Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[evildrneil]

There's nothing to stop the individual going ahead with the snip/covenant when they are old enough to consent themselves. Any culture who causes psychological pain to children for not having it done before then would just be a bunch of pricks.

 

Yes there is - Jewish law stipulates on the 8th day. And would these be as big as the pricks trying to enforce their beliefs on another cultural group and prevent them from following their religious laws?

[RootsBooster]

If having one's foreskin removed does indeed reduce the risk of HIV, I wonder what other justifiable measures can be put in place to further reduce the risk. I think that removing the testes would also be effective.

 

As for religious measures, reverting to biblical law and stoning adulteresses would be brutal but it would have benefit in causing women to think twice before indulging in such acts that could spread disease. Having read about the posible spread of HIV, is this why fundies advocate killing Gays? That would also reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Perhaps God does have our best interests at heart after all.

 

Good post, good comparisons.

[Bloomdido]

Good post, good comparisons.

 

Thank you. As the thread starter, I feel I have some responsibility in trying to add something to the discussion.

[evildrneil]

Good post, good comparisons.

 

Or more accurately bad post ridiculous comparisons. A camels nose if ever I saw one!

[RootsBooster]

Yes there is - Jewish law stipulates on the 8th day.

Like I said, there are many different versions and translations, not all state the 8th day. Which one is telling the truth?

And would these be as big as the pricks trying to enforce their beliefs on another cultural group and prevent them from following their religious laws?

No. They're just pricks. The other group is just people trying to point out that the "religious law" is fundamentally flawed: An infant cannot make an informed decison/agree to have part of it's penis cut off. And most likely would not if it could. SOMEBODY ELSE agreeing FOR you, by proxy, is not a valid reason for mutilation.

 

You're still avoiding that question I asked.

[RootsBooster]

Or more accurately bad post ridiculous comparisons. A camels nose if ever I saw one!

 

How so ?

[quisquose]

Yes there is - Jewish law stipulates on the 8th day. And would these be as big as the pricks trying to enforce their beliefs on another cultural group and prevent them from following their religious laws?

 

Like Moses, he didn't have his son circumcised. Tut, tut.

 

Not to mention that circumcision was totally neglected during the forty-year period in the wilderness. Tut, tut.

 

Those pesky atheists enforcing their beliefs preventing Jews from following their own religious laws.

[evildrneil]

How so ?

 

Oh come on - circumcision is a good preventative measure against the spread of HIV so let's cut their testicles off? That's serious "I've lost the argument so I'm going to make ridiculous comparisons in an attempt to distract people territory"

[RootsBooster]

That's serious "I've lost the argument so I'm going to make ridiculous comparisons in an attempt to distract people territory"

 

As apposed to "I don't have an argument, I'm going to avoid important questions"

 

EDIT: And where in any holy book does it mention any medical reasons?

[evildrneil]

Like Moses, he didn't have his son circumcised. Tut, tut.

 

Not to mention that circumcision was totally neglected during the forty-year period in the wilderness. Tut, tut.

 

Those pesky atheists enforcing their beliefs preventing Jews from following their own religious laws.

 

And that affects the case now how?