When will there be a class action suit over circumcision? - And what is needed to make it happen?

That's a very spicy argument befitting an atheist. It's kind of demanding the question of shouldn't we then forbid children from participating in any religious activity until the age of 18. After all, children are still forming. An adult can be a Christian.
Earlier you attempted to conflate baptism with severing the foreskin. Now you are equating it to sitting in a church and hearing a sermon.

You have all the nuance of a brick to the head. Something I am beginning to wonder if you have first hand experience of.
 
That's a very spicy argument befitting an atheist. It's kind of demanding the question of shouldn't we then forbid children from participating in any religious activity until the age of 18. After all, children are still forming. An adult can be a Christian.

That is a separate argument entirely which I would happily explore elsewhere.

The current social climate is that, with exceptions like North Korea aside, we accept parents imparting or imposing religious doctrines and practices onto their children.

These practices, however hard they might be to shirk in later life or how deeply ingrained the habits they encourage, are reversible.

The child may find it challenging to move away from their value system as an adult or not wish to, ex-Mormons not infrequently still never drink coffee, but they can make an independent choice eventually.

We would object if a Christian tried to give a child a full tattoo sleeve of St Michael fighting demons.
We would similarly object to a child undergoing extreme Yogic mortification practices.
We also object to someone undertaking Femal Genital Mutilation purely because that is what their ancestors have always done, as challenging as it is to enforce.

Sitting in church and hearing a sermon is not permanent.

Having some incense burned and performing Puja in a Mandir is not permanent.

The Amrit Sanskar ceremony where a child can join the inner circle or Sikhism is not permanent.

Getting a knife to their fucking dick is very permanent. I throw out the challenge, in what other context than "Yahweh made me do it" is a cleric or one of their minions taking surgical tools to a child's penis okay?

It's special pleading. This is not okay, and the only reason it happens is because believers get violent about it.

No other mainstream religious tradition bar Abrahamic ones contains this feature. Somehow, remarkably, they manage to transmit culture, values and theology without that.

I understand its a part you don't want to abandon, but somehow the faithful managed to drop many other features incompatible with modernity. This one shouldn't be any more special.

We don't allow parents to arrange weddings for their children, as much as I'm aware it happens. We don't allow parents to sell their children anymore, no matter how much their treasured culture permits it. We don't let parents execute their children, or beat them into a state requiring hospitalisation.

There is no other context this is currently acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Earlier you attempted to conflate baptism with severing the foreskin. Now you are equating it to sitting in a church and hearing a sermon.

You have all the nuance of a brick to the head. Something I am beginning to wonder if you have first hand experience of.
I don't know if it's autism from your end but the point that I was trying to make is that once you fuck over with other religion practices you are exposing your own religion to the same scare tactics. Pretty sure I don't even need to think of cases of banning church going for the sake of personal health because that's exactly what was done during COVID (while other gatherings got the OK). And if you ban circumcision due to extremely rare medical malpractice, you will have minor shit like baptism banned for the one case where some drunk priest dunked a child's head below water too long.

Getting a knife to their fucking dick is very permanent. I throw out the challenge, in what other context than "Yahweh made me do it" is a cleric or one of their minions taking surgical tools to a child's penis okay?
But here's the thing though, I had it and so did everyone I meet and I've never heard anyone speak about it doing harm, short of the incredibly rare newspaper article, before being exposed to weird American obsession with it. For me it sounds like some weird tranny esque logic of "not my own body". As the whole basis of the logic is something that I know for a fact is wrong because I did it and felt it.

This only leaves possible cases of malpractice which are too rare go be a factor. Especially when it's a religious ceremony that predates modern medicine.
 
I don't know if it's autism from your end but the point that I was trying to make is that once you fuck over with other religion practices you are exposing your own religion to the same scare tactics.
That's irrelevant you fucking dumb nigger. OP made a good post, and you're shitting all over it with your stupidity. Stop supporting genital-mutilation of babies.
 
But here's the thing though, I had it and so did everyone I meet and I've never heard anyone speak about it doing harm, short of the incredibly rare newspaper article, before being exposed to weird American obsession with it. For me it sounds like some weird tranny esque logic of "not my own body". As the whole basis of the logic is something that I know for a fact is wrong because I did it and felt it.

This only leaves possible cases of malpractice which are too rare go be a factor. Especially when it's a religious ceremony that predates modern medicine.
There is an element regarding medical failure and malpractice, but I agree that is an element most people don't tend to consider. It is worth considering, consider Dr Money only got off the ground with his research because failed circumcision was how he began and was able to undertake his research on children. I'm not blaming religious ritual for birthing the child Troon movement, but I do find it an interesting butterfly/ripple effect nonetheless.

It's interesting hearing it phrased in those terms about "Not my own body", but that is a big part of it. A boy can't get jawline surgery for a squarer face because they're not old enough to make that choice, and their parents can't make that choice for them.

A boy similarly can't get a Prince Albert piercing, because that would be deeply inappropriate and invasive.

These things don't cause "harm", when they go well, but they're all unnecessary procedures with long lasting consequences. If I choose to get botox and breast implants as an adult woman so I can better move with a social clique that's one thing, but getting my daughter the same that would be deemed invasive and a bit creepy.

I do get the barrier that in your society this is normal and nobody questions it, but outsiders like me expereince the same aversion you feel regarding giving kids puberty blockers or gender affirming surgery; I have similar feelings about male circumcision.

I would say trooning a child out is worse if pushed, removing parts entirely is more invasive still than circumcision. That does not mean circumcision is still "good" or "preferable". Its still on the same vein of practice to me. Unnecessary, unrequested and irreversible body modification that's only done because its tradition.

Many people find tradition important. But we do have serious precedent set aside traditions that we come to experience as inappropriate in the first world, especially within this area of acts on children.

The average NPC is even starting to veer this way regarding troons. This should speak volumes about how strongly even some of the most meek and accomodating liberals feel about this area.

This is a severe culture clash admittedly in the end; the will of the group vs the freedom of the individual.
 
Last edited:
Back