jump to last post 1-28 of 28 discussions (246 posts)

Just a tad antisemetic

  1. Onusonus profile image88
    Onusonusposted 5 years ago

    They are actually trying to ban circumsision in Sanfrancisco.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/1 … 63945.html

    1. stclairjack profile image80
      stclairjackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      i dont know how anti-semetic it is,..... it just strikes me as a way for buisy body uptights to weasle thier way into our pants,.... the health benifits far outwiegh the risks for this procedure,... and its mostly cultural the reasons for having a child circumsized.

      for the love of god, alah, or the toad fairy worshipped at the shrine on 9th ave,..... arent thier better things, more important things to get work up about?????

      children are beaten and abused every day, they starve on our american streets, vicimized by those who would prey on them, become quickly addicted to drugs, and feel very little love and compassion ffrom a secular socioety that only wants to sell tem the next marketable thing,....

      circumscision that also has the benifit of preventing comunicable dissease and urinay tract infections in addition to other dissorders seems a small thing,.... its up tight insecure ass's that cant nuter a dog because of the "idea" that do this sort of thing,.. cold fish buisy boddies that have nohing bettter to do than look for a fight like a fat kid looks for ice cream

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      My wang's circumsised, and I ain't Jewish.

      Making circumsision illegal is a tyrannical act that only a despotic government would attempt.

      Circumsised wangs have a tendency to be cleaner and healthier, at least according to both articles cited on wikipedia and my weird friends who talk about their "D**k cheese".

      Sorry if this is inappropriate, but it comes with the territory.

      1. Evolution Guy profile image61
        Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Making it illegal to mutilate a baby makes sense to me. Foreskins are there for a reason, but - seeing as you had yours surgically removed at birth - you will never know just how sensitive your glans would have been - will you? Not given any choice in the matter were you? Mummy and Daddy were quite happy to cut you.

        Circumcised wangs are no more likely to be clean and healthy than uncircumcised wangs. I suppose you advocate surgical removal of middle toes to prevent fungal growth as well do you?

        Or do you think it makes sense to wash between your toes instead? wink

        1. Onusonus profile image88
          Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That's got to be the most ridiculous sort of reasoning I've heard in a while. You would probably advocate anything as long as it supresses religious values.

          For 5,000 years the Jewish people have been following God's command to be circumsised, and you have the audacity to call it mutilation.

          Well let me give you a little exerpt from the first ammendment of the United States Constitution.

          "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not even really sure that it's religious. I'm atheist/secularist, and my family comes down from a heritage of Christian and Catholic... my wang's snipped.

            Also, if you read the part of the Constitution that you quoted:

            "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

            You'll notice that the subject of the sentence is "CONGRESS". Thus it is ONLY illegal for CONGRESS to make a law of the sort. However, it would be legal for the State of California to make such a law.

            While it may be legal, however, it would be tyrannical.

            1. Onusonus profile image88
              Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              well that may be, but I think that any state which deliberately craps all over the constitution needs a little congressional intervention. Not that I think the bill will actually pass, the mere fact that this outlandish rule is even being considered to be put into law is an astonishing testament to the low level of real tolerance this country has.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                A bit weird!
                Stopping the mutilation of children is outlandish but mutilation is considered normal!

                Don't you think it a bit off when you give more rights to the unborn child than the born child?

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't quite understand this. Children are born under the protective wing of their parents, and thus it's their decision.

                  If you don't like it, don't do it. But you have to outlaw it because "you think you know better than everyone else". That's nonsense.

                  It's just a piece of skin, who f**king cares?

              2. Evolution Guy profile image61
                Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So - you favor more mutilation at birth then? Perhaps the surgical removal of appendixes and middle toes? I guess you think the Aztec ceremonies of cutting out hearts are OK as well?

                Did you get your weiner cut too and want to make sure everyone else does?

                1. Onusonus profile image88
                  Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Heaven inspired, foreskin removal, yes I am absolutely in favor of. Aztec heart removal ritual not so much.

                  This is a classic example of moral relativism. Just because it is ubsurd to remove toes and organs based on beliefs held by noone in current American socioty, does not justify banning the religious freedoms of hundreds of thousands of practicing Jews, or anyone who's right it is to make that decision.

                  I personally don't know who is cut and who is not, nor do I care weather or not they decide to have it done to themselves or their children, it's the decision of the parents and not the government.

                  Tell me, do you think it is the right of a woman to get an abortion whenever they choose to?

                  1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                    Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    So - popular opinion is what you are all about? As long as it is a time honored relious mutilation (Unless it is VooDoo) all good. Parents should be allowed to mutilate their children as long as their parents mutilated them? Gotcha. Not impressed with your morals Dude. Where did you get them?

                  2. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Like I said, more respect for the unborn child than the born child!

                    What part of your belief covers circumcision? It seems to be covered by the same tome that allows for all sorts of inhumane practices that no right thinking Christian today follows, I mean, when did you last stone your wife?

                  3. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not so sure that I trust parents to do only reasonable things to their children.  While I have never heard of any parent in this country going too far, it will happen.  I might be OK with ear piercings for small children for instance, but would never agree than any parent should do a nose piercing on their infant.  With various body piercings becoming more common that will happen.

                    As other cultures continue to immigrate into America we could see them bringing in their own version of beauty or necessity as well.  No one here would support female genitalia mutilation, for instance, but how long will it be before someone from the culture that practices such behavior wants to do it to their child in the US?

                    Govt. has assigned itself the task of protecting helpless children and while the programs don't work very well at all it may be that they are necessary.  Child abuse is very common in many aspects and what one person calls abuse is called helping by the next.  Children are neither slaves nor objects for parents to carry out their own desires on; they are people with an innate right to be free from torture or mutilation.

                  4. getitrite profile image79
                    getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Heaven inspired, huh?

                         What a JOKE!!!

                2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You're right.

                  Because I think that getting circumsised is ok, I think it's ok to rip people's hearts out of their chests.

                  ... nice argument...

                  1. Sethareal profile image80
                    Setharealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    His argument is crazy, lets play his game, "I can't believe these doctors mutilate the babies by cutting their umbilical cords!"

                3. Bill Yovino profile image91
                  Bill Yovinoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Stupid people, please go away. You're arguments are nonsensical. Cancer is all-natural, so we shouldn't mutilate people to remove it according to you. Give me a break. Apply your insane reasoning to your own treatment. Don't try to force it on rational people.

                  1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                    Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    So what you are saying is peopel should be forced to have surgical treatments? Is that correct? I think you need to check your reasoning before telling me that mutilating babies is acceptable because some people choose to have surgery to remove cancer.

                    A foreskin is not the same thing as a life threatening disease.

              3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The state ISN'T "crapping" on the constitution. The Constitution only prevents CONGRESS from passing religious laws -- that's why the sentence says "Congress shall not"

                If you read the 10th amendment - the most important of them all - you'll see that states ARE allowed to pass religious laws (but most do not).

                And furthermore, if you have to make people "tolerant" by outlawing "intolerance", then you'll only end up with deaths.

                1. Sethareal profile image80
                  Setharealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm pretty sure the civil rights amendment has 'religion' in there,  so the states are not allowed to discriminate against religions.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The word religion appears no where in the 14th amendment.

                    The first clause of the 14th amendment only demands that the states can't deprive people of the RIGHT to life, liberty or property without due process.

                    So, no, that's not right.

        2. stclairjack profile image80
          stclairjackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          while i admittedly loved the midle toe comparison,... and my foot rot would make considder it! ha!,.... for what reason is a foreskin there?...... for what reason is an apendix there?..... both would apear to be genetic evidence of our previous history,... the latter being eveidence of a past previous digestion pouch as some suspect,... the former a cover of sorts for when we ran naked as jay birds,... but now that we wear cloths, building up body heat,  keeping our personal filth close to ourselves, not to mention the evolution of std's along side our evolving sexual habbits,... and i once more must say that my georgia work boots do indeed make removing my toes a viabl option at times,....

          if you prefer the natural "wang",... then i respectfuly sugest that you run naked as hell and where no clothing too,.... good luck with that

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well, that argument made no sense.

            "If you like foreskins so much, why don't you run around naked"

            ... what?

            The real issue is simply that government shouldn't be deciding these things.

            Remember freedom? When we entrusted people to make their own decisions? ... good times!

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              But you aren't allowing people to make their own decisions, you are arguing for other people to make decisions for them, government or parents, what's the difference?

              The proposed law does allow people to make their own decisions in that it only prohibits the snip below the age of eighteen.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What's the difference between government and parents?

                Government didn't have to go through 9 months of labor to birth me. Government didn't raise me. Government didn't knowingly create me from nothingness. Government didn't feed me for the most of my life.

                Sure, I never asked to be born, but...

                ... seriously? You can't see the difference between government and parents?

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  When it comes to making life changing decisions on my behalf, not a lot.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Alright, let's play the game.

                    You give birth to a child, and, according to you, have absolutely no control over that child whatsoever. Thus, you have no need to care for that child.

                    Thus, it is perfectly logical and allowable -- in your mind -- to have a child, and then leave it to starve to death.

                    ... intriguing.

        3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't mean to be a jerk, but I don't feel mutilated at all because my wang's cut. In fact, most chicks today are freaked out by the uncut variety.

          Sorry that I backed my argument up with a few sources:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

          But it does seem to be that uncut have a higher chance of getting infected.

          Also, I've never heard of any cut guy talking about "dick cheese".

          I don't really give a flying F*** what California decides to do because I don't plan on living there.

          But making things illegal that people WANT to do is Tyranny.

          1. stclairjack profile image80
            stclairjackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            sick 'em friend,... you state the case better than i

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Understanding freedom makes every issue crystal clear.

              Venture into the study of liberty with "Liberty Defined" - discover that which is there to be discovered.

        4. stclairjack profile image80
          stclairjackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          furthr more,...what constitutes the mutilation of a baby?,..... my niece has her ears pierced at 1 yr old,.... shall i round up my inlaws and have tem shot for mutilating her?,... or fine them 1000$?

        5. lyndre profile image81
          lyndreposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol lol

    3. Sethareal profile image80
      Setharealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Emperor Hadrian made circumcision illegal  too and it resulted in the Bar Kokhba revolt, it didn't turn out too well for the Jews.

    4. Shahid Bukhari profile image60
      Shahid Bukhariposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't there anything more important than the winkie ... and its muffler ... to raise the racial discrimination issue ... ?
      Next will be the Aryans,your saying, Hitler was not circumcised !

      Arabs, Palestinians, and Jews have common Ancestry ... 
      Shem, is their Common ancestor ... and after the Flood, Shem's progeny had settled around Mount Ararat, in Turkey ... The 12 Tribes of the Jews, are descendants of Prophet Abraham, Peace be Upon him ... he belonged to Ur, in Babylonia.

      All Humans are the Progeny of Prophet Noah, Peace be upon him.
      Circumcision is an Islamic Practice ... also followed by orthodox Jes, with the Practice's origins in Abrahamic Tradition ...

      So what does your being a tad anti-semitic mean ... does it imply, that Arab cousins should stop circumcising their thing ?

      1. Sethareal profile image80
        Setharealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The city of San Francisco has put a proposition on their ballot to ban circumcision for everyone, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists whoever. So yes, they want the Arab cousins to stop circumcising their thing.

        I took the title, 'a tad anti-Semetic' to be an understatement because it seems extremely anti-Semetic to me, just scroll down at AnnCee's racist cartoon where the evil Jewish mafia is coming to steal the babies foreskin.

  2. Greek One profile image81
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    One of my penises in circumcised, the other is not.

    I find no difference between the two other than a few inches in size... which is no big deal when taking the whole larger packages into account

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Good times, good times.

      "the whole package"... lordy lordy lordy.

  3. stclairjack profile image80
    stclairjackposted 5 years ago

    i supose this is why i dont live in california.... uhg

  4. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    I don't think the question is as simple as it sounds.  For centuries mankind has mutilated their bodies in the name of religion, beauty and health.  Stclairjack mentioned poking holes in an infants ears - how about a nice tattoo on a 6 month old infant to go with holey ears?  Or a nice nose piercing?

    Other cultures have other mores and customs.  Japanese girls used to have their feet bound until they were so deformed they could barely walk.  Some cultures bind the neck so tightly that the shoulders deform to produce the appearance of an extremely long neck.  Female genitalia mutilation is fairly common.  Lips and ears are cut and otherwise deformed.  Deep cuts may be made into flesh to produce fearsome scars.  The list is nearly endless, and nearly all these things are commonly done to helpless children.

    No one here would ever support the genitalia mutilation of young girls; why do we assume it is OK for young boys?  While the male mutilation could have a health reason, few parents do it because of that - rather it is because they are Christian or because it is the accepted norm in this country and they don't want their sons to look weird.  Should we then allow female mutilation of immigrant children because it is the norm for them?

    We are a nation of laws and many of those very laws govern the abuse of helpless children and infants.  How do you write a law that allows mutilation of one but not the next?  How do you choose which mutilation is acceptable to perform on children that can have no say in the matter?  Should we simply allow any infant mutilation the parents choose?  Or none of them (including ear piercings)?  Or are we somehow able to pick and choose which ones are acceptable?

    And yes, I was mutilated as an infant and am happy with it.  I mutilated my two sons and they seem happy with that.

    1. Evolution Guy profile image61
      Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A pity you will never know the sensations you are missing. wink

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ... what a boneheaded argument.

        You don't know what it feels for me, and I don't know what it feels like for you.

        That's true FOR EVERYONE ON THE PLANET!!!

        I don't know what it feels like to be a female, a doctor, a narcolepsy patient, Paris Hilton, etc. etc.

        No one knows what it's like to be someone else, so using that as an argument to MAKE SOMETHING ILLEGAL is pretty lame (pardon the pun).

        1. Greek One profile image81
          Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          was your use of the term 'bonehead argument' intended?

          If so, bravo.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            we'll never know...

  5. mikelong profile image84
    mikelongposted 5 years ago
    1. stclairjack profile image80
      stclairjackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      thank you,.... i gota clean up the mess,... blew soda pop through my nose,...

      that made this whole idiotic topic worth it!

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      big_smile

  6. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    Some religions believe in female circumcision, are you saying that is okay?

  7. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    You have to remember you are talking about San Francisco. They have a history of trying to get stupid laws on the books. I guess if it passes and you can't get it done in the hospital, the moile business will sky rocket.

  8. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Cultural trend has changed since WWII when having a circumcised weiner was a dead giveaway (literally) that you were Jewish.
    Here in the US -- perhaps it's different in other countries, MOST boys are circumcised either in the hospital as hours old infants or in a religious ceremony.
    I don't think female circumcision is a direct parallel. Cutting a woman's clitoris off prevents her from feeling sexual pleasure. Not so cutting a male's foreskin...

    I think SF could find much better ways of addressing child abuse than prohibiting this procedure.
    I mean, who's going to enforce this?
    So little Johnny's parents defy the law and he goes to daycare and the daycare provider calls CPS and reports the parents cuz Johnny's circumcised??? Sorry, but if Johnny's malnourished or covered with bruises -- that's child abuse. This is not.

  9. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    This is an interesting forum thread.
    Evan and MM on the same side of an issue with John Holden on the opposite.

    This is why stereotyping people based on perceived political bias is so ridiculous!!!

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      for the record - my stance on politics leads me to my stance on circumcision (or, at least, the outlawing of circumcision).

      Outlawing things that people WANT to do is tyranny. Thus drugs must be legal, circumcision must be legal, and so must prostitution.

      Those who are pro-drug yet anti-Circumcision (i never thought that this would be a political issue) are hypocrites.

      The case may be made "well adults can make decisions for their own selves, but children are at the mercy of their parents. Thus, it is against liberty to deny the child's right to choose", but I must demand that there be a time in a child's life until when they are allowed to make their own decisions.

      This time in the US is 18 (or until emancipated). But this is a largely artificial setting. I prefer the Rothbardian idea that one is not able to fend for oneself until they own property of their own -- that is, you must work and own your own property to be emancipated from a caregiver.

      Anyway, caregivers exist, and they can make decisions for young ones.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, caregivers exist and make decisions for young ones.

        Some spank a child with their palm while others beat the child with belts and sticks leaving welts, bruises or worse.  Some poke holes in their children and some cut off body parts.  One in my area is on trial for torturing an 8 year old boy to death in the name of punishment.

        While we both would agree that removing a foreskin is OK and that a 260 pound man dropping a knee into the abdomen of a spread eagled child is not, the possibilities between the two extremes is enormous and somewhere a line must be drawn.

        Where do you draw the line?  More importantly, how do you draw the line and who does the drawing?  The question is not one of tyranny, nor drug use nor prostitution.  It is one of societies need to protect helpless children from abusive caregivers.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Indeed, how does one draw the line?

          Here's the question that must be answered: do you want each individual coming up with the answer, or one individual coming up with the answer?

          Clearly a monopoly on child-rearing would be horrible.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And even more clearly is that when each individual may do as s/he wishes with their children the result can be, and all too often is, an indescribable horror for the child.  It was and individual that tortured the child to death near me.  It is always an individual, not a society, that rapes a small child, or sells it into prostitution.  It was an individual, not society, that tried to murder her children recently when the world didn't end as predicted.

            None of these people will ever agree that they have abused another human being.  It is always for the child's good, or because the child belongs to them and they can do what they want with it.  It is because they know better than anyone else what the child needs.

            No, Evan, depending on each and every person with a child to actually love and care for that child does not work.  A govt. clearing house on what is right and proper in child rearing is a terrible thing to contemplate but it absolutely pales before the horrors that people inflict on their own children.

      2. Evolution Guy profile image61
        Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So - you honestly do not see the difference between taking drugs and surgically mutilating a baby? This is utter nonsense. Where is your line as a matter of fact? Is it OK to perform plastic surgery on babies that do not look the way the parents want them to look?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There is a difference between taking drugs and mutilating children.

          But there is a huge similarity if we're talking about making them illegal.

          Both are demanding that we "Strip freedom away from individuals". And that's wrong.

          The same argument for keeping circumcision LEGAL is the same argument being used to make drugs LEGAL: I'm free to raise my children and myself.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Those arguments are completely irrelevant, we are talking about the individuals right. That does not mean an individual making a decision for someone else.

          2. Evolution Guy profile image61
            Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Nonsense. This is talking about making "doing something to some one else" illegal. How is stripping your "freedom" to mutilate your baby the same as "making it illegal to smoke pot so the alcohol companies keep their monopoly on mind altering drugs and teh Gove Inc gets to collect taxes" the same thing?

            You are not making any sense. Unless you advocate complete and total authority of parents to do as they wish with their children, - which you do not. Foreskin off - OK, middle toes off - Not OK?

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Fine, let's keep the drug analogy out of the argument.

              You're arguing that I don't have a right to raise my own child the way that I see fit.

              You're arguing that the government can make things illegal that have been common practice for millenia.

              You're arguing that I don't have control over my children.

              You're arguing that you want bureaucrats that I've never met to be in charge of my children.

              I'm against this nonsense.

              1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I am saying no such things. "Common practice" is your argument? lol

                So - you are OK with some rules, but not others it seems. Circumcision is "special" because we started the practice a long time ago?

                You are speaking nonsense. You do not have control over your children. you cannot kill them, starve them. beat them with a iron bar and any number of other things. You cannot sell them either. A Practice that was banned in your country some years ago after a long period of acceptance.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No. "common practice" is not my argument.

                  My argument is "I know how to raise my children better than some dipsh*ts in Washington DC."

                  1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                    Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Judging from your argument here - I would question that.

                    Nonetheless - you are making a "special" case here. Or do you demand the right to sell them into slavery and mutilate them in other ways?

          3. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But don't you see? You're taking away the child's freedom, or doesn't that count in your book?

      3. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Absolute cobblers, unless you are arguing for giving babies drugs, and why not! You are arguing that a parent should have absolute control over their children.

        I would give no baby of mine drugs and neither would I mutilate it in any way.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Um... it isn't ... "cobblers"... (does that mean "nonsense"?)

          If caregivers don't have absolute control over their child, then who does? You act like we can find a balance, but that's "cobblers" (nonsense). Either I'm allowed to raise my own child, or someone tells me what's OK and what isn't (thus they're in charge).

          No offense, but I'd rather let caregivers raise their children than a bunch of politicians getting bribes from companies.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So taking it to extremes, if you decide that your child would be better off with a daily beating and a sleep in the kennel, that's nobodies business but yours!

  10. thirdmillenium profile image70
    thirdmilleniumposted 5 years ago

    What I do with my body parts is my business unless I leave them strewn all over the place

  11. mikelong profile image84
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Having worked in the Foster system here in Los Angeles, and based on my own experiences growing up, I don't see a clear correllation between parents and parenting...

    Just looking at the history of government involvement in child welfare....it began with neglectful, hostile parenting and the exploitation of youth at the hands of those who are supposed to "love" and "nurture" them...

    In the case of my own family....as soon as government became involved, the familial-based abuse subsided...

    Big bad government didn't try to tyrannize or terrorize....rather, the intervention got to the root of the problem.... Of course, based on my subsequent experiences with the foster system, I realize that I was fortunate to have parents who backed off when abuse was discovered...and we were fortunate that drugs and alcohol had no role to play in our familial life (unlike the overwhelming majority of those who find themselves under the authority of Child Protective Services...

  12. OutWest profile image60
    OutWestposted 5 years ago

    Maybe they need to ban ear piercing too.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's the thing though isn't it? The vast majority of parents would throw up their hands in horror at the thought of piercing their new born's ears.

  13. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    It's interesting. Many are against female circumcision, women wearing burkas in public, Muslims being allowed to build mosques...but start screaming when some state wants to ban circumcision.  Besides, I bet it won't be passed anyway.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's a classic case of "What I think is OK is universally OK because I say say so.  What others think is OK is only actually so only if I think it is".

      This thread is a microcosm of humanity in general.

      And no, it won't pass.  Too many think that removal of that particular part of the body is righteous.  Or beautiful.  Or healthy.  Or whatever.

    2. DannyMaio profile image59
      DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is interesting how you can honestly compare female circumcision to male circumcision? That is ridiculous.

      Muslims can build Mosques if they like, Have you not seen hundreds of them across the USA? We have about 5 in a 10 mile area where I live.

      The Burkas, Yes and No, In a perfect world yes, But with all the terrorist and bombings, Sorry! safety first! You would not be thinking the same way if one blew up a bus with your love ones on it.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The OP of this thread and others seem to think circumcision should be allowed because of its religious meanings. Those other things I talked about are part of other religions. Why should one be defended due to religious freedom and another not be?

        And...no, I don't support female circumcision...

        1. DannyMaio profile image59
          DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Like I stated, Build all the Mosques you want!

          The Burka Thing is a safety issue! as I said In a perfect world yes! again until you have a loved one blown up by these creeps we need to protect ourselves.

          You have not mentioned how female and male circumcision is the same?

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I guess you forgot all about the stink in New York City...

            I did say why I was saying the two are the same

            "The OP of this thread and others seem to think circumcision should be allowed because of its religious meanings. Those other things I talked about are part of other religions. Why should one be defended due to religious freedom and another not be?"

            1. DannyMaio profile image59
              DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              To get it straight the STINK in NYC as you call it was because they wanted to build a Mosque Feet from the WTC site. Nobody said they could not build one. Also the name of the mosque means VICTORY in Arabic! So you see it is quite different than not wanting to have them build a Mosque.

              I do not believe we have people here practicing female Circumcision. Your confused with other countries. As I said, You can not compare the two!

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes.  Quite a few feet, in fact.  Wasn't it 3 blocks away?  Or 5 blocks?  At 100 yards per block (pretty short block) that's 1000 feet away.  Perhaps 1000 miles would be better - central Iowa, in the middle of the bible belt, maybe.  That would go over like a lead balloon!

                1. DannyMaio profile image59
                  DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  In fact having been hit by landing gear from the weapon the enemy used against us I would call it ground zero. Plus the imam who wants to build this mosque has stated that he chose the site because of its proximity to ground zero.

                  It is exactly 2 blocks away. NYC blocks are not big and would take no more than 2 minutes walking! It is close!

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Not the point I was trying (poorly I see) to make.  It wouldn't matter if it were adjacent to and touching the twin towers ground.

                    The point was that religion was used to prevent a 100% peaceful group from doing something entirely benign to everyone else using a group of madmen with no connection at all as an excuse.  Religion doesn't need a reason to demand that what they want is righteous, just as it doesn't need an excuse to cut up infant babies.  That doesn't make it right but it all too often  makes it acceptable as organized religion is a powerful opponent.

                2. DannyMaio profile image59
                  DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Tell me Wilderness, if you were standing 528 feet away from the twin towers when they were coming down, would you think you were AT Ground Zero?

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Only Danny could turn a debate on circumcision into an anti Islam rant!

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why?

        1. ReuVera profile image85
          ReuVeraposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Why???? You don't know why??? Then you don't know what IS female circumcision. Check here and maybe you won't ask this question anymore. http://www.middle-east-info.org/league/ … ctures.htm

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Fraid I do know what female mutilation is. It can involve removal of the clitoris which is obscene and not comparable. It can also involve removal of the labia which is comparable.

            1. ReuVera profile image85
              ReuVeraposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, it is not comparable. Foreskin is just a piece of skin, no more. Unneeded piece of skin, removed for many sound reasons.
              Reasons for female circumcision are cruel and inhuman.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                A piece of skin heavily laden with nerve endings.
                Ask an adult who has been circumcised.

                1. DannyMaio profile image59
                  DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I have and again I have no problems! Never got an infection or disease. and no premature ejaculation. Feels very good to me. Again it is stated that there isn't any proven facts to support that it diminishes any feelings. Read a few up from a woman who states what she thinks after being with both kinds! do not ignore the facts John

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I rather think it is you ignoring the facts Danny, the fact that it is an adult, or adults, mutilating an infant child quite obviously without consent.

                2. ReuVera profile image85
                  ReuVeraposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  and what are those nerve endings responsible for? nerve endings on a loose piece of unneeded skin. any reason?

                  An adult who has been circumcised is a lucky man. He does not have to move this ugly foreskin up to wash the hidden corners of his penis. After a sexual intercourse love fluids will not stay in the folds of this skin to rotten and stink there.

                  I am a woman, I knew both types. No comparison, believe me. Circumcision is a hygiene for both a man and a woman. And I agree with Daliah about the look. Of course, in relationship everything depends on mutual feelings and when love is there it does not matter how the penis look, indeed. But in general "a penis in a coat" (lol, great comparison) can't win.

      3. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sure the citizens of countries practicing female circumcision would agree 100% with you.  It is absolutely absurd to compare necessary female circumcision, required to lead a proper life or even to attract a mate, to the obscene practice of male mutilation that some degenerate and uncivilized people practice.

        Yes, muslims can build mosques (or islamic centers).  But only if their Christian neighbors don't become offended because the muslims own land too close to the scene of a madmans exercise in insanity and are thereby continuing that offense.  After all, it is obvious to everyone that the mosque builders share all the same philosophy and beliefs of al qaeda!

        It's all a matter of perception and culture.

  14. Sally's Trove profile image99
    Sally's Troveposted 5 years ago

    Apparently some people in Frisco have nothing better to do with their time.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What, than go around mutilating children?

      1. Sally's Trove profile image99
        Sally's Troveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, that's your perspective. Circumcision has been a practice for thousands of years, and who can say that those old patriarchs didn't have the smarter view of what was good for men's health?

        Now that I think about it, I've had a few male friends who elected to be circumcised later in life...they wish the procedure had been done when they were newborns. Would have saved them a lot of angst and agony.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          They also proscribed the eating of pork.

  15. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    Danny, you said;-

    " I'm actually helping them from catching and spreading disease. It is much cleaner. Why must you put your socialist spin on everything? "

    No, I don't say it is inconclusive that it is mutilation, that's crop. Check the dictionary definition of mutilation and then tell me I'm wrong.

  16. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    And surely there is a difference between a government that tells you how to bring up your children and a government and one who tells you how you shouldn't bring up your children.

    Imagine the reaction to a government that decreed all male children should be circumcised rather than leaving it up to the individual when they were mature enough to make that decision.

  17. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    You left out the fact that the Muslim community centre where the mosque will eventually be built had been in the neighbourhood for years. Funny how it all went away right after the last election...

  18. Daliah Lego profile image72
    Daliah Legoposted 5 years ago

    Put away all religious and political aspects of circumcision. Look at this in a simple way- as a woman or as a man. My cousin willingly went for this at the age of 18 and he blames his parents why they didn't do this for him when he was born.
    I myself had a boyfriend who was NOT circumcised. We are not together any more and I am glad. As a woman, I loath pines "in a coat". No matter how often a man washes it, it will never be as clean as circumcised one. And it is just is not as neat and beautiful! It is just like to compare a gentleman in a perfectly fit smoking suite to an untidy guy in a loose faded coat.

    Anyway, it's just a piece of skin, big deal! But the outcome is great!

  19. dutchman1951 profile image60
    dutchman1951posted 5 years ago

    way, way to much Social Engineering and Goverment interfearence with personal choice and decision making.

    Those folks need to address real problems that California has, and San Fran has, not this B.S.

    If they have no answers for real problems, get out, please.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      But they aren't interfering with personal choice are they?
      No baby can make the personal choice to be circumcised can they.

  20. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    My grandson was circumcized. It was the worst thing I've ever been through. I could not even change his diaper, because I could see the pain it caused him. He was bleeding, and raw and sore.........

    I would Never ever in a million years do that again to another human being, Ever.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And what a lovely, loving and healthy environment to have an open wound in!

      1. Evolution Guy profile image61
        Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Wonder if it has anything to do with the high level of sex crimes in the USA compared to most of the rest of the developed world?

        1. DannyMaio profile image59
          DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I wonder if AIDS was spread even more by having a dirty Turtle D!ck? I wonder why you spread lies and nonsense? Show facts, You can not!

          1. Evolution Guy profile image61
            Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I asked a question out load. I wonder if it does have something to do with that? What do you think? Does mutilating the penis of a large proportion of the male population cause higher levels of sex crimes? It is an interesting question - don't you think? Worth asking even?

            1. DannyMaio profile image59
              DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And I too Was asking a question out loud that because someone was not cut could that spread aids? sounds like a good question also. After the act the turtle goes back into its shell and brings all the juices and cheese with it and then ferments and might spread AIDS even faster? Seems logical to me.

              Again Mutilation is a BS scare word. I gave you the definition and actually it is the opposite of your claims.

              "Mutilation is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body"

              1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes - and it has degraded the appearance and function. Thank you for agreeing with me that it is mutilation.

                Interesting logic you use. lol

                1. Onusonus profile image88
                  Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So we should let people have abortions but we shouldn't let people circumsise their sons. Makes perfect sense.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Logic says that if you are against abortion you should be against mutilation as well, otherwise you are arguing for bringing children into the world in order to brutalise them!

                  2. Evolution Guy profile image61
                    Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes - it does. Glad you are beginning to understand that a cluster of cells in the womb is not yet a person, but a living baby is.

                    Odd you seem to care about a cluster of cells, yet are happy to mutilate a living baby. That makes no sense at all. sad

              2. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Danny, AIDS is spread by the exchange of bodily fluids, a foreskin makes no difference.

                Can't you actually read the things that you post!

                "Mutilation is an act of physical injury"   Where is the doubt there? It is an injury.

                "that degrades the appearance" That is subjective, some people argue that extreme piercings are attractive.

                "or function of any living body"  The purpose of a foreskin is to aid penetration and lubrication, obviously removing it is going to affect that function.

                And you claim that is the opposite!

                1. DannyMaio profile image59
                  DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  exchanging bodily fluids and they get stuck in the cheese factory of skin when it covers the head after sex! so there is where it CAN cause more Aids!

                  Physical Injury means you purposely hurt someone. I do not think helping a child stay clean and help keep away infection is Physical Injury! Is ear piercing Physical Injury? Tattoos? Is getting a facelift physical injury? You have a computer look it up.

                  The purpose of a foreskin is to aid penetration and lubrication, obviously removing it is going to affect that function.

                  Please explain how it aids in penetration? And Lubricates? Does it lubricate with the cheese that is inside fermenting? I did not know the foreskin had some love juice.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Danny, you must be delightful company, you don't wash after sex!

                    I see, circumcision is entirely accidental is it, well it must be if you claim it isn't purposely injuring somebody.

                    You ask if ear piercing is physical injury, I suggest that you find an adult and force ear piercing on him against his will and then try to claim that you didn't injure him and anyway it was for his own good, and didn't it look better. Likewise tats and facelifts, they are done with consent, without consent they are physical assaults.

                    Get over your fixation with knob cheese, it only affects people like you who don't wash after sex.

                  2. Sethareal profile image80
                    Setharealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/ … CM20081217

                    Danny is absolutely correct on AIDS transmission, not only is it healthier for the men but it also reduces risk of cervical cancer in women.  This was just the first hit I received when typing in, "circumcision+cervical cancer". You can do your own research but even if you spend 20 minutes on the subject you will see that what Danny is saying is truth. Many foresaw this day coming so there are those out there who have spent a few decades researching circumcision in order to prove definitively that it is a health benefit. 

                    Denial of scientific research in this bulk is either unethical because one only listen to research that supports their opinion, or the insane irrational belief they often accuse religious people of having.

          2. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            A bit rich coming from somebody whose whole argument is based on conjecture.

  21. Greek One profile image81
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    circumscription is no more mutilation or child abuse than ear piercing or hair cutting is

    1. drdspervez profile image47
      drdspervezposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Medically also it is proved that circumcision is correct otherwise semen collects between the skin layer which becomes dangerous.

                                      DR. DURRESHAHWAR PERVEZ.

      1. DannyMaio profile image59
        DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you Doctor!

        Lets see them respond to a medical professional!

        For John I guess your right about the lubrication! LMAO

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          OK Danny, a response.

          There is no excuse for an act of brutality against a child who is unable to consent to circumcision.
          If an adult decides that he would rather be circumcised then fine, that's his decision but it isn't one that should be taken by another.

          1. DannyMaio profile image59
            DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It is not an act of brutality that is an outright lie! you have a doctor state clearly that there is a great benefit to this and you want to refute someone who has studied in the field and has gone through extensive education? Do you think any normal parent would take your word for it over what Doctors say? Have you studied this? You said you worked in a machine shop, No disrespect John but I do not think you even qualify to know what is best for the child. Prove to the doctor that what you say is correct.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Danny, circumcision used to be common practice in the UK, now no more than 10% of boys are cut. There has been no leap in STDs associated with this. 

              The vast majority of doctors in the UK are opposed to it as well, would you go with the majority or with the one marching out of step because it suits you better?

              Not having a foreskin you are unaware of how incredibly sensitive it is and whilst a local anaesthetic may be used, the effects are only short term, what sort of person could willingly inflict weeks of pain on their child?

              1. Sethareal profile image80
                Setharealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You do realize that you linked to an article that says,

                "Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. Male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa."

                This is from your link, not mine. Let's wait a couple decades and see how those UK boys are doing.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm sorry, I didn't realise that you lived in sub-Saharan Africa.

                  1. Sethareal profile image80
                    Setharealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah cause Africans are a different race than the civilized people of the United Kingdom and what is scientifically true about the savage phalus does not apply to your kind.

                    Am I getting the gist of why the study you linked can be so easily dismissed? Is there some other reason that the study you yourself brought us to does not show that circumcision is tied to HIV prevention?

      2. Greek One profile image81
        Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        but what if semen collection is a hobby?

        I once knew a woman who....

  22. DannyMaio profile image59
    DannyMaioposted 5 years ago

    Does circumcision make a penis easier to keep clean?
    Making hygiene easier is often a reason given for performing circumcision. In the adolescent and adult male, the glands of the foreskin secrete a fluid called smegma. These secretions may accumulate beneath the foreskin and occasionally irritate the penis; and sometimes the penis becomes infected. Removing the foreskin removes the secretions, makes the care of the penis easier, and lessens the risk of infection.

    Can baby have anesthesia to lessen the pain?
    Yes, a local anesthetic can and should be used. Painless circumcision should be a birthright. I have used a local anesthesia in nearly a thousand babies for over twenty years. It is a safe procedure and it works. Sometimes the anesthetic will not remove all the pain, but it certainly helps. Within a few hours, after the anesthetic wears off, some babies exhibit no discomfort; others will fuss for the next twenty-four hours. The most common and effective method is called a dorsal penile nerve block, in which a few drops of Xylocaine (similar to the anesthetic your dentist uses) is injected into the nerves on each side of the penis circumferentially around the base of the penis.

    1. Evolution Guy profile image61
      Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sometime the anesthetic will not remove all the pain huh? So - you do admit to purposefully hurting these innocent babies. Others will fuss (be in pain) for 24 hours.

      Disgusting. You religious people have no morals at all.

  23. DannyMaio profile image59
    DannyMaioposted 5 years ago
  24. DannyMaio profile image59
    DannyMaioposted 5 years ago

    http://www.circinfo.com/all_about/abc.html

    another very good one that defeats your mutilation nonsense!

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No it doesn't!

      1. Sethareal profile image80
        Setharealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Like the appendix and the tonsils, the foreskin is a part of the body we don't really need and it can cause painful problems."

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And at what age do they remove the appendix and tonsils out at?
          I've still got my appendix but when my tonsils were removed I fully understood why it was done.
          Would you take the tonsils out of an eight day old baby as a matter of routine?

          1. Sethareal profile image80
            Setharealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If a child refused to have their appendix or tonsils removed after a doctor explained it, would you mutilate their body and remove them anyway?

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, but very unlikely to happen and at least they'd have a chance, unlike your eight day old baby.

              1. Sethareal profile image80
                Setharealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So your child is sick and their appendix is going to burst, and they say they don't want it removed, so you let your suffer rather than remove the unnecessary harmful body part...

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Now you're just being silly, equate that to circumcising an eight day old baby please,

  25. AnnCee profile image77
    AnnCeeposted 5 years ago

    http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/mohel-7.jpg

    http://www.thejc.com/files/foreskin-3_0.jpg



    Yep.   Just a tad anti-semitic.

    1. Onusonus profile image88
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sickening.

  26. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    Well said Sethareal.

  27. ReuVera profile image85
    ReuVeraposted 5 years ago

    Some babies are born with a short frenulum (ankyloglossya), so called tongue-tied. If this defect is corrected as early as possible, it saves lots of problems in later life (like eating/drinking difficulties and difficulties with speech). This procedure is done by clipping a short frenulum under the tongue and is better to be done while a child is a baby. It is done practically without any anesthesia and imagine, without baby's consent!

    By some of you here it would be considered "mutilation" (oh my, what a bunch of....)

    A foreskin can cause phimosis and then it will become a real trouble for a boy. I've seen little swollen penises, purple in color only because a foreskin was tight and the urine and cottage-cheese-like substance was collected under it. Circumcised penis will never have this problem.

    After a baby is circumcised, don't trap him in those diapers. Diapers make parent's life easier, but just take a good care of your baby several days after circumcision, use cloth diapers, don't let the baby stay wet and the healing will be easy and speedy. I've seen so many circumcised babies in Israel, never it was any problem.

  28. Jeff Berndt profile image91
    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago

    Wow, there's a lot of silly things being said on both sides of this debate.

    And both sides of the issue also have some good points.

    On the one hand, the rights of the baby in question are in fact being taken away when the parents make the irrevocable decision to circumcise their son. Foreskins don't grow back, after all.

    On the other hand, the removal of the foreskin is really about as invasive as ear-piercing (which some parents do to their babies. It's not that big of a deal.

    On one hand, it is absolutely the unnecessary* surgical removal of healthy tissue.

    On the other, it's nowhere near the same thing as so-called "female circumcision," which I think we can all agree is bad.

    Many women say they like a circumcised man better than an uncircumcised one, but is that because circumcision is the norm?

    I don't see this law as anti-semitic, but it does raise a free exercise question: apparently a Jewish kid needs to get circumcised within a certain time of being born? Can someone who actually knows the Jewish rules about infant circumcision set us straight on that, please? Deborah Sexton or LiveLonger might be able to help us out?

    But nonconsensual circumcision also raises a free exercise clause: what if the kid decides to renounce Judaism later in life. It's not the same as infant baptism: he can't get his foreskin back. It's not even quite the same as piercing an infant's ears: someone who doesn't want their ears pierced can let the holes grow closed again.

    All things considered, I'd have to come down against the law; the removal of a foreskin, while violating the kid's right to an intact foreskin if he wants one, doesn't significantly impair the kid's life. If the law was against cutting the last joint of the left pinky off, though, I'd be in favor of it. I'm not entirely sure why this is, but it might have something to do with deriving a lot of joy from playing a stringed instrument (that is, it's purely subjective).

    *Circumcision of male infants became routine in the US after WWI, when doctors noticed a higher rate of infection among uncircumcised soldiers than circumcised ones. Since then, however, the higher rate of infection has been attributed to improper cleaning of those soldier's penises. (I wonder if the fact that it was the late 19-teens and people were very hung up on touching each other's naughty bits if they weren't married had something to do with this?)

    1. ReuVera profile image85
      ReuVeraposted 5 years ago in reply to this
      1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks, ReuVera!

        1. ReuVera profile image85
          ReuVeraposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You are welcome.
          http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm
          This is a home page of this site (Judaism 101). The author (a woman) has a deep knowledge of many aspects of Judaism from a pure Jewish perspective.

      2. Sethareal profile image80
        Setharealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ReuVera you get the MVP - most valuable poster, award for this thread in my book. You have argued better than I ever could, thank you for participating and defending Judaism, Religious Freedom and sexual health/cleanliness!

        1. ReuVera profile image85
          ReuVeraposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you, Sethareal. I posted just a couple of replies. As a rule I do not participate in HP forum threads for obvious reasons.

          To summarize I have to flash back into my old country
          Soviet Union (a first and hopefully last socialistic country). Circumcision was prohibited in Soviet Union, as many of freedoms of choice. The reasons for prohibiting were political. But we lived in Kazakhstan, an Asian republic of USSR. Kazakh people are Muslims and though "the big brother" (Russia) suppressed them pretty much, they had their own loops for some of their traditions, circumcision one of them. Kazakh doctors were circumcising Kazakh boys (mostly under diagnosis of phimosis) and Jewish people who lived in Kazakhstan could use this loop too if they wanted.
          The tendency in SF that started this thread is viewed by me not at all as anti-semitic, but rather as a threat for our freedom. We should have a choice. No one pushes parents to circumcise their sons, but as well no one have a right to forbid this.

 
working