2007-01-20 15:19:17 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It is against nature and therefore not a universal practise. It is traditionally started by the Jews because in the Old Testament Abraham is supposed to have done to his newly born sons. Till day, it is in practise. Jesus the reformist preached to discontinue it, so the Christians do not follow the practise. The Muslims for the sake of distinction from the Christians do it with out any justification.
In order to justify on grounds of cleanliness and that few women enjoy it better during sex are trivial and vulgar logic.
2007-01-21 14:28:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As suggested or even proven by medical science, it is actually good. Statistically speaking, men do are circumcised have a lower risk of penis cancer, and women who are partners of circumcised men also have a lower risk of cervical cancer, which is caused by the HPV virus. Although the statistics are debated by some, I would say the benefits definitely outweigh the risks (which are absolutely minor).
From a religious perspective, circumcision is a standard practice in traditional Jewish and Muslim communities, as it was for hundreds and thousands of years. It is a religious moment, of marking a covenant, and a tradition that should be honored.
As a reply to other responders before me, who claimed it's barbaric and should only be done if the person opts for it (which is not the case for a 8 days old Jewish child or a 13 y.o Muslim boy), I would just say that parents make many OTHER decisions about their children future (education, the language they speak at home, etc.), so why should religion and its symbols be one of those?
It can never be argued with succes that circumcision is a barbaric and damaging, just because millions of people have it "done to them" and they are perfectly normal, intelligent, healthy and happy human beings.
2007-01-20 15:44:55 · answer #2 · answered by Sorin R 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It is a superstition started by Abraham, the tenth generation after Adam that continues till date among the Semitic races. I do not find any scientific validity in support of the practice. Without circumcision there is greater happiness in other parts of the world like China and India and so many in the West.
2007-01-20 23:59:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
circumcision is basically a mutilation,violation of the law and infringement of basics humans rights from the start,(infants and
children),hands-on should be taken on the subject,for the obvious reason-[citizenship-(infants and children are citizens of the state)in this case; America(U.S.A.)] Religion gets it share
too,further more when cultural traditions are side by side , mentioned as a factor and as reference, (people from other countries deserve respect for their creeds)the implications of the psychological and traumatic impact ,parents behavioral response
long terms psychological effects are so vast ,and factual,that is
irresponsible to deny is a mutilation and infringement of basics
human rights,and last but not least,don't even think for a second
that I'm against the law of God,here is the Word in the Bible,pertaining circumcision ; -Romans2,3,and 4
2007-01-20 17:31:13 · answer #4 · answered by Byzantino 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is mutilation UNLESS there is a medical need to preform it. I am circumcised and feel that it was my body and MY choice to make yet I was mutilated as an infant for no other reason than my parents read in a book that it was the thing to do.
What if I read "The Silence of the Lambs" as an instruction manual for life instead of what it was written as..........fiction. The bible journals the beliefs and understandings of a primitive group of people (with a tad bit of history thrown in) and IS NOT a definitive manual of living life.
Mens nipples aren't needed, why don't we make a deal with "God" and cut those off as well?
2007-01-20 15:31:30 · answer #5 · answered by thewolfskoll 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
It's barbaric and wrong and I'm glad people now have to pay for it, might cause some to think twice. You're born with this skin and barring some medical problem it should be left alone.
Funny how people who agree with it or have it done to their sons think female circumcision is wrong.
2007-01-20 15:43:04 · answer #6 · answered by me 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I feel the same way about circumcision that I do about baptism - it's wrong to do something to a child that will last forever without them having the ability to choose.
It's not like you can't get circumcised (or baptized) later in life when you're old enough to understand.
2007-01-20 15:23:06 · answer #7 · answered by Huddy 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
That is the old law. Men do not have to be circumcised anymore. We are under the new covenant now.
2007-01-20 15:34:49 · answer #8 · answered by SeeTheLight 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Against it.
It's not medically necessary, and lopping healthy parts off a defenseless infant without so much as the benefit of anesthetic strikes me as barbaric.
And I can't believe some women are so selfish they'd trade their partners increased enjoyment and sensitivity for not having their
delicate sensibilities offended by the aesthetics of uncut penis.
What's yours, Zero?
2007-01-20 15:41:57 · answer #9 · answered by answer faerie, V.T., A. M. 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
My opinions on men without circumcision would be very interesting if you wanted to hear.
But Id have to make funny visual descriptions and erm...it wouldnt be right given that minors might be reading this *grin*
2007-01-20 15:28:44 · answer #10 · answered by Antares 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋