Posted on 07/02/2012 5:46:01 AM PDT by Pride_of_the_Bluegrass
I will not address the scientific grounds for circumcision (which among other things drastically reduces the transmission of infections including AIDS), because your decree has nothing to do with science. Rather, as Heinrich Heine wrote in 1844 of your city of Cologne,
Dummheit und Bosheitbuhltenhier GleichHunden auf freierGasse; Die Enkelbruterkennt man nochheut An ihremJudenhasse. (Stupidity and evil mated here / Like dogs in the open gutter / You still can recognize their descendants today / By their Jew-hatred).
(Excerpt) Read more at atimes.com ...
I don't know why there are any Jews in Germany anyway. If Churban 'Europa' wasn't reason enough to leave it forever, maybe this will be.
And the rest of Europe (and perhaps America as well) are not far behind.
Well, well, well. Lookie who showed up.
On what grounds do you label anything "evil?" If "evil" exists, it is because G-d exists and has defined exactly what evil is. If there is no G-d, nothing is evil, and your feelings about circumcision (or mass murder) are just a hang-up.
If G-d does not exist, there are no rules. At all. There are only social constructs we pull out of our own tachtiyot. Even your "golden rule" is nothing but a subjective cultural construct, not an objective reality.
The idea that Theism has a "problem of evil" is ridiculous. G-d makes evil possible. Without G-d, objective evil does not and cannot exist. It is non-theistic moralists who have a "problem of evil."
LOL, I totally reject your “thesis”.
As said before, the Principle of Reciprocity is the only means of knowing what is evil and what is not.
Your god is not the trinitarian Judeo-Christian god. So, how can you say your god is the “objective truth” while a vast plurality believes that the trinitarian god (which you reject as utter falsehood) is the source of this so-called “objective truth”? What objective standard do you have in accepting one concept and rejecting the other? Specify, please.
I asked you to answer, but you failed in doing so, how did you learn about this god of yours? Through words conveyed to you by other, fallible humans? Well, then the knowledge you have of your god is contingent on your faith in the humans who delivered the knowledge to you, BEFOREHAND.
So, your “truth” is not objective, but merely subjective to whose opinion you consider as acceptable truth, and whose you don’t. Likewise, those believing in the trinitarian god have the same issue to contend with - since neither you, nor they, have had a first-hand experience and reception of this knowledge you consider as “objective truth”. Does this clarify it for you? If not, specify which part, so that I know you won’t divert from the discussion.
Ignore the Myths, Get the Facts
The following cultural beliefs, or myths, are often used as reasons for circumcision. After each myth, some relevant facts are provided to present a more accurate picture of this procedure. Parents should understand the full implications of circumcision before making this irreversible decision for their child.
Myth #1: Circumcision is recommended by doctors and medical organizations
Fact: Circumcision is not recommended by any national medical association in the world. Fifteen national and international medical associations have extensively studied infant circumcision and its effects and found no significant evidence to support this practice. In March 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) concluded that infant circumcision is not recommended as a routine procedure.1 The circumcision policy statements of the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Family Physicians have concurred with this position.2-3 The AMA calls infant circumcision “non-therapeutic.”
Myth #2: It’s just a little piece of skin, he won’t miss it.
Fact: The prepuce (foreskin) makes up as much as half of the skin system of the penis.4 It is an extension of the shaft skin that folds over onto itself, completely covering and protecting the glans (an internal organ) and provides the mobility of the shaft skin necessary for frictionless intercourse and masturbation. The foreskin has three known functions: protective, immunological, and sexual. It contains about 10,000 highly specialized nerve endings and several feet of blood vessels. An adult male foreskin, if unfolded and spread out, would be about the size of index card (3 x 5 inches), much more than a “little piece of skin.” Many sexually active men circumcised in adulthood report a significant decrease in sexual pleasure and comfort because of the loss of sensitive nerve endings, skin mobility and natural lubrication.
Myth #3: The care of a circumcised penis is easier than an intact penis.
Fact: For the care of an intact penis, the AAP recommends, “Leave it alone.” 5 No special care is required – an intact child should have the external surface of his penis (and the rest of his body) washed regularly to keep clean. When a male is older and can retract his foreskin (which typically occurs by puberty), a simple rinsing is all that is necessary. 6 Other cultural myths about special cleaning procedures are just that – myth.
Myth #4: Circumcision protects males from urinary tract infections.
Fact: Overall, urinary tract infections (UTI) occur at about the same rate in male and female infants during the first six months of life.7 Regardless of circumcision status, infants who present with their first UTI at 6 months (or less) are likely to have an underlying genitouninary abnormality. In children with a normal underlying anatomy, a study found as many circumcised infants with a UTI as those who retained their foreskin.8 The appropriate treatment for UTI, in males as well as females, is antibiotics, not prophylactic excision of the prepuce. According to the AAP, “Urinary tract infections are usually not life threatening and are easily treated in most cases.” Breastfeeding provides some measure of protection against UTI during the first six months of life.9
Myth #5: Circumcision is effective in the prevention of penile cancer.
Fact: “The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers... Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting one in 200,000 men... Perpetrating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate.’’ 10
The American Medical Association, in a July 2000 report, states, “… because this disease [penile cancer] is rare and occurs later in life, the use of circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified.” 2
Myth #6: Almost everyone is circumcised…I don’t want my son to be teased in the locker room.
Fact: The circumcision rate for males worldwide is about 15%. Even in the US, the only country that circumcises a majority of its male newborns for non-religious reasons, the circumcision rate is decreasing. According the National Center for Health Statistics, the US circumcision rate is approximately 60% (varies widely by region) and slowly decreasing. According to many intact males, the “teasing” concern is vastly overstated. For many boys, genital status is neither an important issue nor one that is discussed. In the unlikely event of concerns later in life, at least the person can make his own decision about an irreversible body alteration that has no medical justification.
Myth #7: Circumcision is a simple and painless procedure… it only takes a few minutes.
Fact: While circumcision is a relatively quick procedure, it is extremely painful for the infant. The initial part of the process involves a forced separation of the foreskin, which is fused to the glans (head) in much the same way as a fingernail is joined to the finger. The AAP says the following about EMLA cream, one of the most common pain relief methods, “The analgesic effect is limited during the phases associated with extensive tissue trauma…” 1 Although they cannot remember the pain as adults, circumcised male infants have increased pain response in vaccinations 4 to 6 months later.11 Circumcision appears to lower the pain threshold.
Myth #8: Circumcision makes the penis cleaner and more hygienic.
Fact: Circumcision removes the protective portion of mobile shaft skin, which is intended to cover the glans (head) of the penis. The glans is the internal portion of genitalia (for both genders). Circumcision artificially exposes and denudes this highly sensitive tissue, resulting in a buildup of keratin and a dry, densensitized part of the penis. And contrary to popular myth, more sensation does not lead tp control problems. Based on reports from men circumcised as adults, just the opposite is true. With more sensation, a man has better feedback and can better determine his proximity to the “orgasmic threshold.”
Myth #9: Circumcision prevents AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
Fact: Some studies show that circumcision has a slight preventive effect for AIDS and some STDs; however, other studies show an insignificant or opposite effect, especially for chlamydia. The bottom line: sexual practices have a much greater effect on the chance of becoming infected than circumcision status. If someone acts on the misconception that circumcision alone will protect them, they are taking unwise chances.
Myth #10: The history of non-religious circumcision is based on disease prevention.
Fact: Non-ritual circumcision evolved from a misunderstanding of bodily function by physicians of the late-19th century.12 Many doctors of that era believed that a normal foreskin could cause disease and lead to increased incidence of “self-abuse.” John Harvey Kellogg, of cereal fame, was a proponent of genital cutting as a cure for this “horrible practice.” He recommended performing circumcision “without administering an anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary [health-giving] effect upon the mind, especially if connected with the idea of punishment.”
This fact sheet is a presentation of the Pennsylvania chapter of NOCIRC (National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers).
References:
1. American Academy of Pediatrics, Circumcision Policy Statement - March 1, 1999
2. American Medical Association, Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99), July 6, 2000
3. American Academy of Family Physicians, Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision, February 14, 2002
4. Cold CJ, Taylor J. The prepuce. BJU Int 1999; 83:34-44
5. American Academy of Pediatrics pamphlet. Newborns: Care of the Uncircumcised Penis – Guidelines for Parents. 1990
6. CIRP: Normal development of the prepuce: Birth through age 18. www.cirp.org/library/normal/
7. Marild S, Jodal U. Incidence rate of symptomatic urinary tract infection in children under 6 years of age. Acta Paediatrica 1998;87:549-52
8. Mueller E, Steinhardt G, Naseer S. The Incidence of Genitourinary Abnormalities in Circumcised and Uncircumcised Boys Presenting with an Initial Urinary Tract Infection by 6 Months of Age. Pediatrics 1997;100(supplement):580
9. Pisacane A, Graziano L, Mazzarella G, Scarpellino B, Zona G. Breast-feeding and urinary tract infection. Pediatrics 1992;120:87-89
10. Letter from the American Cancer Society (National Home Office) to the American Academy of Pediatrics, 16 Feb 1996
11. Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich A, Koren G. Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Response During Subsequent Routine Vaccination. Lancet 1997;349:599-603.
12. Gollaher D. Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery, New York, Basic Books, 2000
Socialists achieve power by convincing those who believe in right and wrong that socialism is the ‘new’ way to define right and wrong. Once the socialists are in power, they know only the power of murder can enforce their hegemony. They never believed in absolute right or wrong to start with, it was always just a tactic to achieve power.
As said before, the Principle of Reciprocity is the only means of knowing what is evil and what is not.
On what grounds? Because that is James C. Bennett's personal opinion? Just last night you were accusing everyone who invoked G-d of invoking only "personal beliefs." You don't think you have personal beliefs? You think that your own hang-ups correspond to Ultimate Reality? You're the only person in existence who has no "opinions?" You think that somewhere outside the universe is a gigantic pillar with the words "thou shalt not circumcise thy children" carved into it?
All you have done is to assert your personal opinion about circumcision. But your personal opinion is not self-evidently true.
You accuse me of not answering you, yet I have pointed out that unless G-d exists and is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, that no objective law can possibly exist. There are only social constructs which we create and destroy at will. And that's exactly what your beloved "rule of reciprocity" is: a meaningless social construct you just happen to personally approve of. But your personal approvals and disapprovals do not define what is right and what is wrong.
Your god is no the trinitarian Judeo-Christian god.
Are you really that uninformed? There is not "trinitarian Judaeo-chr*stian gxd." Judaism rejects the trinity and always has. Chr*stianity is merely one more false religion dreamed up by people. Could it be that you are so naive that you don't even know this? Could it be that you don't know that Judaism doesn't believe in the "trinity" or J*sus? You've been in the Outback too long.
So, how can you say your god is the “objective truth” while a vast plurality believes that the trinitarian god (which you reject as utter falsehood) is the source of this so-called “objective truth”? What objective standard do you have in accepting one concept and rejecting the other? Specify, please.
The proof of the Truth is the Revelation at Sinai . . . an objective fact of history that could not have possibly been invented at a later date and retrojected. The Revelation at Sinai is the proof by which we judge all that happened before and all that happened after. It sits in judgment on all claims of "revelation." And it isn't based on "blind faith."
I asked you to answer, but you failed in doing so, how did you learn about this god of yours? Through words conveyed to you by other, fallible humans? Well, then the knowledge you have of your god is contingent on your faith in the humans who delivered the knowledge to you, BEFOREHAND.
I was not always a Noachide. I used to be a chr*stian. But I gave up chr*stianity because I learned it was wrong. Let's see you change your life based on your knowledge.
By "fallible humans" do you include yourself and your almighty theory of "reciprocity," or are you alone exempt from fallibility? Maybe you think you are "gxd" and that you created the universe, because that's the only way your personal hang-ups would have any objective validity.
So, your “truth” is not objective, but merely subjective to whose opinion you consider as acceptable truth, and whose you don’t. Likewise, those believing in the trinitarian god have the same issue to contend with - since neither you, nor they, have had a first-hand experience and reception of this knowledge you consider as “objective truth”. Does this clarify it for you? If not, specify which part, so that I know you won’t divert from the discussion.
The Jewish People had a first-hand experience with G-d Himself. They received the Torah from Him and not any human being, whether he claimed to be a prophet of G-d or (chas vechalilah!) "gxd incarnate." Three million people heard His Voice that day. And they taught their children, and they taught their children, and so on, down until today. There is no other religion in the world based on such a claim. Not one. Nor will there ever be.
On what grounds do you dismiss "my truth" as subjective and insist that your own personal hang-ups about circumcision conform to Objective Reality? You're just another fallible human, after all . . . aren't you? Or do you have delusions of gxd-hood?
Why don't you justify your belief in an objective moral reality when you believe the universe is utterly meaningless? Let's see you do that. Any ignoring of this request will be taken as an admission that you cannot.
Thank you.
No, if the foreskin was a "useless" part of the male anatomy which needed to be removed, it would not have been innervated with thousands of densely packed nerve fibres, nor be provided with the blood vessels to nurture it. If the glans dries up and gets desensitivised once the foreskin is removed, thereby reducing sexual pleasure, it implies that the foreskin was present to perform a definite function. This is the basis of my reasoning that no male individual deserves to be forcibly deprived of the sexual pleasure he would have enjoyed - nobody has the right to mutilate his genitalia and remove this sensitive, functional structure of his genitalia, thereby depriving him of something he may never know to enjoy. There is more than ample testimony by normal males who had circumcision performed in adulthood, attesting to the fact that sexual pleasure was more enjoyable when the foreskin was intact and his genitalia preserved from mutilation.
"Do not do unto others what you would not want done unto you."
All you have done is to assert your personal opinion about circumcision. But your personal opinion is not self-evidently true.
* The dense innervation of the foreskin is not myth or personal opinion.
* The rich blood supply network meant for nourishing the foreskin is not myth or personal opinion.
* The fact that an entire industry of foreskin restoration clinics exist to "reverse" circumcision is not myth or personal opinion.
You accuse me of not answering you, yet I have pointed out that unless G-d exists and is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, that no objective law can possibly exist. There are only social constructs which we create and destroy at will. And that's exactly what your beloved "rule of reciprocity" is: a meaningless social construct you just happen to personally approve of. But your personal approvals and disapprovals do not define what is right and what is wrong.
Nonsense. It is as much documented (probably more) that Jesus walked on Earth and was crucified as believed by the Christians, and that he performed miracles as you claim of the "truth" in the Sinai episode, and yet you reject the former as falsehood while accepting the latter as "divine truth". What is your OBJECTIVE STANDARD in allowing you to do so? None. You heard it from other, fallible humans and chose, based on personal, SUBJECTIVE NOTIONS, what you think as "truth" and what you reject as falsehood.
Due to this problem of the subjectiveness of this kind of "truth" due to your derivation of it from fallible, human sources, the faith you have in that "truth" being subject to the condition that you must have faith in those humans who have delivered those "truths" to you (and who have themselves been delivered the same, ignoring corruption, by other humans previously) beforehand, your consideration of what is "truth" is not objective truth.
The Principle of Reciprocity has no such failings, and as such, proves itself to be more objective in its truthfulness, than any of your human-constructed, human-dependent notions of "truth".
The proof of the Truth is the Revelation at Sinai . . . an objective fact of history that could not have possibly been invented at a later date and retrojected. The Revelation at Sinai is the proof by which we judge all that happened before and all that happened after. It sits in judgment on all claims of "revelation." And it isn't based on "blind faith."
LOL, who says that the "revelation" is an objective fact? How do you prove it? Based on other, fallible human testimony? Why, the same exists for Jesus and his miracles as well. How do you reject the "truth of the latter", and then frame your opinion to consider Jesus to be a false god, a false prophet and a preacher of falsehood? You have rejected a similar "objective fact of history" you rejected Jesus' message. How did you do that? Any attempt by you to ignore this section and the questions asked therein will be seen as your inability to answer truthfully.
I was not always a Noachide. I used to be a chr*stian. But I gave up chr*stianity because I learned it was wrong. Let's see you change your life based on your knowledge.
Go ahead, convince me. So far, you've failed to provide objective, indisputable proof for your assertions.
By "fallible humans" do you include yourself and your almighty theory of "reciprocity," or are you alone exempt from fallibility? Maybe you think you are"gxd" and that you created the universe, because that's the only way your personal hang-ups would have any objective validity.
We are all fallible human beings. The rest of your sentences in the excerpt above is mere, useless, aimless projection and I will not spend a hair's worth of trouble to even consider them as serious argument.
The Jewish People had a first-hand experience with G-d Himself. They received the Torah from Him and not any human being, whether he claimed to be a prophet of G-d or (chas vechalilah!) "gxd incarnate." Three million people heard His Voice that day. And they taught their children, and they taught their children, and so on, down until today. There is no other religion in the world based on such a claim. Not one. Nor will there ever be.
Did you have a "first-hand experience" of the nature that those people whose testimony you accepted as "truth", did? If not, you are merely believing their narrative to be "truth" based on your subjective opinion, and not based on first-hand evidence. As such, you need to believe in the words of those people before you can believe in the entity that those people have told you to be the source of those words. Pure, subjective opinion, contingent upon your personal beliefs as to which humans you can believe in, and which humans you cannot. Your faith in Jesus is nil, you reject Jesus as a preacher of falsehood. In doing so, you reject the documented experiences of those people who were present during his time who gave testimony to the fact that they witnessed his deeds - miraculous deeds. On what OBJECTIVE BASIS did you manage to do so? How did you decide that the Sinai chapter was true whereas Jesus' preachings were false, when the knowledge of both has been brought to you by second-hand, fallible, human sources? Answer this, and a failure to do so will be seen as your inability to provide a valid answer.
On what grounds do you dismiss "my truth" as subjective and insist that your own personal hang-ups about circumcision conform to Objective Reality? You're just another fallible human, after all . . . aren't you? Or do you have delusions of gxd-hood?
Why don't you justify your belief in an objective moral reality when you believe the universe is utterly meaningless? Let's see you do that. Any ignoring of this request will be taken as an admission that you cannot.
See earlier responses.
Are you really that uninformed? There is not "trinitarian Judaeo-chr*stian gxd." Judaism rejects the trinity and always has. Chr*stianity is merely one more false religion dreamed up by people. Could it be that you are so naive that you don't even know this? Could it be that you don't know that Judaism doesn't believe in the "trinity" or J*sus? You've been in the Outback too long.
Again, see earlier responses. Thank you!
So? What has that got to do with anything? People are full of nerves throughout their bodies, yet in some circumstances it is G-d's command that they be killed. Why is circumcision any different from the extermination of the Seven Nations of Canaan?
"Do not do unto others what you would not want done unto you."
Why do you keep repeating that mere social construct? Do you think it actually exists in some eternal, metaphysical form outside the universe?
Nonsense. It is as much documented (probably more) that Jesus walked on Earth and was crucified as believed by the Christians, and that he performed miracles as you claim of the "truth" in the Sinai episode, and yet you reject the former as falsehood while accepting the latter as "divine truth". What is your OBJECTIVE STANDARD in allowing you to do so? None. You heard it from other, fallible humans and chose, based on personal, SUBJECTIVE NOTIONS, what you think as "truth" and what you reject as falsehood.
My rejection of chr*stianity is not based on a rejection of the alleged "historical facts" of chr*stianity. None of them literally make any difference. Even if J*sus had been born of a virgin and resurrected after death chr*stianity would still be an unauthorized, false religion because the Torah does not allow for such a development.
Due to this problem of the subjectiveness of this kind of "truth" due to your derivation of it from fallible, human sources, the faith you have in that "truth" being subject to the condition that you must have faith in those humans who have delivered those "truths" to you (and who have themselves been delivered the same, ignoring corruption, by other humans previously) beforehand, your consideration of what is "truth" is not objective truth.
Yet you just declared that circumcision is "evil" even though you are a mere fallible human being. Unless you think you aren't. On what grounds do you accept "do unto others as others would have them do unto you?" The authority of J*sus? Pragmatism? Personal preference? On what grounds do you even believe that anything can be objectively evil at all in the absence of a G-d Who exists outside the universe and Who created and owns it? Why do you persist in your belief in what cannot exist . . . a moral code that transcends the issue of the existence of G-d? You have never explained this.
The Principle of Reciprocity has no such failings, and as such, proves itself to be more objective in its truthfulness, than any of your human-constructed, human-dependent notions of "truth".
The Principle of Reciprocity wasn't created by humans? Where did it come from, then? Do you think the meaningless universe weeps copious tears whenever someone violates this "rule" you pretend exists? Since you insist it was not "human constructed," I'm most interested in learning where you think it comes from.
Go ahead, convince me. So far, you've failed to provide objective, indisputable proof for your assertions.
Why should I? You feel you don't have to convince me of the existence of an objective moral code in a totally meaningless universe. What makes you think I have any more obligation to convince you of my opinions than you do to convince me of yours?
We are all fallible human beings.
Except for you, because the only basis for objective morality appears to be your own hang-ups and opinions.
Did you have a "first-hand experience" of the nature that those people whose testimony you accepted as "truth", did? If not, you are merely believing their narrative to be "truth" based on your subjective opinion, and not based on first-hand evidence. As such, you need to believe in the words of those people before you can believe in the entity that those people have told you to be the source of those words. Pure, subjective opinion, contingent upon your personal beliefs as to which humans you can believe in, and which humans you cannot. Your faith in Jesus is nil, you reject Jesus as a preacher of falsehood. In doing so, you reject the documented experiences of those people who were present during his time who gave testimony to the fact that they witnessed his deeds - miraculous deeds. On what OBJECTIVE BASIS did you manage to do so? How did you decide that the Sinai chapter was true whereas Jesus' preachings were false, when the knowledge of both has been brought to you by second-hand, fallible, human sources? Answer this, and a failure to do so will be seen as your inability to provide a valid answer.
Okay, I'm confused now. Are you an atheist, or an anti-Semitic chr*stian?
I fail to understand why the "eye-witnesses of J*sus" are less fallible or subjective than the eye-witnesses of Sinai. Do you think chr*stian religious authorities are any less subjective and fallible than the Sages of Israel? That's strange, because even chr*stianity admits the Revelation at Sinai. If they were wrong about that, why should they be right about anything else? Why are eyewitness accounts of J*sus any more reliable than eye-witness accounts of Sinai? You write a great deal about subjectivism and opinion, but you then act as if chr*stian authorities are magically exempted from this otherwise universal subjectivism.
On what OBJECTIVE BASIS (as you put it) do you put the "principle of reciprocity" or the truth of chr*stianity? You weren't there, were you? You just claimed I couldn't know the Torah is true because I wasn't there. Are you a reincarnated apostle of some kind?
Why don't you justify your belief in an objective moral reality when you believe the universe is utterly meaningless? Let's see you do that. Any ignoring of this request will be taken as an admission that you cannot.
See earlier responses.
Your earlier responses do not address the issue at all. They assert that my own beliefs are subjective but they don't say a word of why your beliefs are any more "objective" than are mine. Since you refuse to do this, I assume you admit that you cannot.
Thank you.
LOL, and there you have it.
You reject the historicity of Jesus, the documentation of his life and acts, the testimony of his witnesses, and also mention that even all that he did was true, whereas you accept the Sinai story. Now, what exactly did you have as an authoritative standard to accept one claim and reject the other? You have yet to provide me with a specific answer to this. After all, your source for both stories are other human beings. How did you reject one and accept the other? What objective standard did you use to make a judgment? As for the rest of the post, they are already addressed in prior comments. Your failure to recognise the fact that you are using subjective opinions to reject one narrative (people's testimony of Jesus) and accept another (people's testimony of Moses) because you failed to provide the objective standard you used to measure up either narrative, is why I am forced to ask you again for the same. Do that first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So? What has that got to do with anything? People are full of nerves throughout their bodies, yet in some circumstances it is G-d's command that they be killed. Why is circumcision any different from the extermination of the Seven Nations of Canaan?
Your god is not my god. I strongly suspect the truth of your claims until you can prove to me how you chose one narrative of "objective truth" over another, as illustrated in the section above.
Until that is done, the general condition between you, me and everyone else is that we are going to be in perpetual disagreement about whose god is the right one and whose isn't. In that environment, you are incapable of forcing your subjectively chosen narrative of your faith onto the rest, since you will face an opposition. So as to ensure that civil discourse prevails in resolving this situation, we are now left with finding mutually-agreeable terms and conditions to proceed with our day-to-day intercourse - the most prominent one being the rule that one not do unto others what one would not want done unto themselves. If you fail to recognise the necessity of this rule in ensuring that violence does not dominate, then anyone is free to impose their personal, subjective opinions of "absolute truth" onto you as well, and that can even go to the extent of violating your mental and physical being. Since we all have an interest in preventing this circumstance from arising, we are forced to go back to the Golden Rule ("Do not do unto others...").
That is, until you can prove that your subjectively-chosen beliefs are true objective truths, with special emphasis on how you accepted human testimony of the same (forcing you to accept the fidelity of the humans who told you the narrative, as a precondition prior to your faith in the claimed truths), the above situation prevails, if mutual violence has to be kept at bay.
Yet you just declared that circumcision is "evil" even though you are a mere fallible human being. Unless you think you aren't. On what grounds do you accept "do unto others as others would have them do unto you?" The authority of J*sus? Pragmatism? Personal preference? On what grounds do you even believe that anything can be objectively evil at all in the absence of a G-d Who exists outside the universe and Who created and owns it? Why do you persist in your belief in what cannot exist . . . a moral code that transcends the issue of the existence of G-d? You have never explained this.
Answered in the section above.
The Principle of Reciprocity wasn't created by humans? Where did it come from, then? Do you think the meaningless universe weeps copious tears whenever someone violates this "rule" you pretend exists? Since you insist it was not "human constructed," I'm most interested in learning where you think it comes from.
Without the Principle of Reciprocity arising among humans, men could not have co-operated with fellow men. Due to the reliance and inter-dependence of the human species on one-another for sustained survival, without the Principle of Reciprocity being applicable, humans would have either gone extinct, or not survived to the point where we are having this conversation. This fact alone substantiates the universal truthfulness of the Principle of Reciprocity, since the same operating principle is valid in every human society. If you go further, the same principle applies in the social co-operation among entities in the animal kingdom, as well. If the principle could arise in a non-human population, it goes without saying that the principle is not dependent on humans for affirmation. In fact, it again proves the universality of the principle.
Why should I? You feel you don't have to convince me of the existence of an objective moral code in a totally meaningless universe. What makes you think I have any more obligation to convince you of my opinions than you do to convince me of yours?
Already addressed. See earlier responses.
Except for you, because the only basis for objective morality appears to be your own hang-ups and opinions.
Your words, not mine. As for the rest, they have been addressed earlier. See again.
Okay, I'm confused now. Are you an atheist, or an anti-Semitic chr*stian?
Neither. Consider that I am a Deist, and then proceed in answering my arguments.
I fail to understand why the "eye-witnesses of J*sus" are less fallible or subjective than the eye-witnesses of Sinai. Do you think chr*stian religious authorities are any less subjective and fallible than the Sages of Israel? That's strange, because even chr*stianity admits the Revelation at Sinai. If they were wrong about that, why should they be right about anything else? Why are eyewitness accounts of J*sus any more reliable than eye-witness accounts of Sinai? You write a great deal about subjectivism and opinion, but you then act as if chr*stian authorities are magically exempted from this otherwise universal subjectivism.
You fail to do so, do you? Really?
Well, try again. You accepted the Sinai narrative, even though your source for that narrative is second-hand sources such as human word-of-mouth and paper. You rejected the Jesus narrative, even though the source for the same is qualitatively no different from the other narrative. How did you manage to conduct the examination of either narrative, for their truthfulness and for their respective falsehoods? You were presented with both, and you chose one and rejected the other. How did you do so? Explain the OBJECTIVE STANDARDS used, and ensure that your choice was not dependent on SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS.
Your earlier responses do not address the issue at all. They assert that my own beliefs are subjective but they don't say a word of why your beliefs are any more "objective" than are mine. Since you refuse to do this, I assume you admit that you cannot.
I have addressed why the Principle of Reciprocity is a universal truth. If you fail to understand the same, it is not my problem. Try again, it has been explained in this response as well.
Oh, and one more thing. Ensure that you have fully and completely responded to the first portion of this post, so that we don't end up going back-and-forth with lengthy exchanges.
Thank you.
“So you have no problem with African muslims doing FGM on their little girls??”
If I call a heart bypass a “circumcision”, it doesn’t make it one.
The Muslim female operation you mislabel as a “circumcision” is designed to cripple the child. A real circumcision does not.
If the Jewish community were attempting to force mandatory circumcision then your argument would be valid, but that is not the case. The government is forcing religious communities to abandon what is commanded by God. No government can change what God has commanded.
Looks like your MythBusting days are over, perhaps YOU need to get the FACTS:
“It is now up to state governments to ensure that bans on elective infant male circumcision in public hospitals are lifted without delay. And it is essential that the federal government revises the Medicare rebate so that this procedure is affordable for low-income families.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Medical researchers recommend male circumcision
March 2, 2012 in Health
Penile cancer, HIV, HPV, syphilis and kidney inflammation are among a number of medical conditions whose risk can be lowered by the practice of infant male circumcision, says a study led by the University of Sydney.
“The costs saved will be enormous, as this policy statement shows that half of uncircumcised males will suffer an adverse medical condition over their lifetime, and many will die as a result of diseases preventable by circumcision,” Professor Morris said.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-03-medical-male-circumcision.html
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Report of the Task Force on Circumcision
AAP TASK FORCE ON CIRCUMCISION
Abstract
Properly performed newborn circumcision prevents phimosis, paraphimosis, and balanoposthitis and has been shown to decrease the incidence of cancer of the penis among US men. It may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infection. However, in the absence of well-designed prospective studies, conclusions regarding the relationship of urinary tract infection to circumcision are tentative. An increased incidence of cancer of the cervix has been found in sexual partners of uncircumcised men infected with human papillomavirus. Evidence concerning the association of sexually transmitted diseases and circumcision is conflicting.
Newborn circumcision is a rapid and generally safe procedure when performed by an experienced operator. It is an elective procedure to be performed only if an infant is stable and healthy. Infants respond to the procedure with transient behavioral and physiologic changes.
Local anesthesia (dorsal penile nerve block) may reduce the observed physiologic response to newborn circumcision. It also has its own inherent risks. However, reports of extensive experience or follow-up with the technique in newborns are lacking.
Newborn circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. When circumcision is being considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained.
Copyright © 1989 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/84/2/388.abstract?ijkey=506c5aa42922b638173653f480821c7d7cc80531&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
WHO and UNAIDS announce recommendations from expert consultation on male circumcision for HIV prevention
28 March 2007 | Paris/Geneva -In response to the urgent need to reduce the number of new HIV infections globally, WHO and the UNAIDS Secretariat convened an international expert consultation to determine whether male circumcision should be recommended for the prevention of HIV infection.
Based on the evidence presented, which was considered to be compelling, experts attending the consultation recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. The international consultation, which was held 6-8 March 2007 in Montreux, Switzerland, was attended by participants representing a wide range of stakeholders, including governments, civil society, researchers, human rights and women’s health advocates, young people, funding agencies and implementing partners.
“The recommendations represent a significant step forward in HIV prevention,” said Dr Kevin De Cock, Director, HIV/AIDS Department in WHO. “Countries with high rates of heterosexual HIV infection and low rates of male circumcision now have an additional intervention which can reduce the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men. Scaling up male circumcision in such countries will result in immediate benefit to individuals. However, it will be a number of years before we can expect to see an impact on the epidemic from such investment.”
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr10/en/index.html
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
New Studies Sharpen Circumcision Debate
But complicating the debate now are recent studies that do show some medical benefits: Circumcised men have a lower risk of getting HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. The procedure also reduces the risk of urinary tract infections in infants by 90% and the risk of penile cancer in older men by 50% or more. Both conditions are quite rare in this country.
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/features/new-studies-sharpen-circumcision-debate
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Demand for male circumcision rising in Rwanda
It has been scientifically proven that a circumcised man has up to 60 percent chances of not contracting HIV during sexual intercourse.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201202200020.html
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Vol.2 No.1, February 2012
Infant male circumcision: An evidence-based policy statement
Full Text(PDF, 125KB) PP.79-92 DOI: 10.4236/ojpm.2012.21012
MC provides strong protection against: urinary tract infections and, in infancy, renal parenchymal disease; phimosis; paraphimosis; balanoposthitis; foreskin tearing; some heterosexually transmitted infections including HPV, HSV-2, trichomonas, HIV, and genital ulcer disease; thrush; inferior hygiene; penile cancer and possibly prostate cancer. In women, circumcision of the male partner protects against HPV, HSV-2, cervical cancer, bacterial vaginosis, and possibly Chlamydia. MC has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, penile sensation or satisfaction and may enhance the male sexual experience. Adverse effects are uncommon (<1%), and virtually all are minor and easily treated.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=17415
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ANRS-12126—Impact of Male Circumcision Roll-out on HSV-2 Prevalence among Men: Orange Farm, South Africa
Bertran Auvert*1,2,3, A Blake3, V Maseko4, P Lissouba2, D Lewis4, and D Taljaard5
Conclusions: This study shows that the roll-out of male circumcision can have a significantly reducing short-term impact on the spread of HSV-2 among men.
http://www.retroconference.org/2012b/Abstracts/43579.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Circumcision Tied to Drop in Herpes, Too
By Ed Susman, Contributing Writer, MedPage Today
Published: March 06, 2012
Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania
“We don’t hear enough about the long-term benefits at the population level from circumcision. This is really important news that confirms what we have learned in the past about [circumcision’s] effect in reducing HIV infection, but also [shows] that it is a multipurpose technology that is ... preventing HSV-2. The fact that it is doing so much for men in preventing HIV and other infections is a story that is not being told enough.”
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/CROI/31507
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Male circumcision for HIV prevention: What does the scientific evidence say?
There is overwhelming evidence to prove that male circumcision provides other benefits beyond HIV prevention. Male circumcision improves male hygiene, reduces risk of genital ulcer disease and cancer of the penis, and lowers the risk of cervical cancer among women with circumcised male partners by reducing the prevalence of the virus that is associated with this cancer (Human Papilloma Virus).
http://www.monitor.co.ug/artsculture/Reviews/-/691232/1384560/-/dg3bb/-/index.html
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The case for neonatal circumcision
Published by Amy Tuteur, MD under Science and Medicine
The World Health Organization/Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS has concluded that “the research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling … and has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.” In 2007, the American Urological Association revised their policy to state that “circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits.” However, the AAP, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and American Medical Association are likely to have the greatest influence on parental decisions and insurance coverage for neonatal circumcision in the United States. With the mounting evidence that male circumcision decreases viral STIs, genital ulcer disease, and penile inflammatory disorders in men, and bacterial vaginosis, T vaginalis infection, and genital ulcer disease in their female partners, it is time for the AAP policy to fully reflect these current data.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-case-for-neonatal-circumcision/
You have no belief in individual rights and individual liberty. You advocate the mutilation of newborn males on the whim of one or both parents entirely for cosmetic reasons, at best, or no reason at all at worst. You're sick and demented.
Modern hygiene obviates supposed 'health benefits' of circumcision. It's also far less scaring and protects the individual's personal liberty.
Either you recognize the baby boy is a separate and distinct person or you don't. There are plenty of prolifers hypocritical on this issue.
The religious argument is another thing altogether and, frankly, I'm aghast more Americans can't see ritual circumcision as an offense to the newborn individual's God-given right to freedom of religion. This is not anti-Semitism, this is Americanism.
If this involved some other group, let's say Mormons were branding their newborn girls like cattle, the outrage would be tremendous and deafening. The only time a parent should decide on circumcision is in the medically necessary cases where the child obviously cannot make the decision for himself. If he was born normally, leave him alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.