Circumcision: a medically unnnecessary scam!

I can stand the heat. It's the visuals.

 

If the idea of mutilating a baby girl freaks you out good now why are you not concerned about little boys. Why should it be okay to perform cosmetic genital surgery on a boy but not a girl?

 

My Bible teaches differently . The Abrahamic Covenant

it is scripturally indisputable that God established a special relationship with Abraham which extended specifically through the blood line of Isaac, Jacob and then to the twelve sons of Jacob, who later became the twelve tribes of Israel. There is no expiration date on this covenant according to Genesis 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." These promises are later confirmed by the Old Testament prophets and Jesus himself. For Believers today, we view prophetic events in light of the promise that was first made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3.

Special favor to Abraham's physical offspring
That the Abrahamic Covenant provides for special favor to the physical offspring of Abraham is undeniable. The essence of the promise in Genesis 12:1-3 , specifically addresses Abraham's physical offspring when Gods says, "I will make of thee a great nation." That nation became Israel.

The physical descendants of Abraham received a token of the Abrahamic Covenant - circumcision. Abraham was told by God in Genesis 17:10 (see notes), "Every man child among you shall be circumcised." God adds in verse 11, "...it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you."..

I believe I have proven you to be ignorant of the the Word of God , Archer , please confine yourself to topics that you are cognizant of , otherwise , I'll have to spank you .

well , I don't know where you're getting that from , but you have the right to your own opinion on the topic .

I hear ya , and I agree 100 % , and I'm like you in saying that's all I'm gonna say , may have said too much already , blushing here , ya know ?

Look , circumscision is a guy thing , ain't nobody said a dang thing about the gals , the gals don't have a male organ or a foreskin , so with all respect , your post is off topic . please , refrain from further strawman and off-topic posts , or I'll have to spank you ...

I hear ya , enough is enough . ya know ?

I agree 100 % ,

 

Well said! What people cannot seem to grasp is that this is not basically an issue of hygiene or medical practice (there are arguments pro and con). It is an issue of the the rights of the child and that of informed consent. The excision of healthy tissue (and thereby mutilation) should both morally and legally be a matter of informed consent. An eight day old baby is incapable of giving that consent.

With respect Misled, you have chosen to participate in a discussion about the male sexual organ - you are not entitled to be squeamish about these things. The natural assumption being that we all have organs of regeneration, so someone mentioning hers during the course of this discussion is not gross. This is not 1830, and we no longer put little trousers on piano legs.

 

Hillbilly, you know I have the greatest respect for you, but please do not bring your spiritual beliefs into this discussion. You have every right to believe what you will, but a book of myth and fable should not be used as evidence of anything except mankind's propensity for myth and fable.

You have not proven anyone ignorant of the Word of God, as neither you nor anyone else has proven the existence of a Supreme Being. You have simply quoted from a compendium of fables concerning a particularly primitive and undistinguished nomadic tribe, which existed some 2,000 years ago.

And Ryan34 had every right within this discussion (which is not confined to the penis) to refer to female genital mutilation as a matter of comparison. Both male and female circumcision are removal of healthy and functional tissue, and thereby qualify as mutilation.

I hope that you realise that the pros and cons of circumcision are open to debate, and this discussion is, or should be, about the rights of the child concerned.

 

I haved yet to hear a yea for female genital mutilation.

You cannot compare apples to oranges.

 

HillBilly,

You are not making any sense. You seem very ignorant about this topic, for instance: women do have foreskin!

That is why you have something like "female circumcision" as well. It is banned in many countries. Why isn't male circumcision?

Answer: ignorance.

As your post has shown.

Sad.

 

my friend , I appreciate your consideration and contribution to this thread , but I was asked to give Biblical bona-fides to support my views . I've done that , in plain speak and plain as day scripture as my armor .

I'm not a Bible scholar by any means , however , there is NO scriptual basis or Biblical basis that subscribes to the female circumscision , if you can give me a passage of scripture that would contradict what I have stated , then by all means , let's hear it ...

There is none , none at all , circumscision is for a man child .

if you persist in your blasphemy of the Bible , I would ask you to look at my friends list on my CP , I've reduced it from over 120 friends down to just a few , mainly for what you are saying . . .

I will not be a friend to anyone that seeks to undermine and blaspheme what I believe , so please , take a step back and a second look .

Discussion I can accept , Derision I will not accept .. from anyone .

I hate to be so blunt , but I am a plain speaking man , that's just the way I am .

 

I appreciate your plain speech, and I was not trying to be personally offensive - I regret and apologise if you have taken offence at what is, to me, an equally honest exposition of my views. I respect your right to your beliefs, but I also expect equal respect for my views.

It as neither blasphemy nor derision to describe a book of unsubstantiated, and frankly, somewhat far fetched, stories concerning an ancient and primitive nomadic people as such. Neither does that description demean the views of those who choose to believe this book is a representation of fact. These are merely differing views of what may be reasonably regarded as reality.

I will defend to the death your right to hold such beliefs, but I will also vigorously oppose any attempt by you, or anyone else, to impose those beliefs, whether by threat of loss of favour, fits of pique, legal or societal pressure, or any other means, upon me or anyone else.

I consider it regrettable that anyone should threaten to withdraw his goodwill from another who does not share his particular beliefs - but that, of course, is your prerogative. You do what you feel you must.

 

Instead of looking up smilies around the internet, you'd might use that time to actually make a good post around here from time to time.

Women do have foreskin. This is a biological fact.

 

Type 1a Female circumcision is analogous to male circumcision.

Apples to apples.

It is wrong when Muslims do it it is wrong when Jews do it is wrong when Christians do it.

Performing cosmetic surgery on the genitalia of minors is wrong.

If a 10th of the health benefits that have been claimed to exist do then let the patient make the decision for themselves when they come of age.

Otherwise man up, parent your son and teach him proper hygiene.

 

yes , it is regretable , but sometimes necessary to weed the garden .

You don't believe in God , that's your opinion , and maybe we should just leave it there .

.
the mutilation of the female genitalia in some cultures is a bestial practice that removes all pleasure of sexual relations , forever ...

the circumscision of a man child is a different matter . it leaves the man child with a cleaner penis and by the time the child is 6 months old , it's healed.

as far as my making good posts , my worst post is better than any post you've ever made , so I'll leave it there .

you do as you will .

 

It depends on the form of FGM administered. which varies hugely. Some forms of FGM are quiet mild simply the cutting or piecing of the clitoris , not causing permanent harm. Many are more serious, removal of clitoral hood, labia minor etc. ranging all the way to complete removal of clitoris and complete infibulation.

Milder forms do not remove all sexual pleasure, doesn't mean it is not wrong.

You do as you will to the point that it does not infringe the rights of another being.

You do not deny infants their right to bodily integrity.

 

It is not a straw man, as you know well or you do not understand the term, it is an analogy.

Women have a sexual organ that is made of exactly the same type of tissue as a penis is. It reacts to sexual stimulation the same as the male sexual organ does, it enlarges and becomes hard. It is called a clitoris, (for the little boys who seem horribly freaked out by female sexual organs and possibly are unfamiliar with this organ). The clitoris is homologous to the glans penis (part of the male sexual organ).

There is also a small piece of semi-retractable skin which covers this. It is called the clitoral hood. In comparative biology the clitoral hood is homologous to the foreskin. Removing this, the clitoral hood, is analogous to removing the male foreskin. It is certainly relevant to a discussion on circumcision.

Disagree? Report me. But you won't because you know that it is on topic and you are way out of line in telling another poster to stop posting.

 

Leo thank you.



You are a gallant young man. I would rep you if I could but alas I cannot.

 

You have had your say , I've had mine , let's just leave it there .

 

Male circumcision is not the same as female circumcision. The purpose of FGM is to deny the woman the pleasure of sex. The same cannot be said for male circumcision.

 

you have labia and a hood that protects your clitoris. they can collect cheese, and bacteria, making them malodorous and a festering cesspool of disease. And lets just face it, a little extra mudflap is disgusting to look at.

we need to take care of that while you are young. Who wants to look at that and smell it ? disgusting.

Keep your clitoris. Who cares ?

 

The vagina is self cleansing. The foreskin is not.

 

the clitoris and the vulva are not the vagina. Sorry to have to teach you about your own parts.

And just wear do all of those "cleansing" secretions go ?
How do you keep it smelling like a rose bud ?

and by the way, your vagina is colonized by fecal flora

 

Its nice that you how come up with the most disgusting of posts, Squid. None of which have even come close to addressing the OP, which, you might have seen, has nothing to do with the private parts of females.

 

I come up with disgusting posts ?
Wasn't it you who said uncircumcised penises were disgusting, dirty and smelly, collecting all sorts of cheese and bacteria ?

You can't face the fact that you have a little man in the boat surrounded by a large surface area of unsightly skin folds, accumulating gobs of bacteria laden secretions ?

You need to get that trimmed at birth.
And while you're at it, do us all a favor, keep that thing waxed too. It's just more pleasant.

Now, please return to your regularly scheduled programming of talking about the aesthetic nature of male genitalia.

 

I never said they were smelly. IMO, they look disgusting. Big deal. The majority of women agree with me.

 

put a mirror down there and tell me what you see.