Child Circumcision

[Basket Case]

4 hours ago, Percy said:

but who wouldn't deny what may appear to others to be a descent from some level of civilisation into barbarism?

 

Thanks for the link. Interesting. I've never looked into the exact details before. 

But, either way... Ancient or Modern, no anesthetic is outrageously barbaric . 

And as Eldnah suggests above, Informed consent at around 16 / 18 years WITH anesthesia would be much more acceptable IMO. 

BC 

[Steph]

4 hours ago, Percy said:

Just to be clear, the bible never required or mentioned physical circumcision for females. I think this is what you were saying, but wanted to make clear. I am a male so am biased on this subject, but don't view circumcision (if done properly) as causing problems with male function. This isn't to say that the modern methods aren't far more likely to harm (as many men claim). I think the mutilation or removal of the clitoris to be very barbaric though, and generally (but not always) not comparable to biblical circumcision.

I dont agree with circumcission of the flesh. The true circumcission has nothing to do with the foreskin of the penis but the foreskin of the soul. Those who were only circumcised in flesh were .... read this ...

"The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh--"

 

By biblical circumcission we refer to the extra practice of circumcission which is not done in the flesh. I dont agree with physical circumcission since it deceives the uncircumcised to believe they are circumcised and its barbaric. In christianity, baptisms of water are given which is symbolic of the same covenant but carried out on babies which to me seems more like some 'bring them young' ownership of the flock thing. The true baptism is done by a spiritual practice rather than a physical one. As rituals go, the watery baptism is safer but whats the point if a baby has no idea whats going on or the older neophytes do not have the symbolic meaning of the watery baptism explained to them as symbolising the spiritual baptism to come.

[Macnamara]

When africans chop bits off their babies it is denounced around the world but when the jews chop bits off their babies everyone is silent

[Eldnah]

9 hours ago, Macnamara said:

When africans chop bits off their babies it is denounced around the world but when the jews chop bits off their babies everyone is silent

 

Thats just racially and semetically charged bollox which amounts to no more than thinly disguised  Jews bad and everyone is racist against black people.

 

 

The reality is When Africans (and Westerners of African descent), Indonisians and a few others* Chop bits off their female children, the whole world denounces it, when the Jews, Muslims and indeed lots of (White Christian) American women do the same to male children - The world is silent.

 

Religion and Colour of the child is absolutely not relevent to this and just to be clear the issue isnt Gender related either

 

The differrence is  regardless of whether you support religious or mothers prefference** circumcision of boys or not Male circumcision is also conducted on medical grounds - As such it isnt possible to ban it completely and it can be argued it isnt damaging to the male (agree with it or not).

Female circumcision has no benefits whatsoever - has no medical justification or purpose and if the girl is lucky it only causes significant harm as such its a barbaric practice little more than torture and the world quite rightly wishes to see it banned.

 

As an addendum - theres many who believe female circumcision is a Muslim thing - thats incorrect - some Islamic countries do use it as an excuse but it isnt a religious thing at all.

There is a country (possibly Eritrea) where Muslims are about 90% population yet 90% of FGM victims are Christian -

 

 

 

*But it is mostly confined to Africa

**Something I find really disturbing

[Percy]

17 hours ago, Basket Case said:

 

Thanks for the link. Interesting. I've never looked into the exact details before. 

But, either way... Ancient or Modern, no anesthetic is outrageously barbaric . 

And as Eldnah suggests above, Informed consent at around 16 / 18 years WITH anesthesia would be much more acceptable IMO. 

BC 

As a Christian, I believe God had reasons for commanding circumcision, but can understand the claims of barbarism as practiced today, due to the more extreme nature put in place by the Jews. Some babies apparently go into shock also. Without the original requirement (God commanded it at 8 days old), I also would only entertain informed consent for older males (as I believe Muslims do).

 

17 hours ago, Steph said:

I dont agree with circumcission of the flesh. The true circumcission has nothing to do with the foreskin of the penis but the foreskin of the soul. Those who were only circumcised in flesh were .... read this ...

"The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh--"

 

By biblical circumcission we refer to the extra practice of circumcission which is not done in the flesh. I dont agree with physical circumcission since it deceives the uncircumcised to believe they are circumcised and its barbaric. In christianity, baptisms of water are given which is symbolic of the same covenant but carried out on babies which to me seems more like some 'bring them young' ownership of the flock thing. The true baptism is done by a spiritual practice rather than a physical one. As rituals go, the watery baptism is safer but whats the point if a baby has no idea whats going on or the older neophytes do not have the symbolic meaning of the watery baptism explained to them as symbolising the spiritual baptism to come.

Mostly agree, but wasn't physical circumcision given as symbolism for circumcision of the heart? If so, surely one can't be bad, and the other good, right? Certainly agree that it has no spiritual benefit today. 

 

2 hours ago, Eldnah said:

The differrence is  regardless of whether you support religious or mothers prefference** circumcision of boys or not Male circumcision is also conducted on medical grounds - As such it isnt possible to ban it completely and it can be argued it isnt damaging to the male (agree with it or not).

Female circumcision has no benefits whatsoever - has no medical justification or purpose and if the girl is lucky it only causes significant harm as such its a barbaric practice little more than torture and the world quite rightly wishes to see it banned.

I fully agree. If circumcision wasn't in the bible, I doubt it would have ever got any more popular than female circumcision. As it was, people were more open to it, and now it's realised there are some benefits (whether or not worth the risks). Female genital mutilation is called mutilation for the reasons you state - just cruel and rooted in hatred for femininity.

[Eldnah]

1 hour ago, Percy said:

 

Mostly agree, but wasn't physical circumcision given as symbolism for circumcision of the heart? If so, surely one can't be bad, and the other good, right? Certainly agree that it has no spiritual benefit today. 

 

Honestly - I think male circumcision was a hygene thing for desert cultures 

Which is why the Muslims kept it and Christans didnt.

 

Its same with pork - theres diseases in the middle east it gets but not in Europe - hence god tels the Muslims and jewe no pigs yet christians no resriction.

 

A lot of the rules imposed by religion seem to have been done so because god says dont do it was more effective on the uneducated masses than trying to explain health and safety or animal welfare. 

[Macnamara]

7 hours ago, Eldnah said:

Thats just racially and semetically charged bollox which amounts to no more than thinly disguised  Jews bad and everyone is racist against black people.

 

The reality is When Africans (and Westerners of African descent), Indonisians and a few others* Chop bits off their female children, the whole world denounces it, when the Jews, Muslims and indeed lots of (White Christian) American women do the same to male children - The world is silent.

 

Female circumcision has no benefits whatsoever - has no medical justification or purpose and if the girl is lucky it only causes significant harm as such its a barbaric practice little more than torture and the world quite rightly wishes to see it banned.

 

a baby cannot consent to the alteration of their body; to mutilate the genitalia of a child is a crime

 

when the africans do it the sabbatean-jewish owned corporate media make a big fuss about how evil it is and yet they say nothing about the genital mutilation of baby boys by jews

 

now why would that be?

 

if treating people differently on the basis of race is racism then the double standard being displayed in the ignorism towards the genital mutilation carried out by the jewish community is racist. It can't be ok for some but not ok for others. If its the spirit of equality we are seeking then why would something be condemned when one group do it but not when another group do it?

Edited December 10, 2020 by Macnamara

[Eldnah]

17 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

a baby cannot consent to the alteration of their body; to mutilate the genitalia of a child is a crime

 

when the africans do it the sabbatean-jewish owned corporate media make a big fuss about how evil it is and yet they say nothing about the genital mutilation of baby boys by jews

 

now why would that be?

 

if treating people differently on the basis of race is racism then the double standard being displayed in the ignorism towards the genital mutilation carried out by the jewish community is racist. It can't be ok for some but not ok for others. If its the spirit of equality we are seeking then why would something be condemned when one group do it but not when another group do it?

 

So you explain to me why you think the jews should be given special treatment over the rest of humanity on this issue?

 

 

More ill thought out rubbish 

 

You have completely Ignored that  Non Jews also  practice circumcision of Male children and babies. Which as you say is accepted - so why no outrage that these arent condemned either.

 

You have completely Ignored that Male circumcision is sometimes done for medical reasons.

 

Youve completely ignored that FGM isnt only in Africa and its condemned everywhere.

 

You have completely ignored that the outrage isnt about African boys being circumcised - its solely against FGM - something never done on medical grounds and extremely harmful to the victim.

 

Nobody will complain about African boys being circumcised.

 

In other words you completely ignored my comments on why we had 2 standards (not a double) all so you could pretend only Jewish babies are circumcised and only black people are condemned.

 

 

I made it clear in my 1st post that i disagree with circumcising of infants - but theres a very big differrence between that and FGM - 

So despite youre claim we treat circucision differrently because it Jews - We do no such thing what we do is distinguish between 2 differrent activities and call one a barbaric crime. 

 

Worse still to support your Anti Jewish bile you are pretending theres no difference between circumcision and FGM. 

 

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Eldnah

[Eldnah]

Cant Edit 

 

I agree that circumcism of an infant is mutalation and should be a crime.

 

What im trying to point out is that you are fighting the wrong battle. You would have a stronger argument if you said everyones is outraged by cutting girls but not boys - I would still be arguing its differrent. 

But the racism / Jewish angle is an absolute swing and a miss. 

[Macnamara]

1 hour ago, Eldnah said:

You have completely ignored that the outrage isnt about African boys being circumcised - its solely against FGM - something never done on medical grounds and extremely harmful to the victim.

 

Nobody will complain about African boys being circumcised.

 

ah i see so not only is it bad for africans to mutilate the genitalia of their children but ok for jews to do it, which is a racist perspective but it is also not ok to mutilate the genitalia of girls but ok to mutilate the genitalia of boys which is a sexist position

 

so how do you justify your racist and sexist stance on this?

Edited December 10, 2020 by Macnamara

[Eldnah]

19 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

ah i see so not only is it bad for africans to mutilate the genitalia of their children but ok for jews to do it,

 

You really are tedious -  That is exactly NOT what I said 

 

 

19 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

which is a racist perspective but it is also not ok to mutilate the genitalia of girls but ok to mutilate the genitalia of boys which is a sexist position

 

Again not what I said - I even said that if you were arguing the outcry was sexist your argument  would be better

 

19 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

so how do you justify your racist and sexist stance on this?

 

Since my stance is neither racist or sexist and there can only be 3 reasons you claim  it is

1) you are trolling

2) you didnt read my posts

3) youre an idiot

 

In any case its demostrably a waste of time responding to yourself.

 

I think everyone else understands that im oppossed to male circumcision whether its carried out on Black white or other Individuals without consent, but accept theres a big differrence between that and FGM so fully understand why theres a big campaign to stop cutting girls - but no campaign to stop Jews, Muslims weird American women circumsising boys.

 

So despite youre purile labeling of me as racist and sexist - I dont doubt every one else will manage to agree or dissagree with the points ive made rather than the ones you want me to have made 

[Macnamara]

2 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

I think everyone else understands that im oppossed to male circumcision whether its carried out on Black white or other Individuals without consent, but accept theres a big differrence between that and FGM so fully understand why theres a big campaign to stop cutting girls - but no campaign to stop Jews, Muslims weird American women circumsising boys.

 

to make your health argument hold water you are going to have to prove that jews mutilate the genitals of all of their boys for health reasons

 

you will need to prove intent and also that there is a medical benefit to cutting everyones foreskin off

 

To me its like saying that nature made a mistake giving boys a foreskin. I don't believe that. I believe nature knew exactly what it was doing

[Ethel]

1 hour ago, Eldnah said:

Cant Edit 

 

I agree that circumcism of an infant is mutalation and should be a crime.

 

What im trying to point out is that you are fighting the wrong battle. You would have a stronger argument if you said everyones is outraged by cutting girls but not boys - I would still be arguing its differrent. 

But the racism / Jewish angle is an absolute swing and a miss. 

 

An even stronger argument still would be something along the lines of "everyone is outraged by FGM, a smaller number of people are outraged by circumcision, and barely anyone protests IGM (Intersex genital mutilation)".

 

The thinking here, of course, is that Intersex people 'deserve' it, because they are "freaks" of nature. The common logic in the truth seeking community is that allowing children to have surgery to "transition" from something to something is an abomination UNLESS the child happens to be Intersex, in which case, not only is it acceptable, it should be forced upon them as early as possible, even if it does destroy their life and leave them a bare empty shell of a human being. Either that or people just don't talk about the mutilation of Intersex children's genitals altogether because they are either don't know about it or it makes them uncomfortable - probably the latter.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Ethel
typo

[EnigmaticWorld]

Anyone remember when Iceland tried to ban circumcision, then the ADL threatened to take down their tourism industry?

 

 

 

Looking at the rankings above, I wonder if there is a correlation.

 

 

[Eldnah]

1 hour ago, Ethel said:

 

An even stronger argument still would be something along the lines of "everyone is outraged by FGM, a smaller number of people are outraged by circumcision, and barely anyone protests IGM (Intersex genital mutilation)".

 

 

 

I would say rather than deserve it people think theyre helping intersex

 

Trans is another issue and its worrying that its become trendy and foisted on confused teens

 

[Eldnah]

1 hour ago, Macnamara said:

 

to make your health argument hold water you are going to have to prove that jews mutilate the genitals of all of their boys for health reasons

 

They dont they do it for religious reasons 

 

What I said was its origin may have been hygene in Desert regions hence Muslims continuing the practice but not Christiazns 

 

1 hour ago, Macnamara said:

 

you will need to prove intent and also that there is a medical benefit to cutting everyones foreskin off

 

Again I never claimed there was a benefit to circumcision -  I said it was sometimes done on medical grounds (in the case of a friend of mine following a nasty zip moment - in the case of a work coleague because his foreskin shrank and was painfully tight. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Macnamara said:

 

To me its like saying that nature made a mistake giving boys a foreskin. I don't believe that. I believe nature knew exactly what it was doing

 

Thats because you missunderstood my point - hopefully the above clarifies for you.

[Macnamara]

1 minute ago, Eldnah said:

They dont they do it for religious reasons

 

People used to sacrifice humans for religious reasons. Does that make it ok?

 

Is it ok to harm others? If not should jews be given a special pass whilst africans do not?

[Eldnah]

22 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

People used to sacrifice humans for religious reasons. Does that make it ok?

 

What part of Im against it are you missing - Ive explained why male V female is viewed differrently  - that doesnt mean I agree with male - i mean of only stated that at least 3 times now

 

22 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

Is it ok to harm others? If not should jews be given a special pass whilst africans do not?

 

Because despite you keep saying this  - it isnt a case of Jews getting a pass and Africans not 

Jews Muslims Blacks whites all get a pass on male circumcism. 

Nobody gets a pass on FGM - because whilst its mostly an Africa thing it isnt exclusively 

 

 

[Macnamara]

3 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

What part of Im against it are you missing - Ive explained why male V female is viewed differrently  - that doesnt mean I agree with male - i mean of only stated that at least 3 times now

 

Because despite you keep saying this  - it isnt a case of Jews getting a pass and Africans not 

Jews Muslims Blacks whites all get a pass on male circumcism. 

Nobody gets a pass on FGM - because whilst its mostly an Africa thing it isnt exclusively

 

Muslims and christians don't control the corporate media that harps on about african genital mutilation

 

Christians and muslims don't as a matter of course circumcise all their males but jews do

 

So they are not comparable. if you want to understand why some northern american christians do it i suggest that they are influenced by freemasonry

[Eldnah]

Just now, Macnamara said:

 

Muslims and christians don't control the corporate media that harps on about african genital mutilation

 

It isnt African -  Its a practice thats mostly African and its conducted on girls - theres no condemnation of Africans circumcising boys

 

The condemnation is of an act carried out anywhere on females - 

 

Just now, Macnamara said:

 

Christians and muslims don't as a matter of course circumcise all their males but jews do

 

Muslims pretty much do - its considered a male rite - but it isnt a you will.

 

Just now, Macnamara said:

 

So they are not comparable. if you want to understand why some northern american christians do it i suggest that they are influenced by freemasonry

 

No - Certain North American  Women have their sons done because they think it looks better - which I find more disturbing than the Jews / Muslims doing it on religious grounds 

 

Ive explained several times that it isnt only jews that circumcise men 

Ive explained several times it isnt only Africans that cut girls

Ive explained several times that Male circumcision can be done for medical reasons wheras Female isnt.

 

In response you have simply repeated the same false claim  you started with (except the time you called me racist and sexist - because i said t wasnt a race or gender issue).

 

Clearly Im wasting me time so Im now withdrawing from the debate 

[Macnamara]

41 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

It isnt African -  Its a practice thats mostly African and its conducted on girls - theres no condemnation of Africans circumcising boys

 

The condemnation is of an act carried out anywhere on females - 

 

why do you make any differentiation between boys and girls? Do you see boys as less deserving of protection?

 

41 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

No - Certain North American  Women have their sons done because they think it looks better

 

no i think you'll find that freemasonry weilds a lot of influence on US society. The practice didn't come with those people from europe, It came from the middle east

[Steph]

51 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

why do you make any differentiation between boys and girls? Do you see boys as less deserving of protection?

 

 

no i think you'll find that freemasonry weilds a lot of influence on US society. The practice didn't come with those people from europe, It came from the middle east

The original abrahamic circumcission was done to males only by the first covenant for whatever reasons. New covenants later changed this and it gets to the point where no one has a clue who is actually circumcised and who isnt an circumcission becomes uncircumcission and superstitious rituals become the false covenant and the spiritual realm like witchcraft. This bullshits been going on for thousands of years.

[Macnamara]

14 hours ago, Steph said:

The original abrahamic circumcission was done to males only by the first covenant for whatever reasons. New covenants later changed this and it gets to the point where no one has a clue who is actually circumcised and who isnt an circumcission becomes uncircumcission and superstitious rituals become the false covenant and the spiritual realm like witchcraft. This bullshits been going on for thousands of years.

 

chopping bits off babies is a blasphemy against Nature

[Steph]

Apart from their little toesies. They dont need their little toesies. Surely we can eat their little toasies. The government can still collect their organs from them when theyre grown up right?

[Percy]

16 hours ago, Macnamara said:

 

why do you make any differentiation between boys and girls? Do you see boys as less deserving of protection?

 

 

no i think you'll find that freemasonry weilds a lot of influence on US society. The practice didn't come with those people from europe, It came from the middle east

I think you're missing the point. It's not girls are more important than boys, it's that the clitoris is more important than foreskin. Males still get circumcised today, and for the most part function well. Some claim circumcision is better and healthier, and certainly some suffer injury, but most males are unaffected by it. I don't believe any female who has her clitoris mutilated can be said to function adequately, let alone with improved health or function. It's not sexist, it is just biology. Only women can give birth, and the clitoris is simply more important than foreskin.

 

The difficulty with banning circumcision is that it enters religious grounds, as God initiated circumcision. So to ban it crosses the line between state and religion, and transgresses into dangerous territory. Yeah, one might argue that banning child sacrifice crosses the same line, but what positive contribution have devil worshippers ever made to civilisation? However, to throw out Christian beliefs/values is to throw out the moral fabric of society. This I believe is the reason for the tolerance for circumcision.