Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[quisquose]

I'm male and not circumsised, but I don't recall too many men who were circumsised, be they Muslim or Jewish or anything else, complaining about it.

 

that should immeadiately tell you something and should also bring into focus just what the fuss is about. If nobody is complaining, then just why is it an issue?

Many victims of abuse, even those that can remember it, rationalise it in some way. Stockholm Syndrome comes to mind. It could explain why cut men choose to cut their sons, and cut women choose to cut their daughters, as a way of rationalising it.

 

That said, how many would need to complain about it to make you change your mind. I know of one person with regrets, and I think one is one too many, but there are numerous websites with numerous testimonies from people who do complain. Even if you trivialise the trauma that the child goes through merely because it is lost in memory, then the fact that some people do complain about this irreversible procedure is enough since it is always available to any man that chooses to have it done.

[RootsBooster]

you won't find hardly anybody, that says, like the ladies, oh thanks for the campaign, i hope it helps others, because it messed up my life.

 

Of course you do, there's many people out there campaigning against it! Both victims and also people still intact.

[quisquose]

male circumsion isn't anything like female circucumsion.

 

you won't find hardly anybody, that says, like the ladies, oh thanks for the campaign, i hope it helps others, because it messed up my life.

 

it's political correctness gone wrong. Almost all men that have been circumsised, aren't complaining about it. By contrast, almost all women that have been circumsised are.

 

Imagine that that you live in a culture where the majority of girls have labiaplasty surgery at the request of their parents. Imagine that this practice was a tradition done for thousands of years, and was seen as normal. Imagine that it is done in a medical setting with sharp knives and anaesthetics.

 

It is likely that most women would not complain about their labiaplasty, in fact they would probably claim they preferred the appearance, improved their sex lives, and have health benefits, such is the power of self delusion. It's just a "bit of skin" after all.

 

I am sure that in this scenario people like you would think it was political correctness gone wrong if people campaigned to have this unnecessary practice stopped.

 

Now imagine in this scenario that immigrants enter from a variety of cultures and practice MGC. The practice is done in a more primitive manner, in a religious setting, with no anaesthetics. The boys are often dragged kicking and screaming, held down, and then have their genitals cut in a variety of ways, from removal of the foreskin in the majority of cases, to cutting of the whole length of the penis from foreskin down through the shaft, opening up the urethra in a minority of cases.

 

I am sure that in this scenario people like you would say that male circumcision isn't anything like female circumcision, just as you do now.

 

I don't allow cognitive dissonance to affect my thinking, I don't make allowances for the particular scenario I am in, I don't accept the validity of cultural relativism ... the hacking off of bits of other people's genitals without their permission is just plain wrong.

[bigjoker]

In Norway, Jenny Klinge of the Centre Party has called for a ban on this barbaric and unnecessary mutilation of male babies.

 

Is anyone willing to condone the practice?

 

All i can say is, it's a real snip:hihi:

[poppet2]

The bit in Genesis is the covenant, an agreement, not a law.

 

The bit in Leviticus is invented by men. This makes it worthless, according to Jeffrey. I'll wait for his own answer to the question.

 

When you find what you are looking for in the scriptures, what will your reaction be then? Will you declare that God is man-made, making all such laws irrelevant, or will you state that you don't believe in a God anyway? In either case it seems pointless asking for scriptural evidence.

[quisquose]

When you find what you are looking for in the scriptures, what will your reaction be then?

 

Anybody can find whatever they want in the scriptures.

 

Will you declare that God is man-made, making all such laws irrelevant, or will you state that you don't believe in a God anyway? In either case it seems pointless asking for scriptural evidence.

 

Law is man-made, a covenant between all of us, so RootsBooster is asking for evidence that there is such a law that makes it obligatory to slice bits off children's genitals.

 

Merely pointing at scripture is useless, and dangerous, because it could excuse all sorts of nonsense.

 

Actually, I'm quite spooked at the thought that somebody working in the legal profession in the UK can consider scripture and law to be equivalent.

[RootsBooster]

Seeing as Jeffrey's main (only?) argument is "it's Jewish law!", I think it's worth mentioning another Jewish law...

 

 

 

Deuteronomy 23:1

'One wounded, bruised, or cut in the member doth not enter into the assembly of Jehovah'

 

...damned if you do, damned if you don't!

[Aleksandr]

Circumcisions should be axed!

[RootsBooster]

When you find what you are looking for in the scriptures, what will your reaction be then? Will you declare that God is man-made, making all such laws irrelevant, or will you state that you don't believe in a God anyway? In either case it seems pointless asking for scriptural evidence.

 

Jeffrey said that the law of the land and human rights are irrelevant as they are man-made. That's his reason, that they are man-made. If the Jewish law he is talking about (which he is yet to quote for us) is also man made, then that law is also irrelevant.

If you'd like to discuss God's part in this, we can do.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Circumcisions should be axed!

 

....Bolleaux!