The Real Circumcision Questions - At Least in My View

[nPeace]

Upholding the rights of others is everyone's responsibility.

Except the rights of religious parents, of course.
Only the parents who want the voiceless life inside their womb removed should have rights.

...says the Atheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Except the rights of religious parents, of course.

I support the right of religious parents to express their religion.

I just also support the right of the child to express their religion - whatever it ends up being - too.

Only the parents who want the voiceless life inside their womb removed should have rights.

It's interesting how you demand rights for a fetus beyond what's afforded to an actual person, but in the same breath deny that a child should receive the normal rights of a person.

Maybe reflect on the hypocrisy in your position.

 

[nPeace]

I support the right of religious parents to express their religion.

I just also support the right of the child to express their religion - whatever it ends up being - too.

So do you support a parent's right to make a religious choice for a child who is unable to make that choice?

It's interesting how you demand rights for a fetus beyond what's afforded to an actual person, but in the same breath deny that a child should receive the normal rights of a person.

Maybe reflect on the hypocrisy in your position.

That's you guys B. Reflect on it. Don't swing the table and say... "I hope no one saw that".

By the way, giving a child a health benefit, which does not take their life, is affording the child a right.
You give them none, but snuff it out... in pieces.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Since the question about whether circumcision, of babies, has been asked several times in several different threads I have a different set of questions in this regard that I think hasn't really been addressed.

For those who say that it should be outlawed, regardless of your reasons, how far are you willing to go to make your view the reality, outside of a forum discussion?

1. In your local environment.
2. In your national environment.
3. Internationally.

How do you see your success rate being in let's say one to two generations from now?

The "real question about circumcision" isn't that complex. It comes down to this: how many other parts of the human body do we think should be routinely altered because (we presume) God doesn't like them?

Should we remove the little fingers (or only one)? Should we permanently prevent eyebrows from growing, or split the tongue in two like a snake? Maybe we should elongate the neck (some African tribes do this), or coax our earlobes to be much larger and floppier, so they can hold discs the size of wagon wheels?

The real question, actually, is how can anybody think that they were created perfectly by God -- and then suppose they should be expected to alter that creation? Frankly, it's ludicrous.

 

[nPeace]

The "real question about circumcision" isn't that complex. It comes down to this: how many other parts of the human body do we think should be routinely altered because (we presume) God doesn't like them?

Should we remove the little fingers (or only one)? Should we permanently prevent eyebrows from growing, or split the tongue in two like a snake? Maybe we should elongate the neck (some African tribes do this), or coax our earlobes to be much larger and floppier, so they can hold discs the size of wagon wheels?

The real question, actually, is how can anybody think that they were created perfectly by God -- and then suppose they should be expected to alter that creation? Frankly, it's ludicrous.

Anyone willing to ignore that the damage done to Lamborgini is the fault of the owner and not the manufacturer would be just as willing to blame the creator and designer of any product, for the damage done by the owner of their body... or the one loaned them.

So, one would think that a medical necessity to compensate for an issue brought on by no fault of the designer, is actually the designer's fault.
That's ludicrous.

Let me rewrite that in a more sympathetic way.
I can understand why one would think that, if there is a flaw in their thinking.
No one thinks that it is the fault of the manufacturer, when someone has to take their vehicle to for repairs, after they damaged it.
So blaming the creator for doing a slight "repair", to compensate for an issue brought on by no fault of the designer, but the damage caused by the owners, would not be reasonable.
There. That's better.... I hope.

I recall the designer outlining specific problems that were brought on, not by the designer, but by the owners foolish decision.
(Genesis 3:16) . . .in pain you will give birth to children. . .
(Genesis 3:17) . . .In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. . .
(Genesis 3:19) . . .In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground. . .

As the saying goes. You reap what you sow. ...and that is so true.
Numerous examples are there for all to see

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Anyone willing to ignore that the damage done to Lamborgini is the fault of the owner and not the manufacturer would be just as willing to blame the creator and designer of any product, for the damage done by the owner of their body... or the one loaned them.

So, one would think that a medical necessity to compensate for an issue brought on by no fault of the designer, is actually the designer's fault.
That's ludicrous.

Let me rewrite that in a more sympathetic way.
I can understand why one would think that, if there is a flaw in their thinking.
No one thinks that it is the fault of the manufacturer, when someone has to take their vehicle to for repairs, after they damaged it.
So blaming the creator for doing a slight "repair", to compensate for an issue brought on by no fault of the designer, but the damage caused by the owners, would not be reasonable.
There. That's better.... I hope.

I recall the designer outlining specific problems that were brought on, not by the designer, but by the owners foolish decision.
(Genesis 3:16) . . .in pain you will give birth to children. . .
(Genesis 3:17) . . .In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. . .
(Genesis 3:19) . . .In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground. . .

As the saying goes. You reap what you sow. ...and that is so true.
Numerous examples are there for all to see

Sadly, there's no reasonable way to answer this post.

 

[River Sea]

You could push for legislation that your country identify itself as a non-religious nation and therefore outlaw the institutions for religion.

You could also divide up your country into religious and non-religious zones. That way religious and non-religious people could not have to interact with each other thus reducing the conflict.

You could also create school curriculums that educate children of the dangers of all actions you deem as unethical.

You could also institute required public discussions about why you consider it unethical and proof that your position is logical and ethical itself.

Or another way is continue with religion and Brit Shalom (no circumcision)

About Brit Shalom (no circumcision) That way can continue with religion and keeps the baby intact., so the baby can chose when adult., and the baby will know foreskin is ok to have when in religion, so then will really have freedom to chose when adult. Plus the baby will be educated what foreskin is.

Brit shalom keeps the male intact (no circumcision), Brit Milah (circumcision)

Jewish Doctors Against Circumcision
Dean Edell, M.D.
Paul M. Fleiss, M.D.
Ronald Goldman, Ph.D
Richard Lieberman, M.D.
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D.
Mark Reiss, M.D.
Richard Schwartzman, D.O.

Beyond the Bris | Celebrating Brit Shalom

When going to website Beyond the Bris Scroll down see to the right the list of Jewish doctors

Also another place to learn: Here's facebook Intact Jewish Network

Researching educations and learning

A Jew can have foreskin and continue religion.

 

[John D. Brey]

Or another way is continue with religion and Brit Shalom (no circumcision)

About Brit Shalom (no circumcision) That way can continue with religion and keeps the baby intact., so the baby can chose when adult., and the baby will know foreskin is ok to have when in religion, so then will really have freedom to chose when adult. Plus the baby will be educated what foreskin is.

Brit shalom keeps the male intact (no circumcision), Brit Milah (circumcision)

Jewish Doctors Against Circumcision
Dean Edell, M.D.
Paul M. Fleiss, M.D.
Ronald Goldman, Ph.D
Richard Lieberman, M.D.
Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D.
Mark Reiss, M.D.
Richard Schwartzman, D.O.

Beyond the Bris | Celebrating Brit Shalom

When going to website Beyond the Bris Scroll down see to the right the list of Jewish doctors

Also another place to learn: Here's facebook Intact Jewish Network

Researching educations and learning

A Jew can have foreskin and continue religion.

It seems like anyone who takes Judaism and Jewishness seriously should be aware that there's a relationship between God and the Jew that is related to the flesh (a Jew after the flesh, or in the flesh), and that that fleshly mark, and its manufacture, particularly cutting deep enough to draw blood and leave a scar, is seminal, literally seminal, to what it is to be a Jew.

Jewish mother's have rathered their sons be killed than made to go without that fleshly mark so that the modern idea of dispensing with it is, in my opinion, pure unadulterated anti-Semitism; it's like making a cup of coffee using just the milk and sugar since circumcision has been the very summum bonum of Jewishness since the day Abraham first scarred the serepentine flesh.



John