Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[Aleksandr]

If circumcision is banned - on the grounds that it is unnecessary mutilation (or on any other grounds, for that matter) - Do you think that the barbaric practice of drilling holes in the ears of (usually female) infants will also be banned?

Yes, regardless.

[RootsBooster]

If circumcision is banned - on the grounds that it is unnecessary mutilation (or on any other grounds, for that matter) - Do you think that the barbaric practice of drilling holes in the ears of (usually female) infants will also be banned?

 

I've never heard of ears being drilled, I think could be quite messy. If you're talking about piercing (fast and brief) then yes, I think that should also wait until the child is old enough to decide. Although if the child decides it does not want pierced ears when it is old enough, it can let them heal up, with very little scarring.

 

This question has been asked and answered several times now.

[RootsBooster]

For a moment the other day, I started wondering if Jeffrey Shaw was a new incarnation of Grahame/Agbus, he's started to show some similarities lately

[Bloomdido]

If circumcision is banned - on the grounds that it is unnecessary mutilation (or on any other grounds, for that matter) - Do you think that the barbaric practice of drilling holes in the ears of (usually female) infants will also be banned?

 

I would hope so. There would be an outcry of a boy child was given a Prince Albert. It's ok to lop off their foreskin though.

[JenC]

This is a good video on the subject.

 

It's a very clear and informative presentation (one which I actually saw elsewhere and watched only a few days before you posted it on here, funnily enough ) and one I'd encourage everyone to watch.

 

The footage of the circumcision during the presentation made me feel physically sick and I'm just astonished at the blasé attitudes I've seen here towards this unnecessary procedure. I cannot get my head around it.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

it's mainly the jews who decided that they should be removed.

No, they didn't. It's a legal requirement not susceptible to individual decisions.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

For a moment the other day, I started wondering if Jeffrey Shaw was a new incarnation of Grahame/Agbus, he's started to show some similarities lately

Who're they?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

The NHS should NEVER provide or fund religious circumcisions

I agree with that, at least.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Firstly, circumcision isn't mentioned in the Bible until God's covenant with Abraham.

 

Genesis 17:9-10 (KJV)

 

9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

Secondly, I know the real history. The early Israelite tribes were split up after being taken as slaves, and some copied circumcision as a sign of faith off the Babylonian priesthood. This was the start of Jewish nationalism, and the emphasis on the Sabbath and circumcision as a mark of their faith.1

 

On a lighter note, is this a biblical pun?

Deuteronomy 10:16 (KJV)

16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

 

1: Russell, The Religious Development of the Jews

1. Abraham was not a Jew, as defined. There were no Jews until Mount Sinai.

2. So all previous affiliates were voluntary adoptors of an inchoate set of rules.

3. And even in Egypt, during 210yrs. of slavery, the subjugants were not Jews but Bnei Yisroel (= Children of Israel, because they were descendants of Jacob who was also named Yisroel).

4. All that was way before the Babylonian Exile caused by destruction of the First Temple.

5. And, lastly, no- the reference to 'foreskin of your heart' is a metaphor; surely you've heard of this concept?

Edited July 9, 2012 by Jeffrey Shaw

[Cyclone]

All subsequent affiliates are voluntary adopters of an inchoate set of rules as well.