Posted on 01/28/2006 7:21:40 PM PST by chet_in_ny
sorry,that shoulda` read:
Elaine Benes, "But it had no,you know,character.Don`t like
the inny."
And as for the Copts, they should read their bibles:
"Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you." Galatians 5:2
What part of "rarely" did you confuse for "never"?
You need to lay off the "mutilation" and "barbaric" rhetoric you wish to be taken seriously.
Why don't you let the kid grow up intact and when he turns 18 he can decide if he wants his penis mutilated.
L
I'm not entirely clear on what you're getting at, but certainly the very nature of a "custom" is that it is something that tends to be passed down from one generation to the next. As for the fathers, I don't see how it modifies anything I said since the fathers were almost 100% circumcised as infants themselves.
The part where you declared that this procedure should be banned outright.
I guess that means you want government out of YOUR life but not out of MY SONS & GRANDSONS life.
It is what it is. It's mutilation and it's barbaric. I'm not big on euphemism and rarely use it in any context at all. I know what people generally think about this, and I know how my comments come across, and you can use whatever euphemisms makes you happy. I don't mind.
The #1 reason that establishes its barbarism is that if it were any other body part that were to be mutilated, it would be deemed barbaric. And might I also add that many cultures even back in the day regarded infant genital mutilation as barbaric and contemptible - this include Greco-Roman culture and Far Eastern cultures.
There is nothing at all in the history that suggests it is tolerated except by custom. Now, how the custom itself came about is a mystery lost in the shrouds of time.
I mistyped actually. I would not ban the procedure outright. I would only ban the performing of the procedure without the subject's consent.
So, the adult Russians could get themselves chopped up all they like.
I'm just saying it tends to make you sound...unreasonable. That's all.
It is barbaric. The health benefits are far from proven. The hygiene issue is irrelevant in a modern society where people bathe regularly. Studies on STD risk and urinary tract infections are contradictory. Even if they weren't, the STD risk becomes irrelevant with condom use, and UTI's are easily treated with antibiotics.
Furthermore, the foreskin is there for a reason... Circumcision sacrifices sexual pleasure for the man and the woman.
Also.. I've witnessed one circumcision. It was one of the most brutal things i've ever seen. At first the baby screamed, suddenly stopped and looked sleepy. The nurse told me it was a form of neurological shock. She said that an infant actually feels pain more acutely than an adult. I didn't ask how anyone would know, so don't quote me on that.
Anyway, it just seems unnecessary and cruel. Not to mention a pretty severe and irreversible decision for a parent to make for his child.
I was just thinking this should have been a mohel rather than a rabbi.
I have yet to meet a single Jewish male who wishes he had his foreskin back.
I know that I do not miss mine.
You are probably right, and to be quite honest I don't entirely know why I have such an intense visceral contempt for infant genital mutilation. I mean, other than for what it is, I did grow up in a culture where it's customary (though thankfully the rates are plunging) and my own genitals were mutilated. It doesn't even bother me all too much that I was mutilated, though I suppose if I were given the option I'd want it back - I can always get rid of it again! But truly, I'm fairly content.
But, for some reason, somewhere in my subconscious, I've become totally and viscerally hostile to the mutilation of infants. I honestly dunno why exactly. I suspect it's because the mutilation of infants just flies in the face of my total value system, and I've never been much for irrational rationalization of my principles.
Reminds me of the snake joke with the punchline, "The doctor said you're gonna die."
As a child of Abraham, you can bet that Jesus was circumsized. Remember that God ordered Abraham to circumsize himself (with a rock!) to show his loyalty to Him.
Circumcision was routine in US hospitals until lately. I had my son circumcized, then all the brouhaha started over it in the last 10 years or so, thanks Dr. Dean, and I started feeling guilty, so I asked him if it bothered him. He said it didn't bother him.
Now one grandson wasn't circumcized, and got a very nasty infection when prepubescent. He ended up in the emergency room and they asked my daughter if she had taught him to clean himself properly. How are you supposed to know to teach your male child that if somebody doesn't tell you?
It gets more personal, but I would prefer a circumcized man for a marriage partner, because I think there is a lesser chance of passing on that virus that causes cervical cancer.
In this day of modern Western medicine they're still doing this backward ritual?
>And genital mutilation is a barbaric custom, might I add.
And barbaric it is.
I thought this circumsation thing had been abandoned years and years ago. This cult ritual goes back to biblical times and is often mortal.
Truly, I realize all the arguments one way or the other. Yes, it's important to know how to take care of things and yes it can get infected. Ears can get infected if you don't take care of them, but you don't just chop them off.
Me and my brother are the only circumcised males in my family. My mother was barely cognizant of what was going on when in labor and thought nothing of it when the doctors had her sign. It was the thing to do of course then. I don't 'blame' her or anything. It just was what it was.
Now, if it were today when it is in fact a controversy and mothers are aware of it, then maybe.
And, as I stated above. It really does not bother me with regard to myself. Of course, I'll never know what it's like to have it, but it's hardly something that concerns me. I'm perfectly content with my equipment as it is.
But that's just because I've grown up with it that way. If it were otherwise, then I'm quite sure I'd be content with things that way. And if I were suddenly given a choice, then I would reverse things just for the sake of novelty if nothing else.
But the clincher for me is that the number of men who have it and want to get rid of it is trivial. The infant has no choice in the matter and of course it's irreversible. Yes, there's the whole matter of religious customs as well, but I'm anywhere of any religion that explicitly requires radical circumcision as is customary (instead of just snipping the tip, as Jews used to do).
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.