by mind blown 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
@Nathan it is anti semi-tism only in the sense that arabs are semites too. Otherwise you are way off base.
The majorty of people who get circumcised are Muslims(which are a majorit non-arab), Americans(US), and Jews. There are aprox 20 million Jews worldwide, which is certainly smaller than the 1.5billion Muslims and the 300 Million Americans.
If anything it is an anti-Muslim slap in Germany since there are more Muslims than Jews.
Anyone who gets their kid circumcised for cosmetic reasons should think first. Would you get your child a nose job if they had an ugly nose? Would you get them a cool tattoo so they stand out?
No?
Then why the fu*k would you chop of part of thier genitalia to fit in? You realize thats how the male penis lubricates right? You realize that it de-sensitizes the penis right? Did you know that in the US much of the push to circumcise came from Victorian, anti-masturbation crusaders?
Please don't do it and tell others not to.
Signed,
An Unfortuantely Circumcised Man.
Also, my experiences in locker rooms never involved talking about dicks with other guys, Nathan. I think the concern isn't well-founded.
Sulla,
Just because some people who are against circumcision are anti-semites it doesnt mean they all are.
Here is a great Jewish American Dr., who has been a medical opponent for years. Dr. Dean Edell
http://www.drmomma.org/2010/02/dr-dean-edell-statement-on-circumcision.html
What is an assault is the German government stepping in, and telling the parents how they have to educate their children.
Politicians get paid to run a country and make sure the individual rights of their citizens don’t get abused, not to direct people’s private lives, and based on one particular case where the doctor didn’t perform the circumcision correctly, change the law so they can do that more undisturbed.
If the parents have no right to decide if their son is getting circumcised or not, the state much less so.
Europe is getting more and more invasive in the private lives of its citizens. All done in the name of freedom. In the name of freedom we are losing one by one all our hard earned rights, like the right of the parents to educate their children how they see fit within the law and the limits of reasonableness.
In France you don’t have the right to wear a cross if you work in public service, so as to not offend anybody. That’s very considerate, personally I get offended by how some people dress or act when in public, where should I go to complaint?
Ironically in the name of free speech you have the right to insult somebody’s religion. Of course in other instances, if you say something politically incorrect, the right of free speech does not apply anymore.
The state has no business in this very personal decision. They should be tackling other big problems, like the economy, crime, women circumcision that is rather a mutilation, social inequalities, education, etc.
Incidentally male circumcision is beneficial for both the men and the women’s health. Personally I do not want the government to tell me if I can circumcise my sons or not. I paid them to run the country in an effective way, and they are not doing a great job lately.
Apostatethunder
Presumably people should have the right to conduct female cirumcision as well, or tattoo the name of their god on the kids arse. Adults can do what they like. Children should not have things forced upon them that will permanently scar them - physically or mentally. Why would you want to circumcise your sons anyway?
Apostatethunder, I am not sure if you beleive in evolution or creation, but I can tell you either way circumcision is wrong. Either God made perfect man with a forskin or it evolved that way.
Your myths about the health reasons for circumcion are outdated. Look at the article that I posted above.
CERVICAL CANCER
The idea that women who have sex with intact men will get cervical cancer is a myth that is hard to put to rest.
This is so untrue that the Academy did not even consider this in their new evaluation. Cervical cancer is sometimes caused by a virus and has nothing to do with the circumcision status of the male.
As for the Benifits to Men and Women...
DIFFERENCES: SEXUAL SATISFACTION OF WOMEN
Recent studies have found that sexually, circumcised men are different from intact men. The glans or tip of the intact penis is more sensitive in nerves that give and receive messages from the brain. A man is more able to 'control' his sexual functioning when he remains intact. Circumcision removes the equivalent of 15 square inches of skin, smooth muscle, glands, vessels, and membranes in the adult male. Studies recently (1999) published in the British Journal of Urology found that intact men are more satisfying to their female lovers than circumcised men.
What is an assault is the German government stepping in, and telling the parents how they have to educate their children.
Could you show us where the German gov have tried to tell a prent how to educate their children please? All the German judiciary have said is that a parent don't have the right to chop of part of their children's genitalia.
If the parents have no right to decide if their son is getting circumcised or not, the state much less so.
Do you think the government should have any responsibility in protecting a child? Are babies the possession of a parent to do to them as they please? How about giving a tiny baby an ear-piercing?What about giving a new-born baby a tatoo on its face? Do the state have a responsibility to step in ever?
Perhaps its just if the parent can use religion as an excuse so how about female genital mutilation?
Incidentally male circumcision is beneficial for both the men and the women’s health.
This is factually incorrect. In any case it is only circumcision for superstitious reasons that have been ruled illegal.
Leave little children's junk alone. Stupid ancient religion...
Jewish and Muslim leaders were united on Wednesday in their condemnation of a German court's decision to in effect outlaw the circumcision of boys after a judge deemed that the religious practice amounted to bodily harm.
Representatives of the two religious communities called the ruling insensitive and discriminatory, saying it was an attack on centuries of religious tradition....
