[WokStation]

Originally Posted by Taglet

Not according to some Jewish people.....

Link you disregarded last time: http://jewishcircumcision.org/

Don't be silly, SULLA has said they're not Jews, and it IS up to SULLA, after-all!

[Stiffy78]

Originally Posted by droogiefret

Yes - all that's true. My reservations are not on behalf of the parents - they are on behalf of the boys. Given that it's not necessarily productive to tell men their parents are barbaric or that they themselves have been mutilated - I just think the most productive route might be to support movements for change from within the culture/religion - rather than opine and legislate as a complete outsider.

I understand why you'd think that but religion is so slow to change that it is, imo, not good enough to wait on them while children continue to be put through unneccessary pain and risk.

We legislate on other things as 'outsiders' and it smells of special pleading to treat this differently

[droogiefret]

Originally Posted by Stiffy78

I understand why you'd think that but religion is so slow to change that it is, imo, not good enough to wait on them while children continue to be put through unneccessary pain and risk.

We legislate on other things as 'outsiders' and it smells of special pleading to treat this differently

A few interesting things emerging the more I read about this.

This article cites Dr Jenny Goodman as arguing that Jews circumcise for cultural identity rather than divine command.

Also that the cologne aquittal was based on the circumcision of a muslim boy (not Jewish) - how did I miss that?

This article shows that there is activity against circumcision in the States and being blocked by powerful lobbying (the puerile reporting also indicates it's not taken as a serious issue by everyone).

Apparently the WHO don't oppose male circumcision

The legality of circumcision is open to debate - and it looks like, as is increasingly the case these days, the UK is not the leading edge of enlightenment our traditional arrogance leads us to assume.

I think you misunderstand me in thinking I'm waiting for mainstream Judaism and Islam to change their mind. I agree that will take forever.

What I am talking about is levering support for pressure groups from within the Jewish, Muslim, and victim community. I didn't think they existed - but clearly they do in the Jewish and victim arena.

But we need to discuss and educate else, especially for Islam, all that will happen is we force the practice underground.

[Stiffy78]

Originally Posted by droogiefret

A few interesting things emerging the more I read about this.

This article cites Dr Jenny Goodman as arguing that Jews circumcise for cultural identity rather than divine command.

Also that the cologne aquittal was based on the circumcision of a muslim boy (not Jewish) - how did I miss that?

This article shows that there is activity against circumcision in the States and being blocked by powerful lobbying (the puerile reporting also indicates it's not taken as a serious issue by everyone).

Apparently the WHO don't oppose male circumcision

The legality of circumcision is open to debate - and it looks like, as is increasingly the case these days, the UK is not the leading edge of enlightenment our traditional arrogance leads us to assume.

I know we're not. I'm quite embarrassed by how backwards we still are when it comes to things like this. Pandering to cultural or religious beliefs at the expense of someone else's bodily integrity should be a source of national shame in 2012.

Originally Posted by droogiefret

I think you misunderstand me in thinking I'm waiting for mainstream Judaism and Islam to change their mind. I agree that will take forever.

What I am talking about is levering support for pressure groups from within the Jewish, Muslim, and victim community. I didn't think they existed - but clearly they do in the Jewish and victim arena.

But we need to discuss and educate else, especially for Islam, all that will happen is we force the practice underground.

I'm uncomfortable with that as a reason to allow something to continue. Female circumcision is carried out underground but I hope nobody would argue that we should legalise it to make it safer.

We should discuss and educate but many of those who really believe God wants them to do this are not going to change their minds so if we want the practice to stop we'll have to legislate against it (which I agree won't completely stop it but would at least give victims some legal recourse).
How long do we spend trying to educate while children are operated on unneccessarily before actually doing something to protect them?

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by Stiffy78

I'm uncomfortable with that as a reason to allow something to continue. Female circumcision is carried out underground but I hope nobody would argue that we should legalise it to make it safer.

We should discuss and educate but many of those who really believe God wants them to do this are not going to change their minds so if we want the practice to stop we'll have to legislate against it (which I agree won't completely stop it but would at least give victims some legal recourse).
How long do we spend trying to educate while children are operated on unneccessarily before actually doing something to protect them?

i agree with this reasoning. i also think that the dangers of doing it underground are limited. Did you illegally circumcise your son? No! Well what happened to the end of his cock then?

[wallster]

Originally Posted by flagpole

i agree with this reasoning. i also think that the dangers of doing it underground are limited. Did you illegally circumcise your son? No! Well what happened to the end of his cock then?

If a child has been circumcised after legislation to limit the practice, then parents could be prosecuted for child abuse. Easy enough to enforce.

[batgirl]

Originally Posted by wallster

If a child has been circumcised after legislation to limit the practice, then parents could be prosecuted for child abuse. Easy enough to enforce.

You'd think, but I was reading late last year (from memory) that there have been no FGM prosecutions in the UK although it's been illegal for years now.

It's no reason to make it legal, of course, but clearly there doesn't seem to be the will to stop kids being mutilated. And I do think that if religion wasn't a factor things would be very different indeed.

[RecordPlayer]

Originally Posted by SULLA

Do you claim to be God?


I don't normally
How could it be anti semitic for Catholics to forbid Catholics being circumcised.?
Infant baptism is not scriptural.
I know all about Paul's teaching about circumcision. He merely said that it was not a requirement for Christians

How could it be anti semitic for Catholics to forbid Catholics being circumcised.?:

It's not. I said in your eyes....... in response to your unjust name- calling.

Your understanding of the scriptures, especially on Baptism, differs so much from mine. I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye.

For the Jews who embraced Christianity, their Jewish practices declined over time and eventually stopped. One of these practices was circumcision.

The Jews who rejected Christ and the new covenant, carried on with the practice.

The new covenant replaced the old covenant.

[Ghengis Can]

Originally Posted by batgirl

You'd think, but I was reading late last year (from memory) that there have been no FGM prosecutions in the UK although it's been illegal for years now.

It's no reason to make it legal, of course, but clearly there doesn't seem to be the will to stop kids being mutilated. And I do think that if religion wasn't a factor things would be very different indeed.

Do people not take their daughters overseas for FGM? Somalia in particular? I did some work for a charity based over there, we used to see the odd one gone wrong.

[batgirl]

Originally Posted by Ghengis Can

Do people not take their daughters overseas for FGM? Somalia in particular? I did some work for a charity based over there, we used to see the odd one gone wrong.

Yes, a lot of it happens abroad. Part of the legislation deals with this and makes it illegal to take a girl elsewhere, even to a place where it is legal... but still no prosecutions as far as I know.

[Ghengis Can]

Originally Posted by batgirl

Yes, a lot of it happens abroad. Part of the legislation deals with this and makes it illegal to take a girl elsewhere, even to a place where it is legal... but still no prosecutions as far as I know.

The communities in which it happens are fairly closed off, I daresay nobody knows it's happened. Though young ladies returning from Somalia, IMHO, ought to be spoken to at immigration as a matter of routine. The speaking through gritted teeth might give the game away. Anyway, back to the lads...

[kelvo]

Originally Posted by whydoiwatch

I don't know anyone in the UK who has had it done to their child for non- religious or medical reasons. It was never even an option when I had my sons. Even if I wanted it done (I didn't) my husband would've flat out refused anyway.
The interesting thing is had they been born in America, I probably would have had it done because that's what they do and I would've bowed to family pressure.

I do know of a couple, through friends, who had their sons done - part of their reasoning being that it was in the husbands family and so growing up they would look the same as their daddy. I don't really get why that should be so important, although from a personal point of view my dad was circumcised as a yound boy for medical reasons so as I grew up I was aware that mine looked different and perhaps about when I was 8 or 9 thought whether I wanted to look the same.

Equally though, at school in changing rooms and showers I was aware that I looked pretty much like everyone else, apart from a couple of boys who were, as later learned, were circumcised. I remember seeing my cousin after he had to have the op for medical reasons when he was 12 or 13 and all the stitches he had

We have friends in America though and their opinion is 'why wouldn't they be circumcised?' Given that most of the men in his family are and when he goes to school most of his classmates probably will be as well.

I don't really think though that it is something you should put someone through without their choice,

[Ghengis Can]

I can honestly say that, in spite of having spent 24 years in a male only organisation, communal showers being usual, especially in the field. I never stared at another bloke's cock to notice if he was circumcised or not.

[Speak-Softly]

Originally Posted by Ghengis Can

The communities in which it happens are fairly closed off, I daresay nobody knows it's happened. Though young ladies returning from Somalia, IMHO, ought to be spoken to at immigration as a matter of routine. The speaking through gritted teeth might give the game away. Anyway, back to the lads...

If there was the will to really tackle FGM, it could be almost wiped out tomorrow in this country.

It's not hard, just put every female child born to a family within that culture on the at risk register.
Couple that with rigorous checks over issueing passports and monitering the girls both before and after they leave the country.

Don't like the rules, leave.
It's not good enough to have this subjugation of women within certain communities within this country.
It is having a knock on effect on women's hard fought for rights in the wider community.

[Taglet]

Originally Posted by Speak-Softly

If there was the will to really tackle FGM, it could be almost wiped out tomorrow in this country.

It's not hard, just put every female child born to a family within that culture on the at risk register.
Couple that with rigorous checks over issueing passports and monitering the girls both before and after they leave the country.

Don't like the rules, leave.
It's not good enough to have this subjugation of women within certain communities within this country.
It is having a knock on effect on women's hard fought for rights in the wider community.

There is not such thing as an at risk register.

[droogiefret]

Originally Posted by Taglet

There is not such thing as an at risk register.

Isn't there? There used to be - I used to have to maintain it in my youth at the local Social Services department.

[Jerrica09]

I follow an American woman on YouTube. She'd just had a baby and said how he was so good and never cried - 'except for when we change his diaper because of his circumcision'. She was so matter of fact about it. I got upset when my son had the heel test, I can't imagine allowing a doctor to rip his foreskin away (in babies it's attached to the head of the penis, almost like velcro so it's not just a case of snipping the skin, they have to pull it away). Then according to this woman it's very sore while it heals.

The argument that they don't remember the pain is irrelevant. They wouldn't remember their fingers broken with a hammer but it would still hurt at the time. It's a cruel thing to do to a baby.

[droogiefret]

Originally Posted by Jerrica09

I follow an American woman on YouTube. She'd just had a baby and said how he was so good and never cried - 'except for when we change his diaper because of his circumcision'. She was so matter of fact about it. I got upset when my son had the heel test, I can't imagine allowing a doctor to rip his foreskin away (in babies it's attached to the head of the penis, almost like velcro so it's not just a case of snipping the skin, they have to pull it away). Then according to this woman it's very sore while it heals.

The argument that they don't remember the pain is irrelevant. They wouldn't remember their fingers broken with a hammer but it would still hurt at the time. It's a cruel thing to do to a baby.

I think there's a common view that it's somehow easier done when a baby, because as an adult it is, of course, painful. I bet there'd be far fewer circumcisions if it could only be performed on adults.

Somehow the pain of the baby is viewed as more acceptable. Though I can understand men who are glad the decision was taken out of their hands while the memory could still fade.

[SULLA]

Originally Posted by Jamesthethird

Apparently this is one; http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...covenant.shtml

"God told the Jewish People, that for their part, they must dedicate themselves to serving God for ever, and to making the world a better and holier place by obeying God's laws."

What it actually says...Laws are not mentioned.

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.

8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

Originally Posted by RecordPlayer

It's not. I said in your eyes....... in response to your unjust name- calling.

Did I actually call you an unjust name?

Your understanding of the scriptures, especially on Baptism, differs so much from mine. I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye.

I only recognise Adult baptism

For the Jews who embraced Christianity, their Jewish practices declined over time and eventually stopped. One of these practices was circumcision.

The Jews who rejected Christ and the new covenant, carried on with the practice.

The new covenant replaced the old covenant.

Only for Christians

[Taglet]

Originally Posted by droogiefret

Isn't there? There used to be - I used to have to maintain it in my youth at the local Social Services department.

No it was too stigmatising....children at risk or who have suffered from harm are now 'subject to a child protection plan'. Its not just a change of name though, its about purpose and intention.

[Strathpeffer]

Originally Posted by Ænima

So if something has been 'done for years' that makes it ok? Why?! It is still blatent mutilation to a person who can not consent, pure and simple. The time frame over which the act has been committed is irrelevant. A great decision.

Couldn't agree more, homosexuals were shunned for centurys yet I don't see too many out them coming out of the woodwork to complain now that they are legalised.

[technology_love]

I think its time this thread faded away....

[KJ44]

Originally Posted by technology_love

I think its time this thread faded away....

I had a cyst on my penis. With GP advice, I used a length of cotton to tie it off. That's quite difficult, but easy if you have three hands!

It withered away and fell off. Penile self mutilation FTW!

[sutie]

Originally Posted by droogiefret

A few interesting things emerging the more I read about this.

This article cites Dr Jenny Goodman as arguing that Jews circumcise for cultural identity rather than divine command.

Also that the cologne aquittal was based on the circumcision of a muslim boy (not Jewish) - how did I miss that?

This article shows that there is activity against circumcision in the States and being blocked by powerful lobbying (the puerile reporting also indicates it's not taken as a serious issue by everyone).

Apparently the WHO don't oppose male circumcision

The legality of circumcision is open to debate - and it looks like, as is increasingly the case these days, the UK is not the leading edge of enlightenment our traditional arrogance leads us to assume.

I think you misunderstand me in thinking I'm waiting for mainstream Judaism and Islam to change their mind. I agree that will take forever.

What I am talking about is levering support for pressure groups from within the Jewish, Muslim, and victim community. I didn't think they existed - but clearly they do in the Jewish and victim arena.

But we need to discuss and educate else, especially for Islam, all that will happen is we force the practice underground.

It would be very difficult to hide the fact that a child had been unlawfully cirumcised (school medicals etc.) And once the first batch of parents had been prosecuted, the 'underground' option would hopefully die a death.

[sutie]

Originally Posted by droogiefret

I think there's a common view that it's somehow easier done when a baby, because as an adult it is, of course, painful. I bet there'd be far fewer circumcisions if it could only be performed on adults.

Somehow the pain of the baby is viewed as more acceptable. Though I can understand men who are glad the decision was taken out of their hands while the memory could still fade.

Totally dispiriting, but sadly true.