Vaccinations and Religious Exemptions

[IndigoChild5559]

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

So if a baby had a tumor, you wouldn't remove it, since you didn't have their consent?

Circumcision is merely cosmetic surgery. It harms no one.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They are both abhorrent, in my opinion.

There you go again, saying both, as if they are in the same ballpark.

Once again, FGM destroys the body's ability to function normally. Circumcision is mere cosmetic surgery. Not at all alike.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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

They're both the mutilation of a child's genitals without their consent. You can keep throwing around the statement "it's just cosmetic surgery" as if that lessens it. So are breast augmentations and nose jobs. They're still major surgeries and unnecessary for the health of the child.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They're both the mutilation of a child's genitals without their consent. You can keep throwing around the statement "it's just cosmetic surgery" as if that lessens it. So are breast augmentations and nose jobs. They're still major surgeries and unnecessary for the health of the child.

You are engaging in moral equivocation. It's disgusting.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

There's no Judaism without imposing the religion on children who are too young to choose it for themselves?

I'm still not sure why this should be a reason to do it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Of course, the question of whether you're doing a "good thing" is debatable, and none of this speaks to my point: that it can still be abuse even if it doesn't create any permanent physical impairment.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You are engaging in moral equivocation. It's disgusting.

Says the one defending mutilating an infant's genitals as if her entire religion depends on it. Why do boys not deserve the same protection as girls? "God said so". That's not good enough for me. That should be a rubbish excuse in any civilized society.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

As a purely moral issue, people shouldn't be forced to do things they don't want to do.

This goes for the idea of chipping our money (the Mark, anyone?) or forcing vaccinations or forcing conversion to a specific religion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There's no Judaism without imposing the religion on children who are too young to choose it for themselves?

I'm still not sure why this should be a reason to do it.

Because we are a People and this is how we are defined. Circumcision is part of our covenant. We don't choose for that to be true. We are born into that truth. You might as well complain about why you are born with blue eyes or type O blood. As a Jew, there will be circumcision in my family. It's simply part of being a Jew.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Of course, the question of whether you're doing a "good thing" is debatable, and none of this speaks to my point: that it can still be abuse even if it doesn't create any permanent physical impairment.

It is a very good thing to raise up a child as a Jew.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Says the one defending mutilating an infant's genitals as if her entire religion depends on it. Why do boys not deserve the same protection as girls? "God said so". That's not good enough for me. That should be a rubbish excuse in any civilized society.

No excuse for you to pretend that male circumcision and female genital mutilation are on par.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No excuse for you to pretend that male circumcision and female genital mutilation are on par.

Depending on the type of FGM you're referring to, they are. Regardless, both are still mutilation of child's genitals without their consent and I oppose both. I dont believe in sexist double standards.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Depending on the type of FGM you're referring to, they are. Regardless, both are still mutilation of child's genitals without their consent and I oppose both. I dont believe in sexist double standards.

FGM is defined as the partial or total removal of a girl's external genitalia. It can involve cutting, sewing shut, etc. The objective is to remove the ability to enjoy sex, so that the girl will be a faithful wife.

The male equivilent of FGM would be to remove the penis, or at least the head.

The goal of circumcision in Judaism is NOT to remove the capacity to enjoy sex. It is the initiation rite into the Jewish covenant with God. Male circumcision does not interfere with ANY bodily function. None.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

FGM is defined as the partial or total removal of a girl's external genitalia. It can involve cutting, sewing shut, etc. The objective is to remove the ability to enjoy sex, so that the girl will be a faithful wife.

The male equivilent of FGM would be to remove the penis, or at least the head.

The goal of circumcision in Judaism is NOT to remove the capacity to enjoy sex. It is the initiation rite into the Jewish covenant with God. Male circumcision does not interfere with ANY bodily function. None.

My point still stands about them both being the non-consensual mutilation of a child's genitals. I also pointed out some ways it negatively affects sexual function and health. I'm not going to repeat myself. You're simply wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because we are a People and this is how we are defined.

You don't get to define anyone but yourself.

What happened to all that stuff about religious freedom you were talking about before? Have you decided to abandon that?

Circumcision is part of our covenant. We don't choose for that to be true. We are born into that truth.

A child who isn't even aware enough to understand that his limbs belong to him certainly doesn't have the requisite understanding to enter into a covenant.

You might as well complain about why you are born with blue eyes or type O blood. As a Jew, there will be circumcision in my family. It's simply part of being a Jew.

You're equivocating. If you're talking about the heritage you're born with, well, you're born with it. A child's heritage, family, and cultural history is what it is regardless of what anyone does to his genitals.

If we're talking about the results of human choices, then we're talking about something other than just heritage.

My parents didn't choose my blood type or eye colour. They didn't deliberately intervene to choose them and they certainly didn't try to intervene to choose my religion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

My point still stands about them both being the non-consensual mutilation of a child's genitals. I also pointed out some ways it negatively affects sexual function and health. I'm not going to repeat myself. You're simply wrong.

No, you are mistaken. "Mutilation" is not simply cutting. Otherwise any surgery would be mutilation. Mutilation is cutting that destroys the body part's ability to perform it's function. Thus, circumcision is NOT mutilation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You don't get to define anyone but yourself.

You don't have the right to tell Jews how we define ourselves. We have survived for thousands of years, despite many empires trying to kill us off or destroy us via assimilation. Yet, here we are today. We are here today because we are faithful to our covenant. You can take your individualism and stick it. We are a community, a people, a tribe, and we are stronger because we are.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, you are mistaken. "Mutilation" is not simply cutting. Otherwise any surgery would be mutilation. Mutilation is cutting that destroys the body part's ability to perform it's function. Thus, circumcision is NOT mutilation.

Male circumcision is mutilation since it destroys the natural functioning of the penis. You really don't know much about anatomy at all and I'm tired of talking about this with you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Male circumcision is mutilation since it destroys the natural functioning of the penis. You really don't know much about anatomy at all and I'm tired of talking about this with you.

It does NOT destroy the natural functioning of the penis. The natural functioning of the penis is:

1. To urinate. No problem there.
2. To feel stimulation and pleasure, so to perform the sexual act. No problem there.

Hey, I'm sick and tired of the conversation too. I have no idea why you are so stubborn about acknowledging the above simple truths.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It does NOT destroy the natural functioning of the penis. The natural functioning of the penis is:

1. To urinate. No problem there.
2. To feel stimulation and pleasure, so to perform the sexual act. No problem there.

Hey, I'm sick and tired of the conversation too. I have no idea why you are so stubborn about acknowledging the above simple truths.

Circumcision removes much of the highly sensitive zones of the penis, leaves the glans rough and dried out (as opposed to soft and lubricated, as it's supposed to be), leaves scars and can cause other problems.

I'm not stubborn, I'm just bewildered about how ignorant people are about this issue and astonished at some of the statements you've made. You're not going to get me to agree with you. If a 16 or 18 year old decides to get circumcised as a Jewish rite, that's fine. But you'll never get me to think that cutting off a part of a child's genitals for a non-medical reasons is acceptable.