Circumcision: Double Standard?

[Gim]

Actually, circumcision is more replaced with keeping the Commandments of God, as shown below:

Circumcision was part of the Jews communion with God as laid out in the Old Testament. For Christians, the Old Testament is completely and entirely irrelevant as a "What to do" guide on how to be a good Christian. The New Testament, and more specifically the things directly attributed to Jesus, are the only things which should dictate a "Christian life". Circumcision is not included.

Good to see we're in agreement. You must be Christian, right?

[Camicon]

Circumcision was part of the Jews communion with God as laid out in the Old Testament. For Christians, the Old Testament is completely and entirely irrelevant as a "What to do" guide on how to be a good Christian. The New Testament, and more specifically the things directly attributed to Jesus, are the only things which should dictate a "Christian life". Circumcision is not included.

Good to see we're in agreement. You must be Christian, right?

I was raised Roman Catholic. I'm an agnostic atheist.

[Gim]

Good to see we're in agreement. You must be Christian, right?

I was raised Roman Catholic. I'm an agnostic atheist.

However, personally, I wouldn't get circumcised. The process is painful and makes your body vulnerable to various bacteria and germs.

[Jochistan]

I was raised Roman Catholic. I'm an agnostic atheist.

However, personally, I wouldn't get circumcised. The process is painful and makes your body vulnerable to various bacteria and germs.

I thought it was supposed to help (male-wise) against bacteria and germs?

[Gim]

However, personally, I wouldn't get circumcised. The process is painful and makes your body vulnerable to various bacteria and germs.

I thought it was supposed to help (male-wise) against bacteria and germs?

Well, it can be said both, because while your private part is vulnerable to bacteria and germs. Being infected by them enhances your penile or urethral immune system.

[Camicon]

However, personally, I wouldn't get circumcised. The process is painful and makes your body vulnerable to various bacteria and germs.

I thought it was supposed to help (male-wise) against bacteria and germs?

If clean water is such a luxury where you live that you can't spare a cup for a quick rinse, and if you don't have access to condoms, then yes. Otherwise, well, we don't really know. Nobody's ever done a large scale assessment of the impact of circumcision on a person's health in developed nations. The evidence would suggest that, given access to clean water and condoms, the difference between being circumcised or uncircumcised isn't even remotely close to the realm of statistical significance.

[Uawc]

All circumcision is genital mutilation and should be globally banned. Religion is stupid, teach your kids to clean their dicks.

[Gim]

All circumcision is genital mutilation and should be globally banned. Religion is stupid, teach your kids to clean their dicks.

I would like to read upon your justification as to why circumcision in religions constitutes of "foolish" tradition.

[Uawc]

All circumcision is genital mutilation and should be globally banned. Religion is stupid, teach your kids to clean their dicks.

I would like to read upon your justification as to why circumcision in religions constitutes of "foolish" tradition.

There is nothing okay about mutilating a child's genitals, period. Attaching traditions pertaining to common lies and delusions to the act does not change this.

It's 2015, and while we might be technologically advanced, we haven't advanced culturally nearly as far as we should have.

[Gim]

There is nothing okay about mutilating a child's genitals, period. Attaching traditions pertaining to common lies and delusions to the act does not change this.

It's 2015, and while we might be technologically advanced, we haven't advanced culturally nearly as far as we should have.

Well, the idea that religion is a "lie" and a "delusion" is another story; however, I think mutilating genitals of adults should be allowed with consent. I personally think that is similar to having cosmetic surgery. If one wants it, one cannot basically have it.

Mutilating genitals of children? I don't know, but I am going to side with saying it should not be allowed, because children would have to undergo pain for an act that does not bring special benefits to the child. The advantages and drawbacks of circumcision are quite even, that's why.

[Morr]

Circumcision is replaced by baptism in Christianity. Remarkably, many American Protestants are Baptists, meaning they reject infant baptism because the child is too young to consent*, but they love infant circumcision.

*This obviously doesn't make sense, since if baptism replaced circumcision, it would logically be performed at a young age as a continuance of that.

Actually, circumcision is more replaced with keeping the Commandments of God, as shown below:

1 Corinthians 7:19
"For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God."

Both the circumcised and uncircumcised were baptized in this case, it's a dispute between Jewish Christians and Greek Christians.

Baptism is akin to circumcision because it is entering into a covenant with God. Circumcision was the entrance into the Old Covenant, baptism is the entrance into the New Covenant.

[Morr]

There is nothing okay about mutilating a child's genitals, period.

Is that an objective fact, now?

[Uawc]

There is nothing okay about mutilating a child's genitals, period.

Is that an objective fact, now?

Nothing is objective; it's simply a strongly held opinion.

[Jochistan]

I would like to read upon your justification as to why circumcision in religions constitutes of "foolish" tradition.

There is nothing okay about mutilating a child's genitals, period. Attaching traditions pertaining to common lies and delusions to the act does not change this.

It's 2015, and while we might be technologically advanced, we haven't advanced culturally nearly as far as we should have.

This whole making banal things suddenly gruesome through overly descriptive language is getting kind of old in arguments. I can just as easily say "ripping apart the swollen womb of a plant" to describe something as banal as eating an apple.

it doesn't really prove how morally wrong it is. Not that I think circumcision is a particularly good or rather, necessary thing, myself.

[Gim]

There is nothing okay about mutilating a child's genitals, period. Attaching traditions pertaining to common lies and delusions to the act does not change this.

It's 2015, and while we might be technologically advanced, we haven't advanced culturally nearly as far as we should have.

This whole making banal things suddenly gruesome through overly descriptive language is getting kind of old in arguments. I can just as easily say "ripping apart the swollen womb of a plant" to describe something as banal as eating an apple.

it doesn't really prove how morally wrong it is. Not that I think circumcision is a good thing, myself.

Well, I can see that is certainly not wrong, but how is it good? I mean, there are known advantages, but, in overall, the advantages and drawbacks become pretty much even, making it not bad but, in my opinion, not good as well.

[Uawc]

There is nothing okay about mutilating a child's genitals, period. Attaching traditions pertaining to common lies and delusions to the act does not change this.

It's 2015, and while we might be technologically advanced, we haven't advanced culturally nearly as far as we should have.

This whole making banal things suddenly gruesome through overly descriptive language is getting kind of old in arguments. I can just as easily say "ripping apart the swollen womb of a plant" to describe something as banal as eating an apple.

it doesn't really prove how morally wrong it is. Not that I think circumcision is a particularly good or rather, necessary thing, myself.

How exactly is circumcision of either sex not genital mutilation?

It is what it is. I won't trivialize it.

[Dakini]

It's actually better to do it in the first few days after birth when you can't really feel or remember any pain. Contrary to what all the leftist doctors who say it's wrong, there are benefits to the procedure, for males. It reduces risk of cancer in that area. It used to actually be recommended for medical purposes rather than religious ones.

Medical associations outside the USA generally don't recommend it.

Also, I suspect that the HPV vaccine would be more effective at preventing penile cancer than circumcision.

[Test337]

I was raised Roman Catholic. I'm an agnostic atheist.

She's Christian.

[Gim]

I was raised Roman Catholic. I'm an agnostic atheist.

She's Christian.

Who?

[Dakini]

Both involve surgery relating to genitals, so a very valid comparison. If the pain is some great evil for children, then the cases of parents allowing their toddlers to begin gender reassignment are just as evil.

Is that happening? Are there parents performing gender reassignment surgery on infants? Or are you just making things up?

There are doctors who "normalize" ambiguous genitalia shortly after birth.

[USS Monitor]

It's actually better to do it in the first few days after birth when you can't really feel or remember any pain. Contrary to what all the leftist doctors who say it's wrong, there are benefits to the procedure, for males. It reduces risk of cancer in that area. It used to actually be recommended for medical purposes rather than religious ones.

Medical associations outside the USA generally don't recommend it.

Also, I suspect that the HPV vaccine would be more effective at preventing penile cancer than circumcision.

But what if the vaccine causes autism?

No, I'm not serious. I know vaccines don't cause autism.

[Jochistan]

This whole making banal things suddenly gruesome through overly descriptive language is getting kind of old in arguments. I can just as easily say "ripping apart the swollen womb of a plant" to describe something as banal as eating an apple.

it doesn't really prove how morally wrong it is. Not that I think circumcision is a particularly good or rather, necessary thing, myself.

How exactly is circumcision of either sex not genital mutilation?

It is what it is. I won't trivialize it.

How is eating fruit not eating a plants engorged womb? How is eating an egg not eating unborn fluids?

It just...doesn't constantly hurt all the time, when done to males. Sure, it's mutilation. But so is getting tattoos or piercings technically. Do you morally object to those?

It's not that I think it's good, I just think, Male circumcision really doesn't have much of an effect on males, when done by medical professionals in a sterile environment. It results in no pain, but no real benefits. It's just sort of...unnecessary.

With females, that's a different story. It's fucking torture. Every day. Regardless whether it's done in a sterile environment by surgeons or in a makeshift home by a village elder with a rock.

[Test337]

It just...doesn't constantly hurt all the time, when done to males. Sure, it's mutilation. But so is getting tattoos or piercings technically. Do you morally object to those?

Yes, but if you think your penis is your ears, you might be an idiot.

[Jochistan]

It just...doesn't constantly hurt all the time, when done to males. Sure, it's mutilation. But so is getting tattoos or piercings technically. Do you morally object to those?

Yes, but if you think your penis is your ears, you might be an idiot.

People get tattoos and piercings on their dicks all the time.

Again, I'm not arguing that it's good. no need to be so abrasive, fuck.

[Dakini]

Medical associations outside the USA generally don't recommend it.

Also, I suspect that the HPV vaccine would be more effective at preventing penile cancer than circumcision.

But what if the vaccine causes autism?

No, I'm not serious. I know vaccines don't cause autism.

Silly, don't you know that the HPV vaccine only cause vaccine affective disorder, a disease invented by anti-vaxxers that hasn't really been shown to exist.