Male Genital Mutilation

[Bubbles]

Are you Jewish?

No, but I'm quite happy for Jewish men to decide if it's an issue or not ( in which case it would stop.

I don't feel a need to control and dictate to them and meddle in their life.

Whether male circumcision continues should be left to those it effects.

Jewish men are adults, they can make up their own minds.

If Jewish men decide not to, because it's no longer considered to be necessary, then that is up to them.

I wouldn't argue for it, either.

However they don't see it as a problem,and the vast majority of objectors seem to have no sympathy towards Judaism at all and in the majority of cases they are not even men that have had it done.

Some people use it to attack Jews, I hate that.



 

[Shaker]

No, but I'm quite happy for Jewish men to decide if it's an issue or not ( in which case it would stop.

I don't feel a need to control and dictate to them and meddle in their life.

Whether male circumcision continues should be left to those it effects.

Well that's you out of the discussion straight away, isn't it?

Jewish men are adults, they can make up their own minds.

Except they are not afforded that luxury are they?

Eight days old?

Think about it slowly. Take all the time you need.

[Bubbles]

Who is doing that? No one that I've seen.

However, plenty of men are not happy about it and consider it an abusive violation of their rights - groups/organisations abound. While I'm sure you would love them to shut up and go away so that you can carry on simpering about Jewish men, they won't and neither should they.

Who are these other " groups" ? In the uk it isn't standard practice.

[Gordon]

No, but I'm quite happy for Jewish men to decide if it's an issue or not ( in which case it would stop.

I don't feel a need to control and dictate to them and meddle in their life.

Whether male circumcision continues should be left to those it effects.

Jewish men are adults, they can make up their own minds.

If Jewish men decide not to, because it's no longer considered to be necessary, then that is up to them.

I wouldn't argue for it.

However they don't see it as a problem,and the vast majority of objectors seem to have no sympathy towards Judaism at all and in the majority of cases they are not even men that have had it done.

Some people use it to attack Jews, I hate that.

So, on the basis that the adults can decide on behalf of Jewish boys who then get circumcised, are you are as equally relaxed when adults decide to subject girls to FGM?

[Bubbles]

Well that's you out of the discussion straight away, isn't it?
Except they are not afforded that luxury are they?

Eight days old?

Think about it slowly. Take all the time you need.

I don't need any time, those babies grow into men and are quite capable of expressing an opinion.

[Bubbles]

So, on the basis that the adults can decide on behalf of Jewish boys who then get circumcised, are you are as equally relaxed when adults decide to subject girls to FGM?

No, because as has often been pointed out before, it's not the same thing.

[Shaker]

I don't need any time, those babies grow into men and are quite capable of expressing an opinion.

Er, the point is it's too late by then? Hello?

[Bubbles]

Er, the point is it's too late by then? Hello?

Not really.

If enough Jewish men felt it was an issue, they would say so.

[ad_orientem]

To keep on about another mans foreskin, and use that against them, when they are happy not to have it, is harassment imo.

To the point that it could be seen as antisemitism, if it's bad enough.

Whether you're happy with it or not, it's still mutilation.

[Gordon]

No, because as has often been pointed out before, it's not the same thing.

Seems to me that slicing off bits of little boys on the basis of tradition and slicing off bits of little girls on the basis of tradition aren't all that different: so on what basis do you say they aren't the same thing?

[Gordon]

Not really.

If enough Jewish men felt it was an issue, they would say so.

Super: but a tad post-hoc wouldn't you say?

[Shaker]

Not really.

If enough Jewish men felt it was an issue, they would say so.

They do - given your fixation on Jewish men as though they're the only ones ever circumcised I'd have thought you'd have known this.

It's presumably this same fixation which leads you to be ignorant of and patently unable to respond to the fact that as in the aforementioned USA (also Australia to a lesser extent), most circumcision wasn't and isn't religiously based, but founded on crankery and quackery.

[Shaker]

Super: but a tad post-hoc wouldn't you say?

Like she cares about that.

[Harrowby Hall]

I don't need any time, those babies grow into men and are quite capable of expressing an opinion.

Rose, I am now expressing an opinion.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I had my foreskin removed when I was just a few days old. I was mutilated and I had no choice in the matter. It matters little that the damage I suffered was not of the scale that FGM involves. My physical integrity was violated.

I have had to live my life with a glans that has become keratinised, not having the mucosa layer on the inner face of my prepuce, and having had one of the most intensely innervated tissues in the male human body removed. I have been denied some of the sensations that my body was designed to experience. I have no idea whether they are trivial or considerable. They were taken away from me.

I do hope that your response to this will not be something along the lines of "what you've never had you've never missed".

[Bubbles]

Rose, I am now expressing an opinion.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I had my foreskin removed when I was just a few days old. I was mutilated and I had no choice in the matter. It matters little that the damage I suffered was not of the scale that FGM involves. My physical integrity was violated.

I have had to live my life with a glans that has become keratinised, not having the mucosa layer on the inner face of my prepuce, and having had one of the most intensely innervated tissues in the male human body removed. I have been denied some of the sensations that my body was designed to experience. I have no idea whether they are trivial or considerable. They were taken away from me.

I do hope that your response to this will not be something along the lines of "what you've never had you've never missed".

No, if you had yours removed and you feel that was wrong, and you have missed out, you have every right to object as would any Jewish man who objected.

However you can't assume you can speak for everyone else and make value judgements on their behalf.

For there to be a change to Jewish traditions and values it has to come from within Judaism.

Every man who has been circumcised has a right to an opinion, but not dictate to every other man.

Jewish men are perfectly capable of expressing their own objections.

If there aren't enough of them objecting then there is no problem.

Maybe they consider the circumcision and what it means to them more important than loss of feeling.

They too are entitled to their opinion.

[Bubbles]

They do - given your fixation on Jewish men as though they're the only ones ever circumcised I'd have thought you'd have known this.

It's presumably this same fixation which leads you to be ignorant of and patently unable to respond to the fact that as in the aforementioned USA (also Australia to a lesser extent), most circumcision wasn't and isn't religiously based, but founded on crankery and quackery.

The posts on the thread were aimed at religious circumcision, stop moving the goal posts.

[Gordon]

No, if you had yours removed and you feel that was wrong, and you have missed out, you have every right to object as would any Jewish man who objected.

However you can't assume you can speak for everyone else and make value judgements on their behalf.

For there to be a change to Jewish traditions and values it has to come from within Judaism.

Every man who has been circumcised has a right to an opinion, but not dictate to every other man.

Jewish men are perfectly capable of expressing their own objections.

If there aren't enough of them objecting then there is no problem.

Maybe they consider the circumcision and what it means to them more important than loss of feeling.

They too are entitled to their opinion.

There is a simple solution: don't circumcise babies (who obviously can't consent) and if as adults they elect to be circumcised then fine.

You seem to be advancing no more than a fallacious argument from tradition.

[Bubbles]

There is a simple solution: don't circumcise babies (who obviously can't consent) and if as adults they elect to be circumcised then fine.

You seem to be advancing no more than a fallacious argument from tradition.

Not really.

It's about protecting minority rights and a certain amount of freedom.

Human rights.

[Bubbles]

It's not even like I had my own sons circumcised.

It's more to do with protecting the human rights of minority groups to make (within certain limits)  their own value judgments.

So they are not shoe horned into being forced to be, and hold the same values as everyone else.

So people can be free, up to a point to follow their own values.

Respecting diversity and minority groups.

Not that I expect much understanding of that here.

[Gordon]

Not really.

It's about protecting minority rights and a certain amount of freedom.

Human rights.

So, since we are talking about religious tradition here and not medical necessity, is it a human right to be able to authorise the mutilation of children in order to comply with your preferred religious tradition? Moreover, where are the human rights to protect children from such mutilation when they are not in a position to give informed consent?

However you cut it (pun intended) it is barbarism that no fallacious arguments from authority or special pleading can excuse: by the way you've still how to explain how forced circumcision is fundamentally different from forced FGM. 

[Bubbles]

So, since we are talking about religious tradition here and not medical necessity, is it a human right to be able to authorise the mutilation of children in order to comply with your preferred religious tradition? Moreover, where are the human rights to protect children from such mutilation when they are not in a position to give informed consent?

However you cut it (pun intended) it is barbarism that no fallacious arguments from authority or special pleading can excuse: by the way you've still how to explain how forced circumcision is fundamentally different from forced FGM.

Yes it is a human right, the freedom to practice their religion.

Jews are allowed to circumcise their babies.

In the UK and in many other countries as well.

[BeRational]

Yes it is a human right, the freedom to practice their religion.

Jews are allowed to circumcise their babies.

In the UK and in many other countries as well.

What if their religion wanted them to kill their first born?
Would you sanction murder?

[Bubbles]

What if their religion wanted them to kill their first born?
Would you sanction murder?

No murder and FGM are illegal, for good reason.

[BeRational]

No murder and FGM are illegal, for good reason.

But male genital mutilation is OK?

[Gordon]

It's not even like I had my own sons circumcised.

It's more to do with protecting the human rights of minority groups to make (within certain limits)  their own value judgments.

So they are not shoe horned into being forced to be, and hold the same values as everyone else.

So people can be free, up to a point to follow their own values.

Respecting diversity and minority groups.

Not that I expect much understanding of that here.

Don't know about you but I'm quite happy to see people 'shoehorned' into not mutilating their children.

As far as I'm aware anyone caught practising FGM in the UK on the basis of religious tradition would find themselves in very serious trouble, so your argument about diversity and respecting specific religious traditions fails since there are legal constraints involved when it comes to FGM - so why is circumcision different?

Can't see that there is one unless you want to indulge in special pleading that one type of child mutilation in the name of religion is fine but another isn't, and 'it's tradition' is a fallacious justification for such barbarism.