Originally posted by scherzo
Again, Catholics are child abusers, not Jews or Muslims.

So if all catholics are child-abusers, I guess all muslims are wife-beaters who love blowing things up.

Originally posted by scherzo
I think that we can both agree that a foreskin is much less important than a pinky toe.

I don't think we both can agree on that at all necessarily. You haven't actually made an argument as to how the pinky toe is more useful.

How usefull is a pinky toe?

I knew someone who had four toes (for a different reason) and he had no problems at all in any athletic environment or otherwise.

The foreskin has some use in protecting the head of the penis and there are some studies at least showing that people without it cut off can have more sensitivity.

Originally posted by scherzo
I disagree. Would you consider cutting the umbilical cord to be child abuse?

Where's the paralell? What has the umbilical cord to do with anything in this debate? Is it within your religion to avoid cutting it or what?
Let's go back to the topic again...

You think cutting various parts of an infant okay?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I don't think we both can agree on that at all necessarily. You haven't actually made an argument as to how the pinky toe is more useful.

How usefull is a pinky toe?

I knew someone who had four toes (for a different reason) and he had no problems at all in any athletic environment or otherwise.

The foreskin has some use in protecting the head ...[text shortened]... re are some studies at least showing that people without it cut off can have more sensitivity.

But people who cut the foreskin off can also:
1. Have a moral benefit, possibly increasing longevity.
2. Clean their genitalia more easily, protecting them from certain diseases.

Pretty good arguments for circumcision.

However, I know that there is little medical benefit to the procedure. The moral and hygienic benefits make up for it.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Where's the paralell? What has the umbilical cord to do with anything in this debate? Is it within your religion to avoid cutting it or what?
Let's go back to the topic again...

You think cutting various parts of an infant okay?

For moral, religious, hygienic, physical (ie a deformity that cannot be corrected on a small part of the infant's anatomy), or other reasons that do not involve a rabid joy at cutting their children up, then yes, I do.

Originally posted by scherzo
But people who cut the foreskin off can also:
1. Have a moral benefit, possibly increasing longevity.
2. Clean their genitalia more easily, protecting them from certain diseases.

Pretty good arguments for circumcision.

However, I know that there is little medical benefit to the procedure. The moral and hygienic benefits make up for it.

1. Moral benefit??? What moral benefit? How would this increase longevity? You'll have to actually provide an explanation and justification to these claims because otherwise this seems like plain religion/superstition.

2. Cutting off your pinky toe makes cleaning your feet easier and make you less susceptible to athlete's foot. It's relatively easy to clean your genitalia even with a foreskin and that wouldn't prevent diseases. The difference in getting a STD between a curcumcized person and a non-curcumsized person is negligible, if there is one at all.

All in all, pretty poor arguments. If ANYTHING, there is very little hygienic benefits and even those are essentially just "making things a little easier", which isn't a great argument for a medical procedure.

You haven't explained the "moral benefits" yet at all.

Originally posted by scherzo
For moral, religious, hygienic, physical (ie a deformity that cannot be corrected on a small part of the infant's anatomy), or other reasons that do not involve a rabid joy at cutting their children up, then yes, I do.

Well, I don't see a clitoris, or a fore skin, as a deformaty.

Moral - If an grown up man, or a grown up woman, decides he or she want to get rid of his fore skin, or her clitoris, then he/she can decides for himslef/herself. It's immoral to decide for the baby boy, or a baby girl, that affects his/hers total futuer.

Religious - It has nothing to do with religion, rather tradition, in my humble opinion. This might be a topic for its own, interesting enough to start a new thread about.

Hygienic - Perhaps in the desert days, a preserved foreskin might be ungygienic, with lack of water and abundance of sand particles... But about modern days in modern cities? I say that we have plenty of water to use for hygiene. Don't you wash yourslf once in a while?

Physical - Fore skin and clitoris is not a decease, it's a normal part of the body. I have a fore skin and enjoy having it. I woldn't be glad if someone removed it of any reason, especially when I was so small so my say-so didn't count.

We live in modern times now. 2000 years A.D, not 2000 B.C.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Well, I don't see a clitoris, or a fore skin, as a deformaty.

Moral - If an grown up man, or a grown up woman, decides he or she want to get rid of his fore skin, or her clitoris, then he/she can decides for himslef/herself. It's immoral to decide for the baby boy, or a baby girl, that affects his/hers total futuer.

Religious - It has nothing to do ...[text shortened]... l so my say-so didn't count.

We live in modern times now. 2000 years A.D, not 2000 B.C.

Well, I don't see a clitoris, or a fore skin, as a deformaty.

I didn't ask you to. I was merely explaining the reasons that I would support some sort of cutting a minor thing without an infant's permission.

Moral - If an grown up man, or a grown up woman, decides he or she want to get rid of his fore skin, or her clitoris, then he/she can decides for himslef/herself. It's immoral to decide for the baby boy, or a baby girl, that affects his/hers total futuer.

It's a foreskin, not a diploma.

Religious - It has nothing to do with religion, rather tradition, in my humble opinion. This might be a topic for its own, interesting enough to start a new thread about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khitan_(circumcision)

No, it's not mandated by the Qur'an, but it's recommended, and done by most Muslims. I believe the same goes for Jews.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
1. Moral benefit??? What moral benefit? How would this increase longevity? You'll have to actually provide an explanation and justification to these claims because otherwise this seems like plain religion/superstition.

2. Cutting off your pinky toe makes cleaning your feet easier and make you less susceptible to athlete's foot. It's relatively easy to ...[text shortened]... nt for a medical procedure.

You haven't explained the "moral benefits" yet at all.

1. If you're satisfied with your life, you're more likely to live longer.

2. Cutting off your pinky toe makes cleaning your feet easier and make you less susceptible to athlete's foot.

Hahahahahahaha ... 🙄🙄🙄

It's relatively easy to clean your genitalia even with a foreskin and that wouldn't prevent diseases. The difference in getting a STD between a curcumcized person and a non-curcumsized person is negligible, if there is one at all.

Referring more to things like warts. And it is much easier to clean circumcised genitals. There's no need to pull the foreskin back.

Originally posted by scherzo
Well, I don't see a clitoris, or a fore skin, as a deformaty.

I didn't ask you to. I was merely explaining the reasons that I would support some sort of cutting a minor thing without an infant's permission.

Moral - If an grown up man, or a grown up woman, decides he or she want to get rid of his fore skin, or her clitoris, then he/she can dec ur'an, but it's recommended, and done by most Muslims. I believe the same goes for Jews.

I know a man who went into a surgery of some reason, found himself afterwards being circumcized. He became furious about it. I very much understand him.
This man had every reason to be angry about it, a baby boy cannot. A baby girl cannot do anything in her grown up life to restore her lost clitoris either.

I see this tradition as being wrong. I cannot se any reason to do this at all. Noone has given me any reason to cicumcize a baby boy or a baby girl. If he or she want it when he she grown up, then he/she can very well do it, but before? No, I won't accept it. It's not right!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I know a man who went into a surgery of some reason, found himself afterwards being circumcized. He became furious about it. I very much understand him.
This man had every reason to be angry about it, a baby boy cannot. A baby girl cannot do anything in her grown up life to restore her lost clitoris either.

I see this tradition as being wrong. I cann ...[text shortened]... grown up, then he/she can very well do it, but before? No, I won't accept it. It's not right!

Are you a Baptist? It's not meant as an insult, I'm just wondering.

I assume that in most Christian sects, except Catholicism and Orthodoxy, all action taken on infants except drowning them in a pot of holy water and forcing them to hold a burning candle while it melts in their hands is purely voluntary. In Islam and Judaism, we merely have different traditions. The foreskin is a small piece of skin that serves no real purpose. Some things to the baby are done without the baby's permission. If somebody tried to squeeze lemon juice in my eyes or bring a pair of scissors and a clothespin to my belly button, I would beat them back. But some things are necessary in our tradition, and I expect you to understand that before we can reach any sort of common ground.

Originally posted by scherzo
1. If you're satisfied with your life, you're more likely to live longer.

[b]2. Cutting off your pinky toe makes cleaning your feet easier and make you less susceptible to athlete's foot.

Hahahahahahaha ... 🙄🙄🙄

It's relatively easy to clean your genitalia even with a foreskin and that wouldn't prevent diseases. The difference in getting a ...[text shortened]... t is much easier to clean circumcised genitals. There's no need to pull the foreskin back.

1. If you're satisfied with your life, you're more likely to live longer.


Still nothing to do with a moral argument also there's no reason why you'd be more satisfied with your life if you are circumcized.

Referring more to things like warts. And it is much easier to clean circumcised genitals. There's no need to pull the foreskin back

Well, I'd be interested in seeing some studies to show whether warts are in fact more likely.

Still, there is at best a very minor reason to perform the operation. I really don't think it's that hard to pull a foreskin back.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
1. If you're satisfied with your life, you're more likely to live longer.


Still nothing to do with a moral argument also there's no reason why you'd be more satisfied with your life if you are circumcized.

[i]Referring more to things like warts. And it is much easier to clean circumcised genitals. There's no need to pull the foreskin back[ n to perform the operation. I really don't think it's that hard to pull a foreskin back.

[/i][/b]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision

Originally posted by scherzo
[/i]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision[/b]

I find it interesting that pretty much all the studies in the "cost & benefits" section of your own reference say that they concluded that the cost outweighs the benefits.

You still haven't provided any moral reason that you suggested and you haven't mentioned any reason someone would be more satisfied with their life.

Originally posted by scherzo
Are you a Baptist? It's not meant as an insult, I'm just wondering.

I assume that in most Christian sects, except Catholicism and Orthodoxy, all action taken on infants except drowning them in a pot of holy water and forcing them to hold a burning candle while it melts in their hands is purely voluntary. In Islam and Judaism, we merely have different trad ...[text shortened]... tradition, and I expect you to understand that before we can reach any sort of common ground.

Am I a babtist? No, I'm not, why do you ask? Does this has to do with the ritual of snipping things off baby boys and baby girls? No, it has not.
You can always de-babtize children, no harm done. You cannot ever de-circumsize baby boys and baby girls. Done is done, the harm is there, even if the child, when grown up, are converting into another religion, the cannot be de-circumsize. It's permanent damage.

You constantly say that the fore skin does not have any purpose. You don't have a clue don't you? You've never had one, therefore you don't know. Like blind person don't miss the colorful vision of the world "'It's not a big deal, just a pair of gelatic organs that there are no really use for. What's color anyway?"

But if I read between your lines, then I can clearly see that "Yes, circumsition is a brutal way to make good moslems (and jews) out of innocent baby boys and baby girls, but there are worse things ( and here it comes: ) babtizing small chilrdren! And they who doing this is Christians! Our common enemy! The infidels of the world! The Satans!"

Ah, now I understand, you are actually trying to turn me into your enemy with retorics? Instead of answering my questions, you compare circumsition to baptizing and other things, avoiding the real questions? Constantly comparing with other stuff besides the point, off topic? Okay, you are beginning to succeed in this effort.

Now I ask you for the last time: Why circumsize? What's the point?

You know what I want to know, don't use retorics anymore, just answer the damn question. Why do you moslems and jews constantly trying to remake baby boys and baby girls into what god *not* wanted them to be? We are born with fore skins and clitoris, then god must have some purpous with it? Don't you think that god knew what he was doing at the time of creation?

Again, don't use clever retorics...