Child Circumcision

[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

[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. 

[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.

[Ethel]

5 hours ago, Percy said:

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.

 

Rather than waste precious valuable energy which would be much better spent on something else, I'll summarise: at least 50% of what you've said is objectively untrue.

[novymir]

This satanic ritual abuse has nothing to do with God or Christ or Reason and Truth, it's an attempt to traumatize an individual and ALTER what they experience as a "human", it is a modus-operandi used to disconnect a human from their Spiritual connection with Truth=GOD, and substitute an imposter.

It's what they do in hell, among other things...

[Macnamara]

11 hours ago, Percy said:

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 clitoris is not required for birth so your argument is void

 

I also don't agree with this argument that you are making that it is ok to chop pieces off boys as long as in your eyes they are less important pieces of the body than a female erogenous zone.

 

I think that thinking is actually kind of sick

 

Quote

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.

 

Circumcision is not part of the christian belief system. It is part of the jewish belief system

Edited December 12, 2020 by Macnamara

[Macnamara]

On 12/7/2020 at 11:20 AM, Eldnah said:

Circumcision may have made sense at one point for health and hygene regions for desert cultures (short of water lots of sand) - and it later becomes a religious practice.  

 

It was done as rite of passage rites to make a transition away from childhood to adolescence where a male child was essentially having the apron strings that tied it to its mother cut so that their psyche became more focussed to the male sphere of action

 

In naked societies such bodily transformations also acted as a permanent symbolic reminder to the person of their new status in the tribe

 

But jewish people do it when the child is a baby so what possible rite of passage advantage can that have?

[Percy]

On 12/12/2020 at 9:50 AM, Macnamara said:

 

The clitoris is not required for birth so your argument is void

I didn't say the clitoris is required for birth - simply that male and female anatomy is different, and therefore, it's not accurate to claim that circumcision is as bad as FGM. I think the majority believe that clitoris is of more importance than foreskin, as circumcision is a common medical procedure, while FGM is illegal. Circumcision (without complication) doesn't prevent a man's sexual pleasure, whereas Female Genital Mutilation does prevent a female's sexual pleasure, so probably this is part of the reason. People circumcise for health reasons, for religious reasons, and as it is often a preference of the fairer sex. There are no benefits to FGM.

 

On 12/12/2020 at 9:50 AM, Macnamara said:

I also don't agree with this argument that you are making that it is ok to chop pieces off boys as long as in your eyes they are less important pieces of the body than a female erogenous zone.

This isn't actually what I said. In times before, wicked people used to castrate boys and it was legal. It is my opinion that this would be a worse crime than FGM, as at least with FGM, it doesn't take away the ability for a female to reproduce. Again, this isn't about sexism - it is simply that some body parts are more important than others, irrespective of gender.

 

On 12/12/2020 at 9:50 AM, Macnamara said:

Circumcision is not part of the christian belief system. It is part of the jewish belief system

The Christian belief system (New Testament) is based on the fulfillment of the Jewish belief system (Old Testament) through Jesus Christ. I don't think it's consistent for Christians to claim circumcision (at least Old Testament circumcision) is barbaric, when it was commanded by the same God we worship.

 

If circumcision can be outlawed, how much more abortion and vaccination? And then where do the rights of the state end, and the rights of the parent begin? I am cautious about giving the state more rights than the parent, as the parent actually loves the child. If circumcision is to end, it is better to end through consent and education, than by use of legal force.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Percy