Child Circumcision

[screamingeagle]

Mod note

 

post have been moved to new thread "Bible and the jewish priests" in the "religion,secret societys" sub forum 

(send a PM to one of the mods for change of the title)

 

please stick to the topic!!! 

[Percy]

23 hours ago, MarpatV2 said:

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.

Jesus' message was that He had fulfilled the law (including circumcision), and that all people needed to do was believe on Him. Paul just drove this message home. The circumcision of the heart was mentioned in the Old Testament (Deut 10:16), so certainly wasn't invented by Paul. People were prepared to be fed to the lions for their belief in Jesus. If eternal life really did require removal of an excess flap of skin, I doubt this would present anymore than a minor inconvenience.

 

22 hours 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.

I don't believe in vaccines, if that's what you're getting at. But some people sincerely believe in them. Free will (i.e. freedom) is more important than being right. If I stopped those parents vaccinating their children, I become a tyrant. Instead, the aim should be to convince people of their error, rather than force them into a mould of our design.

22 hours ago, Odie Hatzcats said:

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

It's a small piece of skin we are talking about, not just any other parts. And it is in the bible, and has been practiced for 1000s of years. Your culture has indoctrinated you into the belief that your views are right, and you are therefore justified in imposing these views on others by force. However, this is still tyranny, and is wrong. Our way should be to convince others, not to force them.

 

22 hours ago, Odie Hatzcats said:

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!

Removing finger nails is not in the bible, and I'd argue it has no benefit in addition to causing pain and danger. I don't advocate using foreskins as facial products. That is gross, and I'd argue a type of cannibalism or vampirism.

 

21 hours ago, MarpatV2 said:

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

Ewwww. So gross. I thought the bone relics of saints was as low as they stooped.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Percy

[Macnamara]

On 12/10/2020 at 9:19 PM, Macnamara said:

if you want to understand why some northern american christians do it i suggest that they are influenced by freemasonry

 

in freemasonic terms the tip of the penis is the tip of the pyramid and the tip that is missing is the benben stone

[lake]

I consider that circumcision of a baby demonic child abuse .... with that said ....

 

Question:

 

Why would an adult man decide to be circumcised?

[Beaujangles]

On 1/19/2021 at 10:22 AM, 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.

 

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.

 

 

Why should it be a parents choice to hack off a childs foreskin.?  Surely the foreskin is the childs. Unless its a medical need or emergency as the OP explained, I see no reason to remove a perfectly normal foreskin. Same with tongue ties, if theres an abnormality causing issue it requires intervention.

 

As for jews routinely practicing  circumcision... they used to have the foreskin bitten off by some `mohel` - even now some suck blood from a penis theyve cut the foreskin from....

 

If God made a baby in his likeness, then I`m presuming its because He had a foreskin. If all babies are born with a foreskin then that is how they are supposed to be...unless something occurs to prevent normal functioning.  

 

I cant see how jews would advocate a new covenant through Christ.... Didnt they kill him?  

Edited May 17, 2021 by Beaujangles

[Beaujangles]

7 hours ago, lake said:

I consider that circumcision of a baby demonic child abuse .... with that said ....

 

Question:

 

Why would an adult man decide to be circumcised?

 

If he gets a problem with it. A swollen foreskin, infection, damage (** especially if ramming into a rear orifice on the regular and the receiving orifice is resisting - the foreskin would take a pounding for sure. )  Usually if theres a problem with  too tight a foreskin its in younger males - but can occur in older ones if problems occur.  . One penis problem you dont want is a stricture. Metal rods of increasing size pushed up the penis.  Not a nice thing to see - even less nice for the male involved.   https://www.centerforreconstructiveurology.org/urethral-stricture/dilation-urethrotomy-stent/

 

**When I worked in Urology - you`d be surprised what was found stuck in the rear passage  of males- we saw everything from a pepper pot to ( not limited to) various vegetables. Causing emergency situations.

 

So as with foreskins....sometimes you have to remove the offending obstacle, when its a matter of urgency.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Beaujangles

[Beaujangles]

On 12/18/2020 at 9:48 AM, 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.

 

 

How do you not see that biting a foreskin from a baby is not causing it harm?  If I came and bit your foreskin off - I would be arrested and charged with assault with bodily harm.

 

Sometimes abortions have to be carried out to save the mother. The mother is the only viable life in these situations...and therefore is paramount. An unborn child is also part of that mother, connected to her and unable to survive without her... so still her choice. 

 

If a vaccination has been proven to work and has been trialed ( albeit on animal life...which is another topic) then again it is the parents decision based on whether it will prevent further harm to their child than the illness they are afflicted with. Much like a decision for antibiotics. 

 

All are very different issues and should be treated as such.  Back to foreskins... or eyelids.... just a piece of skin right?  

 

I cant believe people are ok with this practice and many claim it is for ``cleanliness``  How clean is biting off a foreskin with a filthy mouth, let alone a filthy mind and subjecting a child to pain, infection and abuse before it can even walk. Parents have been jailed for less.

 

No offense to circumcised males who never had a choice in this.... but seriously

 

 

[CrowintheSnow]

I've never understood why mutilating a child's body part has any benefits. Or what that has to do with "God and our relationship with Him." God would be baffled.

Except for medical reasons, which can happen sometimes.

 

And female circumcison is sheer diabolical. Its goal is to make sure the woman gets no pleasure from sex.

Whoever dreamed this stuff up??

[ManOfOdin]

According to a study a friend once showed, circumcision can cause children to become psychopaths later in development. Does anyone have that study?

[itsnotallrightjack]

On 12/2/2020 at 10:26 PM, Liam3880 said:

I’m in my 30s from England and I had it done when I was born and it still baffles me to this day, from what I’ve read it’s something called thimosis but I’m not sure that’s a genuine condition 

 

Phimosis is what it's called Liam and this is condition that doesn't affect new born boys because the foreskin is fused to the phallus until puberty, as it is meant to be. It retracts of it's own accord naturally at puberty, so it seems some medic had no idea what they were talking about or, perhaps they were of a religion that promotes circ for baby boys and wrongly told your parents that you needed to have this done. You have my sympathy that this happened to you.

[itsnotallrightjack]

On 12/6/2020 at 4:13 PM, DarianF said:

 

 

 

 

The man was a total legend! How I wish he were still here today. He spoke right to the point and spoke the truth. He dared to speak out. 

[DarianF]

1 hour ago, itsnotallrightjack said:

 

The man was a total legend! How I wish he were still here today. He spoke right to the point and spoke the truth. He dared to speak out. 

 

A powerful intellect. Must have been terrifying to debate him.

[Fluke]

On 8/17/2021 at 2:54 AM, DarianF said:

 

A powerful intellect. Must have been terrifying to debate him.

Yes very charming man as well (no homo.)

 

I've got into him again recently. I don't much care for his atheism stuff although I think his brother (I know his a shill) came off better in the Christian debate.

 

I'd like to think Christopher would be one of our allies in this current climate. We could do with him right now. He had integrity and conviction something missing from modern leftists. He called out Islam as well and stuck up for David Irvin, despite not wanting anything to do with him or his views and that a publisher should publish whether or not they agreed with the authors views or not.

[itsnotallrightjack]

On 8/17/2021 at 2:54 AM, DarianF said:

 

A powerful intellect. Must have been terrifying to debate him.

 

Indeed he was! He was very eloquent and right what he said. The world needs another person like him. 

[itsnotallrightjack]

On 8/18/2021 at 10:24 PM, Fluke said:

Yes very charming man as well (no homo.)

 

I've got into him again recently. I don't much care for his atheism stuff although I think his brother (I know his a shill) came off better in the Christian debate.

 

I'd like to think Christopher would be one of our allies in this current climate. We could do with him right now. He had integrity and conviction something missing from modern leftists. He called out Islam as well and stuck up for David Irvin, despite not wanting anything to do with him or his views and that a publisher should publish whether or not they agreed with the authors views or not.

 

I love his atheism talks and debates etc! Being an atheist myself I totally agree with every word he said about (organised) religions. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by itsnotallrightjack

[itsnotallrightjack]

On 5/16/2021 at 8:35 PM, lake said:

I consider that circumcision of a baby demonic child abuse .... with that said ....

 

Question:

 

Why would an adult man decide to be circumcised?

 

I knew a bloke a few years ago who was converting to Judaism and he told us ( his was at a workplace) he was going to get the "procedure." He never said the word circ, but we all knew that was what he meant as he came back a couple of weeks later and announced he'd "made a covenant with god" all smiles!  I said nothing, as I'd already warned him before he got it done that when/if he got a new girlfriend he'd notice a change in sensation and not for the better. Whilst my mind boggles at why any bloke (who doesn't have phimosis) would want to this done to them, at least he's an adult and makes that choice (unlike a poor little baby or small boy). That said, I don't think a synagogue would allow a man to become a Jew if he didn't get it done? So I expect there is some coercion and indoctrination involved. 

[itsnotallrightjack]

On 5/19/2021 at 2:28 AM, CrowintheSnow said:

I've never understood why mutilating a child's body part has any benefits. Or what that has to do with "God and our relationship with Him." God would be baffled.

Except for medical reasons, which can happen sometimes.

 

And female circumcison is sheer diabolical. Its goal is to make sure the woman gets no pleasure from sex.

Whoever dreamed this stuff up??

 

Yeah totally weird and nasty. I'm an atheist, but why would a "creator" create male mammals to have genitalia a certain way (which let's face it does a good job of what evolved to do mostly!) but tell its human "worshippers" that they need to lop bits off said genitalia? This is crazy shit. 

 

Even the ancient Romans (who were kinda crazy in many ways and pretty brutal) were against it!

 

Is it something to do with wanting to look different to other mammals? Like male mammals having foreskins, so "ooh no we can't look like them dirty dogs" or something? 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by itsnotallrightjack

[DarianF]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:24 AM, itsnotallrightjack said:

 

I love his atheism talks and debates etc! Being an atheist myself I totally agree with every word he said about (organised) religions. 

 

 

 

 

Brutal stuff. I love it ;-)

[Liam3880]

On 8/17/2021 at 1:20 AM, itsnotallrightjack said:

 

Phimosis is what it's called Liam and this is condition that doesn't affect new born boys because the foreskin is fused to the phallus until puberty, as it is meant to be. It retracts of it's own accord naturally at puberty, so it seems some medic had no idea what they were talking about or, perhaps they were of a religion that promotes circ for baby boys and wrongly told your parents that you needed to have this done. You have my sympathy that this happened to you.

My parents were not religious enough to be influenced, for example noone in either of my parents family have ever been circumcised before , maybe what you say about the medic is correct as my mum worked for the NHS at the time so could have been easily influenced 

[itsnotallrightjack]

13 hours ago, Liam3880 said:

My parents were not religious enough to be influenced, for example noone in either of my parents family have ever been circumcised before , maybe what you say about the medic is correct as my mum worked for the NHS at the time so could have been easily influenced 

 

Maybe the "doctor" did have some sort of "conversation" with your mother Liam. I'm sorry that this happened to you. 

[Ethel]

I have not seen this film but have heard that it doesn't hesitate in showing the negative aspects of circumcision. This surprises me, given that it's on something as mainstream as Netflix, but would be curious to know if anyone has seen it? I don't really want to pay for it unless I know it opposes circumcision.

 

 

[metak88]

2 minutes ago, Ethel said:

I have not seen this film but have heard that it doesn't hesitate in showing the negative aspects of circumcision. This surprises me, given that it's on something as mainstream as Netflix, but would be curious to know if anyone has seen it? I don't really want to pay for it unless I know it opposes circumcision.

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/IlrmipIsvTUO/

[Ethel]

Just now, metak88 said:

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/IlrmipIsvTUO/

 

Cheers

[Ethel]

American Circumcision: A Commentary

 

This film is a couple of hours long and provides a surprisingly balanced look at the topic of circumcision. Although both sides of the argument are presented here, the anti-circumcision side of the argument is well represented, with the end result being that the documentary could not reasonably be accused of “favouring” either side.

 

The documentary begins showing a close up of a baby’s face, before moving on to showing it being strapped to a circumcision board. Thankfully the footage then stops, although this horror is thoroughly explored later on in the documentary. There are a couple of highly upsetting sequences.

 

America is the only country in the world carrying out incredibly high levels of circumcision on infant males for non-religious reasons.

 

This documentary centres predominantly around a group of activists whom oppose circumcision, called “intactivists”, and a bunch of delusional academics who are in varying states of denial.

 

One of these academics is a guy called Brian Morris, a professor Emeritus at the University of Sydney, who has the vibe of a psychopath and who claims to be pro science despite making a slew of unscientific claims like rapid gunfire. Morris promotes the idea that the human body is inherently flawed, is born flawed and needs “science” to correct it, a common view amongst people with God complexes. Morris is anti-science, anti-nature, and, it goes without saying, anti-God.

 

Another academic, Andrew Freedman, is a deranged beast who circumcised his own son, and who admits that circumcision in the Western world is done predominantly for cultural, rather than medical reasons. This theme is explored several times throughout the documentary, with academics blame-shifting onto parents who seek out these procedures for their offspring on the grounds that they want their sons to be “just like the other boys”. Even if this is true, and it probably is, the idea that doctors are ever led by ordinary everyday people is laughable; their God complex and their professional hubris simply wouldn’t allow them to be swayed by the wants and needs of their patients, and even if it did, carrying out drastic and damaging surgeries to accommodate cultural norms is moral insanity.

 

An interview with a young man who confronted his own Mother about her terrible decision is particularly interesting; her response demonstrates a clear case of Narcissistic entitlement, telling him that he “belongs to her”. When he refuses to back down, she responds with narcissistic rage and throws several cups onto the floor, smashing them.

 

At this point I would like to comment upon ‘cultural norms’. It strikes me as a particular form of weakness when people allow themselves to be influenced by the toxicity of their culture, and an even greater form of weakness when they fail to spot that toxicity in the first place. Behold the foundation of moral relativism: “if everyone’s doing it, it must be okay”.

 

A clear picture begins to emerge by this point: the people who defend circumcision lack the intelligence, insight, wisdom, empathy, compassion or intuition to understand the damage which is being done. They are numb so they think feelings don’t matter. They are numb so they don’t understand what trauma is.

 

Claims of the alleged benefits of circumcision are proven pseudo-scientific nonsense and have been debunked too many times to count. For a comprehensive summary, read ‘Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma’ by Ronald Goldman.

 

Some examples of academia’s dishonest tripe include: claiming that circumcision prevents UTI’s when rates of these are higher in women than men, claiming that circumcision prevents penile cancer despite this being one of least common types of cancer in men, and claiming that circumcision reduces risk of HIV despite the fact that America has the highest rate of HIV in the Western world combined with the highest rate of circumcision. The academics appear to be gas-lighting; although unfortunately this is what people who are in denial do.

 

Next, there is a lengthy discussion of the physical after effects of circumcision which mainly centre around the loss of penile sensitivity. The foreskin contains many thousands of nerve endings, which create enhanced sexual sensation. Circumcision literally removes the Frenulum, which is the most sensitive area of a man’s penis. Many men and women are unaware that men can have multiple orgasms, but will be less likely to after circumcision. Apparently, the difference in intensity of orgasms experienced by men who are circumcised in adulthood is like night and day.

 

The first of two sequences which show part of a circumcision procedure is absolutely gut-wrenching and it is very short. My legs went completely numb and cold as I heard the desperate cries, then, most sickening of all, we see the babies face and he is in a clear state of shock and dissociation. You can literally see his little chest heaving as he breathes raggedly. I know trauma so I know this is what I am seeing.

 

Another interview in the film sees a survivor of female genital mutilation stupidly defending what has happened to her whilst enabling the barbaric and backward cultures which perpetuate FGM the most. What is most remarkable about this woman is her denial. She is like a Stockholm Syndrome victim.

 

We are also treated to an interview with another academic, Edgar J Schoen in which he gaslights the audience by trying to convince them that some babies “sleep through the procedure”, a lie which any sensible human being can see through. What he is actually referring to is a state of extreme dissociative shock; mainly because human beings generally don’t tend to sleep when they’ve just had part of their genitalia cut off. Schoen, along with several other of his cohorts also repeatedly uses the “appeal to popularity” logical fallacy to justify circumcision, stating that the “majority” of men don’t complain about what has been done to them, ergo, no harm done. A more nuanced interpretation of this, of course, is that the majority of men have been so desensitized by the experience that they are in a state of full blown denial. Of all defence mechanisms, denial proves the greatest menace to our species.

 

This idea that many babies whom have been circumcised develop PTSD is further explored by another Intactivist, Marilyn Milos, who speaks about how babies whom have been circumcised later go on to respond more severely to being vaccinated. She also likens the experiences of circumcised males as akin to sexual abuse, particularly because doctors stimulate the genitalia of these babies until the penis becomes erect. Is this sexual abuse? You decide.

 

A brief mention is made of botched circumcisions, I am sure most of us have heard of the most famous example of this, David Reimer, who lost his penis in a botched circumcision and was then forced to live socially as a female. This occurrence, whilst apparently uncommon, is avoidable enough and horrifying enough to be worthy of mention here.

 

Towards the end of the documentary more actual circumcision footage is shown, this time for a longer period. Some parts of this were blurred, although the sounds told their own story. As I, and many others have said before, the screams are really like no other. I am sure you have all heard babies crying before. This wasn’t like that; this was like something dredged up from the depths of hell, unforgettable in the worst way, frantic and desperate, like a cornered, wounded animal. If this weren’t enough, the documentary also shows us a variety of the torture devices actually used to carry out the procedure, and at this point the dread and horror I felt were overwhelming. Interestingly, at one point, one of the academics mocks one of the activists for her overtly emotional displays, as though he genuinely considers emotion to be a defect, inadvertently shining a light on why he holds the perspective he does.

 

Finally, the documentary briefly explores the religious aspect of circumcision before cursorily and delicately touching upon Judaism’s full scale assault of infant bodily integrity and it’s wicked attack on sacred masculinity. The segment lasted around a minute or so, out of a two hour documentary.

 

In summary, the documentary was worth watching, and told me a small handful of things I didn’t already know about the topic. It highlighted a topic which I believe actually underpins a lot of the problems in Western society, leading me on to my final conclusions on what I believe to be the motivations behind circumcision.

 

Possible motivations for circumcision

 

The widespread sexual desensitisation of males

The deliberate traumatisation of males

Deliberate reduction of genuine intimacy in relationships, owing to both of the above

The emotional numbing of men, caused by traumatisation

Creation of dissociative states in men (The freeze response) This inhibits the drive to take action

The creation of widespread denial as a defence mechanism, the most common defence mechanism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

On 4/2/2022 at 11:30 PM, Ethel said:

American Circumcision: A Commentary

 

Thanks @Ethel for that very detailed review of the documentary (and for the time it must have taken you) .... thanks mate :)