Vaccinations and Religious Exemptions

[IndigoChild5559]

Examples of Biblical morality include rape and slavery. The electorate should not be influenced by such values.

ecco RF, 2019​

Oh brother.

 

[SkepticThinker]

All I hear is the world's smallest violin playing.

I'm sorry, but circumcision does NOT hurt a man. He is just as able to enjoy sex, as all the circumcised men will attest -- they are all quite virile.

Personally, I think religious reasons are the ONLY real reasons to circumcise a child. And banning circumcision is clearly an afront to religious freedom.

There is no such thing as Judaism without circumcision. I know that some Jews choose not to circumcise their little boys -- yes, I know all about the "gentle bris." It is not what is prescribed in the law. If other Jews in here want to jump in and give other opinions, that would be great. I'm just giving mine. The Torah is clear about circumcision. Jews can choose to obey or not. It doesn't change what the law is.

I think it does, considering that it involves the removal of a piece of his body. And without his permission, no less.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

All I hear is the world's smallest violin playing.

I'm sorry, but circumcision does NOT hurt a man. He is just as able to enjoy sex, as all the circumcised men will attest -- they are all quite virile.

Personally, I think religious reasons are the ONLY real reasons to circumcise a child. And banning circumcision is clearly an afront to religious freedom.

There is no such thing as Judaism without circumcision. I know that some Jews choose not to circumcise their little boys -- yes, I know all about the "gentle bris." It is not what is prescribed in the law. If other Jews in here want to jump in and give other opinions, that would be great. I'm just giving mine. The Torah is clear about circumcision. Jews can choose to obey or not. It doesn't change what the law is.

Wow, what a callous post this is. I don't think you're in any place to say whether it hurts a man or not. Getting your clitoral hood cut off "wouldn't hurt" you, either. Want to have it done? It's cool to do it to infant girls? People have died and lost their penis from botched circumcisions. There's adults who are quite angry that it was done to them without their consent, that they'll never know what it's like to have intact penis with all its sensory capabilities. Also, the dynamics of sex with a person who is cut versus a person who is intact are pretty different since the organs function differently. I could go into more detail about that since I've been with both but I'll refrain. So you're just wrong when you say it doesn't hurt men. You don't know what you're talking about.

Protecting children's physical wellbeing is more important than chopping parts off their body without their consent in the name of some deity. If you're using your freedom to harm others than your freedom to do so needs to be taken away. And don't act like religious freedom is absolute. There's a tribe in Papua New Guinea that makes boys perform oral sex on the elders as their religious/cultural rite of passage into manhood. I doubt you'd support that being legal here. That statement of yours that there's no Judaism without circumcision is just shocking and disturbing. I know it's not true, but if so then your religion is barbaric and deserves to disappear.

 

[viole]

All I hear is the world's smallest violin playing.

I'm sorry, but circumcision does NOT hurt a man. He is just as able to enjoy sex, as all the circumcised men will attest -- they are all quite virile.

Personally, I think religious reasons are the ONLY real reasons to circumcise a child. And banning circumcision is clearly an afront to religious freedom.

Suggestion to god, g-d or whatever: improve your quality processes. Customer seem to need to remove extra useless skin themselves, for some reason. Apparently not happy with product as it comes from production.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Prestor John]

Are you really so unaware of the words written in your scripture?

Please explain why scripture that was used in America as justification for owning, beating and killing slaves is irrelevant.

Because it has nothing to do with my post that you commented on.

I am aware of the words in the Bible and also those few who erroneously used it to try to justify slavery in America.

But don't forget that other Christians also used the Bible to justify freeing the slaves, even fighting a war to do so.

So, before you try to blame Christians or God for slavery, you should remember to thank them and Him for putting an end to slavery in the West.

 

[Prestor John]

Are you in favor of keeping those who are brain dead on machines to pump oxygen and nutrients into their bodies? For how long?

None of that matters.

What matters is that they are still human.

If you are claiming that the not-yet-born need a certain level of brain activity in order to be considered human, then you must also claim that those unfortunate enough to became brain dead are no longer human.

That is if you wish to be intellectually consistent and honest.

 

[Prestor John]

That is your opinion - unfortunately not backed by medical / scientific facts but rather by religion and emotion

Actually, it is the exact opposite.

It is consistent and passes any medical/scientific test to determine what is human.

What is or is not a human life shouldn't be based on the personal whim of misinformed would-be mothers.

No but they can advocate for themselves in a variety of ways - including writing

That is an open debate - not cut and dry - I have run into families who believe that once the brain goes - so does the person they knew - especially if the damage is permanent - and that is the case for families deciding to withdraw the ventilator from brain dead patients and indeed much of the basis for organs that are procured for transplants

A newborn advocates for themselves very convincingly - whether hungry or soiled - again no comparison to a fertilized zygote

You seem to have missed my point.

In all of these cases, their humanity was never in question.

Any argument you'd use to deny the not-yet-born's humanity would need to be applied to these examples as well, if you want to remain intellectually consistent.

If the not-yet-born aren't human because they don't have a certain level of brain activity, then those unfortunate enough to become brain dead should no longer be considered human, but just lumps of flesh.

If the not-yet-born aren't human because they can't live on their own, then those unfortunate enough to need technology to keep them alive (respirators/pacemakers) should no longer be considered human, but just lumps of flesh.

If the not-yet-born aren't human because they can't live independently on their own, then newborns should not be considered human, but just lumps of flesh.

 

[ManSinha]

In all of these cases, their humanity was never in question.

Any argument you'd use to deny the not-yet-born's humanity would need to be applied to these examples as well, if you want to remain intellectually consistent.

Once someone is brain dead their humanity is in question - I am an ICU doc who has worked in a transplant center - I have sat on legal / religious / ethics discussions - please do not purport to tell me what is and is not in these matters - can you claim the same experience?

If the not-yet-born aren't human because they don't have a certain level of brain activity, then those unfortunate enough to become brain dead should no longer be considered human, but just lumps of flesh.

And that is exactly why they are one of the primary sources for organ transplants -

If the basis of all your assertions is the Bible then let us agree to disagree

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think it does, considering that it involves the removal of a piece of his body. And without his permission, no less.

Like I said, it is cosmetic surgery. It does not alter a man's ability to urinate or have sex or be attractive to women.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Wow, what a callous post this is. I don't think you're in any place to say whether it hurts a man or not. Getting your clitoral hood cut off "wouldn't hurt" you, either. Want to have it done? It's cool to do it to infant girls? People have died and lost their penis from botched circumcisions. There's adults who are quite angry that it was done to them without their consent, that they'll never know what it's like to have intact penis with all its sensory capabilities. Also, the dynamics of sex with a person who is cut versus a person who is intact are pretty different since the organs function differently. I could go into more detail about that since I've been with both but I'll refrain. So you're just wrong when you say it doesn't hurt men. You don't know what you're talking about.

Protecting children's physical wellbeing is more important than chopping parts off their body without their consent in the name of some deity. If you're using your freedom to harm others than your freedom to do so needs to be taken away. And don't act like religious freedom is absolute. There's a tribe in Papua New Guinea that makes boys perform oral sex on the elders as their religious/cultural rite of passage into manhood. I doubt you'd support that being legal here. That statement of yours that there's no Judaism without circumcision is just shocking and disturbing. I know it's not true, but if so then your religion is barbaric and deserves to disappear.

There is always a lunatic fringe. Like I said, world's smallest violin. There is a huge minority of men who have been circumcised, and they are all for having their sons circumcised as well--not exactly what you would see if they felt mangled by the process.

There is NO COMPARISON between circumcision, a cosmetic surgery that does not alter the bodies ability to function normally, and female genital mutilation, which alters the bodies ability to function normally (enjoy sex, and, often, give birth).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Suggestion to god, g-d or whatever: improve your quality processes. Customer seem to need to remove extra useless skin themselves, for some reason. Apparently not happy with product as it comes from production.

Ciao

- viole

If that were the case, God would require circumcision of everyone. He doesn't. He is fine with 99.98% of the world being uncircumcised. It is only .02% of the world that he has asked to be circumcised.

By the way, when "God" becomes a NAME, it is capitalized. All names are proper nouns.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There is always a lunatic fringe. Like I said, world's smallest violin. There is a huge minority of men who have been circumcised, and they are all for having their sons circumcised as well--not exactly what you would see if they felt mangled by the process.

There is NO COMPARISON between circumcision, a cosmetic surgery that does not alter the bodies ability to function normally, and female genital mutilation, which alters the bodies ability to function normally (enjoy sex, and, often, give birth).

Nothing I said was "lunatic fringe". My views are common in discussions of this topic. You're projecting since the only one saying loony crap is you, with you saying your religion depends on cutting up the genitals of children, basically. That was quite ridiculous of you to say.

Who cares if circumcised men get their sons cut, too? So do cut women. FGM is carried on by the women. It's women who perform it on the young girls. Male circumcision and female circumcision are very much alike. Proponents of either use the same arguments for them - thinking it's cleaner, more attractive, more chaste, etc. You're just perpetuating a sexist double standard. If it's not okay to mutilate a girl's genitals, it's not to mutilate a boy's genitals. Period. I'm quite happy to see that the circ rates in America are dropping as time goes on. I look forward to when this abuse is banned. If people want to do it as adults, that's their business. But the point is that it should be their choice in the first place. Leave the genitals of children alone. If whatever deity created the human body didn't want males to have foreskins, I think they would've been wise enough not to include them. They're there for a reason, otherwise evolutionary adaptation would've gotten rid of them, like the tails we used to have.

 

[viole]

If that were the case, God would require circumcision of everyone. He doesn't. He is fine with 99.98% of the world being uncircumcised. It is only .02% of the world that he has asked to be circumcised.

By the way, when "God" becomes a NAME, it is capitalized. All names are proper nouns.

Why did He ask that? Reminds me of tribal female circumcision.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All I hear is the world's smallest violin playing.

I'm sorry, but circumcision does NOT hurt a man. He is just as able to enjoy sex, as all the circumcised men will attest -- they are all quite virile.

So if inflicting pain on a baby doesn't impede their abilities in adulthood, it's okay?

It's quite likely that a baby who was punched by an adult would recover without any permanent effects. Does this mean that punching a baby isn't abuse?

Personally, I think religious reasons are the ONLY real reasons to circumcise a child. And banning circumcision is clearly an afront to religious freedom.

It's an affront to whose religious freedom? The baby? At the typical age of circumcision, he has no religious beliefs to express.

I think you have it exactly backwards: religious circumcision is an affront to religious freedom. It's an attempt to dictate the religion fora child. It's trying to take away a decision that rightly belongs to the child when he's old enough to make it.

There is no such thing as Judaism without circumcision.

"No infant circumcision" <> "no circumcision at all."

If circumcision was delayed until the person is old enough for free, informed consent to body modification, what would be the issue? Anyone who wants to become a Jew could do it, and the child's religious rights would be maintained.

What would be wrong with that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Like I said, it is cosmetic surgery. It does not alter a man's ability to urinate or have sex or be attractive to women.

It is surgery that removes a piece of someone's body without their consent. That's my main problem with it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is always a lunatic fringe. Like I said, world's smallest violin. There is a huge minority of men who have been circumcised, and they are all for having their sons circumcised as well--not exactly what you would see if they felt mangled by the process.

There is NO COMPARISON between circumcision, a cosmetic surgery that does not alter the bodies ability to function normally, and female genital mutilation, which alters the bodies ability to function normally (enjoy sex, and, often, give birth).

They are both abhorrent, in my opinion. Both involve removing some portion of a person's body without their consent.
And all for what, religious reasons? How far can we take this stuff?

 

[Hugbunney]

I'm pro-vaccine. But also I am anti-religious freedom when that freedom is used to tell others how to live and also to put responsibility on others for your choices to try to force them to agree with you.

The bible, for instance, has been re-written throughout the centuries since it's first incarnation as a religious text. Primarily by the "elders" of the churches of their times. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of good in there. Do no harm to others, don't steal, help where you can as you can, don't cheat, don't be jealose, don't lie, etc. But that doesn't change that it has been re-written, that texts have been excluded or added to or otherwise changed by men. Not from a higher power telling them to but because of very human reasons some good some bad. People today take it's current version as gospel even when that gospel has been adjusted to be outright hateful toward gays or do make a case to do something else socially unacceptable like refusing to vaccinate their kids or educated them in sexual health. To them this makes them worthier within their religious beliefs than everybody else if they stick to what they think their expected to behave like than what showing common courtesy and decency would provide. And they seem to like trying to shove it off onto everyone else. What other people do or don't do doesn't reflect on what you do or believe in. Selling a cake to someone who is gay doesnt mean you believe it's ok if you don't believe that according to your religion but it also doesnt make you gay yourself which would be what you should be concerned with if thats against your belief system. Your life, your religion. Which I personally think anyone is stupid to follow given someone elses agenda for changing what was provided in writing thousands of years ago. The opportunity to be power hungrey and greedy is too great to leave up to a suspect religious order of any flavor when they run it more like a business with a personal problem.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Male circumcision and female circumcision are very much alike.

[Ronald Reagan voice...]There you go again.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So if inflicting pain on a baby doesn't impede their abilities in adulthood, it's okay?

There are reasons for pain that are acceptable. For example, I also vaccinate my babies, and know I'm doing a good thing, even though my heart goes out to them when they cry.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If circumcision was delayed until the person is old enough for free, informed consent to body modification, what would be the issue? Anyone who wants to become a Jew could do it, and the child's religious rights would be maintained.

What would be wrong with that?

Torah demands that circumcision be done on the eighth day. Either you keep the Torah, or you've thrown it away. There is no Judaism without infant circumcision.