Jump to content

Child Circumcision


lake
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Macnamara
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Percy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Percy said:

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.

 

That's a false equivalence. That would be like me chopping off your arm and saying ''well at least it wasn't your head. It would have been worse if it was your head, therefore chopping your arm off is ok because that's not as bad''

 

It alarms me that you can't understand that

 

34 minutes ago, Percy said:

This isn't actually what I said. In times before, wicked people used to castrate boys and it was legal.

 

It was never lawful. It is against natural law to cause harm to others

 

People who make manmade laws to try and pretend that it is lawful to do things that are against natural law are simply trying to pervert nature

 

34 minutes ago, Percy said:

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.

 

How do you know how important the foreskin is? Have you researched that area? I once heard someone say that the foreskin actually signals to the female during procreation and is therefore important for bonding

 

34 minutes ago, Percy said:

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.

 

Circumcision is not of christianity:

 

The Council of Jerusalem[1] during the Apostolic Age of the history of Christianity did not include religious male circumcision as a requirement for new gentile converts. This became known as the "Apostolic Decree"[2] and may be one of the first acts differentiating early Christianity from Judaism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversy_in_early_Christianity

 

What i would suggest is going on the USA is that the influence of freemasonry is impacting on the church and is pushing a more judiastic current:

 

1.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

 

34 minutes ago, Percy said:

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.

 

ok but that's a different argument relating to the role of the state. I'm talking about the morality of chopping bits off babies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Macnamara said:

 

That's a false equivalence. That would be like me chopping off your arm and saying ''well at least it wasn't your head. It would have been worse if it was your head, therefore chopping your arm off is ok because that's not as bad''

 

It alarms me that you can't understand that


I can understand this, but you oversimplify the argument. If the arm was useless, and had a cancer that was to destroy the body, you could argue that removing it would be legitimate. This is similar to the argument for circumcision - foreskin serves no purpose if any, and circumcision prevents a number of diseases. I'm not saying the argument is right, but it's not as straightforward as your arm chopping argument. In support of this, there are thousands of generations of males who have been circumcised and able to function without issue.

 

23 hours ago, Macnamara said:

It was never lawful. It is against natural law to cause harm to others

 

People who make manmade laws to try and pretend that it is lawful to do things that are against natural law are simply trying to pervert nature

Legal. Isn't that what we are arguing? I think lawful takes into account motive, but can only rightly be judged by God.

 

23 hours ago, Macnamara said:

How do you know how important the foreskin is? Have you researched that area? I once heard someone say that the foreskin actually signals to the female during procreation and is therefore important for bonding

I don't. I am just saying this is a practice that has gone on for thousands of generations, was instituted by God, and is said to have health, religious and physiological justifications. To just go out and ban it against people's consent would be a tyranny of sorts. I don't believe tyranny can be overcome with tyranny.

 

23 hours ago, Macnamara said:

Circumcision is not of christianity:

 

The Council of Jerusalem[1] during the Apostolic Age of the history of Christianity did not include religious male circumcision as a requirement for new gentile converts. This became known as the "Apostolic Decree"[2] and may be one of the first acts differentiating early Christianity from Judaism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversy_in_early_Christianity

 

What i would suggest is going on the USA is that the influence of freemasonry is impacting on the church and is pushing a more judiastic current:

Physical circumcision (OT) symbolised what is to happen in the heart - circumcision of the heart (NT). In the New Testament, the commandment was that circumcised males were to remain circumcised and uncircumcised uncircumcised. There was no prohibition on circumcision for cultural reasons. I do agree that Freemasonry has infiltrated the church - big time.

 

On 12/17/2020 at 9:55 PM, Macnamara said:

ok but that's a different argument relating to the role of the state. I'm talking about the morality of chopping bits off babies

Again, it comes down to your opinion. Are parents allowed to vaccinate their children? Pierce their ears? Loosen their tongue-ties, to help them to suckle? I believe parents should have the right to determine what is best for their children. If we sort out the more damaging issues like abortion and vaccination, I would propose that the circumcision issue could be resolved in a similar manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Percy said:

To just go out and ban it against people's consent would be a tyranny of sorts. I don't believe tyranny can be overcome with tyranny.


What about the TYRANNY inflicted on the child, who hasn't and CANNOT give it's consent ?
Chopping bits of children IS tyranny..
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Basket Case said:


What about the TYRANNY inflicted on the child, who hasn't and CANNOT give it's consent ?
Chopping bits of children IS tyranny..

I don't think circumcision is just chopping bits of children. It's been practiced for 1000s of years. If there's a real issue, I think the proper place for it to be raised is in court. Who are we to say how someone else should raise her child? There are far more damaging practices to children, such as abortion and vaccination, which are permitted in the name of freedom. It's inconsistent to allow these, without allowing circumcision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Percy said:

I don't think circumcision is just chopping bits of children. It's been practiced for 1000s of years. If there's a real issue, I think the proper place for it to be raised is in court. Who are we to say how someone else should raise her child? There are far more damaging practices to children, such as abortion and vaccination, which are permitted in the name of freedom. It's inconsistent to allow these, without allowing circumcision.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Percy said:

I can understand this, but you oversimplify the argument. If the arm was useless, and had a cancer that was to destroy the body, you could argue that removing it would be legitimate. This is similar to the argument for circumcision - foreskin serves no purpose if any, and circumcision prevents a number of diseases. I'm not saying the argument is right, but it's not as straightforward as your arm chopping argument. In support of this, there are thousands of generations of males who have been circumcised and able to function without issue.

 

The foreskin is not useless. it was created by nature  to serve purposes:

 

The Foreskin Advantage


NOTE: Links with a right-facing blue arrow http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif will take you off this site.

Benefits enjoyed by males who are intact (not circumcised)

1. Full penis length and circumference. The "prepuce" (foreskin) constitutes 50% or more of the skin system of the penis [1]. If unfolded and spread flat, the average adult foreskin measures 60-90 square centimeters (10-14 square inches) [2], or about the size of an index card [see illustration]. The foreskin creates a visibly longer penis, especially when the foreskin extends beyond the head of the penis. Also, the double-layered tissue of the foreskin engorges with blood during erection and creates a visibly and sensually thicker shaft and glans.When the engorged foreskin retracts behind the coronal ridge of the glans, it often creates a wider and more pronounced "ridge" that many partners find especially stimulating during penetrative intercourse. The circumcised penis appears truncated and thinner than a full-sized intact penis.

2. Protection. The sleeve of tissue known as the foreskin normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (keratinization), and environmental contaminants. The glans is intended by nature to be a protected internal organ, like the female clitoris [see illustration]. The effect of an exposed glans and resulting keratinization on human sexual response has never been studied. Increasing reports by circumcised men indicate that keratinization causes a loss of sexual sensation, pleasure and fulfillment [3, 4].

3. Ridged bands. The inner foreskin contains bands of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue [1]. They constitute a primary erogenous zone of the human penis and are important for realizing the fullness and intensity of sexual response [5].

4. Gliding action.  The foreskin is the only moving part of the penis. During any sexual activity, the foreskin and glans work in unison; their mutual interaction creates a complete sexual response. In heterosexual intercourse, the non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of itself within the vagina facilitates smooth and pleasurable intercourse for both partners [http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gifsee illustration]. Without this gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a one-way valve, dragging vaginal lubricants out into the drying air and making artificial lubricants essential for non-painful intercourse [6].

5. Specialized sensory tissue. In addition to the "ridged bands" mentioned above, thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors (Meissner’s corpuscles) constitute the most important sensory component of the penis [1]. The foreskin contains branches of the dorsal nerve and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which are capable of sensing slight motion and stretch, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].

6. The frenulum. This is a highly nerve-laden web of tissue that tethers the inner foreskin to the underside of the glans [see photo]. It is similar to the frenula found under the tongue, the upper lip and the clitoral hood (female foreskin). For many intact men, the penile frenulum is a male "G-spot" that is highly pleasurable when repeatedly stretched and relaxed during sexual activity [13]. Depending on the surgical method used, the frenulum is partially to completely destroyed by circumcision.

7. Proper blood flow. The foreskin contains several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery. The loss of this rich vascularization interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis and altering its development [1].

8. Immunological defense. The soft mucosa of the inner foreskin produces plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies, and antibacterial and antiviral proteins [7, 14], such as the pathogen-killing enzyme called lysozyme [15 and http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gifsee explanation]. All of the human mucosa (the linings of the mouth, eyelids, vagina, foreskin and anus) are the body's first line of defense against disease. This benefit of the foreskin could be one possible explanation why intact men are at lower risk of chlamydia and other sexually transmitted diseases [16-21].

9.  Langerhans cells. These specialized epithelial cells are a component of the immune system and may play a role in protecting the penis from sexually transmitted infections such as HIV (AIDS) [http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gifsee explanation and 14-16, 18].

10. Proper lymph flow. The foreskin contains lymphatic vessels, which are necessary for proper lymph flow and immunological functioning.

11. Estrogen receptors. The foreskin contains estrogen receptors, whose purpose is not yet fully understood and needs further study [22].

12. Apocrine glands. These glands produce pheromones, nature’s invisible yet compelling signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absence on human sexual behavior has never been studied [23].

13. Sebaceous glands. The oils produced by these glands lubricate and moisturize the foreskin and glans, so that the two structures function together smoothly.

14. Dartos fascia. This is a smooth muscle sheath that underlies the scrotum, the entire penis and the tip of the foreskin. It is necessary for proper temperature regulation of the genitals (causing these structures to elongate in the heat and shrink in the cold). Approximately half of the Dartos fascia is destroyed by circumcision [7].

15. Natural texture and coloration of the glans. In the intact penis, the glans normally appears moist, shiney, and pinkish-red to dark purple. These visual cues often attract and excite a sexual partner. The glans of a circumcised penis is dry, rough and often light pink to bluish-gray in color [see photos].

16. Zero risk of serious infection or surgical injury.  Unfortunate boys who suffer botched circumcisions lose part or all of their penis from surgical mishap or subsequent infection. They are often "sexually reassigned" by castration and "transgender surgery." They are relegated to a life of hormone therapy and are compelled to live their lives as pseudo-females, the success of which has never been fully assessed [24-46].

17. Zero risk of death from surgery. Every year boy die from the complications of circumcision, a fact that the American circumcision industry ignores, obscures, or downplays [29-31].

18. Zero risk of delayed or diminished maternal bonding. Circumcision, even if anesthesia is used, causes unavoidable operative trauma and post-operative pain that has been shown to disrupt bonding with the mother, which in turn interferes with the first developmental task of every human, that of trust (trust in human contact, in personal safety, etc) [47-51].

19.  Electromagnetic "cross-communication." Anecdotal reports suggest that, without the mucosa of its foreskin, the penis lacks the capacity for the subtle electromagentic energy transfer that occurs during contact between two mucous membranes (the vaginal walls and the exposed inner lining of the foreskin). Such contact contributes to the full experience of sexual pleasure. These reports deserve further scientific study.

20. The foreskin is necessary for optimal health and well-being of the male, as well as contributing to fulfillment
in his sexual relationships.

Adapted for use by NOHARMM from a list compiled by
Gary L. Harryman (NORM/Southern California) [email protected]


References

1. Taylor, J. R. et al., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision," British Journal of Urology 77 (1996): 291-295.

2.  Werker, P, Terng, A, Kon, M, http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"The Prepuce Free Flap: Dissection Feasibility Study and Clinical Application of a Super-Thin New Flap," Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery 102 (1998): 1075-1082.

3. Money, J. and Davison J., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Adult penile circumcision: erotosexual and cosmetic sequelae," The Journal of Sex Research, Vol 19 No. 3, Aug 1983.

4. Hammond, T. "A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood," BJU International 83, Suppl. 1 (1999): 85-92.

5. Bullough, V. L. and Bullough, B. ed., "Circumcision: Male-Effects Upon Human Sexuality," Human Sexuality Encyclopedia,Garland, 1994.

6. O'Hara, K. and O'Hara, J., "The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner," British Journal of Urology, 83, Supplement 1, (1999): 79-84.

7. Cold, C, Taylor, J, "The Prepuce," BJU International 83, Suppl. 1, (1999): 34-44.

8. Bazett, H. C. et al., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Depth, Distribution and Probable Identification in the Prepuce of Sensory End-Organs Concerned in Sensations of Temperature and Touch; Thermometric Conductivity," Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry 27 (1932): 489-517.

9. Dogiel, A. S., "Die Nervenendigungen in der Haut der �usseren Genitalorgane des Menschen," [Nerve endings in human genital mucosa] Archiv fur Mikroskopische Anatomie 41 (1893): 585-612.

10. Winkelmann, R. K., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"The Cutaneous Innervation of Human Newborn Prepuce," Journal of Investigative Dermatology 26 (1956): 53-67.

11. Winkelmann, R. K., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"The Erogenous Zones: Their Nerve Supply and Its Significance," Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic, 1959.

12. Erickson, J. A., "Three Zones of Penile Skin," http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.giffive photographs in Lander M. M., "The Human Prepuce," in Denniston, G. C. and Milos, M. F., eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy, Plenum Press (1997): 79-81.

13. Seifer, Judith, R.N. (President, American Assn. of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists) "Ask men's health." Men's Health (October 1994): 133

14. Fleiss, P., Hodges, F. M., and Van Howe, R. S., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Immunological Functions of the Human Prepuce," Sexually Transmitted Infections, 1998.

15. Lee-Huang, S, Huang P.L., Sun Y., et al "Lysozyme and RNases as anti-HIV components in beta-core preparations of human chorionic gonadotropin," Proc Natl Acad Sci (U S A) 1999 (Mar 16);96(6):2678-2681.

16. Van Howe, R.S., "Does Circumcision Influence Sexually Transmitted Diseases?" BJU International 83, Suppl. 1 (1999): 52-62.

17. Laumann, E.O. et al., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Circumcision in the United States: Prevalence, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice," JAMA 277, 1997.

18. Nicoll, A. http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Routine male neonatal circumcision and risk of infection with HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted diseases," Archives of Disease in Childhood (London) 1997;77(3):194-195.

19. Smith, G. L. et al., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Circumcision as a Risk Factor for Urethritis in Racial Groups," American Journal of Public Health 77, 1987.

20. Cook, L. S. et al., "Clinical Presentation of Genital Warts among Circumcised and Uncircumcised Heterosexual Men Attending an Urban STD Clinic," Genitourinary Medicine 69 (1993): 262-264.

21. Tanne, J.H., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"U.S. has epidemic of sexually transmitted disease," BMJ 1998;317:1616.

22. Hausmann, R. et al., "The Forensic Value of the Immunohistochemical Detection of Oestrogen Receptors in Vaginal Epithelium," International Journal of Legal Medicine 109 (1996): 10-30.

23. Ahmed, A. and Jones, A. W., "Apocrin Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases Occurring on the Prepuce," British Journal of Dermatology, 1969.

24. Cleary, D. G. and Kohl, S., "Overwhelming infection with group B beta-hemolytic streptococcus associated with circumcision," Pediatrics, Vol 64, no 3, (September 1979), pp. 301-303.

25. Williams and Kapila, http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Complications of Circumcision," British Journal of Surgery, Oct 1993.

26. Diamond, M. and Sigmundson, H. K., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Sex Reassignment at Birth," Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 1997.

27. Money, J., "Ablatio Penis: Normal Male Infant Sex-Reassigned as a Girl," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1975.

28. Bradley, S. J. et al, http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Experiment of Nurture: Ablatio Penis at 2 Months, Sex Reassignment at 7 months, and a Psychosexual Follow-up in Young Adulthood," Pediatrics 1998.

29. "Baby bleeds to death after circumcision," Miami Herald, June 21, 1993.

30. "Boy in coma most of his 6 years dies," Associated Press, July 10, 1992.

31. "Circumcision that didn't heal kills boy," NewsNet5 - Cleveland, Ohio, October 20, 1998.

32. "Permanent foreshortening and disfigurement of the penis," Associated Press, November 30, 1995.

33. Palmer, J. M. and Link, D., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Impotence following anesthesia for elective circumcision," JAMA 1979; 241:2635-6.

34. Pearlman, C. K., "Reconstruction Following Iatrogenic Burn of the Penis," Journal of Pediatric Surgery 11 (1976): 121-122.

35. Persad, R. et al., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Clinical Presentation and Pathophysiology of Meatal Stenosis Following Circumcision," Brit Journal of Urology 75, 1995.

36. Lerner, B. L., "Amputation of the penis as a complication of circumcision," Med Rec Ann 1952; 46: 229-31.

37. Levitt, S. B., Smith R. B., Ship A.G,. "Iatrogenic microphallus secondary to circumcision," Urology 1976; 8: 472-4.

38. Gearhart, J. P. and Rock, J. A., "Total Ablation of the Penis after Circumcision with Electrocautery: A Method of Management and Long-Term Followup," Journal of Urology 142 (1989): 799-801.

39. Gluckman, G. R. et al., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Newborn Penile Glans Amputation during Circumcision and Successful Reattachment," Journal of Urology 153 (1995): 778.

40. Kaplan, G. W., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Complications of Circumcision," Urologic Clinics of North America 10, 1983.

41. Stefan, H., "Reconstruction of the Penis Following Necrosis from Circumcision Used High Frequency Cutting Current," Sbornik Vedeckych Praci Lekarske Fakulty Karlovy Univerzity (Hradci Kralove) vol. 35, no. 5 (Suppl) 1992, pp. 449-454.

42. Strimling, B. S., "Partial Amputation of Glans Penis during Mogen Clamp Circumcision," Pediatrics 87 (1996): 906-907.

43. Taddio, A. et al., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Response during Subsequent Routine Vaccination," Lancet 349 (1997): 599-603.

44. Talarico, R. D. and Jasaitis, J. E., "Concealed Penis: A Complication of Neonatal Circumcision," Journal of Urology 110 (1973): 732-733.

45. Kirkpatrick, B. V. and Eitzman, D. V., "Neonatal Septicemia after Circumcision," Clinical Pediatrics 13 (1974): 767-768.

46. Lee L.D., and Millar A.J.W. "Ruptured bladder following circumcision using Plastibell device," British Journal of Urology 1990; 65: 216-17.

47. Cansever, G., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Psychological effects of circumcision," Br J Med Psychol 1965; 38: 321-31.

48. Marshall, R. E. et al., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Circumcision: II. Effects upon Mother-Infant Interaction," Early Human Development , 1982.

49. Goldman, R., http://www.noharmm.org/images/Blue_ArrowD096.gif"Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma," Vanguard Publications, 1997.

50. Prescott, J. W., "Genital Pain vs. Genital Pleasure: Why the One and Not the Other?" Truth Seeker 1 (1989): 14-21.

51. Immerman, R. S. and Mackey, W.C., "A Proposed Relationship Between Circumcision and Neural Reorganization," Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1998.

http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm?fbclid=IwAR0VnpieUShU_hoTc30RQ0ox_OeKX-asrNa-lWLA5N2HQilBpsN3yph2lhU

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Percy said:

Legal. Isn't that what we are arguing? I think lawful takes into account motive, but can only rightly be judged by God.

 

Right and if God changed their mind after creation and decided that humans should not have a foreskin wouldn't God then tell all humans this?

 

11 hours ago, Percy said:

I don't. I am just saying this is a practice that has gone on for thousands of generations, was instituted by God, and is said to have health, religious and physiological justifications. To just go out and ban it against people's consent would be a tyranny of sorts. I don't believe tyranny can be overcome with tyranny.

 

No it was instituted by jewish priests

 

11 hours ago, Percy said:

 I do agree that Freemasonry has infiltrated the church - big time.

 

"Freemasonry is a Jewish establishment, whose history, grades, official appointments, passwords, and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end."----Rabbi Isaac Wise

 

11 hours ago, Percy said:

Again, it comes down to your opinion. Are parents allowed to vaccinate their children?

 

I don't think they should so blindly trust the authorities. The authorities are acting in breach of natural law and do not have the common peoples interests at heart

 

11 hours ago, Percy said:

Pierce their ears? Loosen their tongue-ties, to help them to suckle? I believe parents should have the right to determine what is best for their children. If we sort out the more damaging issues like abortion and vaccination, I would propose that the circumcision issue could be resolved in a similar manner.

 

circumcision is not carried out to help the childs health. It is carried out to mark them as one of the tribe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Percy said:

I don't think circumcision is just chopping bits of children. It's been practiced for 1000s of years. If there's a real issue, I think the proper place for it to be raised is in court. Who are we to say how someone else should raise her child? There are far more damaging practices to children, such as abortion and vaccination, which are permitted in the name of freedom. It's inconsistent to allow these, without allowing circumcision.

 

To be honest I think you are very naive. Maybe just take heed of some comments and go research a little for a wider knowledge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Oh dear. I basically had to have my son circumcised at a relatively early age because he had fimosis. This involves the muscle of the foreskin closing tightly shut whenever he wanted to pee. Finally the urine was ejected at force from the pressure of the built up quantity there. He developed a bit of an infection too. We tried gently pulling the foreskin back, but it closed stubbornly every time. So, it had to be removed.

I was married in Mallorca, Spain, where there are many people of Jewish descent. Many who have mixed blood too. My husband's family were not Jews, but may have had Jewish blood without them knowing? Because many Jews when forced, centuries ago, converted to Christianity.

So, I often wondered since whether perhaps Hebrew males have a large incidence of fimosis? Of course, this can nowadays perhaps only be known from ancient historic records, if the boys routinely have the foreskin removed as infants. But might the reason for this procedure not have been due to this?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 12/29/2020 at 7:26 AM, Dagmar Gross said:

Oh dear. I basically had to have my son circumcised at a relatively early age because he had fimosis. This involves the muscle of the foreskin closing tightly shut whenever he wanted to pee. Finally the urine was ejected at force from the pressure of the built up quantity there. He developed a bit of an infection too. We tried gently pulling the foreskin back, but it closed stubbornly every time. So, it had to be removed.

I think some are unwilling to accept that circumcision might have health benefits. Ultimately, it is the parents who love the child and want the best for him, so I believe it should be the parents' choice, just as for other issues such as tongue ties and vaccines.

 

On 12/29/2020 at 7:26 AM, Dagmar Gross said:

So, I often wondered since whether perhaps Hebrew males have a large incidence of fimosis? Of course, this can nowadays perhaps only be known from ancient historic records, if the boys routinely have the foreskin removed as infants. But might the reason for this procedure not have been due to this?

As Jews do practice routine circumcision, which as you indicated is used as a for cure phimosis, I doubt there is a large incidence of phimosis in Hebrew males. The ancient historic records refer to a commandment from God, rather than a medical reason, although studies show there are a number of health benefits (which would include prevention of phimosis). In the New Testament, circumcision is seen as symbolising what is to take place in the heart - the removal of the sinful nature inherited through Adam, and sign of a new covenant through Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2020 at 1:50 AM, Macnamara said:

 

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

 

 

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

It was only Paul who said it wasnt required, not Jesus or his disciple. Paul was annoyed by the amount of people in Rome who wanted to become fully jewish, like Jesus was, and so he came up with the circumcision of the heart nonsense. He probably realise that he would get more people through the door by not requiring it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2020 at 11:26 PM, Dagmar Gross said:

Oh dear. I basically had to have my son circumcised at a relatively early age because he had fimosis. This involves the muscle of the foreskin closing tightly shut whenever he wanted to pee. Finally the urine was ejected at force from the pressure of the built up quantity there. He developed a bit of an infection too. We tried gently pulling the foreskin back, but it closed stubbornly every time. So, it had to be removed.

I was married in Mallorca, Spain, where there are many people of Jewish descent. Many who have mixed blood too. My husband's family were not Jews, but may have had Jewish blood without them knowing? Because many Jews when forced, centuries ago, converted to Christianity.

So, I often wondered since whether perhaps Hebrew males have a large incidence of fimosis? Of course, this can nowadays perhaps only be known from ancient historic records, if the boys routinely have the foreskin removed as infants. But might the reason for this procedure not have been due to this?

Some of my friends had to get circumcised for medical reasons. No biggy, its not like it ruined their lives or anything.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2020 at 1:23 AM, Macnamara said:

 

No it was instituted by jewish priests

 

Actually Im sure it came in with Abraham as a sign of the covenant between him, his offspring and God.

 

Jewish priests didnt exist then

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2020 at 12:38 AM, novymir said:

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...

So the bible lies then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2020 at 2:19 AM, Macnamara said:

 

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?

I would think thats irrelevant. If you think the practise is abuse then surely its the same for adult or child.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2020 at 1:55 PM, Macnamara said:

 

That's a false equivalence. That would be like me chopping off your arm and saying ''well at least it wasn't your head. It would have been worse if it was your head, therefore chopping your arm off is ok because that's not as bad''

 

It alarms me that you can't understand that

 

 

It was never lawful. It is against natural law to cause harm to others

 

People who make manmade laws to try and pretend that it is lawful to do things that are against natural law are simply trying to pervert nature

 

 

How do you know how important the foreskin is? Have you researched that area? I once heard someone say that the foreskin actually signals to the female during procreation and is therefore important for bonding

 

 

Circumcision is not of christianity:

 

The Council of Jerusalem[1] during the Apostolic Age of the history of Christianity did not include religious male circumcision as a requirement for new gentile converts. This became known as the "Apostolic Decree"[2] and may be one of the first acts differentiating early Christianity from Judaism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversy_in_early_Christianity

 

What i would suggest is going on the USA is that the influence of freemasonry is impacting on the church and is pushing a more judiastic current:

 

1.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

 

 

ok but that's a different argument relating to the role of the state. I'm talking about the morality of chopping bits off babies

So why dont freemasons insist on members and their kids being circumcised?

 

Freemasonry uses jewish themes and symbols. Thats different from being jewish. Also, if you want to try and tie it all back to Egypt (which you do) then why claim its Jewish? I could use christian methods and not be baptised for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Percy said:

I think some are unwilling to accept that circumcision might have health benefits. Ultimately, it is the parents who love the child and want the best for him, so I believe it should be the parents' choice, just as for other issues such as tongue ties and vaccines.

 

The bolded part. States all I need to know about you. Take that as you will.

 

If parents want to chop bits off the babies they have then they are satanic cunts. End of story, no more to say.

 

1 hour ago, Percy said:

circumcision might have health benefits.

 

This is an utter cop out. Every way it could be put.

 

Why not finger nails?

Rip all the nails off of a baby. Dirt gets under them and so it is for the best. You can get in-growing hair, best to shave all the hair off a child then.

 

It is utter bullshit.

 

Also don't use the removed foreskins (from kids or anyone) to create facial products ya sick fucks!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Odie Hatzcats said:

 

The bolded part. States all I need to know about you. Take that as you will.

 

If parents want to chop bits off the babies they have then they are satanic cunts. End of story, no more to say.

 

 

This is an utter cop out. Every way it could be put.

 

Why not finger nails?

Rip all the nails off of a baby. Dirt gets under them and so it is for the best. You can get in-growing hair, best to shave all the hair off a child then.

 

It is utter bullshit.

 

Also don't use the removed foreskins (from kids or anyone) to create facial products ya sick fucks!

Dont the catholic church claim to have the foreskin of Jesus and put it on display?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...