IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Have you not been reading my posts in this thread?What makes them so different, in your opinion?
FGM damages, in fact obliterates, a bodily function. Circumcision does not.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Have you not been reading my posts in this thread?What makes them so different, in your opinion?
It would depend on what kind of tumour it is and where it is located in the body. If it is medically necessary, then I would have it removed, of course.
What we're talking about is medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a baby that has not given consent to have cosmetic changes made to his/her body. The comparison to a tumour is ridiculous, in my opinion. The fact that the surgery is purely cosmetic makes it completely unnecessary and wrong, in my opinion.
If there were some religion that said we had to pull out the eye of every first born male child, would you agree with that too? Where do we draw the line with this mutilation stuff?
Again, you are comparing mutilation, where the normal function of a body part is impaired or destroyed (as it is in FGM) with cosmetic surgery.If there were some religion that said we had to pull out the eye of every first born male child, would you agree with that too? Where do we draw the line with this mutilation stuff?
Which is exactly what parents do in the case of circumcision. It is in the best interest of the Jewish child to be initiated into the Tribe.Parents are stewards of their children. They exercise consent for the child until the child is old enough to do it themselves.
The facts are that one destroys a bodily function and the other does not.You can continue to ignore facts if you want. You're the one being stubborn here.
Again, FGM destroys a bodily function. Puhleeze.Then don't whine about FGM.
You need to butt out of tribal matters and stop imposing your outsider views. It's ethnocentric.I can't see any way to respect your right to impose a religion on someone else. The only path I see to upholding your right to religious freedom also entails upholding the right to religious freedom of a child born to a Jewish family.
That view is individualism. It isn't TRULY the view that community has its own inherent rights.I think that community is important, but I recognize that the rights of a community are derived from the individual rights of the members of that community.
That doesn't really address the question, I don't think. I find it bizarre that some God gave everybody foreskins when in actuality "he" doesn't want anybody to have foreskins./QUOTE]
It doesn't matter if you don't understand it. You need to butt out of tribal matters and knock off the ethnocentricity.
I have talked with my husband and brothers, all of which were circumcised. There is not a problem with it. They can urinate, enjoy sex, and all of them have fathered children.How do you know? Have you had experiences with a foreskin and then without one?
And you are imposing YOUR cultural values on my tribe. That's ethnocentrism and its arrogant.Then you're immoral. Sorry.
Like I said, you can continue to be wrong. You seem hellbent on that.Again, FGM destroys a bodily function. Puhleeze.
Again, don't whine about FGM, lest you be hypocritical. Human sacrifice should be cool, too.And you are imposing YOUR cultural values on my tribe. That's ethnocentrism and its arrogant.
That's correct: the rights are inherent in the individual.That view is individualism. It isn't TRULY the view that community has its own inherent rights.
Both involve cutting away at a baby's genitalia. Without the baby's consent. Neither are medically necessary for the health and well-being of the baby.Again, you are comparing mutilation, where the normal function of a body part is impaired or destroyed (as it is in FGM) with cosmetic surgery.
They don't have any experience with a foreskin either though, do they?I have talked with my husband and brothers, all of which were circumcised. There is not a problem with it. They can urinate, enjoy sex, and all of them have fathered children.
The same could be said of a person who was given a good, hard slap as a baby. Should we be slapping babies?I have talked with my husband and brothers, all of which were circumcised. There is not a problem with it. They can urinate, enjoy sex, and all of them have fathered children.
Actually, I'm not. I'm saying that all people should be able to make decisions about their own bodies, without such decisions being imposed on them by others.And you are imposing YOUR cultural values on my tribe. That's ethnocentrism and its arrogant.
I find your view wholly immoral. You just said that it's fine and dandy to sacrifice children to gods. That's called murder - I don't care what tribe you belong to.And you are imposing YOUR cultural values on my tribe. That's ethnocentrism and its arrogant.
Why can't they be "initiated into the tribe" after they reach an age where they have the ability to understand what it means to be a member of the tribe, and when they can consent to having parts of their body removed? Why must it be imposed upon them before this?Which is exactly what parents do in the case of circumcision. It is in the best interest of the Jewish child to be initiated into the Tribe.