Oh No! It's Another Thread About Circumcision.

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

that would be one theory, perspective and belief.

but then, says who?

because another theory, perspective and belief calls for the circumcision of boys by certain religions and by a certain age.

so which POWER is higher?

and again, we see this is about the state vs religion and not about anything circumcision.

because, technically, a court (or the state) could create mandates which dictate that it is wrong for a parent to impose his/her religion upon a child until that child is of his/her majority and choose it (or not) for himself.

written in a manner which wouldn't require surgery or bodily modification at all.

the court could simply state, for instance, that no CHRISTIAN parent has the right or authority to have their child (let alone an infant) baptized in their religion.

let the kid hit 18 and then decide for him/herself if baptism is "right" for them. After all, too much religion as a child can screw up their attitudes about self, sexuality and the universe for their whole life long (according to some).

but as many Christians believe (adamantly) that their infants need to be baptized as to be free of original sin (especially should they die suddenly in the night by choking on a crib part which was defective because the state overlooked the imports by china), I don't think that sort of state edict would go over any better than does one pertaining to circumcision.

so regardless of physical impact upon the unsuspecting child, we'd find ourselves in the same state vs religion (or freedom to practice one's religion) debate.

You're falling into the trap of believing everything is just opinion and that all opinions are equal. The reason why it is just to deprive parents of the right to surgically alter their children is because it does affect the integrity of the child's body, but not for a medically substantiated reason, and because the child is born with freedom of belief. He may not wish to be surgically altered by some religious opposition to the prepuce.

By allowing him to make up his own mind, his freedom of belief is respected. If we banned adults from choosing to circumcise themselves, that would be an infringment of any number of rights and freedoms, including perhaps religious freedoms. But no one is talking about that.

Bottom line it is more important for a child to die with his freedom of belief in tact than to die without "original sin."

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

And polydactylism is relevant to a discussion on circumcision because....

 

[bort138]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

that would be one theory, perspective and belief.

but then, says who?

because another theory, perspective and belief calls for the circumcision of boys by certain religions and by a certain age.

so which POWER is higher?

and again, we see this is about the state vs religion and not about anything circumcision.

because, technically, a court (or the state) could create mandates which dictate that it is wrong for a parent to impose his/her religion upon a child until that child is of his/her majority and choose it (or not) for himself.

written in a manner which wouldn't require surgery or bodily modification at all.

the court could simply state, for instance, that no CHRISTIAN parent has the right or authority to have their child (let alone an infant) baptized in their religion.

let the kid hit 18 and then decide for him/herself if baptism is "right" for them. After all, too much religion as a child can screw up their attitudes about self, sexuality and the universe for their whole life long (according to some).

but as many Christians believe (adamantly) that their infants need to be baptized as to be free of original sin (especially should they die suddenly in the night by choking on a crib part which was defective because the state overlooked the imports by china), I don't think that sort of state edict would go over any better than does one pertaining to circumcision.

so regardless of physical impact upon the unsuspecting child, we'd find ourselves in the same state vs religion (or freedom to practice one's religion) debate.

Human rights are inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because he or she is a human being. Human rights should not be negotiable. This debate of religious circumcision comes down to the human rights of the child vs the religious rights of the parents. It is the opinion of this court ruling and myself that the human rights of the individual to their body should be valued higher than the religious beliefs of the parents.

Parents do not own their children and their religious scriptures and beliefs do not give them the freedom to do whatever they want to their children. Jews and Muslims can cry religious persecution all they want but in a secular democracy, religious freedom has limits when it is violating the rights of others.

- - - Updated - - -

You brought it up not me.

Being born with foreskin is not a birth defect. Being born with extra fingers or toes is. Removing a birth defect is moral. Removing healthy flesh that all boys are born with is immoral.

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

I wonder how much extra shoes would cost.

I wouldn't care.

 

[fluxflux]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

2. I dated a Filipino back in the 80s. They seem to have come up with a sensible approach to circumcision.
Boys aren't circumcised until they are about 12, when a group of them band together, go to the local doctor, and get circumcised together. It's seen as an important rite of passage, one that signifies the point of time when a boy becomes a man.

A friend of mine is Filipino. His story is a bit different. He didn't want to get circumcised. Most of the boy who got circumcised with him didn't want to either. The reason why he got circumcised is because he didn't want to have to endure the shame of being uncut. He would have been teased at school because of it and he would have had trouble finding a wife.

 

[hungkee]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

You're falling into the trap of believing everything is just opinion and that all opinions are equal. The reason why it is just to deprive parents of the right to surgically alter their children is because it does affect the integrity of the child's body, but not for a medically substantiated reason, and because the child is born with freedom of belief. He may not wish to be surgically altered by some religious opposition to the prepuce.

By allowing him to make up his own mind, his freedom of belief is respected. If we banned adults from choosing to circumcise themselves, that would be an infringment of any number of rights and freedoms, including perhaps religious freedoms. But no one is talking about that.

Bottom line it is more important for a child to die with his freedom of belief in tact than to die without "original sin."

Jews don't circumcise their sons just for effect. It is a dictate of GOD in Genesis. Just as He dictated that thou shalt live by the Ten Commandments and all (the morality of which often ironically serves as the basis of human rights arguments and governments in the West).

IF and when a person regards him or herself as more than just a citizen or a corporal body inhabiting a state, but acknowledges the spiritual and even mystical qualities with which we're (perhaps) endowed, then things become more complicated.

The circumcision isn't all about the penis. Its about heeding God's word.

A Roman Catholic family believes it is a necessity and responsibility - to God and to their children - to baptize their infants.

And those practices last a lifetime. In fact, once baptized, you don't quite go back without perhaps a full renunciation of the Sacrament. But even then, you've had original sin wiped out and as an adult are only now a common heathen and sinner by denouncing one's childhood baptism.

Oh, many religions have it all worked out.


But while you argue that every adult will resent and hate their parents for the religious stuff they did when they were children, you fall into the trap that such is the thinking of most people as they reach their majority.

In Cologne, for instance, there will be just as many conversations in 18 years in which the sons will be asking, "Why didn't you have me circumcised as a kid?" "Why didn't you fight this, mom and dad? I've been a bad Jew all my childhood!" "How come you fuckin' continued to live in Cologne, Germany when you knew that it meant ignoring God's word!?"

Most of the world population identifies with some religion or another. Not everyone is so secular in their thinking. And most aren't atheist or Humanist in their thinking, either.

So its sort of high handed of a state or secular court to think that their opinion is the last word on things which affect people on quite different levels than merely being a citizen of the state.

Because without imposition of cruel penalty revealing a state's true intent to squash or inhibit religious freedom, they're on the losing side in the long run.

Because to most people around the world, GOD is still simply way bigger than is any judge banging his gavel.

 

[bort138]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Jews don't circumcise their sons just for effect. It is a dictate of GOD in Genesis. Just as He dictated that thou shalt live by the Ten Commandments and all (the morally of which often ironically serve as the basis of human rights arguments and governments in the West).

IF and when a person regards him or herself as more than just a citizen or a corporal body inhabiting a state, but acknowledges the spiritual and even mystical qualities with which we're (perhaps) endowed, then things become more complicated.

The circumcision isn't all about the penis. Its about heeding God's word.

A Roman Catholic family believes it is a necessity and responsibility - to God and to their children - to baptize their infants.

And those practices last a lifetime. In fact, once baptized, you don't quite go back without perhaps a full renunciation of the Sacrament. But even then, you've had original sin whipped out and as an adult are only now a common heathen and sinner by denouncing one's childhood baptism.

Oh, many religions have it all worked out.


But while you argue that every adult will resent and hate their parents for the religious stuff they did when they were children, you fall into the trap that such is the thinking of most people as they reach their majority.

Most of the world population identifies with some religion or another. Not everyone is so secular in their thinking. And most aren't atheist or Humanist in their thinking, either.

So its sort of high handed of a state or secular court to think that their opinion is the last word on things which affect people on quite different levels than merely being a citizen of the state.

Because without imposition of cruel penalty revealing a state's true intent to squash or inhibit religious freedom, they're on the losing side in the long run.

Because to most people around the world, GOD is still simply way bigger than is any judge banging his gavel.

Religious freedom has limits in a secular democracy. Deal with it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

You brought it up not me.

Being born with foreskin is not a birth defect. Being born with extra fingers or toes is. Removing a birth defect is moral. Removing healthy flesh that all boys are born with is immoral.

The reason why it is just to deprive parents of the right to surgically alter their children is because it does affect the integrity of the child's body, but not for a medically substantiated reason, and because the child is born with freedom of belief. He may not wish to be surgically altered by some religious opposition to the prepuce.

By allowing him to make up his own mind, his freedom of belief is respected. If we banned adults from choosing to circumcise themselves, that would be an infringment of any number of rights and freedoms, including perhaps religious freedoms. But no one is talking about that.

Get it yet?

 

[hungkee]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Religious freedom has limits in a secular democracy. Deal with it.

rites of baptism and circumcision don't actually a theocracy make either, though.

 

[bort138]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

rites of baptism and circumcision don't actually a theocracy make either, though.

Would you be okay living in a society where circumcision for medical reasons is abolished and circumcision is allowed only for religious reasons?

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

rites of baptism and circumcision don't actually a theocracy make either, though.

I agree with you about rites of baptism. But removing part of the baby does indeed amount to a theocratic impulse if the state puts up with it in any way.

In all likelihood the 18 year olds will be grateful to be raised in Cologne. It will be a rare 18 year old indeed (though I did know a few exiting high school) who says "Why didn't you raise me in a theocracy compliant with (God of choice X)'s will instead of the heathen earthly realm.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Would you be okay living in a society where circumcision for medical reasons is abolished and circumcision is allowed only for religious reasons?

No. The government has no business telling the doctors their jobs.

 

[fluxflux]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

I am cut. In Australia, most guys my age are uncut. I didn't have any idea what the difference between cut and uncut was until I became sexually active. It is obvious to me that my cut cock isn't as sensitive as uncut cocks. The skin on my cock isn't loose like an uncut cock. If I don't use some kind of lube when I jack off or get a hand job, it can be uncomfortable. If a guy sucks on the glans of my cock, I don't enjoy it nearly as much a uncut guys do. From a pleasure point of view, uncut guys have it so much better than cut.

I have had plenty of guys tell me that I have a great cock, but I also have been rejected because i am cut. I don't spend my days wishing I wasn't circumcised, but every time I have a sexual encounter that doesn't go so well because my partner is inexperienced with cut guys, I can see the definite benefit of being uncut.

I don't see the point in removing a piece of skin so that you don't have to clean under it. That reasoning is absurd. We don't cut our ears off so that we don't have to clean behind them.

I also find it bizarre that we live in a world when having a preference for a penis that isn't surgically altered is considered a fetish.

 

[bort138]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

I am cut. In Australia, most guys my age are uncut. I didn't have any idea what the difference between cut and uncut was until I became sexually active. It is obvious to me that my cut cock isn't as sensitive as uncut cocks. The skin on my cock isn't loose like an uncut cock. If I don't use some kind of lube when I jack off or get a hand job, it can be uncomfortable. If a guy sucks on the glans of my cock, I don't enjoy it nearly as much a uncut guys do. From a pleasure point of view, uncut guys have it so much better than cut.

I have had plenty of guys tell me that I have a great cock, but I also have been rejected because i am cut. I don't spend my days wishing I wasn't circumcised, but every time I have a sexual encounter that doesn't go so well because my partner is inexperienced with cut guys, I can see the definite benefit of being uncut.

I don't see the point in removing a piece of skin so that you don't have to clean under it. That reasoning is absurd. We don't cut our ears off so that we don't have to clean behind them.

I also find it bizarre that we live in a world when having a preference for a penis that isn't surgically altered is considered a fetish.

America appears to be the exact opposite of Australia.

 

[Corny]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Are there edicts though in Cologne (or most anywhere really) which require parents to practice or not practice certain things which affect or impact their children either positively or negatively?

[...]

I'll spare us the rest of the quote, because it's all based on two wrong assumptions.

1. This ruling is valid everywhere in Germany not just in the city of cologne.
2. This not about anyone deciding whether being cut or uncut is better for the child. The ruling is about the parents making doctors performing an medically unnecessary surgery on an infant.


@Kuli: extra toes DO cause certain problems in later life and thus it is a medical procedure to remove them.


And some extra food for thought. Jehova's witness consider the blood to be holy. They do not accept blood transfusions because of that. So if one of their kids is about to die because he needs a blood transfusion (or a surgery where a blood transfusion is necessay) - they'd rather let the kid die.

So ... do you support their religious right to let their kids die?

How is the law on that in your countries?

 

[Telstra]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

I am cut. In Australia, most guys my age are uncut. I didn't have any idea what the difference between cut and uncut was until I became sexually active. It is obvious to me that my cut cock isn't as sensitive as uncut cocks. The skin on my cock isn't loose like an uncut cock. If I don't use some kind of lube when I jack off or get a hand job, it can be uncomfortable. If a guy sucks on the glans of my cock, I don't enjoy it nearly as much a uncut guys do. From a pleasure point of view, uncut guys have it so much better than cut.

I have had plenty of guys tell me that I have a great cock, but I also have been rejected because i am cut. I don't spend my days wishing I wasn't circumcised, but every time I have a sexual encounter that doesn't go so well because my partner is inexperienced with cut guys, I can see the definite benefit of being uncut.

I don't see the point in removing a piece of skin so that you don't have to clean under it. That reasoning is absurd. We don't cut our ears off so that we don't have to clean behind them.

I also find it bizarre that we live in a world when having a preference for a penis that isn't surgically altered is considered a fetish.

Because cut cock is not as sensitive,
the cut guys can be very rough on the uncut cocks ?

 

[hungkee]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Would you be okay living in a society where circumcision for medical reasons is abolished and circumcision is allowed only for religious reasons?

Abolished? As in illegal always - regardless as to whether a guy of age wants it or not (ala abortion in some countries)?

Or do you solely mean abolished for minors until they might reach their majority and choose to undergo circumcision willing?

(Each case, though, unrelated to anything religious).

In that case, I would be opposed to a state edict outlawing all circumcision even in cases when men may want one.

But I would not be opposed to laws disallowing circumcision of minors except in the case of religious practice.

I'm not wielding a penile scalpel, you know.

But now we would be debating the medical merits (or liabilities) of circumcision vs circumcision as it relates to religious practice.

Its a religious tradition and practice for certain groups. Its not being driven by medical reasons for them. So the best way IN MY OPINION to change things would be for a religious group internally to come to some compromise or conclusion regarding these things.

If rabbinical experts determined, for instance, that there is a proper and acceptable way to change the command to have boys circumcised by eight days of age to, say, the age of 18, then let them figure that out from within.

If the Vatican can qualify properly that a baptism of an infant born into a Roman Catholic household need not be baptized but can wait until he or she reaches majority and chooses to take the Sacrament for him/herself, then so be it.

These would be issues best left for the religious bodies to sort out and maybe come up with loopholes - as to please the state.

Problem is...these are generally very strict, traditional religions full of rich, ancient traditions and practices many of which are determined by the Word of God.

At least such is so according to their beliefs.

So they aren't really too worried about manipulating God's authority in order to please a secular state.

Remember the catacombs?

There will be ways around any state edict or clamp down on what is perceived to be infringement upon religious freedom.

And yes. People, perhaps especially in America, remember the Puritans. They hit our shores and made an indelible impression on American freedom as they were an example of persecuted people who fled in pursuit of religious freedom.

In that sense, Americans might have a slightly different perspective than some countries from which those Puritans were chased out (or tossed into ghettos or subject to genocide).

Its a slippery slope which slides into persecution real quick if one isn't vigilant.

 

[hungkee]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

I'll spare us the rest of the quote, because it's all based on two wrong assumptions.

1. This ruling is valid everywhere in Germany not just in the city of cologne.
2. This not about anyone deciding whether being cut or uncut is better for the child. The ruling is about the parents making doctors performing an medically unnecessary surgery on an infant.




And some extra food for thought. Jehova's witness consider the blood to be holy. They do not accept blood transfusions because of that. So if one of their kids is about to die because he needs a blood transfusion (or a surgery where a blood transfusion is necessay) - they'd rather let the kid die.

So ... do you support their religious right to let their kids die?

How is the law on that in your countries?

Point one: it was stated early on in the thread that it affects all of Germany. That was later changed or "clarified" that it is only a Cologne court's ruling and needs to pass as to become general German law.

Point 2: I don't think that a Jewish mohel is forced to perform circumcision. That's his job. And if one wants one done in a hospital setting, one could find a surgeon (Jewish or not) to perform it - if there were not moves to make it illegal.

In that sense, its oddly relevant to any debate about abortion. Yet the ACLU and many human rights organizations and purely science-driven and secularist would defend a woman's right to getting an abortion.

Which is an operation.

Which is invasive.

And which has its risks.

And which is, many would say, medically unnecessary.

And also which, according to many people, is the murder of a fetus.

I mean, at least a circumcision isn't killing anything other than some cocksucker's appetite maybe.

And we'll all have to agree that progressive, liberal, secular-based courts and governments will stridently fight for abortion or to make it legal and available - even to minor girls who might find themselves knocked up after a gymnastic afternoon under the bleachers with the soccer team.

So how do liberal, progressives (even non-religious to anti-religious) types rectify their potential support of medically-unnecessary and potentially dangerous abortion surgeries with what are millenium-old religious practices (or "surgeries") dictated by GOD (of all people).

To remain logical and non hypocritical, those who would oppose circumcision really ought to also naturally be oppositionists to abortion, as well.

Especially if their argument is sans any religious bigotry and is instead truly only all about medically unnecessary procedures which can put someone in harms way and cause them to regret it ever being done in the first place.

 

[Corny]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Point one: it was stated early on in the thread that it affects all of Germany. That was later changed or "clarified" that it is only a Cologne court's ruling and needs to pass as to become general German law.

It is a court ruling that is binding for all future decisions until it is pulled. It's not the law, but it is an interpretation of the law. So if anybody sues, he will win.

Point 2: I don't think that a Jewish mohel is forced to perform circumcision. That's his job. And if one wants one done in a hospital setting, one could find a surgeon (Jewish or not) to perform it - if there were not moves to make it illegal.

So? That's totally not the point. No matter what your "job" is, even as a doctor, you may not mutilate a child because his parents ask you to do so.

Also your point about abortion is invalid, since this debate breaks down to the definition of "life". And a child is - by any definition - "life". So keep it on topic and ditch the strawman arguments.

 

[hungkee]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

It is a court ruling that is binding for all future decisions until it is pulled. It's not the law, but it is an interpretation of the law. So if anybody sues, he will win.


So? That's totally not the point. No matter what your "job" is, even as a doctor, you may not mutilate a child because his parents ask you to do so.

Also your point about abortion is invalid, since this debate breaks down to the definition of "life". And a child is - by any definition - "life". So keep it on topic and ditch the strawman arguments.

The abortion correlation is not "a strawman argument". Its valid and hits all the points which "anti-circumcisionists" would typically use as reasons to give merit to their argument.

Abortion as it pertains to this debate isn't only about the end effect (the killing or "removal" of a fetus). It is about a medically unnecessary procedure performed which runs risks, requires surgery and is something many liberal, secular courts would defend as being a civil and human right. And it could be performed on a minor - with a parents consent (and perhaps in some places even without that consent).

You would consider circumcision to be mutilation because you personally don't care for it. The entire world does not necessarily see it as parents choosing to mutilate their sons. It doesn't actually "mutilate" the penis. And its not typically viewed as a mutilation amongst the billion or so males who have been circumcised. Currently, between Jews, Muslims and hygiene-bent "others" there are at least a billion males on earth who are circumcised.

Now, I understand the stalemate here at JustUsBoys on the topic because some guys have their minds previously made up on the topic.

But when looking, they all avoid the logical connection to thoughts on legalized abortion, a real need for religious freedom, historic custom & tradition and the fact that many people don't view circumcision as mutilation.

Why, just look around at JustUsBoys and the world of gay porn. The circumcised penis is everywhere. And it is something to which tens of thousands of men masturbate.

So the issue is far more complicated and its reasons run deeper than simple preference or thinking one (intact vs cut) is "better". They each have their merits and their problems.

But again, this isn't really only about the procedure but about the freedom of religious practice. And that isn't always ruled by what some guys may think makes for a juicier penis.