Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders

[Political Junky]

Perhaps some would advocate removal of the female labia, which relate to the foreskin in males.

 

[Unkotare]

Perhaps some would advocate removal of the female labia, which relate to the foreskin in males.

Try to keep up, that's been covered.

 

[Political Junky]

Perhaps some would advocate removal of the female labia, which relate to the foreskin in males.

Try to keep up, that's been covered.

Were you for it?

 

[Vidi]

Not many people in Germany, or anywhere in Europe, are circumcised who aren't Jewish or Muslim ... it's extremely rare.

I am not religious, yet if I ever have a son, he will be circumcised as soon as I can get it done. He is my son and I want what is best for him, like any parent. He will not suffer with his foreskin removed, he will still be able to engage in sexual activity. Circumcision is harmless as long as it is done properly.

Because its a decision that has life long negative implications. Whats so hard for you to understand?

Would you support parents amputating every childs left hand because their religion said so? Or because they thought it was cleanlier?

Why does something which was performed in the childs first few weeks of life someho come back to affect them many years later?
Perhaps if the anti circumcision crowd didn't ram their beliefs down the throats of those who have been circumcised, making them believe they are somehow abnormal, there wouldn't be any 'life long negative implications'.

Those against circumcision somehow think that their sex life is not as good as it could be. Yet they have no idea what sex would be like if they did have a foreskin. They don't know if it would be better, or worse, or even painful due to the foreskin being too tight. They simply assume that because the foreskin has many nerve endings, that sex would be better.
These men can still achieve orgasm, they can still enjoy sex, and they can still father children, yet they complain.

It makes me wonder whether these men don't blame circumcision for their shitty sex lives.

You should read all the links I posted before you remove 70% of your sons feeling in his genitals.

Perhaps you wouldn't think it was harmless of you were discussing cutting off part of your daughters genitals for no medically valid reason whatsoever.

 

[Vidi]

Yes. If you had read all the many links I provided you would know that.

I read your links and I have judged them properly.

Are you a physician?

No. And neither are you. So we look at what the physicians say. And, as per the links I posted, they say there's no medical reason for circumcision.

 

[Vidi]

Perhaps some would advocate removal of the female labia, which relate to the foreskin in males.

Try to keep up, that's been covered.

Were you for it?

No he just ignorantly refuses to equate female circumcision with male circumcision. So by default is in favor of mutilating infants.

 

[Unkotare]

I read your links and I have judged them properly.

Are you a physician?

No. And neither are you. So we look at what the physicians say.

And you looked at all the links I posted?

 

[Unkotare]

Try to keep up, that's been covered.

Were you for it?

No he just ignorantly refuses to equate female circumcision with male circumcision.

Ignorance, gross and irresponsible ignorance, is trying to equate the two. You've allowed your agenda to take you completely over the edge.

 

[Noomi]

You should read all the links I posted before you remove 70% of your sons feeling in his genitals.

Perhaps you wouldn't think it was harmless of you were discussing cutting off part of your daughters genitals for no medically valid reason whatsoever.

I have read countless links already and nothing will change my mind on the subject. And to compare female circumcision to male circumcision is like comparing apples and oranges.
Female circumcision is not done for the same reasons.

 

[Vidi]

Were you for it?

No he just ignorantly refuses to equate female circumcision with male circumcision.

Ignorance, gross and irresponsible ignorance, is trying to equate the two. You've allowed your agenda to take you completely over the edge.

You know what? You're right.

As the clitorus has 2000 nerves and the uncut foreskin has 20,000, male circumcision is therefore 10x worse...right?

 

[Noomi]

You know what? You're right.

As the clitorus has 2000 nerves and the uncut foreskin has 20,000, male circumcision is therefore 10x worse...right?

This is still irrelevant because female circumcision is not performed for the same reasons as male circumcision.

 

[Vidi]

You should read all the links I posted before you remove 70% of your sons feeling in his genitals.

Perhaps you wouldn't think it was harmless of you were discussing cutting off part of your daughters genitals for no medically valid reason whatsoever.

I have read countless links already and nothing will change my mind on the subject. And to compare female circumcision to male circumcision is like comparing apples and oranges.
Female circumcision is not done for the same reasons.

You're wrong. It's done for exactly the same reason.

Female circumcision, or female genital mutilation, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "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."

That's EXACTLY the same thing...only it could actually be worse, because you would be removing 10 times the number of nerves from your boy, than if your child were female.

Now, care to cite a medical reason to mutilate male genitals that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked?


Seriously, before you mutilate your child, don't you think you ought to at least look at it critically?

What are the pros and cons of it? Is it reversable if you're wrong?

Think about that. If you're wrong, he's deformed for the rest of his life. You will have robbed him of the fullness of the experiences his biological form was meant to have. There's no going back and fixing it.

But, he can always choose on his own as an adult to have it done later.

Would you choose the same if it was your daughter?

With ALL the data and the vast majority of Medical associations saying there is no medical reason for circumcisions, from Austrailia, to Europe, to the American Medical Association, how can you be so sure that it's the right thing to do? Especially when it's not your body you are choosing to mutilate.

Do the right thing. Leave him intact and let the decision be his to make when he is older.

 

[Noomi]

Male circumcision is not performed to prevent the male from enjoying sexual relations. However, it is done for this reason in females. Removing the clitoris prevents the female from feeling any enjoyment from intercourse at all.

Do the majority of circumcised men believe they have been mutilated, and want their foreskins back? Or are they happy and content with their bodies the way they are?

Some circumcised men seem to think that because they are angry about their circumcisions, that every man should also feel that anger, and most men don't.

Male circumcision reduces the risk of UTI's, and also sexually transmitted infections. It is also cleaner, and therefore more hygienic. Uncircumcised men may end up needing to be circumcised later in life because the foreskin becomes so tight, it causes pain and bleeding during sex. Circumcision early in life can prevent this.

As a parent, I believe you have the right -within reason - to raise your child how you see fit, and if a parent wishes to have their son circumcised, then that decision is none of your business.

 

[Vidi]

Male circumcision is not performed to prevent the male from enjoying sexual relations. However, it is done for this reason in females. Removing the clitoris prevents the female from feeling any enjoyment from intercourse at all.

Do the majority of circumcised men believe they have been mutilated, and want their foreskins back? Or are they happy and content with their bodies the way they are?

Some circumcised men seem to think that because they are angry about their circumcisions, that every man should also feel that anger, and most men don't.

Male circumcision reduces the risk of UTI's, and also sexually transmitted infections. It is also cleaner, and therefore more hygienic. Uncircumcised men may end up needing to be circumcised later in life because the foreskin becomes so tight, it causes pain and bleeding during sex. Circumcision early in life can prevent this.

As a parent, I believe you have the right -within reason - to raise your child how you see fit, and if a parent wishes to have their son circumcised, then that decision is none of your business.

As I linked earlier, data suggests that erectile dysfunction is considerably higher in circumcised males. It in fact, DOES reduce sexual pleasure as it removes 20,000 nerves and damages 4,000 more, all related to sexual pleasure. Additionally, it's believed to remove as much as 70% of the feeling a male has in that area, as it removes the five MOST sensitive areas of the penis. So you're intention may not be to prevent your son from enjoying sex, but the result will be the same, loss of full enjoyment.

Additionally, the foreskin adds girth, and provides more friction for both him and his future partner(s). So your choice will effect not only his pleasure, but his wife's as well.

The data relating to STDs says that it reduces the risk by less than 1% which in science speak is NOT AT ALL.

The data concerning UTI's says circumcision produces no discernible reduction in risk of UTI's. Approx .003% as per my earlier link.

The tightness you're referring to is called phimosis, and it occurs only very rarely in less than 2% of uncircumcised males. And this condition is usually discovered around puberty and then AND ONLY THEN becomes MEDICALLY NECESSARY. But even then there are several non surgical treatments that can fix that issue and leave the patient intact, including gentle stretching on the skin and/or the application of a topical cream.

The cleaner arguement is a false arguement in a country with SOAP AND RUNNING WATER.

Yes, as a parent, you have the right -within reason- to decide for your child. The key words being "within reason". It is not, in my opinion, "within reason" for you to decide to remove any part of his body for non medically necessary reasons.

And as you're Austrailian, from my previous post:

As of 2010, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians state: "After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.
"

 

[beagle9]

Yes. If you had read all the many links I provided you would know that.

I read your links and I have judged them properly.

Are you a physician?

If he has to become one here, then I bet he will just so's he can lie and say that he knows better about this than anyone else here (or) even more scary over anyone that resides anywhere else in the world for that matter.

His spoiled rotten attitude and liberal arrogance on such a subject, reeks of "no matter what is proven as the opposite of his OPINION in which he holds on the subject", he thinks he is smarter than anyone here in that he continually challenges their opinions, even though based on his weak theories at best, he just keeps going and going. This exposes his fallacy by doing so in the ways in which he is doing it, and yet he loves this place because it allows him to be what he thinks is so devilishly extremely smart in this way (he thinks), and so the debate turned argument in which it has basically become with him on this subject, is no longer profitable in any form it takes and/or in respect of the subject matter posted for anyone here, but rather it has now become just ignorant argumentive words spewing out of his mouth upon his return of, in which waste peoples time and their honest brain energy, and that is what all of this has become now with him, especially when I read more of his material as is written upon this thread when he responds. Can anyone like this actually become humble and concede a valid point made by someone when it is made (or) is this always a game of saying evil is good now, and that good is now evil, and this no matter what in accordance with these types of personalities where as it now has to be this way in life ?

 

[oldernwiser]

Male circumcision is not performed to prevent the male from enjoying sexual relations. However, it is done for this reason in females. Removing the clitoris prevents the female from feeling any enjoyment from intercourse at all.

Do the majority of circumcised men believe they have been mutilated, and want their foreskins back? Or are they happy and content with their bodies the way they are?

--snipped--

As a parent, I believe you have the right -within reason - to raise your child how you see fit, and if a parent wishes to have their son circumcised, then that decision is none of your business.

Now, here's where you're not so correct. Circumcision has been around for a VERY long time and was brought about as a religious ritual. It had two purposes, one as a flesh offering to God and one in which a person's (male OR female) attention was not turned away from God even in the sexual act itself. The modern day "reasons" for circumcision were a way to perpetuate the underlying reasoning using "science" to explain why it's better to mutilate a child. You're correct that removing the clitoris is not EXACTLY the same as removing foreskin, but the reasons for doing so are. Sexual enjoyment is frowned upon by nearly all the world's organized religious beliefs. Christianity itself says that sex is ONLY for procreation in accordance with God's wishes, a belief that is widely held even today.

We who have been circumcised as children aren't "unhappy". We actually have no idea what we're missing except as described by others who have remained intact. But that argument is most like seeing a child who was born with no arms - she can do most everything a "normal" person can do, except she uses her feet to do it. Does she hate the fact that she has no arms, or is she content with the fact that she doesn't have to wear shoes?

Your last comment needs to be examined a bit. It's the "within reason" part that gets me. To some parents it's reasonable to softly paddle a bottom to get across to a child what "no" means. Some parents use a belt or a wooden spoon to get that same point across. Some use a closed fist. Who makes the determination of what is "within reason"? If a parent, who was "within reason" at the time, harms a child using these techniques, society says the parent can go to jail. Is it reasonable to ignore every major medical organization's studies on circumcision in favor of "common knowledge"?

Male or female, mutilation is still mutilation.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Yeah, I can see how this would upset those for whom circumcision is a religious obligation.

I can also understand why some of us think that mutilation of a baby boy's penis makes about as much sense (read none) as mutilation of a baby girls cliterus.

Not much room for compromise in this clash of cultural values.

it shouldn't be... one can't compare female circumcision with male circumcision. and i always wonder about why anyone would make that comparison other than the use of the word circumcision. the effects on the individual are not comparable.

also, historically, one of the first ways in which tyrannical and anti-semetic regimes isolated and made jews alien was to outlaw circumcision. they would then use the fact that someone was circumcised as a way of identifying and outing jews who were singled out for persecution.

this is a very dangerous road to walk... if you don't want to circumcise your child, don't...

in my world, it's normal and not "abuse"... it's a cause for celebration... and it's an identifying ritual.

thank G-d for the first amendment.

Oh Geez Fucking Louise ! everything isn't anti-semitic.

How about for this reason?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...rpes-after-circumcision-and-oral-suction.html

 

[Vidi]

I read your links and I have judged them properly.

Are you a physician?

If he has to become one here, then I bet he will just so's he can lie and say that he knows better about this than anyone else here (or) even more scary over anyone that resides anywhere else in the world for that matter.

His spoiled rotten attitude and liberal arrogance on such a subject, reeks of "no matter what is proven as the opposite of his OPINION in which he holds on the subject", he thinks he is smarter than anyone here in that he continually challenges their opinions, even though based on his weak theories at best, he just keeps going and going. This exposes his fallacy by doing so in the ways in which he is doing it, and yet he loves this place because it allows him to be what he thinks is so devilishly extremely smart in this way (he thinks), and so the debate turned argument in which it has basically become with him on this subject, is no longer profitable in any form it takes and/or in respect of the subject matter posted for anyone here, but rather it has now become just ignorant argumentive words spewing out of his mouth upon his return of, in which waste peoples time and their honest brain energy, and that is what all of this has become now with him, especially when I read more of his material as is written upon this thread when he responds. Can anyone like this actually become humble and concede a valid point made by someone when it is made (or) is this always a game of saying evil is good now, and that good is now evil, and this no matter what in accordance with these types of personalities where as it now has to be this way in life ?

Protecting the rights of the individual to choose for themselves instead of letting others choose for them is a Libetarian view.

Perhaps you need to stop sucking on the collective tit and wake up to what true freedom is really all about.

And no I am not a physician and do not need to pretend to be one in order to link to what actual physicians say on the subject. Youre an idiot for not reading my response to that question before posting how you THINK I would respond IF I were a knee jerk reactionary like you.


And Jillian, I have not once expressed any anti semetic view in this thread. I have expressed the desire to protect the childs religious freedoms as opposed to having the parents veiwpoint forced upon them for life.

We agree on a great many things thyroughout this forum. I find it disturbing that you would jump immediately to "its hate of jews" instead of actually reading what Ive posted as meaning exactly what I have said.

 

[Unkotare]

Protecting the rights of the individual to choose for themselves instead of letting others choose for them is a Libetarian view.

This is the problem with your type that latches so desperately to an 'identity' that you abandon the will or ability to think.


You make decisions for your children, don't you?

 

[Vidi]

Protecting the rights of the individual to choose for themselves instead of letting others choose for them is a Libetarian view.

This is the problem with your type that latches so desperately to an 'identity' that you abandon the will or ability to think.


You make decisions for your children, don't you?

We covered this already. Please try to work on your retention.