• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rabbi Sucks Baby's Penis And Gives Him Herpes

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
OK. I see your point.

However, it's still an interesting element of the debate, isn't it? Even if the cultural / religious qualifier is removed: I wonder how many circumcised men regret it? I did a cursory google search, and it appears to be rare.
Basically I see that as why cultural relativism is dangerous. It is very willing and eager to make excuses and apologize for poor behaviors. No, not all cultures are like ours, and thats great. It's never OK to twos women to the point they can't get am education and have to be covered from head to toe. Punishment (especially death) is never ok for apostasy or blasphemy. "The way they do things" was forced sterilization of various populations. It's female genital mutilation. It's forcing children to work in factories or become soldiers. Slavery and religious-based human sacrifice is how things are done in other places. Some places even leave deformed infants out to die. Do you want to defend that?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
OK. I see your point.

However, it's still an interesting element of the debate, isn't it? Even if the cultural / religious qualifier is removed: I wonder how many circumcised men regret it? I did a cursory google search, and it appears to be rare.
Actually there's a lot of circumcized men who regret it. It can cause sexual problems because of how much tissue they're removing. They often remove the frenulum, which is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis. The ridged band is also removed, which another one of the most sensitive parts. So you're removing thousands of sexually sensitive nerve endings which causes it's own issues, but you can also cause erectile problems, especially when the person is cut as a child because the organ isn't mature and you don't know how much skin they're going to need to have an erection.

Speaking from personal experience, I've been with both cut and intact people and I prefer intact because you don't have to work as hard to pleasure them. Plus, you can do more with it.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
So? It was still done to them without their consent, and they probably don't think of it that much. You might as well make your decision for the morality of lobotomies based on if people regret it or not. It was generally done without their consent, and the fact you can find evidence of those who didn't regret it, and were even thankful for it, didn't excuse the fact they were immoraly preformed. Do cult members like Branch Davidians regret it? Often times no. That doesn't change the fact we must be vigilant for such cults and be willing to help puerile or if them, because those things are wrong regardless.

If the objection is based on a lack of consent, then why isn't it relevant to ask people after the fact whether or not they regret it? It just seems like common sense. The child wasn't asked before, why not ask them after? If the child as an adult says, "Yes, I am glad I was circumcised as a baby.", then, isn't the circumcision moral? The child is giving retroactive consent?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
If the objection is based on a lack of consent, then why isn't it relevant to ask people after the fact whether or not they regret it? It just seems like common sense. The child wasn't asked before, why not ask them after? If the child as an adult says, "Yes, I am glad I was circumcised as a baby.", then, isn't the circumcision moral? The child is giving retroactive consent?
That makes no sense and just confuses the concept of consent. Just let the person choose in the first place.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
If the objection is based on a lack of consent, then why isn't it relevant to ask people after the fact whether or not they regret it? It just seems like common sense. The child wasn't asked before, why not ask them after? If the child as an adult says, "Yes, I am glad I was circumcised as a baby.", then, isn't the circumcision moral? The child is giving retroactive consent?
Consent doesn't work like that. They have nothing to base their decision on, and don't know what they lost out on (a massive chunk of dense nerves). Unless there is a medical need for it (it does happen, albeit rarely), there is no consent to the body being modified in such a radical and permanent way.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
You're either crazy, have poor reading comprehension, or are trying to deliberately misrepresent him.
None of the above. His switch from medical benefits to "net medical benefits" is a tacit acknowledgment of the fact that circumcision does indeed offer health benefits.

Perhaps it is your comprehension that is lacking?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
None of the above. His switch from medical benefits to "net medical benefits" is a tacit acknowledgment of the fact that circumcision does indeed offer health benefits.

Perhaps it is your comprehension that is lacking?
For very few people with taste conditions a circumcision will have benefits. And realizing later there may be a better choice of word doesn't mean a position changes. That's not a reason to go on about that I agree there are medical benefits either, because speaking broadly and generally, it's unnecessary, runs needless risks of needless complications over a needless procedure just to appease some bs religious or cultural bs and violate bodily autonomy of an individual. Under any other circumstances, meaning you remove religion and culture, and such a thing is blatant child abuse. Culture and religion should not be excused or pardoned.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
For very few people with taste conditions a circumcision will have benefits. And realizing later there may be a better choice of word doesn't mean a position changes. That's not a reason to go on about that I agree there are medical benefits either, because speaking broadly and generally, it's unnecessary, runs needless risks of needless complications over a needless procedure just to appease some bs religious or cultural bs and violate bodily autonomy of an individual. Under any other circumstances, meaning you remove religion and culture, and such a thing is blatant child abuse. Culture and religion should not be excused or pardoned.
Switching from benefit to net benefit is definitely a change of position.

He knows it; I know it. That you don't want to accept it hardly makes a difference.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
None of the above. His switch from medical benefits to "net medical benefits" is a tacit acknowledgment of the fact that circumcision does indeed offer health benefits.

Perhaps it is your comprehension that is lacking?
No, it's definitely yours.
I don't intend to be dismissive, but that's why our discussion ended.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
No, it's definitely yours.
I don't intend to be dismissive, but that's why our discussion ended.
You are welcome to deny it all you want, but i am willing to bet you don't make the same mistake with your taxes.

All this tomfoolery was for naught. You knew all along there were medical benefits to circumcision.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
For non-medical reasons, yes. (And problems serious enough where the foreskin needs to be removed, especially for children, are very rare as it is and even more rare for an infant.)
From a practical perspective, do you think a ban is possible? I'm trying to imagine how it would be implemented?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
From a practical perspective, do you think a ban is possible? I'm trying to imagine how it would be implemented?
Maybe not right now in the US but in a few decades, sure. Infant circ rates have plummeted in recent decades and now most boys born in the US aren't cut. I don't see how it would be a problem to implement it. The government will just have to place the bodily integrity of children above cultural or religious practices. FGM is banned and the reasoning is much the same for that. Religious freedom only goes so far, just as there are limits to free speech and gun ownership.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
"you see it as a lascivious act"
No, your comment was to label it as pedophilia so I would suggest that YOU see it as a lascivious act so I'm just pointing out your motivation in choosing that quote.
"Molestation" or "sexual interference" would probably be more accurate terms.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Again, a wording which stacks the deck. Some mohels (who need not be rabbis, by the way, some are doctors) use oral suction to cleanse a wound and/or apply a topical anesthetic. Would you describe a four year old who is nursing as "underage boy licks mother's nipple"? The mohel uses suction at a wound site. This is no more pedophilia than it is vampirism.
Doctors do this, you say?

Any doctor whose understanding of infection control is so poor that they would suck on an open wound as a routine part of a procedure should be forced to justify to a licensing board why they should be allowed to keep practicing medicine.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Maybe not right now in the US but in a few decades, sure. Infant circ rates have plummeted in recent decades and now most boys born in the US aren't cut. I don't see how it would be a problem to implement it. The government will just have to place the bodily integrity of children above cultural or religious practices. FGM is banned and the reasoning is much the same for that. Religious freedom only goes so far, just as there are limits to free speech and gun ownership.

I'm not sure that the problems caused by ritual male circumcision are equivalent to problems caused by gun ownership or shouting 'fire' in a crowded movie theater... but I see the parallels. Thank you.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Doctors do this, you say?

Any doctor whose understanding of infection control is so poor that they would suck on an open wound as a routine part of a procedure should be forced to justify to a licensing board why they should be allowed to keep practicing medicine.
Yes, the mohel who performed mine is a doctor. I guess they resolved the whole "justify to a licensing board" question witout consulting you. Whether the ones who are doctors also do direct MB"P as opposed to using a pipette as part of the oral suction is a separate question.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I'm not sure that the problems caused by ritual male circumcision are equivalent to problems caused by gun ownership or shouting 'fire' in a crowded movie theater... but I see the parallels. Thank you.
I'm not saying they are. Just saying that Constitutional rights only go so far in America. So one could argue that religious freedom doesn't include cutting off parts of a male child's body, just as you can't use religious or cultural reasons to cut off parts of a female child's body.

You're welcome.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Yes, the mohel who performed mine is a doctor. I guess they resolved the whole "justify to a licensing board" question witout consulting you.
Or their licensing authority just isn't aware.

Whether the ones who are doctors also do direct MB"P as opposed to using a pipette as part of the oral suction is a separate question.
Direct mouth-to-penis contact would be worse, but neither would be particularly sanitary.

... though since we're talking about doctors who are willing to do unnecessary cosmetic surgery on an infant, we're not exactly talking about doctors who clear a high ethical bar.
 
Top