Circumcision, is it a good thing? Is it really mandated by God?

[Revoltingest]

You shared this article once, I asked you question based on it. Why are you just cutting and pasting the same article again when it is clear that you had already done that, and the question was asked based on this article.

Now lets say that the Michigan case was about a Nizari community right? Did anyone tell you or did they tell you that their religion had something to do with this FGM case since you said "in this case it was Islam"?

How did you assume this article says "in this case it was Islam"? Your exact statement.

Please explain. I ask this question for the third time.

See post #140.
I don't understand what you're getting at.
Are you saying the article is wrong, or that
the excerpted text doesn't support the
case involving Islam?

 

[firedragon]

Excerpted from the linked article....
"A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that the U.S. law banning female genital mutilation was unconstitutional and dismissed charges against several doctors in Michigan who carried out the procedure on underage girls as part Muslim sect’s religious practice."

I read that part, twice since you shared it twice, and that's why I already said so.

So Foxnews stating Nizari's or in your terminology "bohras" practicing female circumcision is "Islam" for you? Think about it. Is that the level of reading you do? See, you are an intelligent person right. But when it comes to things like this, is that all you do?

Too shallow for you I believe.

 

[firedragon]

See post #140.
I don't understand what you're getting at.
Are you saying the article is wrong, or that
the excerpted text doesn't support the
case involving Islam?

The article says "some Bohra sect practices female circumcision". It doesnt say "Islam teaches female circumcision". It is a false association you have made. That is what I am getting at.

And even if the Fox News article says "Islam teaches female circumcision", as a thinking person, dont you ask a simple question "where"? Is this the level you go to?

Cmon.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Undercooked chicken is just as much of a problem as undercooked pork.

Chicken actually needs to be cooked to a higher temperature than pork does.

Chicken is still kosher.

I suppose. I only said it was my "best guess." I suppose I simply don't understand the thought processes of people from 2,000+ years ago, nor do I understand anyone who wants to claim that a God has said/proclaimed/done anything. I'll readily admit to both of those.

 

[firedragon]

I suppose. I only said it was my "best guess." I suppose I simply don't understand the thought processes of people from 2,000+ years ago, nor do I understand anyone who wants to claim that a God has said/proclaimed/done anything. I'll readily admit to both of those.

I think throughout this discussion, there has been a lot of pure assumption about how people thought 2,000 years ago or what ever time in history for that matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not so sure your breast analogy is an apt analogy either. A mastectomy is a much more significant surgery which also causes many more detriments. In addition i am not sure about the frequency of mastitis, cysts and breast cancer compared to penile infections, urinary tract infections, phimosis, etc.

FYI: if health outcomes are important to you, it's worth pointing out that most of the studies of health benefits of circumcision are not generally about people who were circumcised in the first few days of life. The medical consensus is that the risk of complications is much higher before 1 month old (i.e. in the range when religious circumcision generally occurs).

You said that the health issues of not circumcising were "better curbed" through hygiene etc. I simply pointed out that such a decision is better left to parents. Small benefits and small detriment make the issue something with which we shouldn't concern ourselves and something that is better left to the parents.

Those are the long-term physical impacts, sure. But even if circumcision had no lasting physical impacts at all, it still inflicts pain.

Say someone wanted to give their baby a good, hard smack. Would you say "go for it! As long as you don't cause any lasting physical injury, inflict as much pain and shock on your baby as you want!"

Short version: your approach isn't one that we would generally find acceptable.

 

[Revoltingest]

I read that part, twice since you shared it twice, and that's why I already said so.

So Foxnews stating Nizari's or in your terminology "bohras" practicing female circumcision is "Islam" for you? Think about it. Is that the level of reading you do? See, you are an intelligent person right. But when it comes to things like this, is that all you do?

Too shallow for you I believe.

The article says "some Bohra sect practices female circumcision". It doesnt say "Islam teaches female circumcision". It is a false association you have made. That is what I am getting at.

And even if the Fox News article says "Islam teaches female circumcision", as a thinking person, dont you ask a simple question "where"? Is this the level you go to?

Cmon.

I have no idea what you're objecting to.

 

[firedragon]

I have no idea what you're objecting to.

Cheers.

 

[Curious George]

FYI: if health outcomes are important to you, it's worth pointing out that most of the studies of health benefits of circumcision are not generally about people who were circumcised in the first few days of life. The medical consensus is that the risk of complications is much higher before 1 month old (i.e. in the range when religious circumcision generally occurs).


Those are the long-term physical impacts, sure. But even if circumcision had no lasting physical impacts at all, it still inflicts pain.

Say someone wanted to give their baby a good, hard smack. Would you say "go for it! As long as you don't cause any lasting physical injury, inflict as much pain and shock on your baby as you want!"

Short version: your approach isn't one that we would generally find acceptable.

But a "good hard smack" on a baby poses significantly more risk to a baby which os one of the reasons good hard smacks are not acceptable.

It seems people are really struggling to come up with apt analogies.

 

[firedragon]

But a "good hard smack" on a baby poses significantly more risk to a baby which os one of the reasons good hard smacks are not acceptable.

It seems people are really struggling to come up with apt analogies.

You mean smacking poses significant risks? Sorry I was not following your conversation, so am I understanding right?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think throughout this discussion, there has been a lot of pure assumption about how people thought 2,000 years ago or what ever time in history for that matter.

And? What happens as a result? Postulating what you think they might have thought doesn't do much. Saying that you know what they thought, and that those same thoughts should apply as rules and laws today... that's a different story really.

 

[firedragon]

And? What happens as a result? Postulating what you think they might have thought doesn't do much. Saying that you know what they thought, and that those same thoughts should apply as rules and laws today... that's a different story really.

So who said "I know what they thought, and that those same thoughts should apply as rules and laws today"?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I am not so sure your breast analogy is an apt analogy either. A mastectomy is a much more significant surgery which also causes many more detriments. In addition i am not sure about the frequency of mastitis, cysts and breast cancer compared to penile infections, urinary tract infections, phimosis, etc

Breast cancer is frequent and frequently lethal. Wouldn't it be better to nip it in the bud?

You said that the health issues of not circumcising were "better curbed" through hygiene etc. I simply pointed out that such a decision is better left to parents. Small benefits and small detriment make the issue something with which we shouldn't concern ourselves and something that is better left to the parents.

I disagree that the detriment is trivial. Not only the detriment to attempting to limit the sexual experience of men and maintain an aesthetic, which is the real reason it continues to be perpetuated, but an unnecessary violation of body autonomy to do it. It shouldn't be the parent's business at all unless it becomes medically necessary, which it certainly is not routinely.

 

[Koldo]

I am not so sure your breast analogy is an apt analogy either. A mastectomy is a much more significant surgery which also causes many more detriments. In addition i am not sure about the frequency of mastitis, cysts and breast cancer compared to penile infections, urinary tract infections, phimosis, etc.

You said that the health issues of not circumcising were "better curbed" through hygiene etc. I simply pointed out that such a decision is better left to parents. Small benefits and small detriment make the issue something with which we shouldn't concern ourselves and something that is better left to the parents.

Here is the main reason I disagree: This decision, like mastectomy, leaves a permanent mark. An unnecessary surgery that leaves a permanent mark. And it is not trivial to revert it back to the previous state.

If you happen to be someone that dislikes, to say the least, the result of your cimcurcision, you may not regard it as a mere small detriment, but rather as a pretty big one.

Also, you can get it done at any time. So, why allow parents to force a baby though it? Why risk it? What's the point?

 

[Curious George]

You mean smacking poses significant risks? Sorry I was not following your conversation, so am I understanding right?

Yes, "smacking" an infant poses serious risks.

 

[Curious George]

Breast cancer is frequent and frequently lethal. Wouldn't it be better to nip it in the bud?

How frequent is frequent? 13%?

Compare that to the detriment.

Then make the argument that it is at least equally as beneficial as detrimental.

I disagree that the detriment is trivial. Not only the detriment to attempting to limit the sexual experience of men and maintain an aesthetic, which is the real reason it continues to be perpetuated, but an unnecessary violation of body autonomy to do it. It shouldn't be the parent's business at all unless it becomes medically necessary, which it certainly is not routinely.

Then you disagree with the vast amount of research on the topic and should perhaps examine your bias.

Even most studies that suggest the benefit is outweighed by the detriment acknowledge that theorized imbalance is not vast.

If the benefits are trivial, so too are the detriments.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Then you disagree with the vast amount of research on the topic and should perhaps examine your bias.

The vast amount of research shows that it's unnecessary which means it's an unnecessary body modification and absolutely falls under a body autonomy issue. And it is absolutely propped up by cultural aesthetic and sexual practice standards as no medical organization recommends routine circumcision, and even warn against it. To the point where (much better educated) countries are banning or highly regulating the practice.

Again, from a purely medical standpoint (omitting medical ethics which includes body autonomy) the cost/benefit ratio of tattooing infants is equal. As is, I imagine, the cost/benefit of radical mastectomy (as serious infection and other complications are well below 1%)

 

[Curious George]

The vast amount of research shows that it's unnecessary which means it's an unnecessary body modification and absolutely falls under a body autonomy issue. And it is absolutely propped up by cultural aesthetic and sexual practice standards as no medical organization recommends routine circumcision, and even warn against it. To the point where (much better educated) countries are banning or highly regulating the practice.

Reframing the research in thos regard doesn't establish that the detriment is anything more than trivial.

Again, from a purely medical standpoint (omitting medical ethics which includes body autonomy) the cost/benefit ratio of tattooing infants is equal. As is, I imagine, the cost/benefit of radical mastectomy (as serious infection and other complications are well below 1%)

Great, make the argument instead of just stating that it is so.

 

[Curious George]

Here is the main reason I disagree: This decision, like mastectomy, leaves a permanent mark. An unnecessary surgery that leaves a permanent mark. And it is not trivial to revert it back to the previous state.

If you happen to be someone that dislikes, to say the least, the result of your cimcurcision, you may not regard it as a mere small detriment, but rather as a pretty big one.

Also, you can get it done at any time. So, why allow parents to force a baby though it? Why risk it? What's the point?

All of those reasons you stated are good reasons for not liking it or not choosing it for your children.

 

[Marcion]

What? Female parts rub against the clothes, too, and are far more sensitive than a male's. I find all these excuses for circumcision to be laughable as they can equally apply to female genitals (hard to keep clean, infections, sensitivity, blah blah blah). It's honestly sounding like people are just nasty and don't want to bathe or use protection when it comes to STDs. The STD thing is why they started recommending circumcision in Africa to combat HIV/AIDS, and it always looked like a copout to me because they couldn't get the men to take care of themselves, use condoms and stop sleeping around. Of course, doctors make money from the procedure so they're not likely to want to it to go away. The American medical "authorities" love to promote it, and are the only ones in the West who do. Don't want that money to stop flowing in.

You cannot compare the female equivalent of a penis (the clitoris) because it it simply much smaller and does not dangle about in trousers in the same way.
Yoga has a scientific approach to spirituality, and it is also my personal experience that wearing special underwear and fixing the sexual organ in one place helps a great deal to do my spiritual practices. I got circumcised because it is more practical (as explained earlier).

As a Christian you probably have quite a different approach to spirituality so it is understandable that you have a hard time understanding such effects and practices.