Stupid reply.

It found it is harmful per se.

Uninformed comment.

Earlier reports disagree with you:

Sticking a scalpel in an abdomen is also forbidden "for reasons other than medical necessity".

Any other circumcision, ritual or not, is forbidden in that court's jurisdiction.

Do you think ritual is the only motive for circumcision?

why not admit you completely fucked up? Better yet go edit the post where you pointed to medical reasons as support for your assertion that I made a dumb post?

You blew it rug. Big time. Your best move is to bow out of this thread.

Just in case a self delete occurs:

Unlike your attempt to cast all circumcisions as the result of religious ritual.

That aint a small correction, that is you hysterically (in the keystone cop sense) attempting to salvage something out of your self imposed train wreck in this thread.

Thanks for the laughs.

Are you eluctant to get on-track?

where exactly did I say "all circumcisions as the result of religious ritual".

And you have to provide the exact quote of mine that says that. No implications, no rephrasing. My words.

You've fucked up again here trying to dig out of your first hole.

Need a shovel?

WS: Mutilating children is child abuse no matter what any imaginary sky being said.
RUG: Yeah, that's the sole basis for the practice.
WS: That is the sole basis for ritual circumcision.
RUG: The court ruling bans all circumcision, ritual or otherwise.
WS: no rug that is bullshit.


Stop the lying rug. Admit that you completely fucked up. Confess, it is good for your soul.

Do you, or do you not, believe religious ritual is the sole basis for circumcision?

This ruling bars both.

Huh?

WHERE DID I MAKE THAT CLAIM?

"1. Mutilating children is child abuse no matter what any imaginary sky being said."

BTW, lapsing into all caps is the sign of losing either an argument or your mind.

RUG: "Do you, or do you not, believe religious ritual is the sole basis for circumcision? "
WS: "Where did I say that rug?"
RUG: '"1. Mutilating children is child abuse no matter what any imaginary sky being said." '

Really? That says "religious ritual is the sole basis for circumcision"? Really?


REALLY?


You've lost the war. Sound the retreat.

Coyness becomes some people. You, not so much.

the law banned ritual circumcisions, not medical circumcisions.

By that law no male minor can have a circumcision except for medical necesity as it is considered harmful per se.

Much as you may not like the facts, this ban goes beyond ritual and religion.

you are dead wrong rug. Your sky being failed you again.

Are you prepared to admit the ruling bans all circumcisions of minor boys, absent medical necessity, whether for ritual or other purposes?

WS: That is complete bullshit.

I stand by that.

as a practicing catholic you should understand and embrace that requirement.

You're the one who incorrectly claimed it banned all circumcisions; no-one claimed there was a difference between "ritual or other" purposes in the ruling, other than the medical reasons exemption we pointed out; and all that had been claimed was the basis for ritual circumcision is was an imaginary sky being has said. Yet you have the nerve to bluster "are you prepared to admit".

No-one else has to 'admit' anything. You're the only one who got it wrong. And you're now backing down with remarkably ill grace.

And any thread that contains the phrase "imaginary sky being" has forfeited the quality of grace.

The fact remains: this ban goes beyond religion and ritual.

You even took the time to consider adding two, yet refrained fom typing three of them.

I hope your tongue wasn't sticking out as you considered that decision.

Maybe you should use all caps.

Is that clear enough?

Rug MUST have the last word.

That's all there is to it. The subject matter and facts are of no importance. They matter not. All that matters is that Rug have the last word.... whatever it is.

How about:

"In my fantasy world, the trees are red. The imaginary sky being yellow makes them stand out."


Who the hell is looking for "grace" on DU????

BTW, Grace has many qualities....ask her!

The one in which the words of posts take on a bizarre meaning all your own?

BTW, I didn't introduce the notion of grace to this subthread.

and have worked both privately and publicly for it's elimination.

I am also a strong proponent of individual religious rights, including male circumcision.

The issue of female circumcision is more complex. IMO, it is done for the sole purpose of impairing a girls ability to experience sexual pleasure. It is not required by any religion. You may see it as splitting hairs, but I see a distinct different and oppose it in all circumstances.

in the matter when their parents exercise their "religious" right to mutilate their child's genitals?

If its religious based, its ok? Really?

You're strong in favour of male circumcision with a religious justification, but strongly against it when it's just a parental decision (I presume we are just talking about child circumcision, rather than an adult deciding for themselves; and I presume you're not advocating a ban on it for medical reasons, while allowing it for religious ones).

Why, if you think it can do some harm, should the beliefs of people other than the parents be what makes it OK?

Sky-being demands it: ok.
We like our kids clipped: no way.
I need help please circumcise me for medical reasons: unclear.

It is a medical procedure with some risks and downsides.

It is also a religious practice with the same risks and downsides, but those are balanced by what the practitioners of those religious feel to be more onerous risks and downsides.

Medical circumcision for medical reasons at any age should not be prohibited. Cosmetic circumcision of infants is a national problem.

The victim of this "ritual" is a child who has no say in the matter. I guess thats just one of the downsides.

Nor has he a say in what he eats, what he wears, Where he lives or even what religion he is indoctrinated into. He's a child and the parents are responsible.

If they're gonna ban circumcision because the child has no say, they need to also ban indoctrinating a child in a religion until he is old enough to make that decision himself as well. (I'm for that!)


There are no benefits to circumcision, but no real threats either. It's a dumb thing to get worked up over.... unless you're religious.

There are no benefits to circumcision, but the consequences are very, very real.

even when performed by a qualified doctor, as happened in the case that produced the ruling. It seems that some people have it done to infants without anaesthetic too, so they're inflicting pain on their child.

There are laws in countries for equivalent acts, for instance:

First it isnt a medical procedure when a non medical practitioner performs the ritual mutilation, it is at that point as a much of a medical procedure as a piercing at a tattoo shop.

Second, your distinction between those who circumcise infants for non-religious non-medical reasons ( i.e. cosmetic circumcision) vs ritual circumcision is strikingly odd to me. How can you deny the cosmetic circumcision if you allow the ritual? There is no rational basis for that, in my opinion. Why is religious belief allowed to trump the ethics that you admit preclude cosmetic circumcision under otherwise identical circumstances? Can parents seeking cosmetic circumcision simply claim a religious exemption and thus make it acceptable to you? Do you need a truthometer to distinguish the just clipping from the unjust? Seems highly problematic to me, and vastly complicated to enforce.

Going back thousands of years about what it means.

And I don't support legislating it at all.

How about the religions that practice sharia?

As to sharia, I am not able to comment on it as I know very little about it. I do know that there are some parts that I find highly objectionable.

This is a difficult topic, I know, and you and I are coming at it from different angles. This is only my opinion. I would like to see movements within Judaism and Islam challenge infant circumcision, but I think that is unlikely. Like abortion or other kinds of prohibition, I think outlawing it would lead to many more problems and risks for the infants.

I would talk to and educate any parent who is debating this for their own child, and my information would be clear and persuasive. But in this case, I choose to leave those who do it for religious reasons alone. It is a difficult and complicated decision even when religion isn't in the mix.

I would be ok then?

I don't think the topic is difficult at all. You can't mutilate infants regardless of what you think some imaginary being said.

business. Jews and Muslims take this very seriously and believe there are significant consequences for not doing it. While I don't share their view, I don't think it's my right to intervene, unless it is to educate. I think this is particularly a problem with Germany bans a procedure that is practiced pretty much exclusively by Muslims and Jews. While I would like to see the practice abandoned, that needs to be a decision made the communities that do it for religious reasons.

Yes, I am only talking about infant circumcision.

like you are in favour of it for religious reasons - you're glad it's being done.

Your stance still seems to be "if the religious community orders it, it's OK, though I'd like them to stop that; if it's just the parents who want it, it's not". You seem to be giving some power over the child to a religious hierarchy.

serious consequences to not proceeding. I don't think the state has the right to step in. I am glad for the Jews and Muslims who believe that to not proceed would cause harm.

I am giving power of the child over to the parents in this instance.

I had to make very hard decisions regarding my own sons and there were consequences to my deciding not to have them circumcised. One of them is still angry about it. It was a difficult and complex decision for a variety of reasons. It would have been even more so had I been Muslim or Jewish.

You're strongly against parents doing it for any reason they might see as 'tradition' if it's not religious (such as, it seems, Queen Elizabeth II having it done to Prince Charles).

"Serious consequences" seem to be enforced by religious people. The children or parents will be bullied by their fellow religionists if they don't have their children circumcised. It's OK if they're coerced into it by others, but a parental decision on its own is not enough for you.

As I stated, it is a complicated decision even when religion is not in play.

There are some Jewish groups that are taking the position that the procedure should be stopped and have personally decided not to proceed. That's a good thing, imo, but it is tremendously challenging.

Part of my dilemma was that my kids were going to be bullied and ostracized for completely non-religious reasons. That turned out to be true, but I made a personal decision to make them sacrificial lambs.

Was I right? I think so, but I am loathe to condemn or legislate this decision when made by other parents.

call for more education of parents and physicians (and others) to stem the practice and take positions that it is a unnecessary medical procedure in most cases.

Condemn might be too strong a word, but I would like to see it eliminated (or at least greatly reduced) particularly for non-religious reasons.

I don't know how much clearer I can be, muriel

By golly, I think you nailed it!