Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a current of religious intolerance in the whole discussion here (other thread, but it a
Ways is that was on similar threads). I don't feel I have to apologize for being a proud Jewish woman, looking forward to raising a Jewish son. But I don't plan on having many people check out my sons dick. It's so odd to me that people are seeing all these other kids penises! And I'm not even prude. Just, why would hu be checking out my son?

I have issues with the claim "religious intolerance." There are areas around the world where some groups of people circumcise girls in the name of religion, and people call it genital mutilation.

Religious tolerance is one thing, but I think there are some practices done in the name of religion that should be questioned because they involve altering a child's (who is unable to consent) genitalia irreversibly.

Equating circumcision with female genital mutilation is nuts. They aren't remotely the same thing. One is done as a covenant with God (and for health reasons) while the other is to punish and control women to inhibit their sexual pleasure.

It's like equating getting your ears pierced with having a bullet in your head...hey, they're both holes!

Actually, some people argue that female circumcision is done for religious reasons. They are the same thing: mutilating a child in the name of religion. And male circumcision IS mutilation. You are cutting away and altering the boy's genitalia. If you believe that that is necessary to continue a covenant with god, then own it, call it what it is. but don't claim that mutilation one religion does (Muslim and female circumcision) is bad and controlling but mutilation another religion sanctions (Judaism and male circumcision) is good. They both involve invasive, altering procedures done to a person who has no say in the matter.

There have been arguments made that male circumcision actually does nerve damage and reduces sensation in the penis. If you think there isn't an element of control going on with with male circumcision, then you are completely deluding yourself. Not to mention, an infant boy has no way of agreeing or consenting to entering into a covenant with god. How is it not controlling for the parent to make that decision for an infant, especially when the alteration done to his genitalia is ABSOLUTELY irreversible?

Islam does not prescribe female circumcision; in fact, many circumcised girls in Egypt are from Christian families. Female circumcision is neither widely practiced nor religiously prescribed to Muslims.

Epic fail to your argument.

Local religious leaders in Africa are actually working with humanitarian leaders to spread the word that female circumcision in NOT a part of the Islamic religion. Please educate yourself before you try to educate others. You are spreading incorrect information.

ACTUALLY, "what a few Muslims in Africa believe" does not equal "what Islam prescribes", otherwise these religious leaders would be working to spread the word everywhere, not just in Africa. If Islam prescribed female circumcision, what is your theory on why Muslims elsewhere don't do it?

If you have scriptural proof that Islam prescribes female circumcision, please post quotation. Learn to read an argument thoroughly before you critique it.

Let's break it down again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who doubts that there is an anti-Semitic undercurrent in some (not all!) anti-circ sentiment might take a look at following (appalling) links. I am not Jewish myself, nor am I saying that being anti-circ makes you anti-Semitic. I *am* saying that those who detect a strain of anti-semitism in some of this debate are not making things up:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/foreskin-man-comic-latest-anti-circumcision-groups-push/storynew?id=14045258#.Udb-_jnRmfQ

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/anti-semitism-and-germanys-movement-against-circumcision/266794/

This must be one of the worst articles I have read in the Atlantic. There is no convincing case for the German stance against circumcision being motivated by anti-Semitism, and the author (who isn't even religious but actually says he wants his son to look like him) is only voicing his paranoid feelings. If anything, there may be an element of anti-Muslim sentiment in the German efforts to outlaw circumcision. Aside from a few fringe groups (which also exist in most other countries), Germany today is the least anti-Semitic country in the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a current of religious intolerance in the whole discussion here (other thread, but it a
Ways is that was on similar threads). I don't feel I have to apologize for being a proud Jewish woman, looking forward to raising a Jewish son. But I don't plan on having many people check out my sons dick. It's so odd to me that people are seeing all these other kids penises! And I'm not even prude. Just, why would hu be checking out my son?

I have issues with the claim "religious intolerance." There are areas around the world where some groups of people circumcise girls in the name of religion, and people call it genital mutilation.

Religious tolerance is one thing, but I think there are some practices done in the name of religion that should be questioned because they involve altering a child's (who is unable to consent) genitalia irreversibly.

Equating circumcision with female genital mutilation is nuts. They aren't remotely the same thing. One is done as a covenant with God (and for health reasons) while the other is to punish and control women to inhibit their sexual pleasure.

It's like equating getting your ears pierced with having a bullet in your head...hey, they're both holes!

Actually, some people argue that female circumcision is done for religious reasons. They are the same thing: mutilating a child in the name of religion. And male circumcision IS mutilation. You are cutting away and altering the boy's genitalia. If you believe that that is necessary to continue a covenant with god, then own it, call it what it is. but don't claim that mutilation one religion does (Muslim and female circumcision) is bad and controlling but mutilation another religion sanctions (Judaism and male circumcision) is good. They both involve invasive, altering procedures done to a person who has no say in the matter.

There have been arguments made that male circumcision actually does nerve damage and reduces sensation in the penis. If you think there isn't an element of control going on with with male circumcision, then you are completely deluding yourself. Not to mention, an infant boy has no way of agreeing or consenting to entering into a covenant with god. How is it not controlling for the parent to make that decision for an infant, especially when the alteration done to his genitalia is ABSOLUTELY irreversible?

Islam does not prescribe female circumcision; in fact, many circumcised girls in Egypt are from Christian families. Female circumcision is neither widely practiced nor religiously prescribed to Muslims.

Epic fail to your argument.

Local religious leaders in Africa are actually working with humanitarian leaders to spread the word that female circumcision in NOT a part of the Islamic religion. Please educate yourself before you try to educate others. You are spreading incorrect information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who doubts that there is an anti-Semitic undercurrent in some (not all!) anti-circ sentiment might take a look at following (appalling) links. I am not Jewish myself, nor am I saying that being anti-circ makes you anti-Semitic. I *am* saying that those who detect a strain of anti-semitism in some of this debate are not making things up:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/foreskin-man-comic-latest-anti-circumcision-groups-push/storynew?id=14045258#.Udb-_jnRmfQ

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/anti-semitism-and-germanys-movement-against-circumcision/266794/

This must be one of the worst articles I have read in the Atlantic. There is no convincing case for the German stance against circumcision being motivated by anti-Semitism, and the author (who isn't even religious but actually says he wants his son to look like him) is only voicing his paranoid feelings. If anything, there may be an element of anti-Muslim sentiment in the German efforts to outlaw circumcision. Aside from a few fringe groups (which also exist in most other countries), Germany today is the least anti-Semitic country in the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an older child. I have never participated in changing the diapers of nor potty training the children of people I was not related to. When changing my child, I did it to give my child the privacy they deserved and I never looked at another naked child on purpose. Who are all these perverted people looking at other people's children and looking long enough to form an opinion on their genitalia? I think less of those people.

That's fine, for you. But there are many people, myself included, who participate in some kind of baby-sitting swap that may at some point involving changing the diaper of someone else's child. I have changed the diapers of boy children that are not mine in that context, and yes, I have noticed if they are circumcised or not, in the same way I've noticed any other physical characteristic about that child. I'm not going out of my way to stare at the genitalia of someone else's child, but what you're saying is that in that situation, you would think less of me for changing a diaper? Should I allow my friend's son to sit in a poopy diaper until they get back from date night just so that you won't think less of me?

No one questions your participation in babysitting swaps. What people question is your assertion that "most" women have changed other baby boys' diapers and have thus noticed whether they were or were not circumcised. Several posters have already told you that while they have children, they've never changed another baby's diaper or looked at their genitals long enough to notice. So don't make it sound like it's a common experience. It isn't. I have a 2-year old and I've never changed anyone else's diaper. I thus remain blissfully unaware of my friends' son's foreskin status.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I love how the anti circs totally disregard the positive health benefits, even when they are posted. Over and over again. And try to equate Johns Hopkins with The Onion.

I actually have no problem with those who decide against the procedure for their kid. But anyone who tries to call me a mutilator better be ready for the reaction. (OF course, as we see from this thread, they know how unpopular they'll be so they keep their mouths shut, except on anonymous message boards.)

We are completely aware of the health benefits, but - like all medical organizations in the Western world outside of the US - regard them as not significant enough to support routine infant circumcision. The Johns Hopkins study is culturally biased, and has failed to convince the rest of the world. The available evidence has been reviewed by a large group of international researchers (not just European) who did not find it compelling (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract). There is nothing for you to "love" there. Our stance is well-founded and supported by the majority of secular medical professionals in the world. And yes, posting news articles reporting about the same, biased study "over and over again" is not going to change that.

It's also funny that you think this thread shows how "unpopular" people opposed to circumcision would be. That was not my impression. My impression is that there are a good number of well-articulated, intelligent people with rational arguments against circumcision, and a bunch of defensive morons flinging the same insults over and over again.

And if you really think that the fact that we don't call anyone a mutilator in face-to-face conversation is a matter of cowardice or duplicity rather than normal social behavior and good manners, you really have a problem. But I will assume you actually know that this is just another vain attempt to discredit our position.

So, you admit there are health benefits to circumcision. You and members of the foreign medical community are entitled to your opinion that are not significant but that is a far cry for there are no health benefits. If my experiences and research lead me to the conclusion that they are significant enough to justify the procedure, my opinions should be respected.

There is hardly a unanimous worldwide opinion on this topic. The american medical community is clear that there are benefits and it remains a decision to be made by the family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I love how the anti circs totally disregard the positive health benefits, even when they are posted. Over and over again. And try to equate Johns Hopkins with The Onion.

I actually have no problem with those who decide against the procedure for their kid. But anyone who tries to call me a mutilator better be ready for the reaction. (OF course, as we see from this thread, they know how unpopular they'll be so they keep their mouths shut, except on anonymous message boards.)

We are completely aware of the health benefits, but - like all medical organizations in the Western world outside of the US - regard them as not significant enough to support routine infant circumcision. The Johns Hopkins study is culturally biased, and has failed to convince the rest of the world. The available evidence has been reviewed by a large group of international researchers (not just European) who did not find it compelling (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract). There is nothing for you to "love" there. Our stance is well-founded and supported by the majority of secular medical professionals in the world. And yes, posting news articles reporting about the same, biased study "over and over again" is not going to change that.

It's also funny that you think this thread shows how "unpopular" people opposed to circumcision would be. That was not my impression. My impression is that there are a good number of well-articulated, intelligent people with rational arguments against circumcision, and a bunch of defensive morons flinging the same insults over and over again.

And if you really think that the fact that we don't call anyone a mutilator in face-to-face conversation is a matter of cowardice or duplicity rather than normal social behavior and good manners, you really have a problem. But I will assume you actually know that this is just another vain attempt to discredit our position.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a current of religious intolerance in the whole discussion here (other thread, but it a
Ways is that was on similar threads). I don't feel I have to apologize for being a proud Jewish woman, looking forward to raising a Jewish son. But I don't plan on having many people check out my sons dick. It's so odd to me that people are seeing all these other kids penises! And I'm not even prude. Just, why would hu be checking out my son?

I have issues with the claim "religious intolerance." There are areas around the world where some groups of people circumcise girls in the name of religion, and people call it genital mutilation.

Religious tolerance is one thing, but I think there are some practices done in the name of religion that should be questioned because they involve altering a child's (who is unable to consent) genitalia irreversibly.

Equating circumcision with female genital mutilation is nuts. They aren't remotely the same thing. One is done as a covenant with God (and for health reasons) while the other is to punish and control women to inhibit their sexual pleasure.

It's like equating getting your ears pierced with having a bullet in your head...hey, they're both holes!

Actually, some people argue that female circumcision is done for religious reasons. They are the same thing: mutilating a child in the name of religion. And male circumcision IS mutilation. You are cutting away and altering the boy's genitalia. If you believe that that is necessary to continue a covenant with god, then own it, call it what it is. but don't claim that mutilation one religion does (Muslim and female circumcision) is bad and controlling but mutilation another religion sanctions (Judaism and male circumcision) is good. They both involve invasive, altering procedures done to a person who has no say in the matter.

There have been arguments made that male circumcision actually does nerve damage and reduces sensation in the penis. If you think there isn't an element of control going on with with male circumcision, then you are completely deluding yourself. Not to mention, an infant boy has no way of agreeing or consenting to entering into a covenant with god. How is it not controlling for the parent to make that decision for an infant, especially when the alteration done to his genitalia is ABSOLUTELY irreversible?

Islam does not prescribe female circumcision; in fact, many circumcised girls in Egypt are from Christian families. Female circumcision is neither widely practiced nor religiously prescribed to Muslims.

Epic fail to your argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a current of religious intolerance in the whole discussion here (other thread, but it a
Ways is that was on similar threads). I don't feel I have to apologize for being a proud Jewish woman, looking forward to raising a Jewish son. But I don't plan on having many people check out my sons dick. It's so odd to me that people are seeing all these other kids penises! And I'm not even prude. Just, why would hu be checking out my son?

I have issues with the claim "religious intolerance." There are areas around the world where some groups of people circumcise girls in the name of religion, and people call it genital mutilation.

Religious tolerance is one thing, but I think there are some practices done in the name of religion that should be questioned because they involve altering a child's (who is unable to consent) genitalia irreversibly.

Equating circumcision with female genital mutilation is nuts. They aren't remotely the same thing. One is done as a covenant with God (and for health reasons) while the other is to punish and control women to inhibit their sexual pleasure.

It's like equating getting your ears pierced with having a bullet in your head...hey, they're both holes!

Actually, some people argue that female circumcision is done for religious reasons. They are the same thing: mutilating a child in the name of religion. And male circumcision IS mutilation. You are cutting away and altering the boy's genitalia. If you believe that that is necessary to continue a covenant with god, then own it, call it what it is. but don't claim that mutilation one religion does (Muslim and female circumcision) is bad and controlling but mutilation another religion sanctions (Judaism and male circumcision) is good. They both involve invasive, altering procedures done to a person who has no say in the matter.

There have been arguments made that male circumcision actually does nerve damage and reduces sensation in the penis. If you think there isn't an element of control going on with with male circumcision, then you are completely deluding yourself. Not to mention, an infant boy has no way of agreeing or consenting to entering into a covenant with god. How is it not controlling for the parent to make that decision for an infant, especially when the alteration done to his genitalia is ABSOLUTELY irreversible?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an older child. I have never participated in changing the diapers of nor potty training the children of people I was not related to. When changing my child, I did it to give my child the privacy they deserved and I never looked at another naked child on purpose. Who are all these perverted people looking at other people's children and looking long enough to form an opinion on their genitalia? I think less of those people.

That's fine, for you. But there are many people, myself included, who participate in some kind of baby-sitting swap that may at some point involving changing the diaper of someone else's child. I have changed the diapers of boy children that are not mine in that context, and yes, I have noticed if they are circumcised or not, in the same way I've noticed any other physical characteristic about that child. I'm not going out of my way to stare at the genitalia of someone else's child, but what you're saying is that in that situation, you would think less of me for changing a diaper? Should I allow my friend's son to sit in a poopy diaper until they get back from date night just so that you won't think less of me?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I love how the anti circs totally disregard the positive health benefits, even when they are posted. Over and over again. And try to equate Johns Hopkins with The Onion.

I actually have no problem with those who decide against the procedure for their kid. But anyone who tries to call me a mutilator better be ready for the reaction. (OF course, as we see from this thread, they know how unpopular they'll be so they keep their mouths shut, except on anonymous message boards.)

We are completely aware of the health benefits, but - like all medical organizations in the Western world outside of the US - regard them as not significant enough to support routine infant circumcis.ion. The Johns Hopkins study is culturally biased, and has failed to convince the rest of the world. The available evidence has been reviewed by a large group of international researchers (not just European) who did not find it compelling (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract). There is nothing for you to "love" there. Our stance is well-founded and supported by the majority of secular medical professionals in the world. And yes, posting news articles reporting about the same, biased study "over and over again" is not going to change that.

It's also funny that you think this thread shows how "unpopular" people opposed to circumcision would be. That was not my impression. My impression is that there are a good number of well-articulated, intelligent people with rational arguments against circumcision, and a bunch of defensive morons flinging the same insults over and over again.

And if you really think that the fact that we don't call anyone a mutilator in face-to-face conversation is a matter of cowardice or duplicity rather than normal social behavior and good manners, you really have a problem. But I will assume you actually know that this is just another vain attempt to discredit our position.

Anonymous wrote:

I love how the anti circs totally disregard the positive health benefits, even when they are posted. Over and over again. And try to equate Johns Hopkins with The Onion.

I actually have no problem with those who decide against the procedure for their kid. But anyone who tries to call me a mutilator better be ready for the reaction. (OF course, as we see from this thread, they know how unpopular they'll be so they keep their mouths shut, except on anonymous message boards.)