it off at birth! :lol: People do seem to become rabid on both sides whenever this issues comes up... no pun intended, lol!



Thanks for the article.. It does say that there is medical evidence that circumcision is beneficial, and I agree with that.. Government should not be involved as it should be a decision left up to the parents.. I doubt that a grown man would bother to put himself through this procedure..Actually I am basing my opinion on personal observation, having one husband who was uncircumcised, and one that was... What can I say..:roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom