Offensive Threat Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I accept that jewish people are going continue to have ritual circumcisions as per their faith and understand it is not optional in the fremework of their beliefs. The covenant between God and Abraham etc etc. I accept that. But the sucking thing... it goes so far beyond what I can consider even remotely acceptable practices.So very far beyond anything I could have even made up. Is there a point where religion goes to far? Yes. This isnt that point. This is way beyond that point. EDIT: I used the word "beyond" a lot. But this issue is beyond belief. Its beyond beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magikal Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 God apparently designed us in his image. So why did he create males with such a flaw as foreskin, that humans had to step in and start chopping them off? I don't see how society can let old men mutilate infants and then let them hide behind the guise of religion. If we can all come to the agreement that blowing up buildings/planes etc. in the name of god is wrong, then why isn't taking a knife to a newborns genitalia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 God apparently designed us in his image. So why did he create males with such a flaw as foreskin, that humans had to step in and start chopping them off? I don't see how society can let old men mutilate infants and then let them hide behind the guise of religion. If we can all come to the agreement that blowing up buildings/planes etc. in the name of god is wrong, then why isn't taking a knife to a newborns genitalia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Probably because there are benefits to circumcision when done properly. This case though is abhorrent and like you said should not be able to hide behind the guise of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 If you want to be circumcised, go ahead. All power to you. But you should not mutilate a baby who is incapable of giving consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Evolution evolved the foreskin into place. There's a reason for it. It's not a vestigial anatomical structure, despite what a book written in the desert over 2000 years ago says, which was written by uneducated sheep-herders and tribesman and whose modern day slaw jawed torch bearers continue to contend. There are benefits to amputating your legs as well, in order to avoid the potential problem of 'Restless Leg Syndrome' in the modern world. Should we remove those too, because some tribesman somewhere and sometime may have thought that's a command given to us by his regionally worshipped deity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Difference of course being the benefits of having legs far outweigh the benefits of amputating your legs. No one said the foreskin doesn't have a purpose, the Bible certainly doesn't say it's just a vestigial anatomical structure. There is also a reason for your tonsils, appendix, spleen, gall bladder etc. sometimes it's more beneficial to have them removed then to keep them. All about weighing the benefits and harms. Just because evolution evolved certain things into place doesn't mean that they are best features to have. For example some people have evolved and passed on variations of the BRCA1 and 2 genes that increase peoples susceptibility to breast cancer. So just because something evolves doesn't mean it's necessarily good. Edit Not that I'm saying the foreskin is bad!! Just that circumcision if done properly also isn't bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Yes, but circumcising a baby who is unable to consent is a bad thing. I don't think anyone here is arguing that circumcision should be abolished, rather they're saying that "Oh, the baby is out. Time to chop off part of their genitals." shouldn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Difference of course being the benefits of having legs far outweigh the benefits of amputating your legs. No one said the foreskin doesn't have a purpose, the Bible certainly doesn't say it's just a vestigial anatomical structure. There is also a reason for your tonsils, appendix, spleen, gall bladder etc. sometimes it's more beneficial to have them removed then to keep them. All about weighing the benefits and harms. Just because evolution evolved certain things into place doesn't mean that they are best features to have. For example some people have evolved and passed on variations of the BRCA1 and 2 genes that increase peoples susceptibility to breast cancer. So just because something evolves doesn't mean it's necessarily good. Edit Not that I'm saying the foreskin is bad!! Just that circumcision if done properly also isn't bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Willing to bet more people in New York sacrifice animals for their religion. It's not Jews (or any other religion), it's New York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 And 'some' foreskin removal is necessary for 'some' people, for 'some' medical reasons. They should not be removed for reasons by way of supernatural belief structures, because then its simply removal of healthy tissue of a person who hasn't decided if they want it removed or not. There is no health benefit to its removal that warrants the general practice as one of being medically necessary for the general male population. Its removal was/is an act born out of religion and is now pursued in some places, like the U.S., because of profit and greed. People who can't argue the religious reasons it started and became accepted practice, attempt to used medical ones as cover. Those who simply use the medical ones without knowing where the practice originated and why, are arguing something that isn't medically necessary and fall victim to logical trappings concerning other body parts. For example, with the advent of composite blades and materials human can create better legs with which to run on which will last longer and won't be susceptible to disease and other disorders such as Deep Vein Thrombosis, which can be fatal, not to mention the overall benefit from never having to sprain one's ankles ever again. So, we should remove all legs and attach composite legs instead. The benefits of heading off problems before they occur is obvious. What? I'm simply advocating for a proactive means to eliminate potential health risks too, and if it just so happens to align with my beliefs in a supernatural story that I don't have any proof for, but I believe anyways, then that's just a happy coincidence. We should totally just be focusing on the medical/health benefits, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Man but then that isn't cost efficient. There is a ton of things to think about medically besides just harm vs. benefit. In any case this is an interesting topic. Interested to see where things will be in 20, 30 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 If we're talking about cost efficiency, I was under the impression that it's cheaper to not pay someone to cut off part of your body in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted September 16, 2012 Author Share Posted September 16, 2012 My point was pretty simple. Most Jews are oppossed to this act. You're previous post was purposely misleading. Only a fraction of Jews are Orthodox Only a fraction of those are Haredi. Only a fraction of those continue this practice. Basically, most Jews consider the Haredi to be weirdos and the articles you were pointing to suggesting 40% of Jews in NYC do this, was totally false. And no, noone is sweeping it under the rug. The point of the article was taht the mayor of NYC, who is Jewish, is enacting legislation to regulate this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offensive Threat Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 God apparently designed us in his image. So why did he create males with such a flaw as foreskin, that humans had to step in and start chopping them off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.