Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[mijopaalmc]

No, but the very fact that you oppose circumcision makes you an anti-semite in mijopaalmc's dictionary.

Not being able to completely disregard anti-Semitism=/=Eveyone who opposes circumcision is an anti-Semite

Why don't you read for comprehension?

 

[ddt]

So, you don't know. You have no idea what role circumcision plays in the identity of the Jewish people. But if you ran the zoo, things would be different. Pardon me if I don't trust you to make determinations about what's best for Jews.

No, but I don't think of people in terms of their religious superstitions. And I think secular law trumps religious practices. Within the bounds of secular law, you do whatever floats your boat, fine with me. But the right to bodily integrity is, IMHO, a fundamental human right and circumcising an infant is a violation of that right. And that is exactly what the Cologne court recognized last year.

 

[spin0]

So religious practices can change.

Yes, religious practices can change, have changed and do change.

Even the Jewish practice of orally sucking blood from the circumcision wound on the infant penis is changing. Though for some such change seems to be hard to swallow: Israel’s Chief Rabbinate backs metzitzah b’peh rite for bris

Rabbi Moshe Morsiano, chair of the Division of Circumcision for the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, said in his letter dated April 22 that there is no justification for avoiding metzitzah b’peh "unless the mohel [ritual circumciser] has a sore in his mouth, or some infectious disease."

The Jewish legal opinion came from Morsiano after the complaint was lodged against Teichtal. Berlin’s state prosecutor is looking into the merits of the complaint.

Germany adopted a new law regulating ritual circumcision last December. The law requires that the procedure be done to the highest possible medical standards.

Metzitzah b’peh has come under fire by many Jewish groups, including Modern Orthodox associations, due to the possible spread of infections that can be fatal to an infant. Opponents recommend the use of a glass pipette in place of direct oral suction.

In New York, at least 11 boys contracted herpes from the practice between 2004 and 2011, according to New York City health officials. Two died from the virus and two others suffered brain damage.

 

[mijopaalmc]

For myself, if it fulfils a genuine medical benefit, then generally yes. If it's purely cosmetic, it depends. Is this where you bring up cleft palates?

Do you have any evidence that infant circumcision only performed for solely aesthetic reasons and that orthodontia absolutely cannot be delayed until adulthood?

Knowledge of Jewish theology is not relevant to whether circumcision is acceptable.

But in an effort to resolve the conflict between to fundamental rights, one must consider the importance of ritual circumcision to Jewish identity formation.

Circumcision is indisputably genital mutilation, notwithstanding that the term has some connotations that some find unacceptable.

The connotation are objectional because they do not accurately portray the practice.

Do you have evidence that an uncomplicated circumcision reduces the function of the penis?

 

[ABC10]

No, but I don't think of people in terms of their religious superstitions. And I think secular law trumps religious practices. Within the bounds of secular law, you do whatever floats your boat, fine with me. But the right to bodily integrity is, IMHO, a fundamental human right and circumcising an infant is a violation of that right. And that is exactly what the Cologne court recognized last year.

I want to see those Nordic Countries enforce that secular law with their Muslims.

 

[gumboot]

Just curious, do those who think circumcision is okay (or indeed think everyone should be circumcised) also approve of the following:

1) Female genital mutilation
2) Performing plastic surgery on ugly babies

If you answer no to either of the above, would you care to explain your reasoning?

Thanks.

 

[ABC10]

Seems like outlawing circumcision is sending a rather explicit message that state knows better how to raise the children of Jews than the Jew know themselves.

Outlawing circumcision is sending an explicit message to the 1.5 billion Muslims that the state can raise their children better than they can too, which is probably true. Forget about the small % of Jews and think big with followers of Islam.

 

[Rolfe]

You are pretty clearly not interested in discussing this in any rational fashion, as your ignorance of Jewish theology, continual references to "genital mutilation" and dishonest equation of circumcision with human sacrifice attest.

Why don't you read for comprehension? I was asking you where you draw the line. That is pretty clearly implying a gradation of horror, rather than an equivalence.

Circumcision is genital mutilation, funny you don't like it when the correct terminology is used. Ear piercing is mutilation too. There is a whole spectrum of things that can be done, have been done or are being done to infants too young to consent, for various reasons.

If "it's my religion" is all you need to justify such a procedure, how far do you allow it to go? If circumcision, why not facial cicatrisation? Why not tattoos? Why not female genital mutilation? Why not foot binding? Why not that thing with the hoops round the neck? Why not ritual sacrifice of the first-born?

You have to explain why it's OK to cut certain bits off baby boys, but practically nothing else is OK, not even things which are self-evidently less harmful.

Rolfe.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Yes, religious practices can change, have changed and do change.

Even the Jewish practice of orally sucking blood from the circumcision wound on the infant penis is changing. Though for some such change seems to be hard to swallow: Israel’s Chief Rabbinate backs metzitzah b’peh rite for bris

The metzitzah b'peh[/b] is and always has been a minhag not a mitzvah. If you don't know what that means, you should probably reconsider the idea that you have honestly leant any weight to the fact that there is a conflict between two fundamental rights in the case of circumcision.

 

[ABC10]

Is your source The Monty Python History of Iceland, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Sweden?

I wish. Sadly, history books tell it all. Denmark are heroes for helping Jews.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why don't you read for comprehension? I was asking you where you draw the line. That is pretty clearly implying a gradation of horror, rather than an equivalence.

Circumcision is genital mutilation, funny you don't like it when the correct terminology is used. Ear piercing is mutilation too. There is a whole spectrum of things that can be done, have been done or are being done to infants too young to consent, for various reasons.

If "it's my religion" is all you need to justify such a procedure, how far do you allow it to go? If circumcision, why not facial cicatrisation? Why not tattoos? Why not female genital mutilation? Why not foot binding? Why not that thing with the hoops round the neck? Why not ritual sacrifice of the first-born?

You have to explain why it's OK to cut certain bits off baby boys, but practically nothing else is OK, not even things which are self-evidently less harmful.

Rolfe.

That's not the way the law works. If you want to propose restricting someone's rights, the onus is upon you to justify the restriction. No amount of moral indignation about "mutilation" changes the priniciple, but you may succeed in confusing the issue to the point where it seems that you are not restricting one's rights to religious freedom.

 

[Rat]

Do you have any evidence that infant circumcision only performed for solely aesthetic reasons and that orthodontia absolutely cannot be delayed until adulthood?

I was answering a compound question. Since circumcision is in Europe almost always carried out for religious rather than aesthetic reasons, I don't think I need such evidence. Absolutely cannot, no. Can be better treated in childhood, probably if I set my mind to it, but it would be a perverse request.

But in an effort to resolve the conflict between to fundamental rights, one must consider the importance of ritual circumcision to Jewish identity formation.

This doesn't seem quite coherent and I'm not sure how to respond. Again, if permanently modifying the body of a child too young to consent is wrong, then it is wrong.

The connotation are objectional because they do not accurately portray the practice.

Do you have evidence that an uncomplicated circumcision reduces the function of the penis?

They do accurately portray it. The genitals are mutilated, and I cannot imagine how anyone can claim otherwise. I do not claim such evidence, and I don't see how it would be relevant.

 

[ABC10]

And you really think anyone will treat any of your posts seriously when you post such nonsense? I even gave you a wiki-link to read up and wise up.

Have no interest or concern of your opinion of my posts. Your attempt to insult demonstrates an absolute lack of ideas and an inability to advance the debate.

 

[Rat]

If you want to propose restricting someone's rights, the onus is upon you to justify the restriction.

The rights in question are those of the child. The rights of the parent do not override those of the parent's child, and this is true for many other acts in ways that are utterly uncontroversial. The restriction is on those wishing to cut their children, not to prevent the children having themselves cut, because they cannot make that decision.

 

[Rat]

Have no interest or concern of your opinion of my posts. Your attempt to insult demonstrates an absolute lack of ideas and an inability to advance the debate.

It was not an insult, but an expression of exasperation. If you insist, after being told otherwise, that Allah=Muhammad, then it is difficult to take your other claims seriously.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That's not the way the law works. If you want to propose restricting someone's rights, the onus is upon you to justify the restriction. No amount of moral indignation about "mutilation" changes the priniciple, but you may succeed in confusing the issue to the point where it seems that you are not restricting one's rights to religious freedom.

Er, if you want to infringe on someone's rights, like bodily integrity, you need a good reason. Stopping someone from doing something to someone else's body is not infringing on any rights that I am aware of.

To rephrase a common statement, your right to practice your religion ends at surgically altering your child's genitalia.

 

[ABC10]

It was not an insult, but an expression of exasperation. If you insist, after being told otherwise, that Allah=Muhammad, then it is difficult to take your other claims seriously.

No one, least of all I, insisted. Reading Comprehension issues, perhaps??

 

[mijopaalmc]

Where's the moral indignation about pediatric orthdontia?

Regardless of the benefit, the decision is often made against the will of the patient, and the very reason that pediatric orthodontia is performed is because it is argued that it is more difficult and painful to perform the same procedure after the bones have hardened in adulthood. Fittingly these are the same reasons advanced for not postponing circumcision until adulthood, but, when leveled against adult circumcision, they somehow leave circumcision opponents unswayed.

 

[Rolfe]

That's not the way the law works. If you want to propose restricting someone's rights, the onus is upon you to justify the restriction. No amount of moral indignation about "mutilation" changes the priniciple, but you may succeed in confusing the issue to the point where it seems that you are not restricting one's rights to religious freedom.

If you want to permanently modify someone else's body without their consent, the onus is on you to justify why you should be allowed to do that.

All you've got is "it's my religion".

So, I ask again, is that a get-out-of-jail-free card for any practice at all? We know that certain mutilations are forbidden even though other people claim these are their religion. Female genital mutilation is forbidden, even in the forms which are less severe than male circumcision. Tattooing children is forbidden. Scarifying their faces is forbidden.

I'm asking for clarity. Do you believe it's wrong to prevent these things being done, when the reason is the same as yours - "it's my religion"? How far would you go? Is there any practice you would forbid, if the justification was "it's my religion"?

I'm asking for clarity here, and you keep giving me evasions.

Rolfe.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If you want to permanently modify someone else's body without their consent, the onus is on you to justify why you should be allowed to do that.

All you've got is "it's my religion".

So, I ask again, is that a get-out-of-jail-free card for any practice at all? We know that certain mutilations are forbidden even though other people claim these are their religion. Female genital mutilation is forbidden, even in the forms which are less severe than male circumcision. Tattooing children is forbidden. Scarifying their faces is forbidden.

I'm asking for clarity. Do you believe it's wrong to prevent these things being done, when the reason is the same as yours - "it's my religion"? How far would you go? Is there any practice you would forbid, if the justification was "it's my religion"?

I'm asking for clarity here, and you keep giving me evasions.

Rolfe.

Think of what you could do if you abandoned your fallacies.