No a crying baby is not saying " I do not consent" those particular voices exist only in your head... <snip>
Can you please stop trying to turn this into a religious argument, that has been done to death. Most of us arguing against circumcision don't give a toss whether it's being done for religious reasons or not.
Therefore if it was harmful to babies, they would have stopped.
the law backs them in this view.
How can you say IF it was harmful to babies? How can unnecessary surgery not be harmful???
Can you please stop trying to turn this into a religious argument, that has been done to death. Most of us arguing against circumcision don't give a toss whether it's being done for religious reasons or not.
How can you say IF it was harmful to babies? How can unnecessary surgery not be harmful???
It is a religious argument because the lifestyle most people are attacking and seeking to invalidate is a religious one.
While it remains a legal way of excusing intolerance and having sly dig at certain religions, I will continue to see it in that light.
No a crying baby is not saying " I do not consent" those particular voices exist only in your head.
A baby also cries when you change its nappy or giving it a bath, it is also not saying "I do not consent " either.
A baby also cries when it has an injection, babies cry because they want attention and they have limited options.
I don't need to pop down to my local Synagogue to pester and interfere in other people's lives on a subject that other people are hysterically ranting on, it isn't something I'm going to do. Why should I? The Jewish lifestyle bothers you, not me.
If you want to "make a big fuss" about the Jewish lifestyle then you walk down there.
Likening people who won't join in with Muslim and Jew bashing, to people who support and defend FGM says it all really.
I really don't have much patience with intolerant hysterical rants that wildly exaggerate the facts.
If it was as bad as some people have been claiming it would have been stopped years ago because one of the things in both Judaism and Islam is they should NOT do things that self harm ( like a pregnant woman fasting at Ramadan )
Therefore if it was harmful to babies, they would have stopped.
the law backs them in this view.
BIB....hysterical like these children? I dont think any of them are exaggerating.
Like Penny Crayon, I dont believe you will watch any of them because they are impossible to defend. Go ahead liken it to changing a nappy if you can.
I'm not sure why you keep referring back to me TBH. I took offence at you calling me foolish simply for seeing things differently to you. Get over it love.
It's a long thread - lots of contributors lots of different views - I don't bring everything back to you. I don't 100% agree with the poster ^^ - I think she's making her POV and I see and accept some of what she's saying.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing it all back to me.
I'm not sure why you keep referring back to me TBH. I took offence at you calling me foolish simply for seeing things differently to you. Get over it love.
It's a long thread - lots of contributors lots of different views - I don't bring everything back to you. I don't 100% agree with the poster ^^ - I think she's making her POV and I see and accept some of what she's saying.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing it all back to me.
You know as well as I do that I didn't call you foolish....you do seem to have tendency to ignore responses to your posts...does that make debating easier for you?? There, remember..................??
I didnt think you would watch the video....had you done so you would realise just how foolish your last two paragraphs sound. Parents dont always choose what is right for their children and the video is testament to that.
I think you were being a little modest when you said your stance was neutral and its of little surprise that you accept some of what the poster is saying.
Yes, but it's not the fact that its origins are in religion that makes me against it. I'm against it because it's an issue of consent and of deliberate harm to a defenceless baby. I'm not against bah mitzvahs or any other religious practice that isn't harmful and is done to willing participants.
The fact is, if circumcision WASN'T linked to religion it would be illegal, because it's indefensible. So if anything, being a religious practice gives it protection from criticism rather than inviting more.
This is a bris performed by a mohel which is done far quicker, the baby cries initially but it is soon over and the baby soon settles down again afterwards.
It is so quick, totally in contrast to yours.
Your videos were " overly dramatic" especially the first one with all the dirt, tribesmen and the huge Bowie knife.
You know as well as I do that I didn't call you foolish....you do seem to have tendency to ignore responses to your posts...does that make debating easier for you??
I think you were being a little modest when you said your stance was neutral and its of little surprise that you accept some of what the poster is saying.
My stance on this is threefold.
1. As is apparent on here and in my own experience many/most men who were circumcised as a child are not unduly bothered or concerned or feel that they are in any way different. If Jewish/Moslem men feel that they have been abused and mutilated why are they still doing it to their sons.
2. I accept that a lot of posters on here are outraged and angry that baby boys are subjected to this painful procedure without their consent. I understand that they really do have the best interests of the child at heart. My point is - it is an ancient tradition that has continued for centuries without being challenged. It bothers me greatly that the move to make it illegal is being driven by people with a different agenda. The terms mutilation/butchering/abuse etc. and some of the literature backing the campaign smacks of anti semitism. It's painting a picture of wicked, evil, uncaring abusive Jewish parents. I've seen some of the stuff out there and it's like we've gone back to 1930's Europe and Nazi propaganda.
3. Circumcision in infancy for non religious reasons is rapidly declining. A debate has been opened - I believe it is down to Jewish/Moslem men to challenge the ancient rites if they feel strongly about it - no one should be criminalised and demonised from the 'outside'.
4. I find the talk of 'let them decide when they're adult' a bit silly (there I've said it now) - firstly as far as the religious obligation goes it's too late, secondly it is a far more complicated procedure in an adult, thirdly - boys/men grow very attached and sensitive to their penis - altering something that they have cuddled/fondled and fallen in love with is going to be psychologically damaging.
5. There are hundreds of thousands of men out there who are perfectly happy with their 'altered' penis - so much so - they choose to have their sons done. If they are unhappy - I do believe most of us/them live in a religiously enlightened time whereby they are free to challenge or opt out. It does not need to be criminalised.
Sorry if I don't respond to your posts directly every single time - I'm swimming against the tide here so can't single your posts out specifically.
This is a bris performed by a mohel which is done far quicker, the baby cries initially but it is soon over and the baby soon settles down again afterwards.
It is so quick, totally in contrast to yours.
Your videos were " overly dramatic" especially the first one with all the dirt, tribesmen and the huge Bowie knife.
How did I manage to "wildly exaggerate" my links and make them "overly dramatic". I just linked.
1. As is apparent on here and in my own experience many/most men who were circumcised as a child are not unduly bothered or concerned or feel that they are in any way different. If Jewish/Moslem men feel that they have been abused and mutilated why are they still doing it to their sons.
2. I accept that a lot of posters on here are outraged and angry that baby boys are subjected to this painful procedure without their consent. I understand that they really do have the best interests of the child at heart. My point is - it is an ancient tradition that has continued for centuries without being challenged. It bothers me greatly that the move to make it illegal is being driven by people with a different agenda. The terms mutilation/butchering/abuse etc. and some of the literature backing the campaign smacks of anti semitism. It's painting a picture of wicked, evil, uncaring abusive Jewish parents. I've seen some of the stuff out there and it's like we've gone back to 1930's Europe and Nazi propaganda.
So it should remain because of the dubious agenda of those who wish to make it illegal. That would be funny if the subject was not so serious.
3. Circumcision in infancy for non religious reasons is rapidly declining. A debate has been opened - I believe it is down to Jewish/Moslem men to challenge the ancient rites if they feel strongly about it - no one should be criminalised and demonised from the 'outside'.
Same with FGM - would you offer the same argument?
4. I find the talk of 'let them decide when they're adult' a bit silly (there I've said it now) - firstly as far as the religious obligation goes it's too late, secondly it is a far more complicated procedure in an adult, thirdly - boys/men grow very attached and sensitive to their penis - altering something that they have cuddled/fondled and fallen in love with is going to be psychologically damaging.
So it should be done young otherwise they might not agree???
5. There are hundreds of thousands of men out there who are perfectly happy with their 'altered' penis - so much so - they choose to have their sons done. If they are unhappy - I do believe most of us/them live in a religiously enlightened time whereby they are free to challenge or opt out. It does not need to be criminalised.
There is nothing enlightened about any religion which demands that 8 day old babies are subjected to a painful, risky, procedure which has no medical benefits.
So it should remain because of the dubious agenda of those who wish to make it illegal. That would be funny if the subject was not so serious.
Same with FGM - would you offer the same argument?
So it should be done young otherwise they might not agree???
There is nothing enlightened about any religion which demands that 8 day old babies are subjected to a painful, risky, procedure which has no medical benefits.
What you mean like democracy
Not sure what you mean by democracy .........TBH - can't see how swimming against the tide on here is like democracy.
If you mean like politics/politicians how they twist words and deliberately misinterpret thing like you've just done there ^^^ - I'd agree it's a bit like that;-)
Also they are all from sites that are anti circumcision, so they are going to be OTT.
Had you put up some that weren't, it might have been more balanced.
It's a bit like putting up someone chasing and hacking off a goats head to promote vegetarianism
Seriously!
That first one!
The dirt and the big knife
I could add a link to a circumcision being performed on an adult male with consent if you like.....that for me is a balanced link because it is how it should be performed. The links I posted were not staged, they happened, it is what happens....you want me to sanitize it for you?
Do you think showing the goat enjoying the chase and having its head hacked off would promote vegetarianism any better?
Not sure what you mean by democracy .........TBH - can't see how swimming against the tide on here is like democracy.
If you mean like politics/politicians how they twist words and deliberately misinterpret thing like you've just done there ^^^ - I'd agree it's a bit like that;-)
Surely if you are swimming against the tide, it shows that the majority are against circumcision therefore the democratic outcome would be a ban.
BIB....back to those personal comments again eh Penny.
Also another aspect that hasn't been brought up is if it was criminalised how much of it would go underground and endanger babies even more?
Religious people might still feel it was worth taking the risk and are we really going to jail all those Muslims and Jews and put their children into care?
Some of these care homes have come under suspicion lately about putting the welfare of children first.
If you are going to criminalise something, you have to have the ability to police it.
Now I know that Muslims and Jews have something about living by the laws of the country they live in, but I still reckon some would carry on, because it is central to what makes someone Jewish or Muslim.
Before you criminalise something, you have to decide how you are going to enforce it.
It isn't just a matter of passing a law ...........
It would involve being very invasive of people's family life and Jews and Muslims would be targetted.
Also another aspect that hasn't been brought up is if it was criminalised how much of it would go underground and endanger babies even more?
Religious people might still feel it was worth taking the risk and are we really going to jail all those Muslims and Jews and put their children into care?
Some of these care homes have come under suspicion lately about putting the welfare of children first.
If you are going to criminalise something, you have to have the ability to police it.
Now I know that Muslims and Jews have something about living by the laws of the country they live in, but I still reckon some would carry on, because it is central to what makes someone Jewish or Muslim.
Before you criminalise something, you have to decide how you are going to enforce it.
It isn't just a matter of passing a law ...........
It would involve being very invasive of people's family life and Jews and Muslims would be targetted.
No need to reinvent the wheel, FGM is already illegal and the 'taking it underground' angle was never a strong enough argument to maintain FGM.
Surely if you are swimming against the tide, it shows that the majority are against circumcision therefore the democratic outcome would be a ban.
BIB....back to those personal comments again eh Penny.
On DS yes .......does that represent worldwide opinion. DS is pretty renowned for it's bandwagon jumping and people becoming outraged experts on just about everything via Wikipedia and internet links. I live with a circumcised man - I know circumcised men - I am talking from personal experience.
And incidentally ...................I'm quite happy to accept that other people have different views. Sometimes on here it's a question of people attempting to browbeat others into their way of seeing it. I wasn't being personal - you totally misinterpreted what I had written - whether it was deliberate or whether it was because you didn't understand I really don't know but i was simply stating a fact - nothing personal in it.
On DS yes .......does that represent worldwide opinion. DS is pretty renowned for it's bandwagon jumping and people becoming outraged experts on just about everything via Wikipedia and internet links. I live with a circumcised man - I know circumcised men - I am talking from personal experience.
And incidentally ...................I'm quite happy to accept that other people have different views. Sometimes on here it's a question of people attempting to browbeat others into their way of seeing it. I wasn't being personal - you totally misinterpreted what I had written - whether it was deliberate or whether it was because you didn't understand I really don't know but i was simply stating a fact - nothing personal in it.
If you mean like politics/politicians how they twist words and deliberately misinterpret thing like you've just done there ^^^ - I'd agree it's a bit like that;-)
^^
that was fact?
For the record I have personal experience too....I was married to a circumcised man and my son was circumcised for medical reasons so if the only valid argument is personal experience (rather than wikipedia...which I did not use... and internet links... vis a vie evidence) then I have that too.
Dear me!!! You accuse others of biased links. If Is this the type of false propaganda perpetuated by anyone in authority, I'm not surprised that reality is a difficult concept to grasp, let alone believe.. That is NOT a sly dig it is a direct criticism no matter if its religion based or not! I don't give a fig!
I see you have gone back to trying to project negative agendas onto people in another attempt to shut them up, Roswin2.
I would have thought you'd have realised by now that it's not working.
How about I respond in kind and suggest that your real agenda is one of wanting to injure babies-not out of religious or cultural duty or tradition, but because you enjoy doing it. That wouldn't be fair of me to do, would it? So why should you keep doing similar to others? It's pretty pathetic.
Use facts and arguments instead of trying to silence those who disagree with you, perhaps? I know, that's going to be hard to defend circumcision of infants in a factual way, but it'd be nice to see you at least try.
You have dismissed them, along with the growing medical opinion that male circumcision DOES have medical benefits.
Really? You can show, by statistics, that medical opinion is leaning towards circumcision being beneficial? (That means a study or two doesn't count, you said medical opinion was increasing, not "some medical opinion says")
I have my doubts, because it's a bold claim. Love to see the evidence.
I see you have gone back to trying to project negative agendas onto people in another attempt to shut them up, Roswin2.
I would have thought you'd have realised by now that it's not working.
How about I respond in kind and suggest that your real agenda is one of wanting to injure babies-not out of religious or cultural duty or tradition, but because you enjoy doing it. That wouldn't be fair of me to do, would it? So why should you keep doing similar to others? It's pretty pathetic.
Use facts and arguments instead of trying to silence those who disagree with you, perhaps? I know, that's going to be hard to defend circumcision of infants in a factual way, but it'd be nice to see you at least try.
Really? You can show, by statistics, that medical opinion is leaning towards circumcision being beneficial? (That means a study or two doesn't count, you said medical opinion was increasing, not "some medical opinion says")
I have my doubts, because it's a bold claim. Love to see the evidence.
I Googled "Medical opinion for neo-natal circumcision" Some of them I have already read.
The AAP appears to be out of tune with world opinion on this issue. On a global scale, medical authorities remain skeptical about whether circumcision of male minors confers any – let alone significant – net health benefits. Indeed, child health experts in Britain, Germany, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and elsewhere are predominately of the view that non-therapeutic circumcision (NTC) confers no meaningful health benefits on balance (considered against drawbacks, harms, and risks), and that it should be neither recommended to parents nor funded by health insurance systems.
I always prefer the knowledge of the educated, in their field. I'm now off to find anything in that lot backing child circumcision. We have to be fair.
No need to reinvent the wheel, FGM is already illegal and the 'taking it underground' angle was never a strong enough argument to maintain FGM.
I see, when you are losing the discussion or can't answer you swap it all back to FMG.
I was talking about male circumcision practiced by the majority of Jews from orthodox to reform and most Muslims.
I'll try again
Quote
Also another aspect that hasn't been brought up is if it was criminalised how much of it would go underground and endanger babies even more?
Religious people might still feel it was worth taking the risk and are we really going to jail all those Muslims and Jews and put their children into care?
Some of these care homes have come under suspicion lately about putting the welfare of children first.
If you are going to criminalise something, you have to have the ability to police it.
Now I know that Muslims and Jews have something about living by the laws of the country they live in, but I still reckon some would carry on, because it is central to what makes someone Jewish or Muslim.
Before you criminalise something, you have to decide how you are going to enforce it.
It isn't just a matter of passing a law ...........
It would involve being very invasive of people's family life and Jews and Muslims would be targetted.
Unquote.
Jews have very good reason for seeing danger in non jewish people attacking certain practices of theirs, this is because it is usually accompanied by progroms and slaughter.
My point to you is, how are you going to enforce it on the majority of Muslims and Jews in this country? And ensure it doesn't go the way it has always gone in the past?
How are you going to enforce the checking of every baby to ensure the circumcision hasn't happened and are you going to single out Jews and Muslims for this constant check on their children?
Or are you going to force it on everyone?
fGM is only practiced by a minority, but male circumcision isn't.
My point to you is you are going to have to force it on millions of people and potentially turn them into criminals.
How are you going to police that, and keep your humanity?
Lots of people in the past have tried and failed and ended up dehumanising Jews instead.
I won't support the passing of a law criminalising large numbers of the population and giving undesirables access to interfering in those families and dehumanising them.
I think , like Penny does that most of you think you have the childs best interest at heart, but I think you are blind to the misuse such criminalising of large groups of people would have.
Lots of laws can be passed with best intentions, but they can be abused to suit the agenda of others.
IMO male circumcision is up to the Muslims and Jews to sort out for themselves.
I won't be used by racists and antisemitic people to further some agenda they have by getting this law passed in the first place.
The enforcement of it would target Jews and Muslims, I won't accept that.
Far more harm is likely to come of laws criminalising religious groups in our society.
You might get them passed, but you don't control how those laws are then abused, no matter how good your intentions might be.
Comments
Can you please stop trying to turn this into a religious argument, that has been done to death. Most of us arguing against circumcision don't give a toss whether it's being done for religious reasons or not.
How can you say IF it was harmful to babies? How can unnecessary surgery not be harmful???
It is a religious argument because the lifestyle most people are attacking and seeking to invalidate is a religious one.
While it remains a legal way of excusing intolerance and having sly dig at certain religions, I will continue to see it in that light.
http://www.beingjewish.com/cycle/milah.html
BIB....hysterical like these children? I dont think any of them are exaggerating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK6UXwrRu34
http://thebirthingsite.com/newborn-health/item/39-video-of-male-circumcision-graphic.html
http://www.4eric.org/circumcision-video/
Like Penny Crayon, I dont believe you will watch any of them because they are impossible to defend. Go ahead liken it to changing a nappy if you can.
I'm not sure why you keep referring back to me TBH. I took offence at you calling me foolish simply for seeing things differently to you. Get over it love.
It's a long thread - lots of contributors lots of different views - I don't bring everything back to you. I don't 100% agree with the poster ^^ - I think she's making her POV and I see and accept some of what she's saying.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing it all back to me.
A simple google will show that the forth paragraph of your link is inaccurate.
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2013/12/haredi-mohel-botches-bris-causes-life-changing-injury-to-child-456.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618
http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/5277845-74/child-mohel-circumcision#axzz3HLMdal7W
http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/circumcision-severs-babys-penis-rabbi-sued/
Of course.....its all wildly exaggerated isnt it??
You know as well as I do that I didn't call you foolish....you do seem to have tendency to ignore responses to your posts...does that make debating easier for you?? There, remember..................??
I think you were being a little modest when you said your stance was neutral and its of little surprise that you accept some of what the poster is saying.
Yes, but it's not the fact that its origins are in religion that makes me against it. I'm against it because it's an issue of consent and of deliberate harm to a defenceless baby. I'm not against bah mitzvahs or any other religious practice that isn't harmful and is done to willing participants.
The fact is, if circumcision WASN'T linked to religion it would be illegal, because it's indefensible. So if anything, being a religious practice gives it protection from criticism rather than inviting more.
For goodness sake, of course they are wildly exaggerated.
The first one shows a baby lying in the dirt with someone with a big knife almost bigger than the baby, very extremist.
The second one, although done in a clean enviroment, looks like a real hash of a job.
Try this one:
http://youtu.be/FTW4qzd_eKg
This is a bris performed by a mohel which is done far quicker, the baby cries initially but it is soon over and the baby soon settles down again afterwards.
It is so quick, totally in contrast to yours.
Your videos were " overly dramatic" especially the first one with all the dirt, tribesmen and the huge Bowie knife.
My stance on this is threefold.
1. As is apparent on here and in my own experience many/most men who were circumcised as a child are not unduly bothered or concerned or feel that they are in any way different. If Jewish/Moslem men feel that they have been abused and mutilated why are they still doing it to their sons.
2. I accept that a lot of posters on here are outraged and angry that baby boys are subjected to this painful procedure without their consent. I understand that they really do have the best interests of the child at heart. My point is - it is an ancient tradition that has continued for centuries without being challenged. It bothers me greatly that the move to make it illegal is being driven by people with a different agenda. The terms mutilation/butchering/abuse etc. and some of the literature backing the campaign smacks of anti semitism. It's painting a picture of wicked, evil, uncaring abusive Jewish parents. I've seen some of the stuff out there and it's like we've gone back to 1930's Europe and Nazi propaganda.
3. Circumcision in infancy for non religious reasons is rapidly declining. A debate has been opened - I believe it is down to Jewish/Moslem men to challenge the ancient rites if they feel strongly about it - no one should be criminalised and demonised from the 'outside'.
4. I find the talk of 'let them decide when they're adult' a bit silly (there I've said it now) - firstly as far as the religious obligation goes it's too late, secondly it is a far more complicated procedure in an adult, thirdly - boys/men grow very attached and sensitive to their penis - altering something that they have cuddled/fondled and fallen in love with is going to be psychologically damaging.
5. There are hundreds of thousands of men out there who are perfectly happy with their 'altered' penis - so much so - they choose to have their sons done. If they are unhappy - I do believe most of us/them live in a religiously enlightened time whereby they are free to challenge or opt out. It does not need to be criminalised.
Sorry if I don't respond to your posts directly every single time - I'm swimming against the tide here so can't single your posts out specifically.
I don't think she is saying she agrees with it, as such , just that it is up to circumcised men and people whose tradition it is to take the lead.
How did I manage to "wildly exaggerate" my links and make them "overly dramatic". I just linked.
I don't think she is saying she agrees with it, as such , just that it is up to circumcised men and people whose tradition it is to take the lead.
I think she is neutral. I just think some posters are so extreme in their POV they don't see it.
Or they are unwilling to see it.
Did you watch them first?
Also they are all from sites that are anti circumcision, so they are going to be OTT.
Had you put up some that weren't, it might have been more balanced.
It's a bit like putting up someone chasing and hacking off a goats head to promote vegetarianism
Seriously!
That first one!
The dirt and the big knife
Like these men? http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html
So it should remain because of the dubious agenda of those who wish to make it illegal. That would be funny if the subject was not so serious.
Same with FGM - would you offer the same argument?
So it should be done young otherwise they might not agree???
There is nothing enlightened about any religion which demands that 8 day old babies are subjected to a painful, risky, procedure which has no medical benefits.
What you mean like democracy
Not sure what you mean by democracy .........TBH - can't see how swimming against the tide on here is like democracy.
If you mean like politics/politicians how they twist words and deliberately misinterpret thing like you've just done there ^^^ - I'd agree it's a bit like that;-)
I could add a link to a circumcision being performed on an adult male with consent if you like.....that for me is a balanced link because it is how it should be performed. The links I posted were not staged, they happened, it is what happens....you want me to sanitize it for you?
Do you think showing the goat enjoying the chase and having its head hacked off would promote vegetarianism any better?
Surely if you are swimming against the tide, it shows that the majority are against circumcision therefore the democratic outcome would be a ban.
BIB....back to those personal comments again eh Penny.
Religious people might still feel it was worth taking the risk and are we really going to jail all those Muslims and Jews and put their children into care?
Some of these care homes have come under suspicion lately about putting the welfare of children first.
If you are going to criminalise something, you have to have the ability to police it.
Now I know that Muslims and Jews have something about living by the laws of the country they live in, but I still reckon some would carry on, because it is central to what makes someone Jewish or Muslim.
Before you criminalise something, you have to decide how you are going to enforce it.
It isn't just a matter of passing a law ...........
It would involve being very invasive of people's family life and Jews and Muslims would be targetted.
No need to reinvent the wheel, FGM is already illegal and the 'taking it underground' angle was never a strong enough argument to maintain FGM.
On DS yes .......does that represent worldwide opinion. DS is pretty renowned for it's bandwagon jumping and people becoming outraged experts on just about everything via Wikipedia and internet links. I live with a circumcised man - I know circumcised men - I am talking from personal experience.
And incidentally ...................I'm quite happy to accept that other people have different views. Sometimes on here it's a question of people attempting to browbeat others into their way of seeing it. I wasn't being personal - you totally misinterpreted what I had written - whether it was deliberate or whether it was because you didn't understand I really don't know but i was simply stating a fact - nothing personal in it.
^^
that was fact?
For the record I have personal experience too....I was married to a circumcised man and my son was circumcised for medical reasons so if the only valid argument is personal experience (rather than wikipedia...which I did not use... and internet links... vis a vie evidence) then I have that too.
Dear me!!! You accuse others of biased links. If Is this the type of false propaganda perpetuated by anyone in authority, I'm not surprised that reality is a difficult concept to grasp, let alone believe.. That is NOT a sly dig it is a direct criticism no matter if its religion based or not! I don't give a fig!
I would have thought you'd have realised by now that it's not working.
How about I respond in kind and suggest that your real agenda is one of wanting to injure babies-not out of religious or cultural duty or tradition, but because you enjoy doing it. That wouldn't be fair of me to do, would it? So why should you keep doing similar to others? It's pretty pathetic.
Use facts and arguments instead of trying to silence those who disagree with you, perhaps? I know, that's going to be hard to defend circumcision of infants in a factual way, but it'd be nice to see you at least try.
Really? You can show, by statistics, that medical opinion is leaning towards circumcision being beneficial? (That means a study or two doesn't count, you said medical opinion was increasing, not "some medical opinion says")
I have my doubts, because it's a bold claim. Love to see the evidence.
I Googled "Medical opinion for neo-natal circumcision" Some of them I have already read.
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=medical%20opinion%20for%20neonatal%20circumcision%20UK
The first one
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/08/the-aap-report-on-circumcision-bad-science-bad-ethics-bad-medicine/
I always prefer the knowledge of the educated, in their field. I'm now off to find anything in that lot backing child circumcision. We have to be fair.
I see, when you are losing the discussion or can't answer you swap it all back to FMG.
I was talking about male circumcision practiced by the majority of Jews from orthodox to reform and most Muslims.
I'll try again
Quote
Also another aspect that hasn't been brought up is if it was criminalised how much of it would go underground and endanger babies even more?
Religious people might still feel it was worth taking the risk and are we really going to jail all those Muslims and Jews and put their children into care?
Some of these care homes have come under suspicion lately about putting the welfare of children first.
If you are going to criminalise something, you have to have the ability to police it.
Now I know that Muslims and Jews have something about living by the laws of the country they live in, but I still reckon some would carry on, because it is central to what makes someone Jewish or Muslim.
Before you criminalise something, you have to decide how you are going to enforce it.
It isn't just a matter of passing a law ...........
It would involve being very invasive of people's family life and Jews and Muslims would be targetted.
Unquote.
Jews have very good reason for seeing danger in non jewish people attacking certain practices of theirs, this is because it is usually accompanied by progroms and slaughter.
My point to you is, how are you going to enforce it on the majority of Muslims and Jews in this country? And ensure it doesn't go the way it has always gone in the past?
How are you going to enforce the checking of every baby to ensure the circumcision hasn't happened and are you going to single out Jews and Muslims for this constant check on their children?
Or are you going to force it on everyone?
fGM is only practiced by a minority, but male circumcision isn't.
My point to you is you are going to have to force it on millions of people and potentially turn them into criminals.
How are you going to police that, and keep your humanity?
Lots of people in the past have tried and failed and ended up dehumanising Jews instead.
I won't support the passing of a law criminalising large numbers of the population and giving undesirables access to interfering in those families and dehumanising them.
I think , like Penny does that most of you think you have the childs best interest at heart, but I think you are blind to the misuse such criminalising of large groups of people would have.
Lots of laws can be passed with best intentions, but they can be abused to suit the agenda of others.
IMO male circumcision is up to the Muslims and Jews to sort out for themselves.
I won't be used by racists and antisemitic people to further some agenda they have by getting this law passed in the first place.
The enforcement of it would target Jews and Muslims, I won't accept that.
Far more harm is likely to come of laws criminalising religious groups in our society.
You might get them passed, but you don't control how those laws are then abused, no matter how good your intentions might be.