ottoman_strikes_back

Many Christians have return back to circumsise because Jesus is of circumcision and a symbol of love of Jesus too. What is more even beter that doctors has found out that circumcision can prevent one from getting AIDS. Of hearing the great news, this also marks the joys and victory for Christians who follow both OT and NT.

But wait ! what did Paul said about it ? Did he allow it ?

Lets look at this verse below:

Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.



Is he Christ ? Is he Son of God ? :huh: Circumcision is indeed a miracle itself during the time of Abraham and marks a victory for the Abrahamic faith but this Paul say that Christ profit you nothing and who is he anyway to talk about Christ ?

Haener

This sounds like utter BS. You know, AIDS is a deadly disease and rumours like this get people killed. Please, if you pose such statements also deliver evidence to back it up.

To all you youngsters out there, if you're circumcised you can still get AIDS and other stuff.

That having said, the practice of circumcizing newly borns is a barbaric act. I really don't understand why western governments allow their citizens to mutulate their infants in such a way. I really don't understand why doctors are helping them or why hospitals allow such acts to take place on their turf.

Zephyr

Well, there does seem to be some indication that the risk of transmission of various diseases is *somewhat* reduced by hacking off that piece of skin, but it is by no means a night-and-day difference. The practice is barbaric regardless, and is no substitute for proper protection.

Hospitals continue to do it because people take it for granted and are willing to PAY for it. What, you thought they were all idealistic life-saving institutions from bottom to top? Hah....

ottoman_strikes_back

There are varied opinions among physicians regarding the need for circumcision in healthy boys. Some place great value on the benefits of an intact foreskin, including a more natural sexual response during adulthood. However, some studies suggest that uncircumcised male infants have an increased risk for getting urinary tract infections. Other studies show correlations between uncircumcised males and penile cancer, some sexually transmitted diseases including HIV, infections of the penis, and phimosis (tightness of the foreskin, not allowing it to retract over the glans penis).

{edited - the above is a cut and paste from here}


Take that.

Tenshu

One, you're not getting your point across by yelling. 'Think man think' leads me to believe you have some sort of superiority complex. Drop it man.

Two, yes cicumcision is barbaric, definitely if it's done without consent, which it is if done with infants. Imagine a stranger coming up to you, grabbing your dick and randomly slicing of pieces of skin. On a scale of one to ten, how acceptable is that?

Three, your analogy between circumcision and kidney transplants, cancer operations, is false. Kidney transplants are done to save lives. The same with cancer operations. Circumcisions are done to detract from sexual pleasure. Whooptee, sign me up.

Think man, think

justsumner

OK. Let's get real. A Masters & Johnson report of many years ago stated that "Women preferred circumsized penises by a margin of 5 to 1." OK. what better reason to be circusized do you need? :thumbs:

MilitantModerate

If where you live is indeed Alberta, Canada you are quite misinformed. The neonatal genital mutilation rate is low and in decline here; as in most civilized, secular nations. Currently it is only 20% in Alberta and 14% across Canada. Now consider that at least 3% of that are muslims and jews and allowing that at least 10% of the poplulation are idiots, fundy or otherwise and that might be as low as we can get without outlawing the practice. Last stats I have seen:

http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/yr99p-e.html

Haener

I do note that you've backed away from your first claim which stated:

Instead now you're claiming that safe sexual practices can help prevent AIDS and other stuff. Well; you're right. :thumbs:

This is all very nice but does not change the fact that almost all circumcisions are done because the parents believe they should based on religious convictions. Let's think about that; based on the bible, thora, koran or some other ancient mythology, parents decide to cut off parts of the body of their infants. Your analogy with kidney transplant and cancer operations is indeed flawed. Tenshu already pointed it out but I want to stress it some more. There are objective medical reasons to engage in kidney transplants while these objective medical reasons often are not present in the case of circumcisions.

Haener

You're right. My mistake.

Chili

Sure. I should have wrote "was the norm." I am from a different culture myself and was shocked to learn that it was the normal thing to do some 30 years ago. It is changing fast and now it is upon request but still is recognized as the most practical option for various reason.