God given rights. Do you really have any?

[Flynnal]

If I was wrong, let me know what the issue you are talking about some time.

Genital cutting, whoever it is forced upon, without the consent of the victim. In many Western societies, especially the US, it is forced upon males, and among immigrant populations there are also cases of female victims, but the female versions, all of them, are declared illegal, whereas the male version is not. The male version may appear to be clinically safer, but there is no way to qualitatively know the facts without comprehensive examination - which will rarely if ever happen. At least 100 infants die every year in the US alone. Considering how medically unnecessary it is and how potentially damaging it is, it should be a strong enough argument to make it illegal in all cases except those involving birth defects.

And this doesn't even touch on the "my body, my right" mantra, which is often used to justify abortion. Of course, this same exact argument could also be used to declare all infant genital cutting illegal.

 

[empeebee]

Genital cutting, whoever it is forced upon, without the consent of the victim. In many Western societies, especially the US, it is forced upon males, and among immigrant populations there are also cases of female victims, but the female versions, all of them, are declared illegal, whereas the male version is not. The male version may appear to be clinically safer, but there is no way to qualitatively know the facts without comprehensive examination - which will rarely if ever happen. At least 100 infants die every year in the US alone. Considering how medically unnecessary it is and how potentially damaging it is, it should be a strong enough argument to make it illegal in all cases except those involving birth defects.

While being against 'genital cutting' or circumcision, I think just declaring this generally illegal would be a difficult thing to do without considering that this act involves religious or cultural overtones. Should you decide to pass a law banning circumcision you could be perceived as being anti-Semitic for example.

The only time that circumcision of male infants is delayed or repealed is when the health or life of the child is at risk so your argument "how potentially damaging it is" is taken into consideration.

FYI - The UN banned female circumcision in 2012 > https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2012/12/united-nations-bans-female-genital-mutilation

 

[Flynnal]

Should you decide to pass a law banning circumcision you could be perceived as being anti-Semitic for example.

There are plenty of laws that absolutely violate many Christian values, yet we embrace those laws sometimes without even questioning them. Why should cutting the genitals of an infant be given a free pass when there are so many other things that are banned and people are thrown into prison for, yet the harm caused by infant genital cutting far, far, far, far surpasses those other things? Not to mention one could even consider it inappropriate touching, since in this case there is demonstrably absolutely no medical justification.

It's a clear case of "having your cake and eating it". Some religions require animal abuse as part of their rituals. Should we condone animal cruelty in the context of religion? No, we passed laws against that.

Again, as you highlighted above, female genital cutting was banned in 2012 by the UN...the same organisation that hypocritically ignored and, in fact, enabled, male genital cutting.

Religion really, really needs to stay the fuck out of medicine, and politics. Once, and for all. And human rights supersede religion by orders and orders of magnitude.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Genital cutting, whoever it is forced upon, without the consent of the victim. In many Western societies, especially the US, it is forced upon males, and among immigrant populations there are also cases of female victims, but the female versions, all of them, are declared illegal, whereas the male version is not. The male version may appear to be clinically safer, but there is no way to qualitatively know the facts without comprehensive examination - which will rarely if ever happen. At least 100 infants die every year in the US alone. Considering how medically unnecessary it is and how potentially damaging it is, it should be a strong enough argument to make it illegal in all cases except those involving birth defects.

And this doesn't even touch on the "my body, my right" mantra, which is often used to justify abortion. Of course, this same exact argument could also be used to declare all infant genital cutting illegal.

I do not favor female genital mutilation. It is designed to take pleasure away from women.

As to male baby boys. I think the medical reasons of cleanliness and anti-infection have been shown to be more myth than fact. Infections are rather rare. I think it as barbaric now as what is done to females. Both should be outlawed.

As to abortion. The courts have placed individual ownership of our bodies in our hands and if those opposed to abortion would put their money where their mouth is, the abortion numbers would drop even faster than they are today.

If you are American, and recognize that you live in a Christian nation, you might wonder why so many Christians are aborting their potential babies.

Talk to them. Not to me.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

There are plenty of laws that absolutely violate many Christian values,

Just as there are many Christian values that are an insult to moral laws. Homophobia and misogyny comer to mind.

Christians are even funding a Kill the Gays laws in Uganda. Way to go Christians.

Some religions require animal abuse as part of their rituals. Should we condone animal cruelty in the context of religion?

Christianity relies on the sacrifice of a man. Tell us again what religions, especially Christianity, has against animal sacrifice?

Religion really, really needs to stay the fuck out of medicine, and politics.

I agree, as well as law and science.

In fact, all the god religions should be charged with fraud because of their religions being based on lies.

Regards
DL

 

[empeebee]

There are plenty of laws that absolutely violate many Christian values

Yep, and there are plenty of laws that do uphold "Christian" virtues (quote marks are intentional as definition of Christian is required. Are we talking Mormon, Evangelist, Protest, Catholic, et al?). I think you need to bear in mind that not everybody is "Christian".

we embrace those laws sometimes without even questioning them

Some may same 'embrace' some may say 'tolerate'. This is the price of diversity and cultural enrichment. Yes, we do question them, this is our privilege of living in a semi-democracy, but we are also grown up enough to understand the aforesaid diversity.

Why should cutting the genitals of an infant be given a free pass

The genitals are not cut the way you seem to be interpreting, male circumcision is about trimming the foreskin. I am circumcised yet not Jewish but I am old and it was done back when it was believed there were health/cleanliness benefits. Female circumcision? Just no unless it is voluntary when an appropriate age is reached. If not voluntary the 'circumcised' females should have full legal recourse available to them.

 

[Flynnal]

The genitals are not cut the way you seem to be interpreting, male circumcision is about trimming the foreskin. I am circumcised yet not Jewish but I am old and it was done back when it was believed there were health/cleanliness benefits. Female circumcision? Just no unless it is voluntary when an appropriate age is reached. If not voluntary the 'circumcised' females should have full legal recourse available to them.

You are aware that the foreskin is by far the most sensitive portion of the male sexual anatomy? I would say it's serious enough to warrant banning it unless there is an actual (rather than a perceived) medical justification for doing so. They are both as bad as each other, and both are potentially at least as damaging as each other.

 

[empeebee]

You are aware that the foreskin is by far the most sensitive portion of the male sexual anatomy?

On what do you base this opinion?

I would say it's serious enough to warrant banning it unless there is an actual (rather than a perceived) medical justification for doing so

So you are saying that thousands of years of cultural/religious tradition is irrelevant in the face of modern medicine?

 

[Vastness]

LOL, funny I was just talking about FvM genital mutilation in another thread. I gotta say though...

They are both as bad as each other, and both are potentially at least as damaging as each other.

As bad as each other?? Come on... this is BS. It's not even close.

For one, it seems to be possible to circumcise an infant male in a way that is at least reasonably safe, in terms of potential for infection, blood loss, and accompanying psychological trauma - something which is just not true at all with FGM.

I possess a foreskin but honestly I don't think I would care too much if I didn't. I don't know if it's true or not that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the male anatomy, my instinct says not but even if it is I think this is more a physiological curiosity than anything of real importance.

I think circumcision versus FGM would be more analogous if the entire head of the penis was removed. But even then they're still not really equivalent in terms of safety and just general butcherism because of the wildly different and non-comparable anatomy. Even if circumcision meant chopping off the top half of the penis it would still be pretty easy to apply a tourniquet to the wound, and the remaining half would probably remain pretty functional in most cases. Not true at all of FGM even allowing for equivalently sterile starting conditions (which is not the case at all in reality) and a pre-trauma age of surgery (again, not true at all in reality).

Additionally - as you yourself allude to, there can be a genuine medical need for foreskin removal. I don't believe there is EVER a genuine medical need for FGM, except perhaps some ultra rare edge cases like cancer of the clitoris (an exception that really proves the rule more than anything).

To say they're "as damaging as each other" is just ridiculous, and probably borderline insulting to the ordeal of any women who've had their clitoris hacked off by some religious maniac. How many men who have been circumcised even remember their circumcision? My guess is not many. Maybe if I had been circumcised I'd feel somewhat aggrieved but I really doubt most circumcised men lose any sleep over it... I mean don't get me wrong, I do think that circumcision for religious reasons in the modern age should stop. But again, compared to FGM there's just no comparison.

 

[Coffeeshroom]

this is a hard subject to talk about but this is what are one of our countries rituals for the Ethnic Xhosa tribe.
this is harsh. warned

 

[empeebee]

I think you are confusing religious tradition with cultural tradition.

"Many practitioners of female genital mutilation believe that the procedure is dictated by tradition and is necessary to ensure marriage because men refuse to marry intact women. It is sometimes stated that the purpose of female genital mutilation is to control women's sexuality, and, in some settings, intact women are considered dishonorable prostitutes. It is also widely believed that the clitoris connotes maleness and the prepuce of the penis connotes femaleness. Those who hold these beliefs, therefore, insist that both be removed before a person is accepted as an adult. It is additionally claimed that female genitalia are ugly and dirty and must be removed to enhance beauty and cleanliness. Female genital mutilation is perpetrated because it gives men power over women as a group. While no religion specifically requires female genital mutilation, patriarchal religions create the cultural milieu that allows this practice to continue." > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12222527/ (citing just one reference tho' there are many others).

FGM stems from a patriarchal tradition, not a religious dictat. Male circumcision stems from a far older (?) practise.

"The practice of male genital mutilation is far older than recorded history. Certainly, it is far older than the Biblical account of Abraham (Genesis 17). It seems to have originated in eastern Africa long before this time" > http://www.cirp.org/library/history/

While I 100% that neither should be practiced and that the practice is understandably barbaric, there are overtones that should not be ignored but that the practitioners should be educated into what society as a whole deems acceptable. In that vein though, should certain religious practices such as the sacrifice of a cow or chicken also be deemed unacceptable?

 

[Coffeeshroom]

^^ i hear what you saying and agree, I just wanted to show that cultural/religious circumcises of young adult men is still happening in my country even with the negative or death toll it has on the young adults going through these tribulations to become a man in there own culture and believes.

So my apologies if my reply was off topic or of no help..

 

[Vastness]

In that vein though, should certain religious practices such as the sacrifice of a cow or chicken also be deemed unacceptable?

Probably yes, and I have little doubt that they will be eventually. It's a gratuitous, pointless infliction of suffering and death on a living being, it seems hard to me to argue that there is any value in preserving such a practice.

Besides that I will say I'm not sure I see the relevance in the distinction between a religious practice and a cultural practice. Religion influences culture, and culture is often eventually encoded into religion. I would bet that almost any religious tradition you can think of that exists in a relatively modern religion in actual fact originates from a cultural practice that emerged much earlier.

However when making arguments for the preservation of arbitrary and irrational traditions, very often practitioners of these traditions will appeal to the religious backing rather than simply cultural heritage, in a vacuum (although for sure some people will try to argue for the inherent value of the latter). Appeals to history alone are relatively easy to argue against in a way that even fairly irrational people can understand, whereas religion often represents an unsurpassable brick wall as far as trying to argue rationally against the continuation of any religious practice... so IMO the religious aspects of such harmful cultural traditions are of more practical relevance in working out how to put a stop to these traditions.

 

[empeebee]

I just wanted to show that cultural/religious circumcises of young adult men is still happening in my country

Yup, a few other countries too, thinking predominantly Israel here. Hoe lyk 'it broe? Waar in die RSA is jy? Ek'sn Kapie

 

[Coffeeshroom]

Yup, a few other countries too, thinking predominantly Israel here. Hoe lyk 'it broe? Waar in die RSA is jy? Ek'sn Kapie

ek is in "gangsters paradise" en hier is dit vetpret met die kak corona en polisie

 

[empeebee]

Religion influences culture, and culture is often eventually encoded into religion

Kinda chicken & egg situation isn't it? Which came first? Did non-organised "religion" (pre-dating the Bible, Torah or Qur'an for instance) evolve from shamanistic/witch-doctor practices. If so, do "religious" practices reach much further back than we suppose?

 

[empeebee]

ek is in "gangsters paradise"

Mitchell's plein?

 

[Coffeeshroom]

Mitchell's plein?

lol no, gauteng province aka GP aka Gangsters province.. i actually wish i was in the cape as they have a better holding on the situation and are just more fair towards people then up here by me or so i have heard and not by media but people living there themselves. Any input from your side?

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

If you live by the Golden Rule, and can imagine yourself as a body part, would you want a part of your normal body parts cut off?

Please please, don't cut a chunk of poor little penis or vagina me.

That seems like a civilized request.

How do we respond?

Shut up and bleed, out of love, of course.

Jesus said he and we would know his people by their works and deeds.

I don't think he meant to see the mutilations.

That notion is a dirty deed indeeed.

Regards
DL