Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Once both parties have agreed it, it's binding and cannot be undone.

Is there a signature?

[JenC]

This is because germs and bacteria gather and breed in there, which lead to infections and disease which is usually the case for unclean blokes who don't wash themselves properly. Though I think its barbaric to do it to a baby in the name of religion.

 

Wait though, a woman's vulva is also a constantly warm and moist place, full of nooks and crannies - ideal for bacteria to gather and breed one would assume. As a rule we don't suggest women go cutting off their clitoral hood, labia minora or anything else for reasons of hygiene.

 

Keeping a good standard of personal hygiene is all that is required, no need to go cutting off parts of anyone's genitals, male or female.

[rubydazzler]

I think that that is what he's saying (that uncircumcised men are better in bed and thus harder to leave), whether it has any bearing in reality I don't know, but then the idea that circumcision will reduce sexual desire seems a bit simplistic to me. This sounds like a bunch of poppycock to me

Which contention sounds like poppycock? The first, or the second? And if you don't know whether it has any bearing, you could try asking some women ... I've postulated, all along, that the whole idea of male and female circumcison was to reduce interest in unbridled intercourse, through pain, lack of sensation or discomfort, so I'm quite warm to old Maimonides' theory.

 

I'm puzzled though, why would he think it preferable that a wife would want to separate from her husband? You'd think that someone like him would want couples to stay together? Or was he meaning that she'd notwant to let him out of bed, so that he'd not be able to spare enough time for the all the worshipping that jealous old fella, Yahweh, demanded? Interesting

[sheffielde]

But were they circumcised to appease their God or for medical reasons? As for the 'particular religion' how much do you know about Judaeism?

 

for medical reasons i agree anything else is wrong

[Phanerothyme]

Other than the loss of a body part, I don't know, has there ever been a study into other harm caused by it?

 

You've come this far, and you actually don't know? Your categorisation of it as a "body part" misses the fact that the foreskin is a small part of a much larger organ, a small part that is not essential for anything.

 

Let's assume for the moment it's completely harmless and in many ways beneficial, simply for the sake of argument. I think we can rule out that it is invariably deadly or invariably results in serious consequences, unless you disagree?

 

Should religious families be prevented from having their male children circumcised?

 

I think FGM is for another thread. It's not comparable for obvious reasons.

[Jag82]

And that's also the basis for how English law deals with covenants in deeds, as it happens.

 

The difference being that all contracting entities/parties in English law must actually exist !

[melthebell]

its amazing how many people (who prolly arent even circumcised) have an opinion on this subject (specially against)

[RootsBooster]

You've come this far, and you actually don't know?

No, that;'s why I asked

Your categorisation of it as a "body part" misses the fact that the foreskin is a small part of a much larger organ, a small part that is not essential for anything.

Like your earlobes or toenails.

If it's a part of your body, it's a body part.

 

Let's assume for the moment it's completely harmless and in many ways beneficial, simply for the sake of argument. I think we can rule out that it is invariably deadly or invariably results in serious consequences, unless you disagree?

Obviously, if it's COMPLETELY HARMLESS then you can rule out that it is invariably deadly or invariably results in serious consequences. But it's not, and that's not my argument anyway.

 

Why would anyone assume that it is in MANY ways beneficial? How many can you think of?

 

Should religious families be prevented from having their male children circumcised?

In my opinion they should be prevented from FORCING it upon children. I have no problem with circumcision, as long as the recipient is willing.

 

Do you think they should be allowed to force it upon children?

 

I think FGM is for another thread. It's not comparable for obvious reasons.

Although this is not part of my argument, there are various techniques of FGM, one is very comparible so maybe it should be in this thread. You could say that any health reasons are for another thread as this one is about religious circumcision, where health benefits are never mentioned in any holy books or "covenants"

[RootsBooster]

its amazing how many people (who prolly arent even circumcised) have an opinion on this subject (specially against)

 

I'm not against it, I'm just against ANYTHING being done to ANYONE who's not a willing victim/recipient/participant.

[rubydazzler]

its amazing how many people (who prolly arent even circumcised) have an opinion on this subject (specially against)

lol, you're right, I'm definitely not circumcised ... and as women are being put forward as major 'beneficiaries' of this practice I think I'm entitled to have an opinion. Don't you?