If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
circumcision
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
ok i am not greatly informed on this subject so please any jewish people (or non jewish, wouldnt want to descriminate!) feel free to correct me if im wrong but basically.... ritual circumcision.
performed publicly, no anaesthetic, on a new born baby who is not given a chance to defend himself.
now it seams to me that this is a somewhat barbaric practice. i mean leaving to one side the glaring human rights issues (of lack of choice etc.) for a second, the lack of anaesthetic alone is reason enough to condemn this practice surely.
someone explain to me why, in this day and age noone even thinks twice about this practice. in the age of "self evident inaliable human rights", in the so called enlightened secular society that we live in, this is still considered perfectly acceptable and is common place.
i can not think of a comparable example for my next point so someone either debunk it completely or help me out with an example but i have the distinct feeling that if this was a muslim practice it would have been outlawed and discontinued (at least in the western world) decades ago.
is this another example of western double standards or am i just wrong?
performed publicly, no anaesthetic, on a new born baby who is not given a chance to defend himself.
now it seams to me that this is a somewhat barbaric practice. i mean leaving to one side the glaring human rights issues (of lack of choice etc.) for a second, the lack of anaesthetic alone is reason enough to condemn this practice surely.
someone explain to me why, in this day and age noone even thinks twice about this practice. in the age of "self evident inaliable human rights", in the so called enlightened secular society that we live in, this is still considered perfectly acceptable and is common place.
i can not think of a comparable example for my next point so someone either debunk it completely or help me out with an example but i have the distinct feeling that if this was a muslim practice it would have been outlawed and discontinued (at least in the western world) decades ago.
is this another example of western double standards or am i just wrong?
0
Comments
Advocates of it state that it promotes cleanliness; if so is a foreskin so difficult to clean?
Also it's mutilation.
well no its not but thats not really the point
Its not as bad as having your hands chopped off, whats your point?
Its because its tradishun, innit? And anyone who claims thats its barbaric child-abuse is just racist cos they dont understand other cultures, like.
Like all religious traditions, it comes out of primitive necessity. Pork is "dirty" because it goes off quickly, menstruation is "dirty" because its blood. Animals are killed to hala standards because blood rots the meat in hot weather. Circumcision keeps stuff clean when there aint no blood.
But I do believe hanging a goat upside down and slitting its neck open is considered barbaric now, so why not genital mutilation?
You dispute the notion of human rights. Why?
Do you condone murder and slavery then?
Im good at being sardonic:p
Whos disupting the notion of human rights? I do belive the point in saying "no point" that its impossible to grade human rights on "goodness" or "badness". Female circumcision is more horrific that male circumcision, but it doesnt make it "wronger" and, anyway, even if it did, its an irrelevance. As is any mention of slavery.
Surely it would be excruiatingly painful?
Few things piss me off as much as trying to justify something because it's a tradition. What's wrong is wrong, and that's that.
Individuals should be given the opportunity of choosing whether to have a circumcision. No one has the right to do that to children.
That male circumcision is not supposed to have negative effects (some say it has positive effects over non-circumcised people) but that is not the point. It's an irreversible process and people should have a say on whether they want it done.
The female circumcision is vile beyond belief and those who inflict it on girls should be castrated.
Then it is also the parents choice if they wish to push the child down the stairs, and no-one can stop them. But oh, wait a minute, thats cruelty.
It doesnt matter how humanely it has been done, it is still disfiogurement of a innocent child who has no option in the matter. If it served a medical purpose then I would ahve no problems with it, but it is merely a religious ritual which has no place in a modern, decent, society.
And cleanliness is no longer an issue- soap and hot water exists for a reason. As for STDs, I fail to see how losing a bit of skin will decrease your chances of having AIDS. I mean, a kid with seven fingers will statistically have fewer STDs, but thsi does not mean every boy should have his left little finger removed eight days after birth.
It served a purpose once, it no longer does so.
'It served a purpose once, it no longer does so'.
and what would that purpose have once been that isn't relevent now? pushing a child down the stairs or cutting fingers off is rather sill don't you think?
i was under the impression that STDs were more likely in circumsised males because there is no protection of the penis which means you are more likely to have tiny lesions allowing stds to enter the blood stream more easily.
could be wrong though
Circumcised penises do tend to have less problem with STDs and circumcised men as a group have been found to have a lower percentage incident of HIV infection ... just a miniscule foreskin tear can open the man up to infection.
Yeah, so, it's something some people do. Deal with it
Im not saying I give a toss one way or the other. Im cut personally and was done at birth and have no recollection nor ever had of it. i just thought it was normal. All roman catholics when i was a kid were circumcised in the US. im glad im cut actually, i actually find it personally much more aesthetic.
But thats just my opinion.
Do I believe in circumcision? It depends. A female circumcision is much more painful and done at a later age. It involves tearing up the vagina using glass ir a rock so that once it heals and in to adulthood, the woman can't have pleasure when making love. However, whilst female circumcison is illegal, it still goes on.
About male circumcision, as I've said, it's part of the tradition of some religions, just like some tribes in South America sharpen the teeth of their children and pierce their noses. Who are we to impose our values?