Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Rat]

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

Maybe Allah was too stoned with Kwat to think about circumcision, but for sure was a pedophile.

Muhammad, you mean? Those pesky facts.
.

Muhammad is Allah. No cap on the discussion as being European countries only.

Muslims treat Muhammad as G-d.

Not reading comprehension, just taking your weaselly and incorrect 'treat' too seriously.

 

[Rolfe]

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

I'll take that as an admission that you don't actually have any coherent defence of your position.

Rolfe.

 

[Rat]

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.

Orthodontia is to correct what is seen as a defect. You can, if you wish, decide that the human body is always in a defective state. I do not necessarily always support paediatric orthodontia, but if it were carried out routinely on all children, to produce an effect that is not generally seen in nature, I probably would condemn it, particularly if it gave no appreciable benefit.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

...which might even mean something were it not that all מנהגים are, in fact, מצות. And, since מנהגים are a class of customs that were developed to support or enhance religious observances, and became, or were adopted as, מצות when they had been practiced long enough, how can any מנהג have "always been" a מצוה?

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'll take that as an admission that you don't actually have any coherent defence of your position.

Rolfe.

Yeah, because your position that a practice that kills a child for the purpose of killing the child is not any different than a practice that doesn't kill a child.

You are the one with the indefensible opinion.

 

[Rat]

Yeah, because your position that a practice that kills a child for the purpose of killing the child is not any different than a practice that doesn't kill a child.

You are the one with the indefensible opinion.

Rolfe already made it absolutely explicit that these were not to be treated as equal in any sense, but part of a scale, and as part of an enquiry as to where on the scale in question a particular mark lies. I'm not sure how you could have missed that.

I agree that what you have presented is indefensible. But what you have presented is not what Rolfe asked, and is a quite despicable distortion of it.

 

[spin0]

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

Haven't you then stayed ingorant despite 'history books telling all' to you.

Seems you also cannot explain how circumcision would protect infants and children from STDs and AIDS in the Nordic countries?
(or by extension in the northern Europe or the EU)

I tell you what: Your claim about "health reasons" with AIDS rates and STDs is irrelevant, a red herring and a non-sequitur.

 

[mijopaalmc]

...which might even mean something were it not that all מנהגים are, in fact, מוות. And, since מנהגים are a class of customs that were developed to support or enhance religious observances, and became מוות when they had been practiced long enough, how can any מנהג have "always been" a מווה?

You obviously haven't bothered to learn what the terms mean. You were obviously more concerned with one-upping me by writing the word in Hebrew rather than transliterating them into English.

 

[angrysoba]

...which might even mean something were it not that all מנהגים are, in fact, מוות. And, since מנהגים are a class of customs that were developed to support or enhance religious observances, and became מוות when they had been practiced long enough, how can any מנהג have "always been" a מווה?

You obviously haven't bothered to learn what the terms mean. You were obviously more concerned with one-upping the word in Hebrew rather than transliterating them into English.

There, that looks much better now.

 

[Slowvehicle]

...which might even mean something were it not that all מנהגים are, in fact, מוות. And, since מנהגים are a class of customs that were developed to support or enhance religious observances, and became מוות when they had been practiced long enough, how can any מנהג have "always been" a מווה?

You obviously haven't bothered to learn what the terms mean. You were obviously more concerned with one-upping me by writing the word in Hebrew rather than transliterating them into English.[/QUOTE]

Sigh. I suppose my rusty seminary Hebrew obscured my point. Sorry.

Do you deny that "menhagim" are, in fact, "mitzvot" (specifically, "mitzvot d' Rabbanan"); and are a class of customs that were developed to enhance or support religious observances; which became "mitzvot" when they had been practiced long enough? How can something that became a "mitzvah" have "always been" a "mitzvah"?

 

[ddt]

Yeah, because your position that a practice that kills a child for the purpose of killing the child is not any different than a practice that doesn't kill a child.

You are the one with the indefensible opinion.

Kills a child? Rolfe presented a couple of other bodily mutilations - to wit, FGM, tattooing, scarring the face - none of which kills the child. Why should those mutilations be forbidden, while circumcision is allowed, in the name of religion? The analogy is very apt, methinks. But you're building a strawman in order to evade the issue.

And in the previous thread on this issue, she proposed routinely removing toenails. What's wrong with that idea? You never reacted to that either.

Yes, your position is indefensible. And you never retracted your accusations of antisemitism.

 

[ABC10]

Not reading comprehension, just taking your weaselly and incorrect 'treat' too seriously.

Insults demonstrates a total lack of ideas and fails to advance the debate.

 

[Darth Rotor]

No, it wasn't done in a hospital.

Thanks, appreciate the info. Comparing that event to what happened to me in a hospital over fifty years ago seems poor reasoning. I wonder, is the usual suspect going to presume that my doctor just got lucky? Based on what follows, I suspect so.

You can rationalise the completely avoidable and unnecesary deaths of more than 100 children each year in USA alone as a result of male circumcision,

Bull. The procedure we were briefed on is not lethal. Your hysteria over this issue appears to blind you. Do you know how such a procedure is done in a hospital?
I wonder, are you using 'coat hanger abortion' style arguments here? I smell it.

Surely the only penis that would interest anyone sexually is an erect penis, in which case circumcised or not makes no difference.

While you are probably right, I have been told that there are subtle differences in perception between "showers" and "growers" (which escape me) that may render your estimation inaccurate.

Norway outlaws circumcision. I am trying to figure out how that is important to anyone but a Norwegian.

Can't come up with a reason. Will this have the salutary effect of getting all Muslims to leave Norway, or will it simply drive todger trimming underground?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Kills a child? Rolfe presented a couple of other bodily mutilations - to wit, FGM, tattooing, scarring the face - none of which kills the child. Why should those mutilations be forbidden, while circumcision is allowed, in the name of religion? The analogy is very apt, methinks. But you're building a strawman in order to evade the issue.

And in the previous thread on this issue, she proposed routinely removing toenails. What's wrong with that idea? You never reacted to that either.

Yes, your position is indefensible. And you never retracted your accusations of antisemitism.

And Rolfe also referred to human sacrifice, which, by definition, kills the vicitm. The fact that Rolfe sees body modification as a slippery slope to human sacrifice is what makes the position indefensible. However, it is defnesible to suggest that people disregarding the rights of Jews to practice their religion is anti-Semitic. If you don't want to have your arguments labelled "anti-Semitic", don't assert that essential Jewish religious practices are fundamentally at odds with Western society and don't cite Greco-Roman culture's disapproval of Jewish religious practice as justification for your own disapproval of the same practice when Greco-Roman culture's disapproval of the Jewish religious practice clearly arose from its hatred of the Jews for the Jews' refusal to recognized its martial and imperial cults. The justification from Greco-Roman disgust is hardly an argument that portray the assertors' recognition of the concurrent right to freedom of religious practice in Western society given the tendency for the Greeks and the Romans to sometime literally defecate all over the freedom of the Jews to practice Judaism--and only Judaism--without interference from secular authority.

 

[angrysoba]

Norway outlaws circumcision. I am trying to figure out how that is important to anyone but a Norwegian.

Well it might be important to God, or Mohammed as he is known on this thread.

No doubt if there is some inclement weather somewhere in the world at some point after the ban it will be Mohammed showing his displeasure.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And Rolfe also referred to human sacrifice, which, by definition, kills the vicitm. The fact that Rolfe sees body modification as a slippery slope to human sacrifice is what makes the position indefensible. However, it is defnesible to suggest that people disregarding the rights of Jews to practice their religion is anti-Semitic. If you don't want to have your arguments labelled "anti-Semitic", don't assert that essential Jewish religious practices are fundamentally at odds with Western society and don't cite Greco-Roman culture's disapproval of Jewish religious practice as justification for your own disapproval of the same practice when Greco-Roman culture's disapproval of the Jewish religious practice clearly arose from its hatred of the Jews for the Jews' refusal to recognized its martial and imperial cults. The justification from Greco-Roman disgust is hardly an argument that portray the assertors' recognition of the concurrent right to freedom of religious practice in Western society given the tendency for the Greeks and the Romans to sometime literally defecate all over the freedom of the Jews to practice Judaism--and only Judaism--without interference from secular authority.

You do realize the whole thing's a Mossad plot, right?

Clever buggers, the Mossad. Their intent is to get the legions of Jews living in Nordic countries to leave, and head to Israel to swell the ranks of Bibi's Legions: The few, the proud, the trimmed.

The above makes about as much sense as many of the posts in this thread.

A note on human sacrifice:

It appears that father Abraham didn't kill his son, but he apparently did trim his todger. Why does human sacrifice get brought up in this conversation?

 

[Loss Leader]

I do not trust you to make determinations for child rights if you want to bind them to your religion.

Too late. I've already got two of them.

 

[ABC10]

Not reading comprehension, just taking your weaselly and incorrect 'treat' too seriously.

Again, demonstrating a complete lack of ideas and failure to advance the debate.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

It would make more sense to do it when Isaac did it, at thirteen. It's the boy's body, he should get a say in what shape it's in when he finally inherits full control of it.

 

[Loss Leader]

That is grossly unfair. There was no claim to know "what's best for Jews."

Oh, but there was - by that poster and at least one other. When you say that a religious practice should be banned because it harms children in that religion, you are dictating how the religion is observed. Some have said that they see no reason why Jews couldn't continue to be Jews without circumcision. That's exactly the same thing as determining which religious practices Jews can do with and which they can do without. There's really no one here who can make that determination, though that poster and others kep trying.

Proposed laws about circumcision are not aimed at Jews, so cannot send such a message.

Nonsense. Laws requiring a reading test to register to vote were aimed at ensuring that voters could at least understand their ballots. Those laws had a disparate impact on African-Americans. You propose a law that will have a disparate impact on the practice of Judaism. I see no difference.

But the right to bodily integrity is, IMHO, a fundamental human right and circumcising an infant is a violation of that right.

The right to bodily integrity is a fundamental human right. And parents act for the child when deciding how to exercise that right. They substitute their judgement for the child because the child cannot exercise his judgment independently.

Do you oppose parents taking their 12 year-old daughters to the mall to get their ears pierced? The parent is making the decision to violate the child's bodily integrity.

How about those parents who decide to remove life support from their sick child? Surely, if the right to an unscathed penis trumps the parents' decision, the right to life must. It may only be a few days or hours more of life - one filled with pain and torment. It may be years worth of life without consciousness. But it is life and life is infinitely valuable. And, of course, there is no medical NEED for someone to be dead.

I'm guessing you do support the rights of parents to withhold nutrition and other life-saving medicine from their children in certain unhappy circumstances. So, your argument from some sort of rule about bodily integrity is really just an end-oriented way of saying that you personally don't agree with circumcision so it just shouldn't happen.

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.

Babies cannot make any decisions. They're babies. Someone has to make decisions for them. The choices are: the children's parents or you. I vote for the parents.

Er, if you want to infringe on someone's rights, like bodily integrity, you need a good reason.

Wrong. You just need a reason. Once we demand a "good" reason, we remove the power from the parent and give it to ... whomever happens to be the arbiter of whatever they happen to think "good" means.

Too late. I've already got two of them.

But I'll lend one to you and we'll see which one grows up to be a cardiologist.