Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[colander]

The Nazis were after the wealth of the Jews and anti-Semitism was the "reason".

Please go away.

 

[ABC10]

Please go away.

Never! Although skip and scroll is always an option. It's a discussion board.

 

[ABC10]

You mean the Nazis were not really anti-semitic? Just greedy? And they just pretended to be anti-semitic for PR purposes?

I would love to see your sources for this one. Although on the other hand, maybe I wouldn't.

It's a discussion board and that is my opinion, like it or not.

 

[angrysoba]

Insults show a definite lack of ideas and does nothing to forward the debate.

The post you responded to was on-topic even as you harangued the writer for being off-topic! And I did not insult you, as Mohammed is my witness.

 

[angrysoba]

It's a discussion board and that is my opinion, like it or not.

Well your "opinion" is factually wrong, and it is quite astonishing if you do not know that.

 

[rustypouch]

I noticed you just moved the goal posts. You went from the vague term "mutilation" (which Rolfe and ddt have used to describe some sort of loss of function) to the specific descirption of "body parts...remove[d] from infants". There is essentially no way to adequately respond to questions about "mutilation" until the user of the term defines it.

As for the removal of body parts, it depends on how the risks of removal/non-removal relate to the benefits of removal/non-removal. As I understand it, in the case of cirumcision, the risk benefit analysis comes down to a complex network of deferred pain to immediate pain and how the decision making proxy values each, which is not necessarily something that the State can adequately universally prescribe and is probably best weighed by those closer to the actual infant.

If you were looking for a more definitive answer (and usually the morally righteous are), I'm sorry, "It depedends" is the best I can do. But you would be best advised that "best parenting practice" are not fixed. The person upon whom you choose to enforce your moral preferences on as they raise their children (and their children themselves), therefore, may in fact be the people who have the political power to enforce there moral preferences on you when it comes time to raise your children, so it might behoove you to consider how much you want other people to raise your children before you back up your insistence that you know how best to raise their children with your political power.

Thanks for at least pretending to answer.

But how am I moving goalposts? "To injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutilate seems to fit. There's rarely a medical reason, it's just cultural.

Your rationale could be used to justify nearly any parental behavior. Many cultures have a history of applying body mods to their children. I still don't get why some are acceptable, and some not.

For risks, there's a non-zero chance of infection, botched work, and even death.

For benefits, you get all the fun of maiming children, and taking choice away from them.

 

[gumboot]

I really can't see any grounds for discussion on this topic, to be totally honest.

 

[ABC10]

Well your "opinion" is factually wrong, and it is quite astonishing if you do not know that.

"Difference of opinion is why we have horse races" Mark Twain.

With all the wealth and possessions confiscated by the Nazis, looks like greed to me. The Nazis were anti everyone unless they were "Nordic" or "the white skin, blue eyed German". Personally. I am not so easy to astonish. It's a big violent unpredictable world out there and not for the faint of heart.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Thanks for at least pretending to answer.

But how am I moving goalposts? "To injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutilate seems to fit. There's rarely a medical reason, it's just cultural.

Your rationale could be used to justify nearly any parental behavior. Many cultures have a history of applying body mods to their children. I still don't get why some are acceptable, and some not.

For risks, there's a non-zero chance of infection, botched work, and even death.

For benefits, you get all the fun of maiming children, and taking choice away from them.

I didn't "pretend to answer"; I answered you question.

That you don't like "It depends, but the governemnt is the least qualified entity to make a universal prescription" is not my fault, but I can see, from your dishonest portrayal of a cost-benefit analysis that you have no source for your views than anti-circumcision rhetoric.

You and I are basically finished with our communication on this topic seeing as you are utterly incapable of an honest appraisal of anything resembling reality with respect to circumcision.

Just remember that you may not hold the opinions of the politically powerful in your country and woe betide you if those whom you oppose come to power and are in a vengeful mood, as you will have little moral high-ground from which to plead for mercy.

 

[ABC10]

The post you responded to was on-topic even as you harangued the writer for being off-topic! And I did not insult you, as Mohammed is my witness.

I harangued no one for being off-topic. A reading comprehension issue, perhaps?? I don't care if folk are off-topic. I think most of us here can juggle 2-3 topics at the same time.
Yeah, I get it. Mohammed like in "as G-d is my witness"!

 

[ABC10]

Are you a context-free grammar?

I don't know, but I do like writing blocks.

 

[angrysoba]

"Difference of opinion is why we have horse races" Mark Twain.

If that's the case then I think the nag you are riding should be put down.

With all the wealth and possessions confiscated by the Nazis, looks like greed to me. I personally am not so ease to be astonished. It's a big violent unpredictable world out there and not for the faint of heart.

Yes, and I suppose in your opinion that sounds extremely profound. Of course, systematically murdering six million Jews looks like a bit more than just greed, doesn't it? I mean it takes quite a commitment to a cover story when you cover up a bit of theft by appealing to the far nobler calling of systematic genocide.

Seriously, are you trolling now?

 

[kellyb]

For risks, there's a non-zero chance of infection, botched work, and even death.

For benefits, you get all the fun of maiming children, and taking choice away from them.

That's not fair, I don't think.

The risks of either doing it or not doing it are more than "non-zero." And nobody's doing it for "the fun of maiming children."

I'm opposed to doing genital "alterations" on infants and children of both genders because I just find the whole thing "sick". Like, why do humans want to do this? Cutting off baby genitals??? Geez!

But I don't think hardly anyone does it because they think it's "fun."

In the white non-Jewish US South, my culture, people do it because of misinformation, mostly. I left my son intact, but I was really thinking I'd need to take extraordinary measures to prevent UTIs and "penis just rotting off"-style infections. I was berated about this during labor by the OB when he was being born, too.
Lo and behold, the kid is 10 now and has never had even a single UTI.

But in an alternate universe where I let him be circumcised, I wouldn't have done it for fun. I would have done it because I believed it was overall "better" for him.

 

[ABC10]

If that's the case then I think the nag you are riding should be put down.



Yes, and I suppose in your opinion that sounds extremely profound. Of course, systematically murdering six million Jews looks like a bit more than just greed, doesn't it? I mean it takes quite a commitment to a cover story when you cover up a bit of theft by appealing to the far nobler calling of systematic genocide.

Seriously, are you trolling now?

I don't know about profound. The Germans murdered not just 6 million Jews but 6 million others who were Poles, Russians, the Gypsy and anyone else who got in their way including but not limited to many of the good Germans.
Germany was out to steal anything they could get. I find nothing noble about genocide or 12 million killed and cities and countries destroyed by Nazis.

 

[angrysoba]

I don't know about profound. The Germans murdered not just 6 million Jews but 6 million others who were Poles, Russians, the Gypsy and anyone else who got in their way including but not limited to many of the good Germans.
Germany was out to steal anything they could get. I find nothing noble about genocide.

Indeed. There is nothing noble about genocide. I was being sarcastic as I cannot, for the life of me, understand how you think the Nazis' aim was not genocide.

 

[colander]

It is not just for fun.

For every son we circumcise, we get a coupon for free lunch at Sizzler's

 

[lopeyschools]

You and I are basically finished with our communication on this topic seeing as you are utterly incapable of an honest appraisal of anything resembling reality with respect to circumcision.

This is quite ironic. I've come to opposite conclusion from you. Your arguments have become quite unhinged.

 

[kellyb]

It is not just for fun.

For every son we circumcise, we get a coupon for free lunch at Sizzler's

For shame, for shame.

I thought your JewGold ran deeper than that?

 

[kellyb]

I mean, really.

Let's come up with some internally consistent standards here. Either we let Muslims do their most common forms of female genital cuttings (FGC type 1), or we ban most infant genital cuttings (male and female), period.

 

[Wildy]

I'm pretty extreme when it comes to my anti-circumcision opinions, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong there. The big HIV/circumcision trial a while back was pretty flawless. There was also a smaller trial a while back showing that female circumcision has a similar effect. Sadly, it seems to make sense, in the sense that a pathogen which is adapted to sexual transmission is probably adapted to "normal" human genitals, so chopping genital parts off (in either gender) will interfere with how the pathogen has adapted to spread from host to host.

That said, it only applies to areas with endemic HIV among heterosexuals (basically Africa) and condoms still work better.

Also, there's a study that found that male to female HIV transmission increases when the man is circumcised. I'll admit that the study in question was stopped early, but that's because it was done in conjunction with one of the other studies that was stopped because the researchers seemed to be really happy that it slowed down the reverse pathway.

But what he originally said was not to compare the two, so that's neither here nor there. Why is it that I can see this and you can't?

Probably because he doesn't want to. His beliefs are sacrosanct and how dare we judge them, which incidentally is pretty much the exact same view taken by people who believe in other forms of genital mutilation.


I do have a question for some of the Jewish people here. Considering that Judaism appears to be a religion that pretty much based around Rules Lawyering, why is it that when you are to be circumcised is fixed?