The Problem With Religious Freedom

[Saviorself]

http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2012/03/07/infant-dies-from-herpes-infection-after-rabbi-sucks-blood-from-his-penis-seriously/


The Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office is investigating the death of an infant boy who contracted herpes from a rabbi who sucked blood from the boy’s penis in a religious circumcision ritual called metzizah b’peh.
The cause of death was listed as “disseminated herpes simplex virus Type 1, complicating ritual circumcision with oral suction.”

Mayor Bloomberg Tuesday defended that finding.
“The doctors who found this are objective and independent scientists who don’t answer to anyone, including whoever is Mayor,” he told reporters at an unrelated event in The Bronx.

“One more point: There’s probably nobody in public life who fights harder for the separation of church and state than me. But religious liberty simply does not extend to injuring others or putting children at risk,” Bloomberg continued. “So we’ll continue working with the community and others to prevent more baby boys from suffering these tragic fates.”
Under the practice, the rabbi or mohel removes blood from the wound with his mouth — a practice city health officials have criticized, saying it carries “inherent risks” for babies.
Because of the inherent risks involved, other cities have banned the practice in this form. Instead, a straw is used to…well, still suck the blood from the infant boy’s penis.

Every now and then a story comes along that’s freckled with so many opportunities for puns, creative comparison, and general shenanigans that it completely short-circuits my blogger brain. This is one of them.
A baby boy is dead. I’ll keep my pedophile and No Homo jokes to myself. I will offer this one piece of unsolicited advice though; Herpes-infected rabbis of the world, please keep your mouths off of vulnerable, bloody newborn penises.

Religious freedom only extends so far as it doesn't infringe upon another person's rights. And this should include a person's right to not be unwillingly exposed to such a horrendous ritual. It is interesting that an event that, under any other circumstance, would be considered genital mutilation and child molestation is suddenly perfectly acceptable and legal when wrapped in the moral-teflon of "religious freedom".

Presumably, this acceptable because 1. this is a religious ritual and 2. because the parents consented to this. Should it be legal for a parent to allow their child to be raped as long as they say it was done for religious reasons?

I'm going to create a religion that includes a ritual of robbing a bank and shooting anyone who tries to get in my way.

[RGacky3]

circumcision is a common procedure that is'nt ONLY done by Jews.

In the US religious freedom is'nt total.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Personally, I am very much anti-theist so it's hard for me not to condemen any and all religious practices whether they are harmful or not. In this case, it's a strange ritual that makes no sense and puts children at risk, it should be a no-brainer that it should be banned.
Sick of the religious freedom argument because it allows ancient beliefs to continue long after they've ceased to be relevant or suitable (see general religious groups' attitudes to women and the 'morality' of homosexuality; dated to say the least).

[l'Enfermé]

RGacky3, does anyone else besides Jews perform ritual circumcision that involves a rabbi sucking blood from a little boy's penis?

Of course, religious freedom is when a baby gets a part of his dick cut off without his consent. I am not particularly happy that I was circumcised(being born in a Muslim society) myself. No one asked me. At least no pedophilic rabbis were involved.

[hatzel]

At least no pedophilic rabbis were involved.

And there we have it. I've never had anything at all to do with metzitzah b'peh, not least because of the actual issue here (risk of infection, which I and many other religious Jews - including most rabbis - argue renders it totally unhalachical), but now suddenly it's paedophilic? What, these mohelim are deriving sexual pleasure from this act? Like a surgeon performing a breast enhancement procedure is just fondling some girl's boobs thinking "ah yeeeeeah, loving this, easy sexy time for me!"? Or a parent wiping their kid's butt is molesting them, groping them? I think not. (EDIT: as Borz wasn't happy with these analogies, I could also mention what goes on in a gynaecologist's office, or during a prostate exam; inserting one's finger into another's various orifices is very obviously an overtly sexual act...if performed in the bedroom. The list of possible analogies continues.) I don't quite understand why everything suddenly has to be reduced to some kind of fringe sexual fetish, and why rather than being part of a medical procedure, this is seen as just some old dude giving a baby a blow-job. Well it's quite obviously not, and I always find it a terrible reflection of people's personal mindsets when they can't see anything without presupposing some kind of sexual intent.

The 'issue' with metzitzah b'peh when performed in the 'traditional' manner, with direct oral contact - very uncommon, by the way - is the risk of infection. The paedophilia issue, on the other hand, is your own problem. And I wonder if the much more common method of metzitzah - with a sponge or a cotton pad - will be condemned as manual molestation, or if it at that point becomes 'standard' medical practice...I put 'standard' in little marks there, by the way, because there's obviously no such thing as 'standard' medical practice, only medical practice as accepted as 'standard' within a given community at a given time. 'Standard' medical practice, in this instance, often gives rise to chauvinistic understandings of 'nonstandard' medical practices, i.e. the 'standard' medical practices of a 'foreign' medical tradition.

[l'Enfermé]

Surgeons performing breast enchancements don't suck on the breasts of their patients.

And what's the connection between wiping a kid's butt and mutilating a child and then sucking on their bloody penis? I don't think the analogy is correct. I'm just saying, it's not very likely that a person who goes around mutilating penises of infants and then sucking on them doesn't have some sort of mental illness - maybe repressed pedophilia.

It just doesn't sit so well with me. My mind can't rationalize it.

But, my pedophilia comment, it's not important. My post was critical of circumcision in general - pedophilia being a small aspect of it.

[dodger]

yes, well gratuitous insults against clergy is very enjoyable, though I do tend myself to do it while watching the news or some discussion programme. Wifey daughter of a much loved and charming Pastor, sadly deceased, ignores my comments. Unshockable she now fixes me with the same benign smile that is reserved for our very naughty grand-sons. Nevermind....there are other potential victims out there. This country is awash with clerics, WAK-WAKS, spirits of all shapes and demeanour. If I go out for a late night stroll she no longer tries to put cloves of garlic in my underpants. As she rightly points out since the change of life, it's no skin off her nose if Wak-Waks tear out my genitals in a feeding frenzy.(I was warned!). Religion has yet to be tamed here, why else would my son tell me the earth was made in 6days......him being a high school Science TEACHER.

[Yefim Zverev]

Religious freedom is a myth it is impossible in practice.

[Guy Incognito]

I'm circumcised. Not Jewish. Never really bothered me, as the plumbing works just fine in it's various functions. The anti-circumcision people remind me of the anti-vaccination people, same kind of crusade mentality. Just strikes me as arm flailingly cooky. If your parents don't want you to be circumcised, they won't get you circumcised or vice versa. Saying that an infant should have a choice, and you should be able to legislate it away, as some sort of "mutilation" is pretty silly. Not to mention, comparing it with female genital mutilation (which is done to punish or control women, removes all sensation, and can often lead to infection and death) is a high level of false equivilency.

[hatzel]

I'm just saying, it's not very likely that a person who goes around mutilating penises of infants and then sucking on them doesn't have some sort of mental illness - maybe repressed pedophilia.

I don't think this foray into pop-psychology can really be substantiated, and even if it could, it would have far reaching implications for medicine as a whole. One could also argue that those who go around cutting people open and poking around in their insides is a latent psychopath of some description, and from that statement a surgeon cannot be differentiated from the murderous individual disemboweling their victims through some 'morbid' fascination with blood and guts. In fact, the only immediate difference in this scenario is that the surgeon's actions are officially sanctioned, and they know how to stitch their 'victim' back up again to avoid a lengthy prison term (though one should also acknowledge the more obvious distinction: that the surgeon isn't undertaking these acts wantonly, but for a dedicated purpose beyond mere self-satisfaction and/or curiosity, a purpose which in our society is recognised as 'legitimate').

I, on the other hand, don't like blood and guts; I don't want to see it, I couldn't bring myself to cut somebody open and look at it, I don't even like seeing flesh wounds...but a surgeon, like the disemboweler, has no problem with even the most invasive procedure, which for me is somewhat peculiar. Does this then mean that surgeons are mentally unwell? And if surgeons are mentally unwell, is this is a valid criticism of 'surgery'? Should the institution of surgery be abolished and surgeons both condemned and treated for their supposed mental illnesses? Or is this a ludicrous proposition? I tend towards the latter position myself, and not just due to my opinions on the very idea of a 'mental illness' in light of, for example, Foucault's works...

[Veovis]

ALL cutting of a minor's healthy genital tissue should be a crime, regardless of motive.


I'm circumcised. Not Jewish. Never really bothered me, as the plumbing works just fine in it's various functions. The anti-circumcision people remind me of the anti-vaccination people, same kind of crusade mentality. Just strikes me as arm flailingly cooky. If your parents don't want you to be circumcised, they won't get you circumcised or vice versa. Saying that an infant should have a choice, and you should be able to legislate it away, as some sort of "mutilation" is pretty silly. Not to mention, comparing it with female genital mutilation (which is done to punish or control women, removes all sensation, and can often lead to infection and death) is a high level of false equivilency.

This is a complete load of utter bullshit.

[Nox]

I'm circumcised. Not Jewish. Never really bothered me, as the plumbing works just fine in it's various functions. The anti-circumcision people remind me of the anti-vaccination people, same kind of crusade mentality. Just strikes me as arm flailingly cooky. If your parents don't want you to be circumcised, they won't get you circumcised or vice versa. Saying that an infant should have a choice, and you should be able to legislate it away, as some sort of "mutilation" is pretty silly. Not to mention, comparing it with female genital mutilation (which is done to punish or control women, removes all sensation, and can often lead to infection and death) is a high level of false equivilency.

That's a ridiculous comparison because you're implying that circumcision has any benefits whatsoever... Which it doesn't. It's mutilation plain and simple. It greatly reduces pleasure and can even kill like you saw in the OP. It does not reduce the risk of disease, it does not improve hygiene, it does not do anything useful whatsoever. It's disgusting.

[Goblin]

Circumcision is extremely painfull (DUH), it takes away almost all of your sexual pleasure and it makes you incapable of pleasing your partner (which is why they sell those "ribbed for her pleasure" condoms in America).

And this whole thing about it being more hygienic is just bullshit. If it is more hygienic, then why is America the only country in the world that practises this shit? The rest of the world goes against it.

[RGacky3]

it takes away almost all of your sexual pleasure and it makes you incapable of pleasing your partner (which is why they sell those "ribbed for her pleasure" condoms in America).


Really? I'm calling bullshit on that.


And this whole thing about it being more hygienic is just bullshit. If it is more hygienic, then why is America the only country in the world that practises this shit? The rest of the world goes against it.

It used to be considered hygienic because it reduces risk of infection, but all you need is to wash a couple times to avoid that, so its not really that hygienic.

[Astarte]

I think this is why ritual as a whole is probably a bad thing, and is one of the most abrasive and reactionary features of organized religion on the whole.

Ritual practices can be used by all kinds of people to defend anything they want, from burning witches, to having to pay money to be forgiven of sins, to even this depraved story.

The problem is when people either consciously or unconsciously confuse coercive orthodox rituals with either evil or no spiritual power for something benevolent - i.e. this is what fundamentalists do.

Conversely, some people have had such negative experiences with organized religion that they confuse all spirituality for the coercive ritualized brand most commonly found in fundamentalism...

I think this discernment is the key to deciphering what religious freedom includes and does not include.

[Franz Fanonipants]

ALL cutting of a minor's healthy genital tissue should be a crime, regardless of motive.

lol thats a salient political issue

[Guy Incognito]

Circumcision is extremely painfull (DUH), it takes away almost all of your sexual pleasure and it makes you incapable of pleasing your partner (which is why they sell those "ribbed for her pleasure" condoms in America).

And this whole thing about it being more hygienic is just bullshit. If it is more hygienic, then why is America the only country in the world that practises this shit? The rest of the world goes against it.

Hah! Takes away almost all sexual pleasure and incapable of pleasing my partner? You people are certifiable. I'm too bloody sensitive as it is, and my fiancee has had no complaints whatsoever. These things you spout, without having any first-hand knowledge about it (In other words, you're not circumcised) are just a load of crap. Seriously, where do you people GET this stuff? Anti-semetic websites? (seriously, i have no goddamn clue. This is a recent crusade as far as I know):confused:

[Guy Incognito]

Really? I'm calling bullshit on that.



It used to be considered hygienic because it reduces risk of infection, but all you need is to wash a couple times to avoid that, so its not really that hygienic.

This. Exactly this. This is why American doctors have advocated it for so long. Is it the only way to go? Sure as hell isn't, and I don't know if I would have my child circumcised or not. Depends on the advice of my pediatrician, instead of whatever Jenny McCarthyesque figure is raving on various websites.

[Saviorself]

The issue here, is one of consent. An infant can not give consent to, want amounts to nothing more than a cosmetic surgery. And, as has already been mentioned, there exists no medical or hygienic benefits related to circumcision. That being the case, it should be a person's choice to have this procedure done or not. The fact is, and this is easily proven, circumcision does remove a bit of sensation. I do not support the idea that it makes one incapable of pleasing their partner though.

This act is reprehensible regardless of whether it is performed by Jews, Christians, Atheists or any other group so to say that this is anti-semitic is just plain bullshit. This is not the first child to die from this and it wont be the last.

Furthermore, genital mutilation is genital mutilation. Period. If an adult willingly chooses to be circumcised, under go a clitoridectomy, labiaplasty or any other COSMETIC SURGERY, that is certainly their right. But no one has any right to force these kind of procedures on another person.

[Guy Incognito]

This act is reprehensible regardless of whether it is performed by Jews, Christians, Atheists or any other group so to say that this is anti-semitic is just plain bullshit. This is not the first child to die from this and it wont be the last..

I'm not saying it's Anti-semetic, I'm questioning whether or not the people behind this recent crusade are. Whether it's just an innocent issue being brought up by a spontaneous, quickly growing flash mob of anti-circumcision advocates with some good points (like the anti-vacc's, or the "OH DEAR GOD EVERYTHING MUST BE GLUTEN FREE!" people), Or if it's being funded by anti-semites who want to deny Jewish families their right to practice their religion. Would you really put the latter past the Fascists? It sounds like the kind of crap they would pull to gain easily lead internet support.


Furthermore, genital mutilation is genital mutilation. Period. If an adult willingly chooses to be circumcised, under go a clitoridectomy, labiaplasty or any other COSMETIC SURGERY, that is certainly their right. But no one has any right to force these kind of procedures on another person.

I don't agree that the article is the be all/end all of what's best for children. I'll follow what my doctor's advice is. Children have their parents make decisions for them, because children cannot make decisions. If a parent, with the advice of their fully liscenced medical pediatric doctor, thinks that it is best for their child's health to have them circumcised, then I believe it should followed (And that's currently how it is in the U.S.).
I don't think that internet flash crusades should be the primary source of decision making for parents. For instance, if we listen to Jenny McCarthy, it's a bad idea to have your child vaccinated against various diseases. What's the result? Children get those diseases, and sometimes die.
If circumcision is a bad medical choice for your child, your pediatrician will tell you so, and (if you're not following a religious practice) you most likely will not have it done, but that's not currently the case (at least in the U.S.).

[Saviorself]

Would you really put the latter past the Fascists? It sounds like the kind of crap they would pull to gain easily lead internet support.

No, I wouldn't put it past them. I was more referring to the idea that any time something non-flattering is said about something even remotely related to the Jewish religion, or a person who is Jewish (even if the religion is not what is under attack) it is considered to be anti-semetic.


I don't agree that the article is the be all/end all of what's best for children. I'll follow what my doctor's advice is. Children have their parents make decisions for them, because children cannot make decisions. If a parent, with the advice of their fully liscenced medical pediatric doctor, thinks that it is best for their child's health to have them circumcised, then I believe it should followed (And that's currently how it is in the U.S.).
I don't think that internet flash crusades should be the primary source of decision making for parents. For instance, if we listen to Jenny McCarthy, it's a bad idea to have your child vaccinated against various diseases. What's the result? Children get those diseases, and sometimes die.
If circumcision is a bad medical choice for your child, your pediatrician will tell you so, and (if you're not following a religious practice) you most likely will not have it done, but that's not currently the case (at least in the U.S.).

Unless the child is in any real danger by not having the circumcision done, it shouldn't be done. There is actual proof of the benefits of having a child vaccinated. All the arguments for circumcision that I have ever heard, fall flat.

[Guy Incognito]

No, I wouldn't put it past them. I was more referring to the idea that any time something non-flattering is said about something even remotely related to the Jewish religion, or a person who is Jewish (even if the religion is not what is under attack) it is considered to be anti-semetic.

Unless the child is in any real danger by not having the circumcision done, it shouldn't be done. There is actual proof of the benefits of having a child vaccinated. All the arguments for circumcision that I have ever heard, fall flat.

I can understand that. You're right, many people do jump to that exact conclusion, but I think in this case funding of websites to seem innocuous could very well be the case.

Well, in the U.S. it's becoming less and less prominant in the medical community (for good reasons). However, the primary reasons it's still done (for medical benefit) are due to The AUA (American Urology Association) pointing to decreased risks of penile cancer, Phimosis, paraphimosis balanoposthitis, UTI's and a 50-60% reduced risk of HIV Transmission. Which again, may or may not be enough to convince a parent to have it performed, but there ARE benefits. Whether they are worth the risks, is honestly what is really debatable. You clearly don't think they are not, which is an understandable position. I (being circumcised) am unsure, as there hasn't been any sort of detriment to myself (or my father or grandfather) in that regard, but don't know whether I would want to have it done to a son without more information.

[LOLseph Stalin]

For people who say circumcision is cleaner it's only cleaner if you're one of those guys who is too lazy to flip up your foreskin to clean it. I'm a woman though so don't expect me to be an expert on men's health.

Also, from a religious perspective it's not even mentioned in the Torah or the Qur'an so it's more so tradition than an actual religious practice so I really don't think this is an issue of religious freedom.

Lastly, circumcision is not only practiced in the US, whoever said that.

[RGacky3]

The issue here, is one of consent. An infant can not give consent to, want amounts to nothing more than a cosmetic surgery.

If you have to get consent from an infant for serious things you'll never get anything done, unless something is CLEARLY meant to harm, or clearly mutilation.

Its the parents and the doctors that have the choice, consent is'nt the issue.

[Saviorself]

If you have to get consent from an infant for serious things you'll never get anything done, unless something is CLEARLY meant to harm, or clearly mutilation.

Let's say a couple has a child that turns out to be a boy when they wanted a girl. Should they be able to have their child undergo a gender reassignment surgery? Circumcision is CLEARLY mutilation no matter how you slice it. No pun intended.

[NGNM85]

Religious freedom is a myth it is impossible in practice.

No, it just has limits, like everything else. When the rights of individuals, periodically, come into conflict, it is, sometimes, necessary to curb, or limit an individual, or individuals, in the exercise of their rights, in order to avert a greater imposition on the rights of another individual, or individuals. There really isn't any other way to see it. However; as Libertarians, we should always submit every infringement on the rights of persons to a heavy burden of proof as to it's legitimacy, and, more generally, always err on the side of the widest possible latitude for individuals to exercise their rights.

Getting back to the matter at hand, wht I find most disturbing is that deaths of this kind, what, in any other case, would be open-and-shut cases of manslaughter, or homicide, are seen as excusable, or acceptable, once covered by the banner of religion. Here's an interesting short piece by Jonothan Turley on the frighteningly lenient sentences for deaths resulting from religious practices;

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/11/15/religious-convictions-when-children-die-religion-should-be-no-defense/ (http://jonathanturley.org/2009/11/15/religious-convictions-when-children-die-religion-should-be-no-defense/)

There are several more examples, in the Case Against Scientology section of the Stamp Out Scientology UserGroup, detailing some of the deaths linked to the Scientology cult;

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=4620 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=4620)

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

This is a really gross conversation . . . I clicked on this link because I thought we were going to talk about religious freedom being a fraud, but instead we are talking about sucking on babies' dicks, sexual sensation when part of your dick is cut off, pedophile rabbis, and STDs. I think I'll go . . . .

[Nox]

There's nothing wrong with circumcision in itself, the problem is people forcing it on infants who obviously have no say in the matter. If you want to cut off the most sensitive part of your dick do it when you're old enough to make the decision for yourself for fuck's sake.

It's fucking pathetic that people here are seriously defending mutilation of a baby's penis...

[Krano]

Circumcision shouldn't be illegal, however it should have age of consent. So if Timmy decides to cut part of hes dick off when hes a teen then go ahead.

[l'Enfermé]

I'm circumcised. Not Jewish. Never really bothered me, as the plumbing works just fine in it's various functions. The anti-circumcision people remind me of the anti-vaccination people, same kind of crusade mentality. Just strikes me as arm flailingly cooky. If your parents don't want you to be circumcised, they won't get you circumcised or vice versa. Saying that an infant should have a choice, and you should be able to legislate it away, as some sort of "mutilation" is pretty silly. Not to mention, comparing it with female genital mutilation (which is done to punish or control women, removes all sensation, and can often lead to infection and death) is a high level of false equivilency.
Idiots that want to stop children from having vaccinations that save countless lives because some celeberity says there's an alleged link between vaccines and autism(which was scientifically disproved) and people that are unhappy that their sex organs were mutilated are somehow similar?


I don't think this foray into pop-psychology can really be substantiated, and even if it could, it would have far reaching implications for medicine as a whole. One could also argue that those who go around cutting people open and poking around in their insides is a latent psychopath of some description, and from that statement a surgeon cannot be differentiated from the murderous individual disemboweling their victims through some 'morbid' fascination with blood and guts. In fact, the only immediate difference in this scenario is that the surgeon's actions are officially sanctioned, and they know how to stitch their 'victim' back up again to avoid a lengthy prison term (though one should also acknowledge the more obvious distinction: that the surgeon isn't undertaking these acts wantonly, but for a dedicated purpose beyond mere self-satisfaction and/or curiosity, a purpose which in our society is recognised as 'legitimate').

I, on the other hand, don't like blood and guts; I don't want to see it, I couldn't bring myself to cut somebody open and look at it, I don't even like seeing flesh wounds...but a surgeon, like the disemboweler, has no problem with even the most invasive procedure, which for me is somewhat peculiar. Does this then mean that surgeons are mentally unwell? And if surgeons are mentally unwell, is this is a valid criticism of 'surgery'? Should the institution of surgery be abolished and surgeons both condemned and treated for their supposed mental illnesses? Or is this a ludicrous proposition? I tend towards the latter position myself, and not just due to my opinions on the very idea of a 'mental illness' in light of, for example, Foucault's works...
There's absolutely nothing similar between a surgeon that removes a tumor from his patient, or transplants an organ, thus saving his or her patient's life and a rabbi that cuts off the penis of a little boy and sucks the blood out with his mouth(at least they don't perform the procedure with their teeth, as before). Surgeons perform lifesaving, useful procedures. Perhaps plastic surgery is neither lifesaving nor useful, but if someone will feel better about themselves if they change the shape of their nose or if a couple's sex life will improve because she got a boob job, whatever, it's still none of my fucking business however. Plus, these operations are performed on consenting adults, or in the case of children, surgeries are only when necessary. Circumcision is a completely unnecessary procedure, with absolutely no benefits(the only argument is the hygiene one, which doesn't really apply unless you're a desert dwelling Jew or Bedouin with hardly any access to water). It's done without the the consent of the child receiving it(and it's not like the mutilation has to be done on a new-born child; due to being born in a war zone, my younger brother didn't have the procedure performed and it was performed on him when he was in school, not surprisingly, also against his wishes. I also knew a Russian convert to Islam that had the procedure performed when he was in his 40s). Not only that, but it has negative effects, like decreased sexual pleasure.

It should be criminal to perform unnecessary and harmful mutilations on a new-born child out of some superstition invented thousands of years ago.

What if I invented a religion that required children to receive penis piercings or eye-lid removal at birth? Would that be ok if I abused my children like that?

[l'Enfermé]

Circumcision shouldn't be illegal, however it should have age of consent. So if Timmy decides to cut part of hes dick off when hes a teen then go ahead.
Of course it shouldn't be, if you're a sane, clear-minded adult, you can have whatever the hell you want done to your body as long as it doesn't hurt others as long as you can find someone willing to do that to your body.

[RGacky3]

Let's say a couple has a child that turns out to be a boy when they wanted a girl. Should they be able to have their child undergo a gender reassignment surgery? Circumcision is CLEARLY mutilation no matter how you slice it. No pun intended.

No because gender reassignment leads to permanent trama and is sadistic, circumcision can be considered mutilation but only by a long stretch of the word, there arn't any physical/psychological problems that result as far as I know and is mostly a cultural/religious issue, doing it as an adult is much more dangerous.

You HAVE to understand that there is a chasm of difference between gender reassignment and male circumcision.

I personally if I had any boys would'nt do it, as I don't see any reason to do it. But I don't think you can claim its a form of mutilation.

[l'Enfermé]

No because gender reassignment leads to permanent trama and is sadistic, circumcision can be considered mutilation but only by a long stretch of the word, there arn't any physical/psychological problems that result as far as I know and is mostly a cultural/religious issue, doing it as an adult is much more dangerous.

You HAVE to understand that there is a chasm of difference between gender reassignment and male circumcision.

I personally if I had any boys would'nt do it, as I don't see any reason to do it. But I don't think you can claim its a form of mutilation.
No physical or psychological problems, right, besides greatly decreased sexual pleasure during sex(for both man and woman). Again, the procedure has no benefits and is generally harmful, and performed upon Children incapable of consent or Children that are forced to consent.

Cutting of the most sensitive part of the penis is mutilation, the difference between female circumcision and male circumcision only being that female circumcision is even more cruel.

[Krano]

No because gender reassignment leads to permanent trama and is sadistic, circumcision can be considered mutilation but only by a long stretch of the word, there arn't any physical/psychological problems that result as far as I know and is mostly a cultural/religious issue, doing it as an adult is much more dangerous.

You HAVE to understand that there is a chasm of difference between gender reassignment and male circumcision.

I personally if I had any boys would'nt do it, as I don't see any reason to do it. But I don't think you can claim its a form of mutilation.
That difference being that other one is a choice and other you are forced into.

[Saviorself]

There's nothing wrong with circumcision in itself, the problem is people forcing it on infants who obviously have no say in the matter. If you want to cut off the most sensitive part of your dick do it when you're old enough to make the decision for yourself for fuck's sake.

It's fucking pathetic that people here are seriously defending mutilation of a baby's penis...

THANK YOU! I am glad I am not the only one who gets it.


You HAVE to understand that there is a chasm of difference between gender reassignment and male circumcision.

The point is that both are cosmetic surgeries and should not be done to a person who does not consent to it.


But I don't think you can claim its a form of mutilation.

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Sure as fuck sounds like circumcision fits the definition of mutilation to me.


That difference being that other one is a choice and other you are forced into.

Exactly. Neither one should be forced upon an unwilling party.

[Veovis]

Wow, some people really don't want to admit that something evil was done to their bodies as babies...

[Nox]

Wow, some people really don't want to admit that something evil was done to their bodies as babies...

I've also noticed that...

It appears most people who are pro-circumcision are people who were themselves circumcised as a baby

[LOLseph Stalin]

I've also noticed that...

It appears most people who are pro-circumcision are people who were themselves circumcised as a baby

That is probably true. One of the most ardent supporters of it I know is an atheist jew(so obviously he's circumcised). A form of Stolkholm Syndrome perhaps? lol

[RGacky3]

No physical or psychological problems, right, besides greatly decreased sexual pleasure during sex(for both man and woman).

I've never heard that before. If its true I might rethink things.


That difference being that other one is a choice and other you are forced into.

Your forced into thinkgs all the time as an infant.


It appears most people who are pro-circumcision are people who were themselves circumcised as a baby

Makes sense, since they probably don't feel like anything bad was done.


That is probably true. One of the most ardent supporters of it I know is an atheist jew(so obviously he's circumcised). A form of Stolkholm Syndrome perhaps? lol

Or maybe they don't feel any negative reprocussions from it ...

[Saviorself]

I've never heard that before. If its true I might rethink things

http://www.coloradonocirc.org/myths.php


Your forced into thinkgs all the time as an infant.

Yes but only one of them includes the barbaric, asinine and just plan cruel act of mutilating a body part for absolutely no reason.


Makes sense, since they probably don't feel like anything bad was done.

Because they don't understand what was done. You yourself even admitted that you had never heard of the loss of sexual sensation.


Or maybe they don't feel any negative reprocussions from it ...

Because they don't know what they are missing and never will. If I could sue my parents for having me circumcised, I would.

[Krano]

Your forced into thinkgs all the time as an infant.

Or maybe they don't feel any negative reprocussions from it ...

Body part being taken off shouldnt be one of them.

Im sure you don't feel them, but the fact is foreskin is the most sensitive part
of your penis and you won't have as much sexual pleasure as you would if you still had foreskin. But i doubt you knew that since i don't think you had sex as a baby.