German Court rules child circumcision a crime

[brandon]

A German court has ruled that parents can’t have their sons circumcised on religious grounds in a move which has angered Muslim and Jewish groups in the country.

...

http://www.rt.com/news/germany-religious-circumcision-ban-772/


Been too long since we had a good circumcision debate around here.

[Yieu]

This will not end well.

[jmdrake]

This will not end well.

The ruling in Germany or the debate at RPF over it? Hey, I wonder if Jewish parents who violate the ban will be put in prison alongside holocaust deniers?

[dannno]

Hey, I wonder if Jewish parents who violate the ban will be put in prison alongside holocaust deniers?

Would be funny if they had them bunking together. Quite the odd couple. Would make an interesting film or series. Or at least maybe a political cartoon.

[jkr]

welcome to planet AZZHOLE

[Yieu]

The ruling in Germany or the debate at RPF over it? Hey, I wonder if Jewish parents who violate the ban will be put in prison alongside holocaust deniers?

Both. All of it. Everything regarding this will not end well.

[fisharmor]

Would be funny if they had them bunking together. Quite the odd couple. Would make an interesting film or series. Or at least maybe a political cartoon.

I never thought of it this way.... if prisons are full of holocaust deniers, circumcisers, and dope smokers, then it makes sense (in a twisted way) to have super-secret extra-jurisdictional prisons for people who you perceive to have committed real crimes.

[flynn]

Damn, they just created the gang of back alley circumcision cartels.

[sync]

In Germany... How ironic...

[AGRP]

When will they be renovating their concentration camps?

[LibForestPaul]

damn red state germans.
muslims going to have to find an EU blue state or get a back alley circumcision by some out of work Polish NP.

[brandon]

I support ending circumcision when it's not medically necessary, but I don't think a government ban is the right way to go about it. It needs to come about peacefully by a revolution in the way people think. (this is also my position on abortion, more or less)


That said, I think claiming one's religion gives them the right to mutilate a child's genitals is completely laughable. What if my religion called for removing the penis all together so that reproduction could only be accomplished by artificial insemination. Is that my religious freedom to chop off boy's dicks?

[Meatwasp]

They shouldn't make it a crime but I think it horribly wrong to do that to a tiny baby boy.

[AGRP]

I support ending circumcision when it's not medically necessary, but I don't think a government ban is the right way to go about it. It needs to come about peacefully by a revolution in the way people think.


That said, I think claiming one's religion gives them the right to mutilate a child's genitals is completely laughable. What if my religion called for removing the penis all together so that reproduction could only be accomplished by artificial insemination. Is that my religious freedom to chop off boy's dicks?

It comes down to street justice. I don't think society would tolerate what you described before people in the community would one way or another make sure that would not happen (quicker) if government force was not there. It happens all of the time with child molesters within the prison system. Circumcision is not as drastic as removing the penis etc, but it wouldn't take long before the route of education or street justice did its thing before what you described would be quickly irradiated.

[heavenlyboy34]

“Watch out for those wicked men – dangerous dogs, I call them – who say you must be circumcised. Beware of the mutilation. For it isn’t the cutting of our bodies that makes us children of God; it is worshiping him with our spirits.” – Phil 3:2-3
http://www.harrypotterandthedeathlyhallows.ca/db3/00297/harrypotterandthedeathlyhallows.ca/_uimages/sticker1.jpg http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/empoweredwoman%282%29.jpg http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6018/5961421291_09a4bd7c07_z.jpg http://www.prlog.org/10346664-circumcision-is-sex-crime-end-all-genital-torture-and-mutilation-now.jpg

[dillo]

If you support circumcision do you also support female genital mutilation?

[Brian4Liberty]

Should babies (or children) get tattoos?

[tod evans]

Should babies (or children) get tattoos?

USDA bar-codes complete with microchip technology coming soon to a town hear you....

[Brian4Liberty]

“Watch out for those wicked men – dangerous dogs, I call them – who say you must be circumcised. Beware of the mutilation. For it isn’t the cutting of our bodies that makes us children of God; it is worshiping him with our spirits.” – Phil 3:2-3

And the point is that there is no religious reason for Christians to circumcise. It is not a requirement of the religion.

[jmdrake]

If you support circumcision do you also support female genital mutilation?

That's like saying "If you support earlobe piercing do you support nipple piercing"? FGM cuts off more than just the female foreskin.

[angelatc]

I support ending circumcision when it's not medically necessary, but I don't think a government ban is the right way to go about it. It needs to come about peacefully by a revolution in the way people think. (this is also my position on abortion, more or less)


That said, I think claiming one's religion gives them the right to mutilate a child's genitals is completely laughable.

Really nice. Fuck a couple of thousand of years of devout faith - Brandon thinks it's laughable.

[angelatc]

Should babies (or children) get tattoos?

Children either belong to the state or the parents. You choose.

[Demigod]

Children either belong to the state or the parents. You choose.


Children do not belong to anyone.

[brandon]

Really nice. Fuck a couple of thousand of years of devout faith - Brandon thinks it's laughable.

I'm not sure what your reply is supposed to mean, other than some vague insult towards me. Are you implying that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, rule of law be damned, provided it's a religious tradition that is long standing? Should we allow sharia law to trump common law because it's a religious tradition?

[jmdrake]

I support ending circumcision when it's not medically necessary, but I don't think a government ban is the right way to go about it. It needs to come about peacefully by a revolution in the way people think. (this is also my position on abortion, more or less)


That said, I think claiming one's religion gives them the right to mutilate a child's genitals is completely laughable. What if my religion called for removing the penis all together so that reproduction could only be accomplished by artificial insemination. Is that my religious freedom to chop off boy's dicks?

Comparing circumcision to castration is what is laughable. Yieu is right. This won't end well. :( I was wondering how long it would take before rational discussion would end and hyperbole would take over. Not long apparently. I can buy the "it's not medically necessary" and "men without circumcision (may) enjoy sex more" arguments. But the comparisons to FGM or "chopping off boy's dicks" arguments are lame and do nothing but push people away from the position you're hoping they will take. At least it does me.

[jmdrake]

Children do not belong to anyone.

Children are the responsibility of their parents and not the state.

[angelatc]

I'm not sure what your reply is supposed to mean, other than some vague insult towards me. Are you implying that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, rule of law be damned, provided it's a religious tradition that is long standing? Should we allow sharia law to trump common law because it's a religious tradition?

Yes, I am indeed. Sharia Law doesn't trump common law, but nice way to play the "OMG THE MUSLIMS!" card, btw.

Dance around trees, sacrifice goats, circumcise your baby - it's a free country. Well, it would be, if it weren't for all the nasty. smug condescending pricks that live here.

[angelatc]

Children are the responsibility of their parents and not the state.

Only people who don't have kids (and dirty hippies) think that children do not belong to anybody. That guy should go burn another joint and contemplate his place in the universe while the rest of us try to protect OUR children from the government.

[brandon]

Yes, I am indeed. Sharia Law doesn't trump common law, but nice way to play the "OMG THE MUSLIMS!" card, btw.

I wasn't trying to play that card at all, it was just the first that came to my mind. If I was more familiar with the Bible I'm sure I could list dozens of parts that advocate actions that are illegal under most criminal code in the US. Would you also say Christians have the right to say, assault women, because the bible talks about it and therefore it is a first amendment right?

[angelatc]

I wasn't trying to play that card at all, it was just the first that came to my mind. If I was more familiar with the Bible I'm sure I could list dozens of parts that advocate actions that are illegal under most criminal code in the US. Would you also say Christians have the right to say, assault women, because the bible talks about it and therefore it is a first amendment right?

There's no religion that promotes the assaulting of women. Try again.

[tod evans]

Dance around trees, sacrifice goats, circumcise your baby - it's a free country. Well, it would be, if it weren't for all the nasty. smug condescending pricks that live here.

+rep still chuckling...

[brandon]

For example, Deuteronomy 22 says that if a man marries a women who claims to be a virgin, and the man later discovers she was not a virgin, the men of the city must stone her to death.

Would you say that should be permissible in America?

[brandon]

Comparing circumcision to castration is what is laughable. Yieu is right. This won't end well. :( I was wondering how long it would take before rational discussion would end and hyperbole would take over. Not long apparently. I can buy the "it's not medically necessary" and "men without circumcision (may) enjoy sex more" arguments. But the comparisons to FGM or "chopping off boy's dicks" arguments are lame and do nothing but push people away from the position you're hoping they will take. At least it does me.

Taking a concept and exaggerating it to make a point is a valid form of argument. Libertarians use this form of thought experiment all the time to help others understand. Minimum wage, taxation... hell even Mises's own economic calculation problem is a form of this sort of thought experiment.

[jmdrake]

For example, Deuteronomy 22 says that if a man marries a women who claims to be a virgin, and the man later discovers she was not a virgin, the men of the city must stone her to death.

Would you say that should be permissible in America?

More hyperbole. Circumcision != death by stoning.

[brandon]

More hyperbole. Circumcision != death by stoning. I never said it did. I'm discussing the much more general case of religious beliefs providing immunity from criminal law.

[jmdrake]

Taking a concept and exaggerating it to make a point is a valid form of argument.

Except you aren't making a point.



As a matter of fact, libertarians use this form of thought experiment all the time to help others understand. Minimum wage, taxation... hell even Mises's own economic calculation problem is a form of this sort of thought experiment.

And silly hyperbole is possibly one of the reason libertarianism hasn't taken off. I've explained to you the fact that, at least for me, your line of reasoning makes me want to work against your cause. If your purpose is to engender opposition, then by all means keep up the good work. Maybe it's a conspiracy and you're secretly working for the pro circumcision lobby? If not then you should re-think your tactics.

[angelatc]

The point here is that religious beliefs are usually based on some fact, albeit the ancient civilizations didn't know it to be fact at the time. Take the ban on eating pork, for instance. Now we know that we have to cook it, or we will get worms that might enter our brain and kill us. Back then, they had no clue about the science behind the ban, but they did know that God gave them simple yet strict instructions about not eating pork. In a similar manner, the whole keeping kosher thing did a lot to prevent cross contamination of food back in the days of old.

Circumsicion is born of that. Males who were circumcised were less likely (sometimes significantly) to contract STD's than males who aren't. That still holds true today, btw. So you can piss and moan about how horrible I am because my kids were circumsized, but I don't give a rat's ass for a couple of reasons. First, I let my husband make the call, since I don't claim to be an expert in all things penile. Second, if I could give my kids a shot that meant they were 60% less likely to contract HIV when they started having sex, I'd do that too.

What I wouldn't do is hang around on the internet bragging that my choices were superior, and that other people's beliefs were "laughable."

And yes, I'm being short with you. Forgive me for not having any respect, at all, for a smug 20-something atheist who sincerely believes he knows more than thousands of years of tradition and collective accumulated wisdom.

[tod evans]

Taking a concept and exaggerating it to make a point is a valid form of argument. Libertarians use this form of thought experiment all the time to help others understand. Minimum wage, taxation... hell even Mises's own economic calculation problem is a form of this sort of thought experiment.

If you and your wife/girlfriend/mother of your child, want to circumcise your baby then do so.....if you don't then don't.

It's not my business and it's certainly not the governments business!

[angelatc]

For example, Deuteronomy 22 says that if a man marries a women who claims to be a virgin, and the man later discovers she was not a virgin, the men of the city must stone her to death.

Would you say that should be permissible in America?

WHich religions promote that? Oh that's right - the religions that died out PDQ.

Leave people alone - they don't need you to run their lives.

[jmdrake]

I never said it did. I'm discussing the much more general case of religious beliefs providing immunity from criminal law.

Nobody claimed that it did provide immunity from criminal law. You are engaging in a straw man argument which is not a legitimate form of debate. That said the broader society that wishes to respect religious beliefs has a responsibility not to infringe on religious beliefs if at all possible. I'll go a step ahead of you. If someone believes that God told him to offer his son as a burnt offering like God, according to the Bible, told Abraham, that's not and should not be protected by law. (Note the Bible story is that God stopped Abraham at the last minute). But if someone believes that they are still supposed to sacrifice chickens and lambs, then a law going against that needlessly violates religious freedom, especially considering that we still kill and eat chickens and lambs. Now some PETA representative using your same warped logic could say "Why should religious freedom protect the ritual sacrifice of animals since it doesn't protect the ritual sacrifice of humans"? Obvious answer, because killing animals != killing humans. Similarly circumcision != FGM != stoning people to death.

Edit: One more thing. Free speech rights to not protect someone from ordering the assassination of someone else either. But that fact doesn't give license to attack free speech rights in general, although (some) people have used the stupid "fire in a crowed theater" argument to do just that.

[jmdrake]

The point here is that religious beliefs are usually based on some fact, albeit the ancient civilizations didn't know it to be fact at the time. Take the ban on eating pork, for instance. Now we know that we have to cook it, or we will get worms that might enter our brain and kill us. Back then, they had no clue about the science behind the ban, but they did know that God gave them strict instructions about not eating pork. IN a similar manner, the whole keeping kosher thing did a lot to prevent cross contamination of food back in the days of old.

Circumsicion is born of that. Males who were circumcised were less likely (sometimes significantly) to contract STD's than males who aren't. That still holds true today, btw. So you can piss and moan about how horrible I am because my kids were circumsized, but I don't give a rat's ass for a couple of reasons. First, I let my husband make the call, since I don't claim to be an expert in all things penile. Second, if I could give my kids a shot that meant they were 60% less likely to contract HIV when they started having sex, I'd do that too.

What I wouldn't do is hang around on the internet bragging that my choices were superior, and that other people's beliefs were "laughable."

And yes, I'm being short with you. Forgive me for not having any respect, at all, for a smug 20-something atheist who sincerely believes he knows more than thousands of years of tradition and collective accumulated wisdom.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Cue claims that CDC cited studies showing the health benefits of circumcision to be a "conspiracy" in 5...4...3...2...

[Southron]

I wonder what the punishment for circumcising your child would be. Take the child away and let the State raise him?

[angelatc]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Cue claims that CDC cited studies showing the health benefits of circumcision to be a "conspiracy" in 5...4...3...2...

I can't find the study right now, but men in Washington DC were studied. The rate of circumcision there is much lower than average because government health (as in, free) programs don't pay for it. The HIV infection there is astronomically higher among heterosexual men than it is in the population at large.

So yeah, it's a conspiracy.

If there was a shot that reduced the spread of AIDS by 60%, and the government didn't pay for it, the people would screech. But make it a surgical procedure performed on infants (sometimes for religious reasons) and the left can't destroy it fast enough.

But there's your conspiracy - keep it up. Soon the poor people will be sick, too. Untouchables. While the ruling elite will be able to afford the procedures that keep them healthy and popular.

[brandon]

WHich religions promote that? Oh that's right - the religions that died out PDQ.

Which is why I first tried to use the much more realistic example of Sharia law, but you had a problem with that too.



Leave people alone - they don't need you to run their lives.

I began this all by saying I don't want a law banning circumcision. You should brush up on your debating skills.

[brandon]

And I'm not an atheist.

[mortepa]

I bet all that baby foreskin would make for good catfish chum. Yeah, I'm a little off my rocker, but am I right or am I right?

[angelatc]

Which is why I first tried to use the much more realistic example of Sharia law, but you had a problem with that too.



I began this all by saying I don't want a law banning circumcision. You should brush up on your debating skills.

I'm not debating you. I'm ridiculing you. And you're making it easy.

[brandon]

Thanks Angela.

[jmdrake]

Which is why I first tried to use the much more realistic example of Sharia law, but you had a problem with that too.


I began this all by saying I don't want a law banning circumcision. You should brush up on your debating skills.

So are you against laws banning stoning people to death?

[Barrex]

The point here is that religious beliefs are usually based on some fact, albeit the ancient civilizations didn't know it to be fact at the time. Take the ban on eating pork, for instance. Now we know that we have to cook it, or we will get worms that might enter our brain and kill us. Back then, they had no clue about the science behind the ban, but they did know that God gave them simple yet strict instructions about not eating pork. In a similar manner, the whole keeping kosher thing did a lot to prevent cross contamination of food back in the days of old.

Circumsicion is born of that. Males who were circumcised were less likely (sometimes significantly) to contract STD's than males who aren't. That still holds true today, btw. So you can piss and moan about how horrible I am because my kids were circumsized, but I don't give a rat's ass for a couple of reasons. First, I let my husband make the call, since I don't claim to be an expert in all things penile. Second, if I could give my kids a shot that meant they were 60% less likely to contract HIV when they started having sex, I'd do that too.

What I wouldn't do is hang around on the internet bragging that my choices were superior, and that other people's beliefs were "laughable."

And yes, I'm being short with you. Forgive me for not having any respect, at all, for a smug 20-something atheist who sincerely believes he knows more than thousands of years of tradition and collective accumulated wisdom.

I, Roman Catholic say (just to make things clear):
From what I know origins of Islam forbidding eating pig is because of fat and high temperatures = deadly.
Also in Islam circumcision is "obligatory custom" and it is not necessary for the circumciser to be a Muslim. Reason for this (from what I know) is in high temperatures zones uncircumcised PENIS is perfect place where filth and bacteria can accumulate. Keep in mind that in old days people (any people anywhere) didnt have baths every week. It was more of few times a year thing. So bacteria + filth + lack of water made lethal combination.

PENIS


*also "kosher" prevented cros-contamination of food.


P.s.
A Jew, Arab and Mexican walk into a bar...

[angelatc]

I, Roman Catholic say (just to make things clear):
From what I know origins of Islam forbidding eating pig is because of fat and high temperatures = deadly.
Also in Islam circumcision is "obligatory custom" and it is not necessary for the circumciser to be a Muslim. Reason for this (from what I know) is in high temperatures zones uncircumcised PENIS is perfect place where filth and bacteria can accumulate. Keep in mind that in old days people (any people anywhere) didnt have baths every week. It was more of few times a year thing. So bacteria + filth + lack of water made lethal combination.

PENIS


*also "kosher" prevented cros-contamination of food.


P.s.
A Jew, Arab and Mexican walk into a bar...

Where's the other half of that apostrophe?

[Brian4Liberty]

I support ending circumcision when it's not medically necessary, but I don't think a government ban is the right way to go about it. It needs to come about peacefully by a revolution in the way people think. (this is also my position on abortion, more or less)


I tend to agree. The (Federal/State/Local) government should have no laws about circumcision at all. At the same time, the American Medical Association should make it clear that routine circumcision is not required or recommended, and that it's Doctors should not perform the procedure unless it is medically necessary (which is rare, but it happens).

Religious circumcision would be performed by mohelim, or whatever is appropriate for a person's religion.

[heavenlyboy34]

I, Roman Catholic say (just to make things clear):
From what I know origins of Islam forbidding eating pig is because of fat and high temperatures = deadly.
Also in Islam circumcision is "obligatory custom" and it is not necessary for the circumciser to be a Muslim. Reason for this (from what I know) is in high temperatures zones uncircumcised PENIS is perfect place where filth and bacteria can accumulate. Keep in mind that in old days people (any people anywhere) didnt have baths every week. It was more of few times a year thing. So bacteria + filth + lack of water made lethal combination.

PENIS


*also "kosher" prevented cros-contamination of food.


P.s.
A Jew, Arab and Mexican walk into a bar...
All myths. The uncircumcised penis is self-cleaning. There are NO proven medical benefits to circumcision. No major medical orginization recommends the procedure as a cure or preventative for anything. (not even the American Academy of Pediatrics)

ETA:
Chapter Three: Alleged Medical Benefits of Circumcision An infant boy is born with a healthy foreskin. Consequently, there are no medical indications for circumcision in the newborn period.1,2 (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement03.html#n1)
Infant circumcision is a painful, stressful, and traumatic procedure that leaves the infant exhausted and debilitated to the extent that some are unable to suckle at the breast.3 (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement03.html#n3) Medical authorities accordingly recommend that circumcision be performed only on healthy and stable infants. In the absence of any medical indication, and with the surgical operation being performed only on healthy and stable infants, the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association (AMA), therefore, properly describes elective infant circumcision as a “non-therapeutic” procedure.4 (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement03.html#n4) (Infant circumcision was downgraded from routine to elective in 1997, in a joint statement issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.5 (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement03.html#n5))
Claims for any health or medical benefit are restricted to a possible prophylactic benefit in later life. Circumcision of the newborn, in the opinion of a few, may prevent phimosis, infection with sexually transmitted diseases, urinary tract infection in the first year of life, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in sexual partners. These claims date from the era of opinion-based medicine, when, in the absence of any scientific evidence, medical doctors relied on the opinions of one another rather than on evidence. (e.g.6 (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement03.html#n6)) We shall examine each of these claims.
(From ch. 3, Doctors Opposing Circumcision Genital Integrity Mission Statement (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement03.html))

[Meatwasp]

The point here is that religious beliefs are usually based on some fact, albeit the ancient civilizations didn't know it to be fact at the time. Take the ban on eating pork, for instance. Now we know that we have to cook it, or we will get worms that might enter our brain and kill us. Back then, they had no clue about the science behind the ban, but they did know that God gave them simple yet strict instructions about not eating pork. In a similar manner, the whole keeping kosher thing did a lot to prevent cross contamination of food back in the days of old.

Circumsicion is born of that. Males who were circumcised were less likely (sometimes significantly) to contract STD's than males who aren't. That still holds true today, btw. So you can piss and moan about how horrible I am because my kids were circumsized, but I don't give a rat's ass for a couple of reasons. First, I let my husband make the call, since I don't claim to be an expert in all things penile. Second, if I could give my kids a shot that meant they were 60% less likely to contract HIV when they started having sex, I'd do that too.

What I wouldn't do is hang around on the internet bragging that my choices were superior, and that other people's beliefs were "laughable."

And yes, I'm being short with you. Forgive me for not having any respect, at all, for a smug 20-something atheist who sincerely believes he knows more than thousands of years of tradition and collective accumulated wisdom.

I sense a little guilt on your part. My dear husband said absolutely no to our three boys being circumcises.

[heavenlyboy34]

I tend to agree. The (Federal/State/Local) government should have no laws about circumcision at all. At the same time, the American Medical Association should make it clear that routine circumcision is not required or recommended, and that it's Doctors should not perform the procedure unless it is medically necessary (which is rare, but it happens).

Religious circumcision would be performed by mohelim, or whatever is appropriate for a person's religion.
Female circumcision is illegal even though some parents believe it should be done. Why should male circumcision (genital mutilation) be legal just because it's more popular?

[Meatwasp]

A Jewish man told my dad that the Nazis found Jews by checking if they were circumcised.He told my dad ,"Never again"

[Brian4Liberty]

Female circumcision is illegal even though some parents believe it should be done. Why should male circumcision (genital mutilation) be legal just because it's more popular?

Good point. And I mentioned tattooing earlier, which is illegal for minors, let alone babies. Yet, piercing a baby is just fine. Why are some things legal and some things illegal? It's about many things: magnitude of damage, tradition, momentum, hysteria, propaganda, perception, knowledge, etc.

We should strive to be consistent, and punishments should be proportional to the crimes. And as everyone here would agree, we want as few laws as possible. We still have a long way to go, and we are currently going in the wrong direction. :(

[PaulConventionWV]

Would be funny if they had them bunking together. Quite the odd couple. Would make an interesting film or series. Or at least maybe a political cartoon.

That's what I would call irony.

[PaulConventionWV]

I support ending circumcision when it's not medically necessary, but I don't think a government ban is the right way to go about it. It needs to come about peacefully by a revolution in the way people think. (this is also my position on abortion, more or less)


That said, I think claiming one's religion gives them the right to mutilate a child's genitals is completely laughable. What if my religion called for removing the penis all together so that reproduction could only be accomplished by artificial insemination. Is that my religious freedom to chop off boy's dicks?

Umm... that's not the same thing...?

[PaulConventionWV]

Comparing circumcision to castration is what is laughable. Yieu is right. This won't end well. :( I was wondering how long it would take before rational discussion would end and hyperbole would take over. Not long apparently. I can buy the "it's not medically necessary" and "men without circumcision (may) enjoy sex more" arguments. But the comparisons to FGM or "chopping off boy's dicks" arguments are lame and do nothing but push people away from the position you're hoping they will take. At least it does me.

Is it true that men without circumcision may enjoy sex more?

[jmdrake]

Is it true that men without circumcision may enjoy sex more?

It's a claim that's been made, though I have no idea how they measure that. "This sex is better than sex". :confused:

[jmdrake]

Female circumcision is illegal even though some parents believe it should be done. Why should male circumcision (genital mutilation) be legal just because it's more popular?

Because female circumcision involved cutting off the female version of the penis and male circumcision does not? Because, whether you agree or disagree, currently there is a debate as to whether there are health benefits to male circumcision and there is no such debate with regards to female circumcision? You can post articles all day from "Doctors against circumcision", but as long as the CDC has up on its website evidence (shoddy as you believe it to be) that male circumcision helps top HIV not only will male circumcision be legal but it will also be recommended. That's the battle you need to fight. And you won't win it (at least not with me) by bogus comparisons (IMO) to FGM.

[jmdrake]

Good point. And I mentioned tattooing earlier, which is illegal for minors, let alone babies. Yet, piercing a baby is just fine. Why are some things legal and some things illegal? It's about many things: magnitude of damage, tradition, momentum, hysteria, propaganda, perception, knowledge, etc.

We should strive to be consistent, and punishments should be proportional to the crimes. And as everyone here would agree, we want as few laws as possible. We still have a long way to go, and we are currently going in the wrong direction. :(

Hmmm....I didn't know tattooing of minors was illegal. I've seen high school students with tattoos. Then again drugs are illegal.

[Brian Coulter]

More hyperbole. Circumcision != death by stoning.

No, but the advocation of circumcision in the west for the last 50 years as somehow medically beneficial is a crime.

[heavenlyboy34]

Because female circumcision involved cutting off the female version of the penis and male circumcision does not? Because, whether you agree or disagree, currently there is a debate as to whether there are health benefits to male circumcision and there is no such debate with regards to female circumcision? You can post articles all day from "Doctors against circumcision", but as long as the CDC has up on its website evidence (shoddy as you believe it to be) that male circumcision helps top HIV not only will male circumcision be legal but it will also be recommended. That's the battle you need to fight. And you won't win it (at least not with me) by bogus comparisons (IMO) to FGM.
As I pointed out before, no major medical organization recommends circumcision to cure or prevent any disease. The studies on this are FAR from conclusive. (as even the authors usually admit) You should also look at the footnotes in the piece I posted above. You'll find many interesting sources, like the AMA and American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

[Brian4Liberty]

Hmmm....I didn't know tattooing of minors was illegal. I've seen high school students with tattoos. Then again drugs are illegal.

Not sure. That age limit probably varies by State. There was a thread just the other day:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381573-10-year-old-kidnapped-for-getting-tattoo.

1483

[SpicyTurkey]

A Jewish man told my dad that the Nazis found Jews by checking if they were circumcised.He told my dad ,"Never again"

Circumcision was common among christian Germans at that time too. So I'm guessing he might have lied to your dad.

[LibForestPaul]

But the comparisons to FGM or "chopping off boy's dicks" arguments are lame and do nothing but push people away from the position you're hoping they will take.

There is nothing wrong with comparing the customs of different religions and asking why one act has man with guns wanting to destroy you and take your children, while the other is accepted. There are many forms of body modifications throughout the world that have been occurring for centuries. Two that I know of w/o even searching are neck elongation and lip modifications. Which of the myriad of body modifications that parents subject their children are to be turned a blind eye toward, and which will have men pointing guns at your head and stealing your natural right of child rearing as one sees fit.

[LibForestPaul]

It's a claim that's been made, though I have no idea how they measure that. "This sex is better than sex". :confused:
It's logical. More nerves > more sensation. + different sensation.

[PaulConventionWV]

Female circumcision is illegal even though some parents believe it should be done. Why should male circumcision (genital mutilation) be legal just because it's more popular?

So you are equating circumcision with genital mutilation? That is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.

[heavenlyboy34]

So you are equating circumcision with genital mutilation? That is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.
It is genital mutilation. Per the dictionary:
genital mutilation 
noun any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs, especially excision of the clitoris.

If you don't believe it to be, that is because you look at it from a biased perspective.

[Danke]

... since I don't claim to be an expert in all things penile.
That is the problem right there. Women need to study more.

[Brian4Liberty]

So you are equating circumcision with genital mutilation? That is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.

Do you equate female circumcision with genital mutilation? If so, why?

[heavenlyboy34]

Because female circumcision involved cutting off the female version of the penis and male circumcision does not? Because, whether you agree or disagree, currently there is a debate as to whether there are health benefits to male circumcision and there is no such debate with regards to female circumcision? You can post articles all day from "Doctors against circumcision", but as long as the CDC has up on its website evidence (shoddy as you believe it to be) that male circumcision helps top HIV not only will male circumcision be legal but it will also be recommended. That's the battle you need to fight. And you won't win it (at least not with me) by bogus comparisons (IMO) to FGM.
Female circumcision, as I've been told, removes the clitoral hood. http://unmsia.com/2011/08/the-snipping-of-female-circumcision/ This is not the analog of the penis. There may be other variations of the procedure, but the principle is similar (and the goal as well-reducing the pleasure of intercourse. This reducing the pleasure of intercourse was also a purpose of MGM in many places. This is why John Kellogg sought to make it mandatory in the US-he thought masturbation to be a sin).

[liberdom]

I swear I just heard yesterday that Germany is a freer country because women are allowed to be topless outdoors.

[RonRules]

This is how it's done with my people:
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17q6a8k1zixbxjpg/original.jpg

[Tod]

Anyone else feel like these threads always go around in circles?

:rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

Anyone else feel like these threads always go around in circles?

:rolleyes:
Yep.

[Icymudpuppy]

Decades after Hitler's death, Germany figures out how to rid the country of Jews!

[heavenlyboy34]

Decades after Hitler's death, Germany figures out how to rid the country of Jews!
Except for teh jews that practice brit shalom. /nitpick

[Yieu]

If you support circumcision do you also support female genital mutilation?

There are multiple kinds of female genital mutilation, and some remove only the female foreskin portions, so those types of female circumcision are the same as male circumcision. And the same arguments used for pro-circ can be made for the removal of the female foreskin portions, and the same arguments for not removing the female foreskin portions can be made for not removing the male foreskin.

Regardless of that point, this will not end well because these threads never do, and the court ruling will not end well either as it comes off as racist.

[PaulConventionWV]

It's logical. More nerves > more sensation. + different sensation.

Oh, no, I hope this isn't true.

[PaulConventionWV]

It is genital mutilation. Per the dictionary:
genital mutilation 
noun any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs, especially excision of the clitoris.

If you don't believe it to be, that is because you look at it from a biased perspective.


No, actually it's because it's reasonable to distinguish the two. Cutting of the foreskin is not a mutilation of the genitalia itself. The skin is an organ in and of itself, the largest one on the body, in fact. Cutting skin around the genitalia is not the same thing as cutting the genitalia.

[PaulConventionWV]

Do you equate female circumcision with genital mutilation? If so, why?

It depends. I don't know what FGM entails. Does it require harming a functional part of the genitalia, or just removing some extra nerve endings and skin, which is an entirely different organ?

[Brian4Liberty]

It depends. I don't know what FGM entails. Does it require harming a functional part of the genitalia, or just removing some extra nerve endings and skin, which is an entirely different organ?

It depends on what contitutes "functional", but apparently there are variations of female circumcision.

If procreation is still possible, doesn't that mean that both male and female circumcision leaves a person functional?

[Roxi]

I would think from a liberty standpoint all of us would be dead against circumcision. Removing a part of a baby's penis before they are old enough to say that is okay with them is the antithesis of liberty.

[dannno]

It depends on what contitutes "functional", but apparently there are variations of female circumcision.

If procreation is still possible, doesn't that mean that both male and female circumcision leaves a person functional?

No, because the woman cannot have a clitoral orgasm after female circumcision.

[tod evans]

I would think from a liberty standpoint all of us would be dead against circumcision. Removing a part of a baby's penis before they are old enough to say that is okay with them is the antithesis of liberty.

I'd argue that a true liberty standpoint permits the parents to make the choice for their ward without any state involvement.

[jmdrake]

Female circumcision, as I've been told, removes the clitoral hood. http://unmsia.com/2011/08/the-snipping-of-female-circumcision/ This is not the analog of the penis. There may be other variations of the procedure, but the principle is similar (and the goal as well-reducing the pleasure of intercourse. This reducing the pleasure of intercourse was also a purpose of MGM in many places. This is why John Kellogg sought to make it mandatory in the US-he thought masturbation to be a sin).

Edit: Your link above is to a blog which does not link to any credible source. Ever credible source I've read says that female circumcision involves removes the entire clitoris. There are in fact various kinds of female circumcision that include removing more than the clitoris, but I'm not aware of simply removing the hood being one of the main forms of FGM.

http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/female-genital-cutting.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

And obvious guy says male circumcision has done nothing to stop masturbation.

[jmdrake]

As I pointed out before, no major medical organization recommends circumcision to cure or prevent any disease.

And as I've pointed out before, the CDC counts as a major medical organization whether you wish to admit it or not.



The studies on this are FAR from conclusive. (as even the authors usually admit) You should also look at the footnotes in the piece I posted above. You'll find many interesting sources, like the AMA and American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

That's nice. It's also irrelevant to my point. But I know that hasn't stopped you from going on in the past with irrelevant posts on the subject. ;) I don't know how many times I have to say "You're fight is with the CDC" before you get it. I'm sure it seems to be more practical to make incorrect comparisons to FGM or "whacking a boy's dick off" (I know that was brandon and not you) than to simply focus on getting the CDC to change its website if you think it's inaccurate. But it's not.

[Brian4Liberty]

No, because the woman cannot have a clitoral orgasm after female circumcision.

That doesn't hinder reproduction. :p

And to continue playing devil's advocate, paraplegics and quadriplegics can have orgasms. Removal of the entire clitoris or penis does not necessarily prevent orgasm.

[jmdrake]

It's logical. More nerves > more sensation. + different sensation.

Logical != quantifiable.

[heavenlyboy34]

And as I've pointed out before, the CDC counts as a major medical organization whether you wish to admit it or not.



That's nice. It's also irrelevant to my point. But I know that hasn't stopped you from going on in the past with irrelevant posts on the subject. ;) I don't know how many times I have to say "You're fight is with the CDC" before you get it. I'm sure it seems to be more practical to make incorrect comparisons to FGM or "whacking a boy's dick off" (I know that was brandon and not you) than to simply focus on getting the CDC to change its website if you think it's inaccurate. But it's not.

I gave you the definition of mutilation. (repeat: 2 
noun any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs, especially excision of the clitoris.)You can choose to pretend that circumcision is not mutilation, but you would be incorrect. Is it the same as FGM, no. I don't believe I said that, but if I did I withdraw it.
Since you bring up the CDC, let me quote their website (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/research/male-circumcision.htm) for you:

Some recent reports have speculated about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) upcoming public health recommendations on male circumcision for HIV prevention in the United States.

It is important to note that the recommendations are still in development and CDC has made no determination at this time about the final content. CDC is employing a deliberative, evidence-based process for developing the circumcision recommendations, which allows for both external and internal CDC experts to provide input. CDC will also publish draft recommendations for public comment before the content will be finalized.

With respect to infant circumcision, it is important to recognize that many options are still being considered in this process, including simply recommending that health-care providers educate parents about the potential benefits and risks to ensure that parents have the information they need to make an informed decision.

In developing its recommendations, CDC is also considering whether circumcision should be recommended for heterosexual adults at high risk for HIV infection in the United States, as well as whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to make any recommendations for men who have sex with men.

Whatever the content may include, CDC’s final circumcision recommendations will be completely voluntary. While CDC has not yet determined if male circumcision should be recommended for any population, ultimately the decision will rest with individuals and parents. CDC’s public health imperative is to provide the best possible information on the risks and benefits to help inform those decisions.

As I said, no major medical organization reccomends circumcision to prevent disease. If you find one that does, you can safely bet it's a quack outfit.

[jmdrake]

I gave you the definition of mutilation. You can choose to pretend that circumcision is not mutilation, but you would be incorrect. Is it the same as FGM, no. I don't believe I said that, but if I did I withdraw it.
Since you bring up the CDC, let me quote their website (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/research/male-circumcision.htm) for you:


You claimed that FGM was merely cutting off the clitoral hood based on a questionable blog post. You can pretend you didn't do that, but you did. Cutting off the clitoral hood would be analagous to male circumcision and that's clearly what you were trying to imply. And whether the CDC is recommending circumcision or not, they have certainly given credence to the HIV circumcision studies that you are so eager to dismiss. So...take it up with them.

[heavenlyboy34]

Edit: Your link above is to a blog which does not link to any credible source. Ever credible source I've read says that female circumcision involves removes the entire clitoris. There are in fact various kinds of female circumcision that include removing more than the clitoris, but I'm not aware of simply removing the hood being one of the main forms of FGM.

http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/female-genital-cutting.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

And obvious guy says male circumcision has done nothing to stop masturbation.
My previous post about FGM you mentioned was anecdotal (which I mentioned specifically in that post). But since you want me to appeal to a more recognized authority:
This is what the WHO says:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

[alucard13mmfmj]

i watched this documentary where african boys get circumcized as a rite of passage. basically the boys go to this rally where all the men of the village are there and they get some kind of witch doctor with a scalpel and cut off the foreskin out in the middle of a crowd and out doors.

i was like OUCH...

circumcision on babies... must hurt a lot, but don't remember.

there is a health advantage of getting a circumcision. slightly less chance of catching HIV. There is less surface area of mucus membrane for HIV to enter the penis/body.

but i dont think its worth it to forcibly "mutilate" a baby. its one thing to raise your children the way you want, but its another when you try to alter their bodies. i think its not cool to use religion to justify it.

[jmdrake]

My previous post about FGM you mentioned was anecdotal (which I mentioned specifically in that post). But since you want me to appeal to a more recognized authority:
This is what the WHO says:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

WHO did a "catch all" that even covered piercing. I'm not aware of any societies that ritually pierce girls. Are you? What's made the FGM campaign so successful is the fact that they've distinguished it from MGM. You want to lump it all in the same basket, fine. Then I'm not worried about FGM either.

[Brian4Liberty]

WHO did a "catch all" that even covered piercing. I'm not aware of any societies that ritually pierce girls. Are you? What's made the FGM campaign so successful is the fact that they've distinguished it from MGM. You want to lump it all in the same basket, fine. Then I'm not worried about FGM either.

Depends upon how you define ritual? Does it have to be religious, or can it just be that all of the girls in the family get it done as infants? Many societies do piercings of infants, especially America.

From a piercing salon in Dallas:



Dr. Recommended

We've been piercing baby's for over 23 years.* We give parents a place to bring their babies and feel comfortable and safe knowing that their baby would be in the best of hands.

We recommend having babies ears pierced early!**3 weeks to 3 months is ideal.We use Only 14kt gold earrings without screw-backs.

[jmdrake]

Depends upon how you define ritual? Does it have to be religious, or can it just be that all of the girls in the family get it done as infants? Many societies do piercings of infants, especially America.

From a piercing salon in Dallas:

Ummm....I was specifically talking about genital piercing. (And hopefully the doctor you were quoting was not. :eek:) But I get your point. Yes there is a spectrum of stuff that seems acceptable and not. I don't know why the tattoo you mentioned earlier would get some kid taken away from his grandparent. (Although the "demon faced" girl in the picture you posted looked hideous).

[MelissaWV]

Been too long since we had a good circumcision debate around here.

They always get cut short.

[tod evans]

They always get cut short.

Da-Da-Da-ding........

2pts.

[Pericles]

I'd argue that a true liberty standpoint permits the parents to make the choice for their ward without any state involvement.

To include nosey neighbors and other busybodies......

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The point here is that religious beliefs are usually based on some fact, albeit the ancient civilizations didn't know it to be fact at the time. Take the ban on eating pork, for instance. Now we know that we have to cook it, or we will get worms that might enter our brain and kill us. Back then, they had no clue about the science behind the ban, but they did know that God gave them simple yet strict instructions about not eating pork. In a similar manner, the whole keeping kosher thing did a lot to prevent cross contamination of food back in the days of old.

Circumsicion is born of that. Males who were circumcised were less likely (sometimes significantly) to contract STD's than males who aren't. That still holds true today, btw. So you can piss and moan about how horrible I am because my kids were circumsized, but I don't give a rat's ass for a couple of reasons. First, I let my husband make the call, since I don't claim to be an expert in all things penile. Second, if I could give my kids a shot that meant they were 60% less likely to contract HIV when they started having sex, I'd do that too.

What I wouldn't do is hang around on the internet bragging that my choices were superior, and that other people's beliefs were "laughable."

And yes, I'm being short with you. Forgive me for not having any respect, at all, for a smug 20-something atheist who sincerely believes he knows more than thousands of years of tradition and collective accumulated wisdom.

I think it's a bit distasteful and immoral to believe your child is your property, who is merely the product of your wants and desires foisted upon him or her. Why not respect your child's autonomy and allow them to make that choice whether to get a circumcision or not when they are of age? This is what my mother did. Respect your child's rights and liberties instead of treating him like a plantation owner would treat a black man in the 1820s South. On what authority do you have to mutilate another person's body without their consent?

[Yieu]

I think it's a bit distasteful and immoral to believe your child is your property, who is merely the product of your wants and desires foisted upon him or her. Why not respect your child's autonomy and allow them to make that choice whether to get a circumcision or not when they are of age? This is what my mother did. Respect your child's rights and liberties instead of treating him like a plantation owner would treat a black man in the 1820s South. On what authority do you have to mutilate another person's body without their consent?

Thank you, this was an apt post.

[jkob]

I shouldn't be allowed to do something like that to a child that cannot consent. You can't do it to girls and that's a religious/traditional practice in certain parts of the world. Just because it's a religious practice doesn't mean it should be tolerated. We seem to arbitrarily pick and choose which religions and rites we deem untouchable.

The only reason is done to babies is because nobody in their right mind would do it as an adult if they don't have to. I think most people when given the option of just cleaning yourself a little more thoroughly or cutting off a piece of your genitals would probably prefer to just put that extra effort in while in the shower.

[Barrex]

Since I am evil...Rethorical question:
Jews own orphanage.......

[Icymudpuppy]

I shouldn't be allowed to do something like that to a child that cannot consent. You can't do it to girls and that's a religious/traditional practice in certain parts of the world. Just because it's a religious practice doesn't mean it should be tolerated. We seem to arbitrarily pick and choose which religions and rites we deem untouchable.

The only reason is done to babies is because nobody in their right mind would do it as an adult if they don't have to. I think most people when given the option of just cleaning yourself a little more thoroughly or cutting off a piece of your genitals would probably prefer to just put that extra effort in while in the shower.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?304451-quot-Circumcision-rights-quot-are-Municipal-State-or-Federal-issue&p=3430076&viewfull=1#post3430076

[heavenlyboy34]

I think it's a bit distasteful and immoral to believe your child is your property, who is merely the product of your wants and desires foisted upon him or her. Why not respect your child's autonomy and allow them to make that choice whether to get a circumcision or not when they are of age? This is what my mother did. Respect your child's rights and liberties instead of treating him like a plantation owner would treat a black man in the 1820s South. On what authority do you have to mutilate another person's body without their consent?
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Austrian Econ Disciple again.

[BuddyRey]

No, actually it's because it's reasonable to distinguish the two. Cutting of the foreskin is not a mutilation of the genitalia itself. The skin is an organ in and of itself, the largest one on the body, in fact. Cutting skin around the genitalia is not the same thing as cutting the genitalia.

I'm not sure if you're truly familiar with what circumcision entails. It's *not* just the removal of some vestigial skin around the penis, but the removal of crucial nerves and lubricating glands also. You say cutting of the foreskin is not mutilation of the genitals, but the foreskin is *part* of the genitals.

To say that cutting skin off the penis doesn't mutilate the penis would be like me saying that cutting someone's head off at the neck "doesn't mutilate the brain", even though it has precisely the same effect.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not sure if you're truly familiar with what circumcision entails. It's *not* just the removal of some vestigial skin around the penis, but the removal of crucial nerves and lubricating glands also. You say cutting of the foreskin is not mutilation of the genitals, but the foreskin is *part* of the genitals.

To say that cutting skin off the penis doesn't mutilate the penis would be like me saying that cutting someone's head off at the neck "doesn't mutilate the brain", even though it has precisely the same effect.
This^^ The process also destroys the frenulum-one of the most sensitive parts of the organ.

[anaconda]

http://www.rt.com/news/germany-religious-circumcision-ban-772/


Been too long since we had a good circumcision debate around here.

Q: How much does a circumcisor make?

A: $20 per hour, plus tips.

[heavenlyboy34]

Q: How much does a circumcisor make?

A: $20 per hour, plus tips.
So, a mohel is ready to retire. He has a really big jar full of foreskins. He doesn't want to waste them, so he takes them to a leather worker. The leather worker says, "okay, come back tomorrow and I'll see what I can do". The mohel comes back, and the leather worker hands him a wallet. "Just a wallet?," says the mohel, "there were hundreds of foreskins in the jar!" So the leather worker says, "Just rub it and it turns into a suitcase". :D

[PaulConventionWV]

I would think from a liberty standpoint all of us would be dead against circumcision. Removing a part of a baby's penis before they are old enough to say that is okay with them is the antithesis of liberty.

The parents are responsible for the children. At that age, the children are property. Do you think the baby would approve of drinking formula? Well, how do you know? They can't say it's okay, so what do you do?

[PaulConventionWV]

That doesn't hinder reproduction. :p

And to continue playing devil's advocate, paraplegics and quadriplegics can have orgasms. Removal of the entire clitoris or penis does not necessarily prevent orgasm.

I think we've pretty well proven that circumcision and FGM are not the same thing at all, far from it. It's really quite simple. As long as FGM does involve more than removing some skin and nerve endings, then they are not the same thing and thus, cannot be compared. The analogy was terrible to begin with and it's terrible now. Can we please stop using it?

[PaulConventionWV]

I gave you the definition of mutilation. (repeat: 2 
noun any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs, especially excision of the clitoris.)You can choose to pretend that circumcision is not mutilation, but you would be incorrect. Is it the same as FGM, no. I don't believe I said that, but if I did I withdraw it.
Since you bring up the CDC, let me quote their website (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/research/male-circumcision.htm) for you:


As I said, no major medical organization reccomends circumcision to prevent disease. If you find one that does, you can safely bet it's a quack outfit.

Of course no major medical organization recommends it. Like you said, only "quacks" do that. So you can't ask him to give you a major medical organization that does that when, if he did, you would call them "quacks." It's the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

No major medical organization will recommend it because they don't want to take a side on controversial issues. Otherwise, they wouldn't be major.

[heavenlyboy34]

Of course no major medical organization recommends it. Like you said, only "quacks" do that. So you can't ask him to give you a major medical organization that does that when, if he did, you would call them "quacks." It's the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

No major medical organization will recommend it because they don't want to take a side on controversial issues. Otherwise, they wouldn't be major.
Fallacious, but true. Remember, fallacious is not the same as false. To claim otherwise is to commit the fallacy fallacy.

[heavenlyboy34]

The point here is that religious beliefs are usually based on some fact, albeit the ancient civilizations didn't know it to be fact at the time. Take the ban on eating pork, for instance. Now we know that we have to cook it, or we will get worms that might enter our brain and kill us. Back then, they had no clue about the science behind the ban, but they did know that God gave them simple yet strict instructions about not eating pork. In a similar manner, the whole keeping kosher thing did a lot to prevent cross contamination of food back in the days of old.

Circumsicion is born of that. Males who were circumcised were less likely (sometimes significantly) to contract STD's than males who aren't. That still holds true today, btw. So you can piss and moan about how horrible I am because my kids were circumsized, but I don't give a rat's ass for a couple of reasons. First, I let my husband make the call, since I don't claim to be an expert in all things penile. Second, if I could give my kids a shot that meant they were 60% less likely to contract HIV when they started having sex, I'd do that too.

What I wouldn't do is hang around on the internet bragging that my choices were superior, and that other people's beliefs were "laughable."

And yes, I'm being short with you. Forgive me for not having any respect, at all, for a smug 20-something atheist who sincerely believes he knows more than thousands of years of tradition and collective accumulated wisdom.
Actually, that's not true. Some believe it is, but there is science contradicting that as well. I've posted it at least twice on these boards. Biologists generally don't take that hypothesis seriously.

[heavenlyboy34]

Of course no major medical organization recommends it. Like you said, only "quacks" do that. So you can't ask him to give you a major medical organization that does that when, if he did, you would call them "quacks." It's the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

No major medical organization will recommend it because they don't want to take a side on controversial issues. Otherwise, they wouldn't be major.
No, but they do often make recommendations based on empirical evidence. If there were empirical evidence to back the pro-circ crowd's claim, it would be recommended for at least some instances. (it also wouldn't be a controversy if it were demonstrably true)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The parents are responsible for the children. At that age, the children are property. Do you think the baby would approve of drinking formula? Well, how do you know? They can't say it's okay, so what do you do?

Children are never property. The parents do have custodial stewardship of the person's rights, which gives them some reasonable leeway until such a time as that person can themselves exercise their own liberties. Which means, a reasonable person is probably not going to cut off a part of their own genitals. The objection is you don't know with any certainty future values or actions, but there are some general values and reason most people possess. You can feed the baby, formula because most reasonable people would consent to feeding themselves since most people value survival.

If children are property, then child abuse should be repealed, because to have a law which prevents you from abusing your property is a violation of property rights. I have the right to dispose of my property in any way I want as long as it does not interfere in the equal liberties of others to do likewise. Surely, you aren't going to argue that parent's have the right to dispose of their property (the baby or child) as they wish, right? If you say no, then the baby cannot be property, and honestly, to view another human being as property is truly disgusting (never mind astoundingly contradictory).

[heavenlyboy34]

Children are never property. The parents do have custodial stewardship of the person's rights, which gives them some reasonable leeway until such a time as that person can themselves exercise their own liberties. Which means, a reasonable person is probably not going to cut off a part of their own genitals. The objection is you don't know with any certainty future values or actions, but there are some general values and reason most people possess. You can feed the baby, formula because most reasonable people would consent to feeding themselves since most people value survival.

If children are property, then child abuse should be repealed, because to have a law which prevents you from abusing your property is a violation of property rights. I have the right to dispose of my property in any way I want as long as it does not interfere in the equal liberties of others to do likewise. Surely, you aren't going to argue that parent's have the right to dispose of their property (the baby or child) as they wish, right? If you say no, then the baby cannot be property, and honestly, to view another human being as property is truly disgusting (never mind astoundingly contradictory).
This^^ Children are never property. Dependents for a certain time and a responsibility, but never property.

[Kluge]

I have property, I also have a child.

They are not even close to the same thing. If my child were my property I could sell her, or pack her away in a box when she bothers me--those are both illegal because most anyone with a couple of brain cells and morals realizes that that is ridiculous.

Those are some of the few laws that I find defensible.

[jj-]

I have property, I also have a child.

Yeah, what the fuck. If a person were your property you could burn them.

[heavenlyboy34]

I have property, I also have a child.

They are not even close to the same thing. If my child were my property I could sell her, or pack her away in a box when she bothers me--those are both illegal because most anyone with a couple of brain cells and morals realizes that that is ridiculous.

Those are some of the few laws that I find defensible.
+rep

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I think it's a bit distasteful and immoral to believe your child is your property, who is merely the product of your wants and desires foisted upon him or her. Why not respect your child's autonomy and allow them to make that choice whether to get a circumcision or not when they are of age? This is what my mother did. Respect your child's rights and liberties instead of treating him like a plantation owner would treat a black man in the 1820s South. On what authority do you have to mutilate another person's body without their consent?

Absoluetly correct, my parents let me make my own mind up and I will do the same for my children.


Also let me counter one of the weaker arguements I've heard during this thread;the "prevents STDS" arguement.

Let's assume this were true. Your child wouldn't need the added protection untill they were of age sexually. Which means they could then reason whether they wanted it or not as a teenager.

[Murray N Rothbard]

I have property, I also have a child.

They are not even close to the same thing. If my child were my property I could sell her, or pack her away in a box when she bothers me--those are both illegal because most anyone with a couple of brain cells and morals realizes that that is ridiculous.

Those are some of the few laws that I find defensible.

Your child is your property. On what other basis could you defend your right not for her to be taken away from you? This isn't ownership in the sense that you can do whatever you want to her, it's a sort of trustee ownership, in which you have an exclusive right to be her provider, and no one else can take her from you. It doesn't mean you can violate her physically. Question is what qualifies as physical violation, ie violent aggression, against a child?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Your child is your property. On what other basis could you defend your right not for her to be taken away from you? This isn't ownership in the sense that you can do whatever you want to her, it's a sort of trustee ownership, in which you have an exclusive right to be her provider, and no one else can take her from you. It doesn't mean you can violate her physically. Question is what qualifies as physical violation, ie violent aggression, against a child?

No, the baby is not their property. The parents do have stewardship of their babies rights, but that in no way implies ownership especially not of considering the baby their property. Remember, property has distinct characteristics. There is an implied contract between parent and child that is severed upon the use of the child's faculties in exercise of their natural liberties. There has been no transfer of title of property, the baby has full self-propriety.

It is unreasonable to consider anyone subjecting themselves into voluntary slavery (in other words, handing title of their self-propriety to another) without extreme circumstances (such as saving the life of someone they hold dear through a very expensive medical procedure). Therefore, we can safely conclude that there is no reasonable cause for the baby to ever cede their title to the parents. Understand?

[heavenlyboy34]

No, the baby is not their property. The parents do have stewardship of their babies rights, but that in no way implies ownership especially not of considering the baby their property. Remember, property has distinct characteristics. There is an implied contract between parent and child that is severed upon the use of the child's faculties in exercise of their natural liberties. There has been no transfer of title of property, the baby has full self-propriety.

It is unreasonable to consider anyone subjecting themselves into voluntary slavery (in other words, handing title of their self-propriety to another) without extreme circumstances (such as saving the life of someone they hold dear through a very expensive medical procedure). Therefore, we can safely conclude that there is no reasonable cause for the baby to ever cede their title to the parents. Understand?
This^^

[Kluge]

Your child is your property. On what other basis could you defend your right not for her to be taken away from you? This isn't ownership in the sense that you can do whatever you want to her, it's a sort of trustee ownership, in which you have an exclusive right to be her provider, and no one else can take her from you. It doesn't mean you can violate her physically. Question is what qualifies as physical violation, ie violent aggression, against a child?

I can not own another human being, regardless of whether or not she is my complete responsibility. If she is property, can I sell her to the highest bidder like any other thing I own?

I guess the answer to that is yes, if I'm a genuinely horrible person who has no respect for life.

[Murray N Rothbard]

No, the baby is not their property. The parents do have stewardship of their babies rights, but that in no way implies ownership especially not of considering the baby their property. Remember, property has distinct characteristics. There is an implied contract between parent and child that is severed upon the use of the child's faculties in exercise of their natural liberties. There has been no transfer of title of property, the baby has full self-propriety.

It is unreasonable to consider anyone subjecting themselves into voluntary slavery (in other words, handing title of their self-propriety to another) without extreme circumstances (such as saving the life of someone they hold dear through a very expensive medical procedure). Therefore, we can safely conclude that there is no reasonable cause for the baby to ever cede their title to the parents. Understand?

Trustee ownership vs. "stewardship" I think you are playing semantics, meanwhile making the strawman about full-blown slavery-type ownership. No one is saying that.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Trustee ownership vs. "stewardship" I think you are playing semantics, meanwhile making the strawman about full-blown slavery-type ownership. No one is saying that.

You said the child was the property of the parents. That constitutes specific arrangement of rules, of which, the owner has full authority to dispose of his property however they choose. I maintain that the child has not ceded any self-propriety to the parents.

Now, the mere temporary granting of rights as to be used in a reasonable manner (such as feeding, clothing, etc.), does not constitute cessation of any ownership. In other words, the baby still retains full property rights that they properly exercise once their faculties are developed in order to do so. It's no different than say, someone of old age who has reverted to the mind of a baby. Is he or she your property, or are you merely exercising stewardship?

We can define stewardship as being a surrogate for the child.

If you remitted property in your post, it would have been closer to the truth, also I must say that due to your thesis you've been biased toward a terrible position - that the parent's cannot be dispossessed of the child. If the child is neglected, abused, or otherwise his/her rights violated it is not unreasonable to say that if they were able to act they would leave such a situation, in this case, the baby should be taken from the parent's and put up for adoption to people who will not violate the babies rights and liberties.

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm not sure if you're truly familiar with what circumcision entails. It's *not* just the removal of some vestigial skin around the penis, but the removal of crucial nerves and lubricating glands also. You say cutting of the foreskin is not mutilation of the genitals, but the foreskin is *part* of the genitals.

To say that cutting skin off the penis doesn't mutilate the penis would be like me saying that cutting someone's head off at the neck "doesn't mutilate the brain", even though it has precisely the same effect.

You're comparing circumcision to cutting someone's head off?

[PaulConventionWV]

Children are never property. The parents do have custodial stewardship of the person's rights, which gives them some reasonable leeway until such a time as that person can themselves exercise their own liberties. Which means, a reasonable person is probably not going to cut off a part of their own genitals. The objection is you don't know with any certainty future values or actions, but there are some general values and reason most people possess. You can feed the baby, formula because most reasonable people would consent to feeding themselves since most people value survival.

If children are property, then child abuse should be repealed, because to have a law which prevents you from abusing your property is a violation of property rights. I have the right to dispose of my property in any way I want as long as it does not interfere in the equal liberties of others to do likewise. Surely, you aren't going to argue that parent's have the right to dispose of their property (the baby or child) as they wish, right? If you say no, then the baby cannot be property, and honestly, to view another human being as property is truly disgusting (never mind astoundingly contradictory).

That's your opinion. Nobody can say who is actually right in a practical or moral sense, though. You are just saying what YOU think is right versus what someone else thinks is right. Whether or not it is, in practice, a good thing to let the child be an individual is virtually unknowable because you can't test it.

Also, most doesn't mean all. There is no hard and fast rule.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That's your opinion. Nobody can say who is actually right in a practical or moral sense, though. You are just saying what YOU think is right versus what someone else thinks is right. Whether or not it is, in practice, a good thing to let the child be an individual is virtually unknowable because you can't test it.

Also, most doesn't mean all. There is no hard and fast rule.

Well, I'm surely not a nihilist, and I can surely use my reason to deduce fundamental natural laws. Just open up any essay by Bastiat and there'll be plenty of these astute explanations. I'm also not a positivist and we do not have to test something to know if is 'knowable' or not. Do you test every triangle to make sure it's 180 degrees? Is it unknowable without testing? You omit large swaths of science, of mathematics, of logicians, of geometry and all sorts of other deductive science.

[MRK]

So you are equating circumcision with genital mutilation? That is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.

Circumcision IS genital mutilation. Look up the definitions of those words. And to answer your question, yes, feeling is lost after circumsion due to the complete loss of the nerves of the foreskin. Furtheremore, the foreskin is no longer able to provide a protective gliding motion suring intercourse, whoch results in increased tearing of both the woman's vagina and the man's penis. This is because the genitals have been mutilated to the point where they no longer function normally ,- the outside layer is ABSENT!

[brandon]

^^Agreed.

[ZenBowman]

Good, I don't see why mutilating someone else's body is in any way acceptable.

[ZenBowman]

Your child is your property.

No.



On what other basis could you defend your right not for her to be taken away from you?

On the basis that she is his child.

Are you so blinded that you can only think in terms of property and nothing else?

Just like there is a relation between a person and his property, there is a relation between a person and his child.

And the latter relationship predates the former.

[Kluge]

Your child is your property. On what other basis could you defend your right not for her to be taken away from you? This isn't ownership in the sense that you can do whatever you want to her, it's a sort of trustee ownership, in which you have an exclusive right to be her provider, and no one else can take her from you. It doesn't mean you can violate her physically. Question is what qualifies as physical violation, ie violent aggression, against a child?

Human beings aren't property, I defend my alleged right for her not to be taken away from me based on my relationship to her as her mother. Even courts recognize that, and rarely take children from their parents except in cases of abuse (yes, I know there are exceptions, but that's how it's supposed to work.)

Cattle is property. Gold, silver, metals are property. Land is property. My body is my property. My daughter's body is her property, not mine. A human being is only "property" when you have a situation involving slavery, and that is not ethically legitimate.

[angelatc]

Absoluetly correct, my parents let me make my own mind up and I will do the same for my children.


Also let me counter one of the weaker arguements I've heard during this thread;the "prevents STDS" arguement.

Let's assume this were true. Your child wouldn't need the added protection untill they were of age sexually. Which means they could then reason whether they wanted it or not as a teenager.

Teenagers can't be trusted to make the best decisions. Part of my job is making sure his mistakes won't kill him.

And just coincidentally, one of my son's friends just had to have it done, because the skin didn't grow right. He's 13, in a shipload of pain, and absolutely mortified to boot. I am pretty sure if I asked him right now if he wishes his parents had done it when he was an infant, he'd certainly say yes.

Husband is hollering that his former roommate had it done when he was 21, and circ'd his boys because of the discomfort he felt when he was an adult. ("Hurt like a motherfucker" is the exact phrase.)

Leave my kids out of your moral superiority bullshit.

[heavenlyboy34]

Teenagers can't be trusted to make the best decisions. Part of my job is making sure his mistakes won't kill him.

And just coincidentally, one of my son's friends just had to have it done, because the skin didn't grow right. He's 13, in a shipload of pain, and absolutely mortified to boot. I am pretty sure if I asked him right now if he wishes his parents had done it when he was an infant, he'd certainly say yes.

Husband is hollering that his former roommate had it done when he was 21, and circ'd his boys because of the discomfort he felt when he was an adult. ("Hurt like a motherfucker" is the exact phrase.)

Leave my kids out of your moral superiority bullshit.
Such an EXTREMELY rare example does not bolster your argument.

[angelatc]

Human beings aren't property, I defend my alleged right for her not to be taken away from me based on my relationship to her as her mother. Even courts recognize that, and rarely take children from their parents except in cases of abuse (yes, I know there are exceptions, but that's how it's supposed to work.)

Cattle is property. Gold, silver, metals are property. Land is property. My body is my property. My daughter's body is her property, not mine. A human being is only "property" when you have a situation involving slavery, and that is not ethically legitimate.

Nope, my kids are my property. They aren't allowed to get tats, piercings, and they are indeed my slaves until the day they turn 18.

They are also sold, be it on the black market or via adoption agencies.

[angelatc]

Such an EXTREMELY rare example does not bolster your argument.

It's not really all that rare, apparently. He's the second kid I've known that had to have it done. WHen I was a kid, my cousin also had to have it done.

ETA Medscape says about 5% of uncircumcised males. Now we can quibble about whether that's rare. I have a condition that only 1 in a million people have, so my vote is that 5% isn't exactly rare.

[Kluge]

Nope, my kids are my property. They aren't allowed to get tats, piercings, and they are indeed my slaves until the day they turn 18.

They are also sold, be it on the black market or via adoption agencies.

I disagree entirely. I wasn't "allowed" to do a lot of things before I was 18, yet I did them anyways--why? Because it was my body and mind, my property. I suffered the consequences, of course, but I certainly wasn't the property of my parents.

Responsibility, yes. Property, no.

Giving up a child for adoption is abdicating your responsibility for them, not ownership. The argument for ownership of another human being, rather than stewardship, is unsound philosophically and can be used to justify good parenting just as easily as bad parenting.

[heavenlyboy34]

I disagree entirely. I wasn't "allowed" to do a lot of things before I was 18, yet I did them anyways--why? Because it was my body and mind, my property. I suffered the consequences, of course, but I certainly wasn't the property of my parents.

Responsibility, yes. Property, no.

Giving up a child for adoption is abdicating your responsibility for them, not ownership. The argument for ownership of another human being, rather than stewardship, is unsound philosophically and can be used to justify good parenting just as easily as bad parenting.+rep

[Feeding the Abscess]

Circumcision is reprehensible, government is reprehensible.

[idiom]

Smegma for all!

[PaulConventionWV]

Well, I'm surely not a nihilist, and I can surely use my reason to deduce fundamental natural laws. Just open up any essay by Bastiat and there'll be plenty of these astute explanations. I'm also not a positivist and we do not have to test something to know if is 'knowable' or not. Do you test every triangle to make sure it's 180 degrees? Is it unknowable without testing? You omit large swaths of science, of mathematics, of logicians, of geometry and all sorts of other deductive science.

Actually, you can't use reason to deduce fundamental natural laws. You can say this is what you think is right, but under what authority could you make them obligatory on anyone else? I'm not a nihilist either, but that's because I get my natural laws from an absolute moral authority and not my own conscious mind.

[heavenlyboy34]

Circumcision is reprehensible, government is reprehensible.
This^^