Posted on 02/26/2005 5:16:19 PM PST by Babwa
The national news media is abuzz with a story about the possible link between the tragic death of an infant Jewish boy from herpes and his circumcision. At the same time, the media has not fully reported on the fact that circumcision could save millions of lives from the scourge of AIDS.
The problem is that circumcision is in the Bible, which makes it a serious violation of the religion practiced by the majority in academia and the mainstream media - secular fundamentalism. They have stood by while millions died and continue to die. How differently they value human life than Judaism and the Judeo-Christian tradition.
(Excerpt) Read more at towardtradition.org ...
That is really needlyly biased slander. Although I am a Christian, I had the procedure done as an infant, and I caarry no memories of "torture" or pain, I can honestly say I have never feared shots, nor had any - ummm - "problems" related to inordinate "sensitivity".
"Knowing what I know, I chose it - over my wife's objections - for our son seven and a half years ago. He suffered no ill effects."
If he never had a foreskin, he won't know. He'll have no personal experiences to compare. He will have dramatically less sexual sensation as an adult.
"To call it a "barbaric" practice is a matter of your opinion, and is not backed up conclusively by most reliable studies available. Many of the best empirical studies indicate that it plays a discernible role in reducing a woman's risk of uterine cancer.
That has been completely and totally refuted.
"To criticise it as being against the very Creator who plainly commanded the Jewish believers to do it (quite likely for hygienic reasons) is bordering on ignorance of a well known and established religious/faith tradition, and a bit disingenuous, IMO."
Hygenic reasons, in the desert, thousands of years ago, before running water and soap. Men who go to war should have it done as adults for sanitary reasons, if they choose. But I agree that since God commanded it of the Jews, they should be left out of this debate entirely.
Fine, neither of us said it..is that better?
Poor kid.
"Enter "uncut men" (with the quotes) at google.com. See the number of hits for those keywords in the upper right hand of the page. Follow a few of the number links (1-10, and so forth), but don't follow the links to any of the homosexual porn and personals sites.
...the addiction and main desire behind the anti-circumcision push."
What do you expect when you use those google words? Enter "circumcision" instead and the porn sites won't pop up. Since so few men are uncircumcized, the porn industry jumps on it, the way they jump on interracial sex, because it is not the "norm."
The few studies done indicate circucized men engage in anal and oral sex more often and masturbate more because they lack the normal sensation of intact men.
Please describe in detail the surgical proceedure for female circumcism. What are you cutting around. Do you refer to clitorectomy? If so know this that it is not the same thing, though an medically illinformed media has obviously provided you with your level of medical and surgical knowlege.
We neglected to circumcise our son after talking extensively with our OB about it. He basically told us that there were no medical benefits from it and that it was only done today for social reasons.
I get a kick out of listening to fellow Christians say, "But it's in the Bible!" Well, so is animal sacrifice as well as the stoning of disobedient children (among other things); ain't it great not to be under the old covenant?
"That is a very common argument on the part of anti-circumcision organizations, folks (to all others who read this). It's a hysterical argument."
Actually, female circumcision is a comparison used, not an "argument." Claiming it is an argument is a way to misrepresent your opponents' argument. The ARGUMENTS are based on science and study.
"Clitoridectomy is not circumcision. It doesn't fit the word roots, and the procedures are radically different from one another."
Female circumcision (in Africa and Egypt) was started for the same reason male circumcision (in the west) was. To prevent adultery and masturbation. Female circumcision cuts out nerve endings and tissue, as does male circumcision. The "surgeries" have almost the same sexual effect on both sexes. Lessening sexual pleasure.
Circumcise your heart and not your foreskin and then you will be one who "truly keeps the law".
Of course it's not the same thing. There are four classes of female circs, some of which are less traumatic than the typical male circs.
And yes, I should have typed surgical. There is no medical indication for routine circ. And my difficulty under sleep deprivation conditions should confirm that IANAP. Sorry for the confusion.
I should add that another common justification is "cleanliness." Those who defend female circumcision cite the smell, as do some male circumcision proponents complain about the smell of "smegma."
Wash yourselves and you'll be clean.
Heh, heh... I'm uncircumcised and let me tell 'ya; at this age there's NO way I'm gonna' CHOOSE to do that, just like I'm not gonna' choose to have a catheter inserted or pass a kidney stone.
Okay, that's enough for now. I'm in deep psychosomatic pain.
Actually, there are many different types of female circumcisions. Removal of the prepuce is one that is directly comparable to male circ. Other female genital mutilations range from mere pricks to radical surgery, removing the clitoris, labia, etc. But you're right...all of these procedures, on males or females, lessen sexual pleasure and performance.
Okay, now to get sleep.
Thanks for halfway coming out to more openly represent your side of the debate. We don't usually see such an admission except while monitoring neo-Nazi sites.
Excuse me. Though I agree "Judeo-based" is a veiled insult (though circumcision did originate with Jews), it doesn't, by ANY strentch of the imagination, reflect on anti-circumcision folks. You essentially just SMEARED alot of people yourself by attempting to liken us with the likes of neo-nazis. Are we supposed to drop every issue we believe in like a hot potato because some bigots share the same opinion on NON_RACIAL issues? Many neo-nazis are for the war. Does that mean liberals have a basis for calling those of you who support it "nazis?" Your argument is an ad-hominen attack. Am I a "racist" for wanting my borders controlled? Do you think those here who oppose open borders are "nazis" because neo-nazis want a wall built?
Yes, death is much less painful than a snip.
Liberals say abortion is quick, as fast as a "snip." The pain of death to a fetus doesn't linger, because the child is then DEAD. The pain of CUTTING OFF THE FORESKIN" is not like a little "snip." It lingers, and is generally not performed with pain killers.
I have to draw the line with you there. My Jewish FRiends are not brainwashed; they are following the dictates of Holy Writ, whether you accept the Word of God as true or not.
As a Christian, I happen to believe that the ceremonial aspects of the Law were done away with for believers. But this doesn't mean the original commandments were not commanded by God. This is really a matter of faith. I prefer not to keep the ceremonial law as Christ has done away with the requirements but the Jews are certainly not doing these as a result of brainwashing.
And by the way, I am board certified, and an examiner of junior surgeons. I have lectured at medical schools and written papers and am published, though not on circumcism. I have saved several thousand peoples lives. I don't know if you can say that. I have 0 fear of my license being revoked. Why don't you to to medical school for 4 years and do 5 years in general and trauma surgery before you start shooting off your mouth about who should have their license lifted. You may be an expert in some area, but you are pathetically ignorant about what you get on free republic and spew. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Financial incentives: Foreskins for sale! Forget stem cells! Use foreskins for bio-research, etc..
http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm
http://www.cirp.org/news/1996.05.07_dermagraft/
actually it is ironic since being UNcircumcised was an indication of following the newfangled christian faith.
It was a sign that faith alone was needed to make you a believer in God.
I get a kick out of listening to fellow Christians say, "But it's in the Bible!" Well, so is animal sacrifice as well as the stoning of disobedient children (among other things); ain't it great not to be under the old covenant?
Hey! Excellent point! There was great debate in the NT about it. The pro arguments were basically in regards to Jewish converts. The debate was resolved in my mind with "circumcize your heart." Tye Lord is concerned about our hearts, not our penises.
An end note, lets all try to be respectful on this issue, because I'd like to see the thread continue, not pulled for lack of civility. Specifically I'd like to hear comments on the links I provided which indicates there's a bio-medical market for foreskins. Financial incentive to continue the practice. On the other hand, there's money to be made in foreskin restoration. Had to say that to be fair.
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.