You ignored my entire argument and went for the classic feminist argument. Well done.
FGM comes in 4 types including things more severe and LESS severe than circumcision. All are ban. Should the types of FGM less damaging than MGM (like clitoral pricks, labia removal etc) be legalized then?
Every “type” of FGM has negative impacts on women, and cripples them sexually. Compare this to circumcision which has shown to have health benefits.
not true. The medical benefits are less beneficial than condom use... and in europe (where the rates are low) they have less STDs than in the US or other cutting countries.
Please read the source I provided, and feel free to look through the sea of information online which show various hygienic and health benefits of circumcision. Also, you can use a condom while circumcised... not sure what your argument is there. They serve an entirely different purpose.
Cutting children's genitals for cosmetic reasons is wrong.... what part of that statement do you disagree with?
Where do you keep getting the idea that it is purely cosmetic? Do you think people are chopping off foreskin to look cool?
And yes, your own link says its cosmetic.
“The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.”
You asked a question which leads to an obvious answer - yes, men own their own bodies. But that is not the debate. The debate is whether it is ok to perform circumcision on newborns for religious purposes (or health). This does not include circumcision in third world countries which is done at an older age, unsedated, to punish sexuality.
or its damaging... you know because you lose all function the foreskin provided.
What “function”? There is no evidence to suggest people without foreskin function any differently than people with it. In fact, there are cited health benefits, as well as hygienic conveniences.
it says that its a cosmetic surgery done because of religious tradition. Hardly a standing recommendation.
Please reread the article. Or google for more information. To say that Jews or other religions do it for “cosmetic” reasons is ignorant and uninformed.
I'm not going to make your argument for you. That's your job numbnuts.
Thanks for the unprovoked insult. Also, I have provided you with a source multiple times. My suggestion to reinforce that source with more if youd like.
Yes... wear a condom or CUT OFF PART OF YOUR DICK AND wear a condom tough choice.
This is fear mongering
Meaning "we want to say that everyone should do it, but we don't have the evidence to tell everyone to do it."
Saying “we dont have the evidence yo tell everyone to do it” is not the same as saying “we are telling people specifically not to do it”. My point this entire time is that at the worst, it is a neutral outcome.
It is true that many religions see it as a sin, but like you said, not all.
Judaism for example promotes it as healthy and “spiritual”, and so anything that would compromise that would be disallowed. That is why I am confused as to why so many people consider it “evil”, since there are cultures who carry it out with the aim of improving sexual function.
not if you are doing it out of wedlock. And you aren't really providing any proof with that claim.
... sex is always considered healthy by Judaism, except it is not promoted out of wedlock, since casual sex leads to the degradation of societies... but that is a topic for another time.
and people in the middle ages put leaches on people to get rid of venom in their body. Doesn't mean it works.
... “Leeching” is shown to be useful in many circumstances, and used in surgery for various purposes. That point aside, I agree that just because something is done in the past doesn’t make it correct... except in cases where there is corroborated evidence to show positive health benefits.
How do you cut off something that has feeling and IMPROVE feeling in that area? You are basically saying that if you cut off a girl's clit then it might improve sexual function because there is now less tissue.
That is false logic. I said “sexual function”, which research shows that circumcision can help prevent issues with in adolescence. It also helps with hygiene, among other things. Your incorrect comparison to FGM is also troubling, since it has been scientifically proven to cause severe damage to women’s sexual function by causing chronic infections, as well as the inability to feel pleasure through sexual intercourse.
Circumcision is not medical. Its a cosmetic procedure involving a knife and the genitals of a child. That's evil. Full stop.
Please don’t spread misinformation that has been refuted quite clearly by science. I see that you cherrypicked one sentence among the sea of positive attributes of circumcision, but that does not negate the fact that in the vast (vast) majority of cases, circumcision has shown health benefits.
so do we use it now in hospitals? And does it actually remove venom? No and no.
“Leeches were used in medicine from ancient times until the 19th century to draw blood from patients. In modern times, leeches find medical use in microsurgery, while hirudin is a valuable drug for some blood-clotting disorders.”
We could always remove a girl's breast nubs and 100% prevent all breast cancers... or remove (name a body part) and (name a disease it gets) but we don't in EVERY other case than male genital cutting because we understand that a person has a right to their body.
Again, a false dichotomy. Removing breasts would yield no health benefits, and can be done if a woman shows signs of cancer at any point in life. This would also hinder her ability to breastfeed.
citation needed... also the foreskin has a lot of sexual function its the most sensitive part of the penis citation is in the image btw.
Debatable. Also, I cited how it is more hygienic, and reduces risks of infections and such.
So you think boys are so dirty that they cannot wash themselves...
Dont put words in my mouth. I did not even imply that. I said it helps with hygiene.
you think that all the other mammals (since all mammals have a foreskin) can keep themselves clean without needing surgery but male humans can't.
Again, a false comparison. There are other health benefits besides for just hygiene.
you think that evolution fucked up the design of the foreskin to make it collect disease on the one part of the body that evolution actually cares about (the genitals) but only on human males.
I dont know, I’m not a doctor. Humans have appendixes which serve no function other than to spontaneously combust and kill us, but that wouldnt align with your view that humans and animals have bodies which every organ serves an immaculate function.
I agree. Circumcision does the same to men. here are all the things, all cited that can happen to a man missing his whole penis
“Bleustein et al. (2003) claimed to measure overall penile sensitivity, but their methodology made that impossible. Even though the high innervation,6 21 29 40 the sensitivity,12 39 51 and the erogenous nature,6 of the foreskin had been reported previously, the foreskin inexplicably was not tested. The foreskin was held back out of the way53 54 and the contribution of the foreskin to overall penile sensitivity was not determined. Their studies reported little difference in glanular sensitivity between circumcised and intact males.53 54 If that is the case, then the decrease in penile sensitivity after circumcision and the increase noted after foreskin restoration must lie elsewhere.57 The most likely location is in the foreskin.57 Denniston reported loss of sexual pleasure in a survey of males circumcised in adulthood.61”
So the methodology was deemed “impossible”, the foreskin was “not tested”, the “contribution of the foreskin to overall penile sensitivity” was “not determined”, and “the decrease in penile sensitivity after circumcision and the increase noted after foreskin restoration must lie elsewhere”... “most likely location is in the foreskin”...
Very presumptuous, and it is regarding males circumcised in adulthood, which I have long since agreed is undesirable. Please read my aforementioned source about how the testing was deemed as “flawed”.
its listed as a cosmetic surgery by every medical organization on earth. All you have to do is list ONE that doesn't say its a cosmetic surgery.
Do cosmetic surgeries reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, as well as infections?
I have mentioned the health benefits 10x by now. It is your choice to acknowledge them, or keep repeating that I did not provide adequate proof.
And why do you consider them more important than a person's choice AND their access to their whole genitals?
Who are you to try and get the government to intervene in a man’s sacred religious practices which has been around for thousands of years, especially when said practices have been scientifically proven to yield health benefits?
Why aren't you cutting out your daughter's breasts to prevent breast cancer?
Im glad you think you can tell me to “deal with it”, when it has no effect on you. I also find it interesting that I was downvoted for asking a simple question about how it would affect a certain religion.
FGM is performed on girls up to the age of 15, and its only purpose is to nullify sexual pleasure. There are absolutely no benefits, and in fact, it causes severe pain when being done at an older age, as well as causing complications throughout a woman’s life.
Circumcision on the other hand is done immediately after birth (non-Jews), and 8 days for Jews. The theory behind this has been shown to be because babies have the highest amount of blood-clotting factor in their system at 8 days. Compared to FGM, it is done humanely, does not affect sexual pleasure, and has been shown to have positive health benefits.
So I fail to understand how FGM and male circumcision are “exactly the same”.
In Jewish law, there are rules about how Jews are supposed to respect the “laws of the land”, so I see how there might be a loophole where people would just travel to places where it is legal to avoid penalty.
On the point of “mutilating baby penises”, I find it interesting that the issue has arisen out of nowhere, almost as a counter-argument to women complaining about FGM. Every single Jew I know is circumcised, and I don’t know a single one who is traumatized by it, or regrets it. To me, this is unlike FGM, which seems to be done as a punishment (at what age??), or as a means to control/dull sexuality.
Many of them will be in denial, they are unable to assess the damage that may have been done to their pain reception system, they do not know what they are missing.
Are you Freud? The onus is on you to provide proof of your hypothesis. Anything else would be pseudo-scientific assumption.
This is the purpose of MGM as well
Again, the onus is on you to prove this. The AAP acknowledges many health benefits to circumcision which outweigh the risks. Saying otherwise without proof is fear-mongering.
Source:
(Search under "John Harvey Kellogg circumcision" to get an idea of how this principle works for a certain type of religious mind.)
Please explain this, since my google search is yielding ambiguous results.
I would normally respond point by point, but your entire post comes off as a conspiracy theory.
How is a child “tortured” at 8 days, when they are given anesthetics? Also, SIDS is notorious for having no definable cause - you’re telling me you’ve found the answer to a historical enigma, and that it’s circumcision?
Finally, why are you quoting that J.H. Kellogg lunatic? He is clearly mentally unstable, and is proposing a solution similar to lobotomy. Circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years - just because some moron wants to use it as a form of “mutilation” does not make that it’s primary purpose.
I dont understand the logic here. Circumcision is one of the most painful operations that can be done, and if a person for any reason gets an erection, it can completely botch the operation... permanently. Theres a reason it is done pre-puberty, and at only a few days of age.
Thats fine, but its the same issue. 18+ is just as hard, and the risk of complications skyrockets. As I said, the whole point of child circumcision is to avoid pain, and prevent complications.
Apparently 60% of Americans are circumcised. 60% of America is not religious for sure.
There also seems to be research by the AAP suggesting that circumcision has multiple health benefits, so it wouldn’t be surprising if non-religious people are doing it.
Kind of sounds like a catch 22 to me. Every Jew I know is happy to be circumcised , as it aligns with their religious views.
If we were to not do it, and only allow them to do it at 18+, do you think they would be happier, or angry that now they have to do an extremely painful, more costly, riskier, and more time consuming procedure? Or do you think they would have rather had it done at an age where pain was much less severe, with less complications, and no traumatic memories?
I understand your position, but that still doesn’t satisfy my question.
Lets say 99% of Jews would choose to be circumcised for their religion. Now, let’s say the government banned the procedure. Do you think it would be fair to make those people wait til 18 to make a decision, which now comes at the cost of extreme pain, high infection rate, high rate of complications, and immobility for months? All so 1% of the children could avoid getting a procedure done, which has been shown to have health benefits?
Grown men get erections far more often, and can therefore cause more complications. Also, healing is much quicker the younger you are. This is true for almost all procedures.
You have no idea the amount of ignorance you are spewing. You are calling a person who derives no pleasure from a religious procedure a child molester. I would dare you to say that to a Rabbi’s face, and see the level of disgust in his face as you mention an idea that would never even cross a man’s mind, as it crosses yours.
Also, I have been to dozens of Bris Milas, and have never seen that happen once.
[–]Themightysavage 11 points12 points13 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]hfldrd1 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Themightysavage 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hfldrd1 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]perplexedm[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link
Just because there is debate against women does not mean it is automatically identical for men.
FGM is a travesty and means of controlling a woman’s sexuality, at the cost of great pain, and almost guaranteed complications.
On the other hand, male circumcision is shown to have medical benefits, and no evidence of long-term trauma suffered.
So unless there is text to prove otherwise, I am inclined to believe the two are not identical in nature.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Themightysavage 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
You ignored my entire argument and went for the classic feminist argument. Well done.
Every “type” of FGM has negative impacts on women, and cripples them sexually. Compare this to circumcision which has shown to have health benefits.
Please read the source I provided, and feel free to look through the sea of information online which show various hygienic and health benefits of circumcision. Also, you can use a condom while circumcised... not sure what your argument is there. They serve an entirely different purpose.
Where do you keep getting the idea that it is purely cosmetic? Do you think people are chopping off foreskin to look cool?
“The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.”
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
You asked a question which leads to an obvious answer - yes, men own their own bodies. But that is not the debate. The debate is whether it is ok to perform circumcision on newborns for religious purposes (or health). This does not include circumcision in third world countries which is done at an older age, unsedated, to punish sexuality.
What “function”? There is no evidence to suggest people without foreskin function any differently than people with it. In fact, there are cited health benefits, as well as hygienic conveniences.
Please reread the article. Or google for more information. To say that Jews or other religions do it for “cosmetic” reasons is ignorant and uninformed.
Thanks for the unprovoked insult. Also, I have provided you with a source multiple times. My suggestion to reinforce that source with more if youd like.
This is fear mongering
Saying “we dont have the evidence yo tell everyone to do it” is not the same as saying “we are telling people specifically not to do it”. My point this entire time is that at the worst, it is a neutral outcome.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]marcooni1 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wisemanner 7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]perplexedm[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wisemanner -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]marcooni1 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WeAreTheSheeple 11 points12 points13 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]perplexedm[S] 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]WeAreTheSheeple 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]perplexedm[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WeAreTheSheeple 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hfldrd1 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link
It is true that many religions see it as a sin, but like you said, not all.
Judaism for example promotes it as healthy and “spiritual”, and so anything that would compromise that would be disallowed. That is why I am confused as to why so many people consider it “evil”, since there are cultures who carry it out with the aim of improving sexual function.
Source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
... sex is always considered healthy by Judaism, except it is not promoted out of wedlock, since casual sex leads to the degradation of societies... but that is a topic for another time.
... “Leeching” is shown to be useful in many circumstances, and used in surgery for various purposes. That point aside, I agree that just because something is done in the past doesn’t make it correct... except in cases where there is corroborated evidence to show positive health benefits.
That is false logic. I said “sexual function”, which research shows that circumcision can help prevent issues with in adolescence. It also helps with hygiene, among other things. Your incorrect comparison to FGM is also troubling, since it has been scientifically proven to cause severe damage to women’s sexual function by causing chronic infections, as well as the inability to feel pleasure through sexual intercourse.
Please don’t spread misinformation that has been refuted quite clearly by science. I see that you cherrypicked one sentence among the sea of positive attributes of circumcision, but that does not negate the fact that in the vast (vast) majority of cases, circumcision has shown health benefits.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_sexuality
“Leeches were used in medicine from ancient times until the 19th century to draw blood from patients. In modern times, leeches find medical use in microsurgery, while hirudin is a valuable drug for some blood-clotting disorders.”
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech#Medicinal_use_of_leeches
Easier hygiene.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections.
Prevention of penile problems.
Decreased risk of penile cancer.
Source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550
Again, a false dichotomy. Removing breasts would yield no health benefits, and can be done if a woman shows signs of cancer at any point in life. This would also hinder her ability to breastfeed.
Debatable. Also, I cited how it is more hygienic, and reduces risks of infections and such.
Source: https://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html
Dont put words in my mouth. I did not even imply that. I said it helps with hygiene.
Again, a false comparison. There are other health benefits besides for just hygiene.
I dont know, I’m not a doctor. Humans have appendixes which serve no function other than to spontaneously combust and kill us, but that wouldnt align with your view that humans and animals have bodies which every organ serves an immaculate function.
“Bleustein et al. (2003) claimed to measure overall penile sensitivity, but their methodology made that impossible. Even though the high innervation,6 21 29 40 the sensitivity,12 39 51 and the erogenous nature,6 of the foreskin had been reported previously, the foreskin inexplicably was not tested. The foreskin was held back out of the way53 54 and the contribution of the foreskin to overall penile sensitivity was not determined. Their studies reported little difference in glanular sensitivity between circumcised and intact males.53 54 If that is the case, then the decrease in penile sensitivity after circumcision and the increase noted after foreskin restoration must lie elsewhere.57 The most likely location is in the foreskin.57 Denniston reported loss of sexual pleasure in a survey of males circumcised in adulthood.61”
So the methodology was deemed “impossible”, the foreskin was “not tested”, the “contribution of the foreskin to overall penile sensitivity” was “not determined”, and “the decrease in penile sensitivity after circumcision and the increase noted after foreskin restoration must lie elsewhere”... “most likely location is in the foreskin”...
Very presumptuous, and it is regarding males circumcised in adulthood, which I have long since agreed is undesirable. Please read my aforementioned source about how the testing was deemed as “flawed”.
Do cosmetic surgeries reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, as well as infections?
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Effects
I have mentioned the health benefits 10x by now. It is your choice to acknowledge them, or keep repeating that I did not provide adequate proof.
Who are you to try and get the government to intervene in a man’s sacred religious practices which has been around for thousands of years, especially when said practices have been scientifically proven to yield health benefits?
Yet another false dichotomy.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrway_1000 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (62 children) | Copy Link
Im curious how this would work regarding religion. As a Jew, I’m not sure how it would affect an extremely important tradition.
[–]marcooni1 9 points10 points11 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
Im glad you think you can tell me to “deal with it”, when it has no effect on you. I also find it interesting that I was downvoted for asking a simple question about how it would affect a certain religion.
[–]marcooni1 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
FGM is performed on girls up to the age of 15, and its only purpose is to nullify sexual pleasure. There are absolutely no benefits, and in fact, it causes severe pain when being done at an older age, as well as causing complications throughout a woman’s life.
Circumcision on the other hand is done immediately after birth (non-Jews), and 8 days for Jews. The theory behind this has been shown to be because babies have the highest amount of blood-clotting factor in their system at 8 days. Compared to FGM, it is done humanely, does not affect sexual pleasure, and has been shown to have positive health benefits.
So I fail to understand how FGM and male circumcision are “exactly the same”.
Source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 4 points5 points6 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]hfldrd1 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]hfldrd1 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link
In Jewish law, there are rules about how Jews are supposed to respect the “laws of the land”, so I see how there might be a loophole where people would just travel to places where it is legal to avoid penalty.
On the point of “mutilating baby penises”, I find it interesting that the issue has arisen out of nowhere, almost as a counter-argument to women complaining about FGM. Every single Jew I know is circumcised, and I don’t know a single one who is traumatized by it, or regrets it. To me, this is unlike FGM, which seems to be done as a punishment (at what age??), or as a means to control/dull sexuality.
[–]mikesteane 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
Very clever
Are you Freud? The onus is on you to provide proof of your hypothesis. Anything else would be pseudo-scientific assumption.
Again, the onus is on you to prove this. The AAP acknowledges many health benefits to circumcision which outweigh the risks. Saying otherwise without proof is fear-mongering.
Source:
Please explain this, since my google search is yielding ambiguous results.
[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
I would normally respond point by point, but your entire post comes off as a conspiracy theory.
How is a child “tortured” at 8 days, when they are given anesthetics? Also, SIDS is notorious for having no definable cause - you’re telling me you’ve found the answer to a historical enigma, and that it’s circumcision?
Finally, why are you quoting that J.H. Kellogg lunatic? He is clearly mentally unstable, and is proposing a solution similar to lobotomy. Circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years - just because some moron wants to use it as a form of “mutilation” does not make that it’s primary purpose.
[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hfldrd1 0 points1 point2 points (42 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hfldrd1 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (39 children) | Copy Link
I dont understand the logic here. Circumcision is one of the most painful operations that can be done, and if a person for any reason gets an erection, it can completely botch the operation... permanently. Theres a reason it is done pre-puberty, and at only a few days of age.
[–]hfldrd1 0 points1 point2 points (34 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (33 children) | Copy Link
Thats fine, but its the same issue. 18+ is just as hard, and the risk of complications skyrockets. As I said, the whole point of child circumcision is to avoid pain, and prevent complications.
[–]hfldrd1 2 points3 points4 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link
Sorry to hear that, but being circumcised is done more outside of Judaism than in it, so I don’t know if it is a “mark” of Judaism.
[–]hfldrd1 0 points1 point2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link
Apparently 60% of Americans are circumcised. 60% of America is not religious for sure.
There also seems to be research by the AAP suggesting that circumcision has multiple health benefits, so it wouldn’t be surprising if non-religious people are doing it.
Source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550
[–]hfldrd1 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]hfldrd1 0 points1 point2 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (14 children) | Copy Link
Kind of sounds like a catch 22 to me. Every Jew I know is happy to be circumcised , as it aligns with their religious views.
If we were to not do it, and only allow them to do it at 18+, do you think they would be happier, or angry that now they have to do an extremely painful, more costly, riskier, and more time consuming procedure? Or do you think they would have rather had it done at an age where pain was much less severe, with less complications, and no traumatic memories?
[–]hfldrd1 1 point2 points3 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link
I understand your position, but that still doesn’t satisfy my question.
Lets say 99% of Jews would choose to be circumcised for their religion. Now, let’s say the government banned the procedure. Do you think it would be fair to make those people wait til 18 to make a decision, which now comes at the cost of extreme pain, high infection rate, high rate of complications, and immobility for months? All so 1% of the children could avoid getting a procedure done, which has been shown to have health benefits?
Source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550
[–]hfldrd1 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Grown men get erections far more often, and can therefore cause more complications. Also, healing is much quicker the younger you are. This is true for almost all procedures.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]mikesteane 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]CapnPoot1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
You have no idea the amount of ignorance you are spewing. You are calling a person who derives no pleasure from a religious procedure a child molester. I would dare you to say that to a Rabbi’s face, and see the level of disgust in his face as you mention an idea that would never even cross a man’s mind, as it crosses yours.
Also, I have been to dozens of Bris Milas, and have never seen that happen once.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link