IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Sorry, but it doesn't remove the function of the penis. So no, it doesn't harm the child. end of story.
-
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!
Vaccinations and Religious Exemptions
- Thread starter IndigoChild5559
- Start date
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
polymath, it has taken literally billions of years for the earth to evolve sentient beings with culture. With culture, we no longer have to adapt to our environment -- we adapt our environment to us!!! Try thinking before you blurt stuff out.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Plenty of people have and do.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
It does harm them in the sense that they are now missing part of their body. Forever. And they had absolutely no choice in the matter.
Hmmm....I *was* thinking. Which is why I bring into question whether one's culture should be forced while too young to understand the choice.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I think you should have thought more when reading his response. Maybe then you could have answered the question.
But it definitely removes the function of the foreskin.
We Never Know
No Slack
What is the function of the foreskin? It seems to have mixed opinions.
According to some health experts, the foreskin is the floppy disk of the male anatomy, a once-important flap of skin that no longer serves much purpose. But the foreskin also has many fans, who claim it still serves important protective, sensory and sexual functions.
Vital or vestigial? The foreskin has its fans and foes
ecco
Veteran Member
I guess your information source omitted the fact that LGBT children from very religious households have a very high incidence of suicide.
Do you feel as strongly about female circumcision?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I have never met a Mexican gal who does not have pierced ears. Any Mexican gals online here want to chime in? I'm always up for being corrected.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Sorry, but missing a foreskin is not harm. You have to show HOW it harms. You can't. Because it doesn't. The penis works just fine without the foresin.
Enough. I've been very gracious with you, allowing you to use our correspondence to advertise such silliness. But stick a fork in it, I'm done. You have done nothing but repeat the same baseless claims that it harms, without showing evidence.
I am probably being a little cold in cutting things off like this, but I have pneumonia, and just don't have any patience today. You'll have to settle for civility.
It's just a chat. No hard feelings. I look forward to speaking with you on other issues.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
My friend, you are a math genius. Perhaps you should spend a little more time in the soft sciences. It has to do with the way culture works. Enculturation begins the day we are born. Some of it is conscious, like when woman learns how to breastfeed, but most of it is unconscious in a million zillion ways. None of us have a choice in this. And if it weren't this way, we wouldn't have culture, and evolution would go back hundreds of millions of years. Culture is what has given us control over nature, over our own evolution even. Even if it is imperfect, you can't just throw it out.
I don't know if you are an American or not, but I am, and American culture is pretty strong on individualism and personal choice, which is what you are advocating.
You have been indoctrinated in this since you were a toddler. Your mother asks you when you were two, "Do you you want the cheerios?" (and she shakes the little box) "Or do you want golden fish" and she shakes that box.) And she actually let's you choose. Do you think this would happen in 90% of the rest of the world? Certainly not. The child would simply get whatever the parent decided was best for it. You are a product of your own culture.
Now you wish to force that culture on others. The fact that you ARE willing to force violates your own ethic of personal choice, and that makes it a quagmire, one that you fail to see.
Because I am a culture within the culture, and have grown up with conflicting messages, I see it from both sides.
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It is the penis that has the function. The foreskin is not independent of the penis. And the penis works just fine without it.
I'm bowing out of this discussion. I've been thinking of doing so for a while. You can only repeat the same stuff for so long before you start to get irritated. Today I'm sick with pneumonia, which puts my patience level down a lot lower. LOL I'm just no longer willing to put effort into a thread that is stuck in a thought loop. It's like a bad weed trip LOL.
Sorry for the coldness in cutting it off. It's not personal. I enjoy chatting with you a great deal and look forward to other times and other topics.
Duke_Leto
Active Member
@IndigoChild5559 , the point I think @Polymath257 is trying to make, and which I think you’re intentionally ignoring, is that though — as you keep repeating — the penis does work without a foreskin, much of the man’s pleasure is reduced when the foreskin is removed.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Note to forum: this will be the last time I say this, and then I'm bowing out of the circumcision debate, since it's grown way too repetitive.
FGM destroys a body parts natural function -- a woman can no longer enjoy sex. That's not a side effect or when a mistake happens. That is the purpose of FGM. Thus it is classified as mutilation. And it is horrendous.
Circumcision does NOT destroy the penis' natural function -- a man can still urinate, experience pleasure, and father children. Thus, it is cosmetic only, rather than mutilation. I have no problems with it.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I don't believe that. I've never had a man say anything like that to me, and I've know adult male converts to Judaism who have talked about elements of their experience. It's possible that it was just too personal. Or perhaps it simply was of such a small amount that it was insignificant to them. But honestly, gossip would get around if it were a real problem.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
They had foreskin. Now they don't. They didn't get to decide if they wanted it permanently removed from their bodies. That's my issue. That's the harm. I think individuals have rights over their own bodies. Apparently you do not.
Somebody who has had their foreskin removed in infancy would have no way of knowing what it feels like to have a foreskin, so they're not even in a position to make the comparison.
We obviously have a fundamental disagreement here. You think my position is silly, while I think yours is immoral. I guess we're stuck.
I hope you feel better soon.
Take care.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
The point is that it's reversible.
Hopefully not, but circumcision can have complications.
The risk of serious complications - like severe infections, amputation of the penis, and death - is low, but real. The risk of complications increases if circumcision is done irresponsibly early, e.g. as per Jewish custom.
Edit: and of course, the published complication rates are usually for circumcisions performed by qualified practitioners under typically sterile conditions. They wouldn't include stuff like this:
How 11 New York City Babies Contracted Herpes Through Circumcision | TIME.com
But who are we to second-guess this time-honoured practice? It would be cultural imperialism to suggest that mohels shouldn't suck on babies' open wounds, right?