Circumcision in Christianity

Tim Robbins

Hello,
St Paul said you don't have to be circumcised to be a Christian.
Are there any Christian churches that for some bizarre reason encourage circumcision?

Regards

martinedwards

haven't heard of any, but I do know one guy who chose to get the op on a personal level.

georgieporgy

I think it was recommended for hygenic reasons back in the dark ages (1950 Ireland). My big brother had it done but I escaped :eek:

Peregrinus

According to Wikipedia, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church encourages it, and in some Coptic Churches it is practised as a rite of passage.

This may be cultural rather than religious, since the members of these churches also tend to be members of a homogenous ethnic/cultural group. To the extent that it's religious, the usual consideration offered is that Jesus was circumcised, and it is fitting - though not necessary - to be circumcised as a sign of union with Jesus.

Tim Robbins

Peregrinus wrote: »

According to Wikipedia, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church encourages it, and in some Coptic Churches it is practised as a rite of passage.

This may be cultural rather than religious, since the members of these churches also tend to be members of a homogenous ethnic/cultural group. To the extent that it's religious, the usual consideration offered is that Jesus was circumcised, and it is fitting - though not necessary - to be circumcised as a sign of union with Jesus.

Why is it fitting? Isn't there something else in the OT which states to beat your children if the gather sticks on Sunday?

sbsquarepants

Peregrinus wrote: »

This may be cultural rather than religious, since the members of these churches also tend to be members of a homogenous ethnic/cultural group. To the extent that it's religious, the usual consideration offered is that Jesus was circumcised, and it is fitting - though not necessary - to be circumcised as a sign of union with Jesus.

He was also crucified - you also shouldn't be doing that your kids for no good reason other than solidarity!

Peregrinus

Well, I'm not sure that circumcision is appropriately compared with beating your children or crucifixion. Millions of people have their children circumcised for reasons which are not remotely religious - they do it for cosmetic reasons, or they hope for medical benefits. I did not have my own son circumcised, but I don't see it as a bizarre or abusive choice. Neither, presumably, do those Christians whose motivations for circumcision are, or include, religious motivations.

Tim Robbins

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I'm not sure that circumcision is appropriately compared with beating your children or crucifixion. Millions of people have their children circumcised for reasons which are not remotely religious - they do it for cosmetic reasons, or they hope for medical benefits. I did not have my own son circumcised, but I don't see it as a bizarre or abusive choice. Neither, presumably, do those Christians whose motivations for circumcision are, or include, religious motivations.

I think it is an abuse of a child to perform surgery on their body purely for the religious reasons of the parent and is something that should just be illegal.

sbsquarepants

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I'm not sure that circumcision is appropriately compared with beating your children or crucifixion. Millions of people have their children circumcised for reasons which are not remotely religious - they do it for cosmetic reasons, or they hope for medical benefits. I did not have my own son circumcised, but I don't see it as a bizarre or abusive choice. Neither, presumably, do those Christians whose motivations for circumcision are, or include, religious motivations.

Ok, i'll give you that, it's not on a par with crucifixion!:D
But that doesn't make it right either - I disagree with you, in that i do see it as both bizarre and abusive. Cutting off a part of your childs body, unless medically warranted is just wrong. There are plenty of cultures who horrifically mutilate the genitals of their females and more and more it is being viewed, quite rightly imo, as barbaric. Whereas circumsision may have less serious repercussions than FGM, it is still the needless mutilation of a child.
If it's needed medically for whatever reason, then that's different - but for religious or cultural reasons - no, get a different religion and a less barbaric culture.
Those who do it for hygiene reasons are just as mental. SOAP people, SOAP not scissors!!

Reminds me of a quote i read on the internet: Religion is like circumcission - wait untill the kid is 18 and they most likely won't be interested!

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think it is an abuse of a child to perform surgery on their body purely for the religious reasons of the parent and is something that should just be illegal.

Its not an abuse of a child to perform a circumcision, unless the motive is to simply inflict pain on the child. I think, probably due to your disdain for religion, you are overstating it.

Benny_Cake

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think it is an abuse of a child to perform surgery on their body purely for the religious reasons of the parent and is something that should just be illegal.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If it's needed medically for whatever reason, then that's different - but for religious or cultural reasons - no, get a different religion and a less barbaric culture.
Those who do it for hygiene reasons are just as mental. SOAP people, SOAP not scissors!!

Reminds me of a quote i read on the internet: Religion is like circumcission - wait untill the kid is 18 and they most likely won't be interested!

I'd doubt if it's something that's too high on the radar of most of the posters here as Christianity does not require circumcision (unless there are any members of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church here).

There are any number of reasons why boys are circumcised - in America it's largely for purely secular reasons. In Africa it's seen as a rite of passage for teenage boys and is also being encouraged in some countries as it may reduce the risk of transmission of HIV. If you disagree with circumcision on religious grounds, you're entitled to your opinion but you'd get a better debate with someone who is a member of a religion which requires it.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Its not an abuse of a child to perform a circumcision, unless the motive is to simply inflict pain on the child. I think, probably due to your disdain for religion, you are overstating it.

Do you think if FGM is performed on religious ground on a child that is not an abuse of a child either then?

The Goal of the 21st Century should be to put manners on the remnants of religion.

Benny_Cake

Tim Robbins banned for a week because of repeated trolling.

sbsquarepants

Benny_Cake wrote: »

If you disagree with circumcision on religious grounds, you're entitled to your opinion but you'd get a better debate with someone who is a member of a religion which requires it.

Apologies Benny.
I wasn't trying to wind anybody up, i was just stating my opinion. And for the record, I don't disagree with circumcission for religious reasons, I disagree with the circumsission of others for religious reasons.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Its not an abuse of a child to perform a circumcision, unless the motive is to simply inflict pain on the child. I think, probably due to your disdain for religion, you are overstating it.

Shouldn't that be the other way around, it is abuse unless you have a legitimate medical reason.

I certainly wouldn't have been happy if my parents had performed permanent surgery on my simply because they wanted to, without any medical reason.

Peregrinus

Disclosure 1: I was circumcised in infancy, for cultural but not religious reasons, as were all my brothers. I'm not bothered by it. None of my partners have ever been bothered by it, to my knowledge. My brothers' experience is the same.

Discolosure 2: I did not have my own son circumcised. Nor have any of my brothers had their sons circumcised.

As Benny points out, within Christianity, circumcision for religions reasons is a pretty marginal issue. In the western world, the great bulk of circumcisions are carried out for reasons which are not religious, and are only vaguely medical; they're cosmetic/cultural.

This tends to be eclipsed in the context of atheist/theist discussion, which often proceeds as if circumcision were either (a) medically justified or (b) carried out for religious reasons, and any residual category is trivial. In fact the residual category, circumcisions which are neither medically nor religiously required, is probably the most signficant one.

zenno

It never ceases to amaze me the insane-ness of human beings mutilating themselves or others, quite insane if you ask me.

The human body is born with what it has for a reason so why go and cut parts of yourself off ? nuts imo.

Gumbi

zenno wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me the insane-ness of human beings mutilating themselves or others, quite insane if you ask me.

The human body is born with what it has for a reason so why go and cut parts of yourself off ? nuts imo.

Not necessarily. Evolution has left us with a tonne of various redundant crap. There isn't a good reason for everything in our body.

zenno

Gumbi wrote: »

Not necessarily. Evolution has left us with a tonne of various redundant crap. There isn't a good reason for everything in our body.

It doesn't mean you have to go and cut or take out said redundant crap. It's there for a reason.

If people want to mutilate themselves then by all means go ahead, once it doesn't affect me i'm happy. There's a lot of nuts out there that's for sure.

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

Shouldn't that be the other way around, it is abuse unless you have a legitimate medical reason.

I certainly wouldn't have been happy if my parents had performed permanent surgery on my simply because they wanted to, without any medical reason.

The issue is you describing a religious conviction as 'just wanting to'. I'm sure if you talked to a Jewish person, they wont describe it as such. Calling it permanent surgery does give your point more umph, but in reality its the fairly unshocking act of circumcision. I think you simply need to be tolerant of peoples religious convictions and tbh, I find it rather distasteful that it is being implied that Jews etc are some kind of child abusers. Its certainly not something I desire, or require as a Christian, but I certainly have no desire to paint it as child abuse. In fact, I think these regular Orwellian twists from Atheists are quite disturbing. There seems to be a real desire from you to shout 'child abuse'. Not only do I think its a rather disgusting habit you are forming, but I believe it makes it a rather trivial thing, undermining actual child abuse. If my advice is worth anything, I'd start reeling yourself in.

Gumbi

JimiTime wrote: »

The issue is you describing a religious conviction as 'just wanting to'. I'm sure if you talked to a Jewish person, they wont describe it as such. Calling it permanent surgery does give your point more umph, but in reality its the fairly unshocking act of circumcision. I think you simply need to be tolerant of peoples religious convictions and tbh, I find it rather distasteful that it is being implied that Jews etc are some kind of child abusers. Its certainly not something I desire, or require as a Christian, but I certainly have no desire to paint it as child abuse. In fact, I think these regular Orwellian twists from Atheists are quite disturbing. There seems to be a real desire from you to shout 'child abuse'. Not only do I think its a rather disgusting habit you are forming, but I believe it makes it a rather trivial thing, undermining actual child abuse. If my advice is worth anything, I'd start reeling yourself in.

Tolerance? Does the child get a say in this?

JimiTime

Gumbi wrote: »

Tolerance? Does the child get a say in this?

Like I said, Orwellian.

jackofalltrades

JimiTime wrote: »

I think you simply need to be tolerant of peoples religious convictions and tbh,

Tolerance works both ways, practising your faith should not entail unnecessarily removing body parts from helpless infants. It's an abuse of your power as a parent to submit your child to these kind of activities. Wait till they grow up. They can then can make the decision themselves after weighing up the risks involved.

JimiTime

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Tolerance works both ways, practising your faith should not entail unnecessarily removing body parts from helpless infants. It's an abuse of your power as a parent to submit your child to these kind of activities. Wait till they grow up. They can then can make the decision themselves after weighing up the risks involved.

Tolerance works both ways? That makes no sense in the context Parents are the carers of their children, circumcision is no big deal, and its important in Jewish families, thus it should be tolerated without people being accused of child abuse. This is absolutely nothing to do with concern for children, and ALL about intolerance of religion. You can package it up any way you like, but thats exactly what this is. As I said, its Orwellian. Intolerance, dressed as concern. You, as a non Jew believe a circumcision should only be performed if medically deemed necessary, because you see that as important. You do not tolerate that a a persons religion is important enough for it to be performed.

Gumbi

JimiTime wrote: »

Tolerance works both ways? That makes no sense in the context Parents are the carers of their children, circumcision is no big deal, and its important in Jewish families, thus it should be tolerated without people being accused of child abuse. This is absolutely nothing to do with concern for children, and ALL about intolerance of religion. You can package it up any way you like, but thats exactly what this is. As I said, its Orwellian. Intolerance, dressed as concern. You, as a non Jew believe a circumcision should only be performed if medically deemed necessary, because you see that as important. You do not tolerate that a a persons religion is important enough for it to be performed.

Intolerance of religion? Not at all. It is intolerance of needless mutilation (cirvumsion is indeed mutilation) of a child.

jackofalltrades

JimiTime wrote: »

circumcision is no big deal

Infants die from circumcisions, there are also a whole other range of complications including having to remove the penis in some cases. In later life circumcised men also have a greater risk of pre-mature ejaculation, impotence and decrease sexual sensation. This is a big deal.

This is absolutely nothing to do with concern for children, and ALL about intolerance of religion.

Parents should not be allowed remove parts of their children bodies for anything other than medical reasons. When the child becomes an adult and can make the decision for themselves then they're more than welcome to opt for a circumcision. It's complete nonsense trying to spin this as religious intolerance.

JimiTime

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It's complete nonsense trying to spin this as religious intolerance.

Its not at all. It is completely about religious intolerance. You couldn't give two sh1ts about kids who get circumcised, you just like to say you do. If its child abuse, go start picketing synagogues about this outrage. If not, STFU and stop pretending you care about these kids.

JimiTime

Gumbi wrote: »

Intolerance of religion? Not at all. It is intolerance of needless mutilation (cirvumsion is indeed mutilation) of a child.

Needless? Says who? According to the Jewish faith, it is an important ritual. The intolerance, is that you don't believe religion is important to you, and thus should not be important to anyone. Due to your worldview of it all being nonsense, you want to impose your standards on others. This is ALL about intolerance. Of course, people don't generally like to think themselves intolerant, but rather believe they arrive at their opinions in much more reasonable and righteous ways. Well you heard it here first, you are being intolerant. Jewish boys get circumcised. You don't have to do it, but Jewish people do. Your worldview dictates it only be done in medical circumstances, theirs don't. Build a bridge, and realise that people exist that have traditions that are very important to them, that you don't see importance in. We generally call for tolerance of such things unless they overstep the mark. Circumcision is a fairly basic procedure that has been around for millenia. By all means call for the safest and responsible way for it to be carried out, but don't start this child abuse cr@p. Like I said previously, if you truly think its child abuse, go picket some synagogues. But no, its a faux concern, born out by an armchair moralist with an intolerance of religion and no notion of anything outside his worldview.

Gumbi

JimiTime wrote: »

Needless? Says who? According to the Jewish faith, it is an important ritual. The intolerance, is that you don't believe religion is important to you, and thus should not be important to anyone. Due to your worldview of it all being nonsense, you want to impose your standards on others. This is ALL about intolerance. Of course, people don't generally like to think themselves intolerant, but rather believe they arrive at their opinions in much more reasonable and righteous ways. Well you heard it here first, you are being intolerant. Jewish boys get circumcised. You don't have to do it, but Jewish people do. Your worldview dictates it only be done in medical circumstances, theirs don't. Build a bridge, and realise that people exist that have traditions that are very important to them, that you don't see importance in. We generally call for tolerance of such things unless they overstep the mark. Circumcision is a fairly basic procedure that has been around for millenia. By all means call for the safest and responsible way for it to be carried out, but don't start this child abuse cr@p. Like I said previously, if you truly think its child abuse, go picket some synagogues. But no, its a faux concern, born out by an armchair moralist with an intolerance of religion and no notion of anything outside his worldview.

I want to impose a standard of well-being for the child. Yes. I assumed you held the same conviction; I was mistaken, You consider religion more important than well-being, freedom of choice.

Also, I think it's pretty pathetic you've played the "armchair moralist" card. You don't know me, don't pretend that you do.

Peregrinus

Gumbi wrote: »

I want to impose a standard of well-being for the child. Yes. I assumed you held the same conviction; I was mistaken, You consider religion more important than well-being, freedom of choice.

Also, I think it's pretty pathetic you've played the "armchair moralist" card. You don't know me, don't pretend that you do.

You have yet to establish that circumcision is detrimental to the well-being of the child, though.

Gumbi

Peregrinus wrote: »

You have yet to establish that circumcision is detrimental to the well-being of the child, though.

When said well-being, I was implying a breach of the "sanctity" if you will, of the child's body.

JimiTime

Gumbi wrote: »

I want to impose a standard of well-being for the child. Yes. I assumed you held the same conviction; I was mistaken, You consider religion more important than well-being, freedom of choice.

You are simply hiding intolerance behind a moralistic high-horsed, 'I'm just concerned for the kids'. I call shenanigans.

Also, I think it's pretty pathetic you've played the "armchair moralist" card. You don't know me, don't pretend that you do.

So you DO picket synagogues then, and try have these vile child abusers arrested yeah? You might not like it, or give a toss, but I stand by my armchair moralist accusation. I hope you are not. I see no reason to believe otherwise based on your input here though. If you do indeed take this as 'child abuse',then you surely picket synagogues, lobby government etc? If you do, then I withdraw my accusation.

Peregrinus

Gumbi wrote: »

When said well-being, I was implying a breach of the "sanctity" if you will, of the child's body.

So your objection to infant circumcision is religious? Or, at least, "religious"?

Gumbi

Peregrinus wrote: »

So your objection to infant circumcision is religious? Or, at least, "religious"?

Integrity might have been a better word. Needless interference (in this case, mutilation) of someone's body, most especially when that someone does not have a say in that matter, is wrong in my opinion.

Andrewf20

JimiTime wrote: »

According to the Jewish faith, it is an important ritual. The intolerance, is that you don't believe religion is important to you, and thus should not be important to anyone. Due to your worldview of it all being nonsense, you want to impose your standards on others.

Yes it is important to the Jewish faith but it assumes the child wants to remain a jew when there are old enough to make up their own mind. This may not necessarily be the case.

My opinion is that it should be legal but it needs the persons own adult consent, i.e to be informed of the pros and cons before the surgery takes place. Surely this is a fair position to hold?

Peregrinus

Gumbi wrote: »

Integrity might have been a better word. Needless interference (in this case, mutilation) of someone's body, most especially when that someone does not have a say in that matter, is wrong in my opinion.

OK, fair enough.

Couple of thoughts:

1. Talk of infants “not having a say” in decisions which affect them is pretty meaningless. Not having a say pretty much goes with the territory of infanthood, and making decisions for people who don’t have a say pretty much goes with the territory of parenthood. Parents make decisions all the time which affect their infants very profoundly. Critiquing those decisions on the basis of lack of consent is, frankly, not a very realistic way of engaging with them.

2. Circumcision, as you rightly point out, affects bodily integrity. So do decisions about ear-piercing (which some cultures practice in infancy), inoculation, surgical procedures, cosmetic procedures. The effect on the infant is demonstrable and visible and often irreversible, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s uniquely profound or uniquely harmful.

3. Parents may (and do) take many other decisions which don’t affect bodily integrity, but which nevertheless affect their children socially, psychologically, emotionally etc in profound, lasting and potentially harmful ways.

4. Given all this, I don’t see any basis for picking out decisions which affect bodily integrity and setting them apart as a class of decisions which, uniquely, parents ought not to take unless there is a compelling need.

5. Besides, “compelling” to who? You talk about “needless” interference, but parents who choose circumcision for social, cultural or cosmetic reasons think that not being circumcised will or may adversely affect their child in his relationships with others, and they perceive a sufficient “need” to justify the circumcision. You or I, of course, may not agree with their perception, but it’s undoubtedly the case that they are in a better position to assess their own child’s needs and interests than you, I or nanny state. Surely we should be slow to substitute our assessment of their child’s needs for theirs? We need a very well-substantiated case, I suggest, to do that. “Lack of consent” is so far from being a well-substantiated case in this context that it’s almost a joke.

6. And, remember, a decision not to circumcise an infant is also capable of having adverse consequences for the infant. Is “bodily integrity” a value so great that it trumps all other considerations, all other potential harms? If so, why? And, if so, how do we justify inoculation, or the surgical correction of harelip, or of a purely cosmetic blemish (the removal of a birthmark, say)?

7. Infant circumcision does seem to get singled out for criticism in ways that other parental decisions do not, and it’s not obvious why, since the case that it’s particularly harmful is not at all well-made-out. I can’t avoid a sneaking suspicion that JimiTime may be at least partly right; some of the animus against male circumcision is motivated not so much out of a concern for child welfare as out of a distaste for decisions motivated (or presumed to be motivated) by religious considerations. (Not that I am suggesting that this is what’s driving you, Gumbi. But I do think it’s a factor in the wider debate.)

jackofalltrades

Peregrinus wrote: »

You have yet to establish that circumcision is detrimental to the well-being of the child, though.

Every year in the US around 100 children die from circumcisions, I'd call that fairly detrimental. There's a whole list of other complications as well that can occur and that's before we even look at the affect circumcision has on the sexual health of the man in later life.

jackofalltrades

Peregrinus wrote: »

2. Circumcision, as you rightly point out, affects bodily integrity. So do decisions about ear-piercing(which some cultures practice in infancy), inoculation, surgical procedures, cosmetic procedures. The effect on the infant is demonstrable and visible and often irreversible, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s uniquely profound or uniquely harmful.

Ear piercing can be reversed easily enough with cosmetic surgery. Inoculations are there to protect people from serious diseases. And surgical procedures are usually carried out for good reasons. The majority of circumcisions that are carried out, are done so for non-medically necessary reasons. The effects are permanent and hugely negative.

3. Parents may (and do) take many other decisions which don’t affect bodily integrity, but which nevertheless affect their children socially, psychologically, emotionally etc in profound, lasting and potentially harmful ways.

And the state will usually intervene if these actions result in harm being caused to the child. Try beating, not feeding or not sending your child to school, you'll eventully come under the watch of some state agency.

5. Besides, “compelling” to who? You talk about “needless” interference, but parents who choose circumcision for social, cultural or cosmetic reasons think that not being circumcised will or may adversely affect their child in his relationships with others, and they perceive a sufficient “need” to justify the circumcision. You or I, of course, may not agree with their perception, but it’s undoubtedly the case that they are in a better position to assess their own child’s needs and interests than you, I or nanny state.

Parent's do not always have the best interest of the child in mind. This is where the state rightly interferes.

6. And, remember, a decision not to circumcise an infant is also capable of having adverse consequences for the infant. Is “bodily integrity” a value so great that it trumps all other considerations, all other potential harms? If so, why? And, if so, how do we justify inoculation, or the surgical correction of harelip, or of a purely cosmetic blemish (the removal of a birthmark, say)?

Harelip can lead to difficulty feeding and permanent deafness among other things, both of which would have a massive negative affect on the babies life.

7. Infant circumcision does seem to get singled out for criticism in ways that other parental decisions do not,

Because it's a barbaric, unnecessary(in the vast majority of cases) and pre-historic procedure that should be considered in the same light as FGM.

Peregrinus

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The majority of circumcisions that are carried out, are done so for non-medically necessary reasons. The effects are permanent and hugely negative.

I'm seeing this asserted a lot but (as I've already pointed out more than once in this thread) I'm not seeing anybody producing any actual evidence or even argument in support.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And the state will usually intervene if these actions result in harm being caused to the child. Try beating, not feeding or not sending your child to school, you'll eventully come under the watch of some state agency.
Parent's do not always have the best interest of the child in mind. This is where the state rightly interferes.

Indeed. And the fact that the state doesn't intervene in relation to male circumcision (while it does in relation to female circumcision) might again suggest that there's no good evidence of harm from the practice.

tommy2bad

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm seeing this asserted a lot but (as I've already pointed out more than once in this thread) I'm not seeing anybody producing any actual evidence or even argument in support.


Indeed. And the fact that the state doesn't intervene in relation to male circumcision (while it does in relation to female circumcision) might again suggest that there's no good evidence of harm from the practice.

first point, I would consider death hugely negative but then I haven't seen anything other than an assertion of that here.
Second point, It could also just suggest a cultural acceptance of circumcision rather than evidence of lack of harm.

tommy2bad

Best evidence of deaths I could find; Duno about the bias of the source though.
http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=2ae25d9541744fd88793a1dc29b33660&pi=5

More balanced piece here; http://www.nature.com/news/doctors-back-circumcision-1.11296
Though the title should be American Doctors back circumcision.

knoxwilliam

circumcision is mutilation and a hate crime against men. what it teaches boys is that they are disposable. it's an attack on your "man-hood". cutting up the genitals of babies is possible at this time, Kali Yug, when religious types have sex with altar boys and when doctors mutilate babies.

clue: slaves in shtetls have to be mutilated.

shabbos goys like elvis presley and mario cuomo are definitely circumcised. they have to be.

knoxwilliam

zenno wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me the insane-ness of human beings mutilating themselves or others, quite insane if you ask me.

The human body is born with what it has for a reason so why go and cut parts of yourself off ? nuts imo.

and here's the kicker for some. muslims do it but it's not allowed in the koran.

why do they do it? probably because the pharisees (= basically the lubavitcher hasidim) infiltrated, just like they have infiltrated the vatican.

http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/circumcision.html

knoxwilliam

tommy2bad wrote: »

Best evidence of deaths I could find; Duno about the bias of the source though.
http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=2ae25d9541744fd88793a1dc29b33660&pi=5

More balanced piece here; http://www.nature.com/news/doctors-back-circumcision-1.11296
Though the title should be American Doctors back circumcision.

they have to back it. they are worried about a class-action lawsuit by all these sexually disabled ameristump mutilation survivors

knoxwilliam

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see it as..

well, doesnt matter what you see it as. it's not your penis.

and when the baby screams and goes into shock, it means you're committing a serious crime BY PROXY. parents can't even do it themselves, the cowards.

(not technically, no. technically it's legal)

tommy2bad

So Knoxwilliam, I take it your against it then?

knoxwilliam

Peregrinus wrote: »

And the fact that the state doesn't intervene in relation to male circumcision (while it does in relation to female circumcision) might again suggest that there's no good evidence of harm from the practice.

Um, nope. Guess again. What it says, and in no uncertain terms, is that society is misandric.

Men are disposable. They get cut up, they play dangerous sports, they have the crappiest jobs, and they go to war. Mutilating them teaches them that they are disposable.

Men aren't human beings. They are human doings. They are here to serve their masters - women.

knoxwilliam

tommy2bad wrote: »

So Knoxwilliam, I take it your against it then?

No, I'm not. That would be hypocritical. If humans can go out and kill animals and eat them, why don't they deserve to be cut up?

It's called karma.

knoxwilliam

Peregrinus wrote: »

7. Infant circumcision does seem to get singled out for criticism in ways that other parental decisions...

When my child is born, I'm totally going to have the arms removed. This will help the child avoid cancer of the arms.

clue: penile cancers are found IN THE SCAR (the the AMA criminal syndicate doesnt let that get into the media)

clue: the Muladhara chakra is ahem.. affected. I think circ is causing this mysterious epidemic in the USA of prostate cancer

tommy2bad

knoxwilliam wrote: »

When my child is born, I'm totally going to have the arms removed. This will help the child avoid cancer of the arms.
Go for the head, brain cancer is horrible!
clue: penile cancers are found IN THE SCAR (the the AMA criminal syndicate doesnt let that get into the media)
What scar it commoner in uncircumcised peni?
clue: the Muladhara chakra is ahem.. affected. I think circ is causing this mysterious epidemic in the USA of prostate cancer

Thats what it is, knew it was something causing it other than longer lifespan.

knoxwilliam

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I'm not sure that circumcision is appropriately compared with beating your children or crucifixion.

<logic>

Agreed. Hitting a child doesn't compare to amputating the most important and nerve-laden part of it.

</logic>