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!
Those are the rules; you're free to judge it however you want. I can only speak from my own POV. I would not feel comfortable participating in certain rituals if I wasn't circumcised. I'm grateful to my parents for choosing to have it done when I was an infant.
It is not "giving" the option. That option is always there. And no matter your intent, you are taking away the option to have ones foreskin.
It is comparable. You just see circumcisions as special because it's your pet ritual. Other people's religions have other pet rituals. The utter hell that the Spartans put their children thru was also religion based. They are all comparable, because the thing being compared is not degree, but the religious disdain for consent of bodily autonomy.
Sorry, that's not my intention. If a Jewish male is circumcised they have the option to participate or not. If they are not circumcised, there are certain rituals which are off limits. So, being circumcised as an infant gives the individual the most options.
The source I provided previously states that recovery is faster and easier as an infant. I'd be interested in reading your source for this if you choose to provide it.
Sure I can.
Nonsense; there are very few procedures that can be compared to circumcision. It needs to be something where the adult went through it, confirms that there isn't a negative outcome for themself, then chooses to perform the same procedure on their children. That's not castration.
Sure I can.
What "option" are you giving your son by having his foreskin sliced off that he wouldn't have had if you hadn't had his foreskin sliced off?
So, what you are saying is that without a circumcision they won't have access to certain rituals until they can make a choice to join the faith. If one has to mutilate their body to participate in one's parent's culture, it sounds like a religious reformation is in order.
I am sure it is easier for an infant - or at least easier for the parents. I am sure that it hurts as much for the infant. But I was referring to as vasectomy vs circumcision recovery time in adults.
Can you name a politician in your locality that wants to ban circumcision?
No, if the mother is Jewish the child is considered Jewish regardless.
That's purely subjective. My wife prefers a circumcised penis, and I like mine just fine.
To be a religious Jew
10 years ago, I couldn't name a politician in my locale who wanted to support marriage equality In the 80's is was AIDS research and Apartheid that the politicians refused. In the 60's it was integration. Why would he need to name a politician who is adverse to banning circumcision right now?
Because he said it wouldn't be long until most of the world bans circumcision. If that's true there should be at least 1 politician who includes the ban on their platform.
Then there is no reason (good or otherwise) to ignore the child's bodily autonomy and abridge their consent.
It has nothing to do with what you or your wife prefer. It's not your body. Why is consent and bodily autonomy so hard to for the religious to grasp when faced with mere tradition?
Unless they have a right to be circumcised as an infant.
If you look back, I was responding to your comment that the religion needed to be changed because it requires mutilation. I stand by my response. Your comment is purely subjective. My wife and I are happy with circumcision, you aren't. It's subjective.
Tribal scarification would be comparable, except at least with that, they generally wait until the kid is old enough to consent.