The child gave no permission and was mutilated for life. I am sure this is not what Genesis commanded. But this is what stupid people understood and are doing the enslavement until now. High time to stop it,

In the pure state we will both be without circumcision. Something to look forward to, definitely.

which is done for religious reasons should be banned. We no longer tolerate Female Genital Mutilation. The same should apply to male genital mutilation. Let the person decide if he wants his Penis to be mutilated when they are 18 and not before. This is the 21st century not the 1st

Then I assume nail and hair cutting, as well as ear piercings, are also mutilations. Perhaps we should take the next step and have the state take children away from "abusive" homes, that don't teach the "right" values, and make sure they're reared by good, secular atheist homes. Enough with the arrogance, please. This is not, and has never been, about human rights - this is about secular values being seen as superior, and being pushed onto others by those who consider themselves "enlightened".

..but Jehova's (Adonay) command, It is absolutely NOT the same thing' theunderstanding will understand, those who don,t, well, try harder... GOD made man WIYTH prepuce,but thr DEITY of the israelites had other ideas... By the way, circumcision in biblical times consisted ONLY in the ex- cission of the "oute4r skin"(prepuce) the rabbis in talmudic times ordered fanatically also the excission of the periah" (inner skin) and the sucking of blood, Those are NOT Hashem- Adonay's commands. I very mucvh hope YNET will publish this, that could open the eyes of many people.Thank you very much.

If circumcision was "good," evolution would have made a circumcised human survive because such human would be fittest. There would not be a need for circumcision because people would be born without a foreskin. But Nature did not do it. Can you figure out why it is so? Read Darwin, not the other stuff.

The "fittest" of Darwin are those who successfully adapt themselves. And that need not be based on biological changes. We use tools. We adapt ourselves through extensions to our body on a regular basis. We go further and adapt our *environment* to suit *us*, rather than the other way around. We adapt our minds and bodies, at a rapid and ever-changing pace. We are not beholden to purely biological evolutionary constraints. I do not worship Nature as some kind of primal force, Michael, like you appear to be doing, possibly as a replacement to a previous mental crutch. I do not need to make myself beholden to the natural processes of the world. Which is why your newest argument, mixed in with just a tinge of supremacist arrogance toward those of us who haven't been enlightened and shown how foolish our religious ways are, is moot.

Hypocritical German Law!! What about the tattoos and piercing of German youth. Pagan practices exempt? The Germans need to look back at what happen to the old Greek, Roman and other powers who tried to do away with our covenant with G`od!

t is illegal to tattoo or pierce newborn babies so what is your point? And what is the big deal about a tribe not changing its customs for 3000 years? The Haredim haven't changed the way they dress for centuries. If they still dress that way in 3000 years , what will they have achieved exactly , other than annoying everybody else ?

Male circumcision is NOT the same as female circumcision. The same word is used but most of us are intelligent enough to know there is a very big difference. You ‘equating’ them shows either your ignorance or your bias, or both.

Ejaculation IS male orgasm, and conception cannot take place without it. You really need to go back to school.

I am sincerely happy to hear that you and your children and grandchildren are healthy. Ad mea v’esrim (to 120!)

Parents should make the decisions, not you, not me. It is a procedure that causes no lasting harm and is said to decrease the risk of penile cancer. It is not a procedure heinous enough to cause you wanting to impose your feelings about it on the parents of the child. As it does not cause irreparable harm it is none of your business what another culture does. Your say in what parents decide for their child is very limited. "human right to bodily integrity" is an elemental right, an indisputable right” Saying so does not make it so. The problem is where to draw the line. You try to make the case that male circumcision is extreme. It isn’t. Your desire for a perfect body smacks of the Greeks and Romans. You want others to change because you want them to? Yea, right.

You have repeated this mantra of “enslaving Jewish males” in other posts as well. It is one of the more ridiculous things I have read. You might want to look to your own upbringing for the source of your feelings and why you have them. It is time to realize that you are going to have to convince a heck of a lot of us that we are enslaved. It sounds more like you want to do the enslaving and force us to do as you say.

According to Jewish law, a male must be circumcised on its eighth day (unless it is an older convert). It is also more painful for an adult. As you know this, to fall back on “it isn’t banned, it ‘just’ should be done in adulthood” is disengenuous.

Darwin states that changes in a species takes place, at first, by accident. The accident then improves, does not improve, or has no influence, on the life of the species. It becomes dominant in the first case, not in the others. Having a foreskin in the dawn of man was good as our knowledge of hygiene was nonexistent. The appendix also served us well back then. Neither does so now, but we still have both.

If cutting off the foreskin involved no pain at all and it continued to grow after it was removed and needed to be cut off again several times a year but always regenerated itself, then it could be compared to hair and nails. Otherwise, that comparison does not work. Piercing ears does not involve removing tissue, and as one other talkbacker said, holes close up. Once foreskins are cut off, they are gone forever.

It's about permanence of the acts of the parents over the body of the child, then? So, basically, what you call "bodily integrity" is just about cultural perception of a naturalist human body, and the superiority of that naturalist view over other views. It is not about personal rights over the body per-se, merely what *you* consider acceptable. Grooming is "natural". Fashion is "natural". Religion is not, obviously. Incidentally, piercings do *not* always heal. It depends on their use and placing - wear earrings regularly? You can forget about the holes ever going away.

Religion is a myth combined with superstition. But I will grant you the freedom for practice if you keep it to yourself, keep it private. To me, religion is like second hand smoke, a silent killer if practiced in public. Circumcision is a killer also, with about one fatality per million if not performed under proper conditions in a hospital. Parents are advised of the risk and need to sign a permission for hospital to perform circumcision. I don't recall whether mohalim advise parents of such risks. And of course, the affected newborn is not advised of anything. But they can sue later, as some of them did in Europe and the U.S.A..

Natural does not equal good. We do not base our existence as human beings on what is *natural*. Your naturalist belief system, Michael, is just that - a *belief system*. You believe it to be better. Good for you. I don't share your views. Nor do many others. So kindly leave *your* belief system in your home - in short, practice what you preach. But that's not how you roll, right? Yours is the good stuff, that should define society. Ours is what should not be seen. Ironic. As for the "one per million" statistic... you actually bring that as a serious one, don't you. You have more chances to die from simply getting up from bed in the morning than from circumcision, then, it seems. And from breathing air. And eating food. And *absolutely* getting out into the street with all our modern mechanized and unnatural forms of transport, which reduce your day to day chance of survival far below one in a million. Dismissing religion out of hand is a practice I see often from those who believe themselves to be somehow modern or better. Live and let live, you say? Then kindly keep your issues to yourself.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. A person who cared to read Charles Darwin cannot be wrong totally. I would enjoy extending our polemics over the e-mail if you would have the time. "Live and let live" is fine, but airing out issues in an attempt to find compromises is the call of this hour.

Of course it still is about bodily integrity and the rights of the child. No healthy body should be irreversibly altered (and I said healthy - I am not talking without the removal of cancerous growths or maimed limbs that need amputated) without the consent of the person involved. Religion (which I believe that an earlier talkbacker called a combination of myth and fairytales - spot on!) is something parents give to /inflict upon their kids. Let parents teach their children about the choices they can make and then let those children make their own choices. Fundamentalists don't like to hear about informed choice, but that's why we have brains and the ability to read and discern and possibly look away from 3000 year old dogma.

1. “I don't recall whether mohalim advise parents of such risks.” They are well aware of any risks and if how small the risk is. The risk of Lasik causing more problems to the eyes than it solves is greater. 2. “But I will grant you the freedom for practice if you keep it to yourself, keep it private.” Practice what you preach. Please.

especially this one.

Circumcision is an imposition of the parents' will and desires on the child. Which for you is wrong. Teaching religious beliefs and concepts to a child is an imposition of the parents' will and desires on the child. Which for you is wrong. Teaching a child about freedom of choice while maintaining no concrete set of beliefs, effectively teaching non-belief as a belief system, is *not* an imposition of the parents' will and desires on the child, correct so far? I'm afraid that's wrong, Iselin. *anything* you teach a child is "imposition" by definition - children do not learn in a vacuum, acquiring a set of ideas and beliefs out of thin air. Whether you're teaching a child that there's a God or whether you're teaching a child not to care about such matters, you're doing precisely the same thing in both cases. Teaching the child. Your idea of "informed choice"? Teaching children *your* idea of correct thinking. Nothing more. Nothing less. That you are unable to see this for what it is, is no real surprise - few are capable of seeing in themselves what they so actively denounce in others. In short, please leave my children alone. They're *my* children, and I'll teach them *my* value system, not yours. That my values and the idea that others might share them in the future scares you makes you want to prevent is understandable, but that particular path has quite a few dark and twisted alleys along the way. Some of them lead to gulags and brainwashing. Some of them just lead to a slow erosion of personal and group freedoms in the name of "progress", effectively undermining some of the key pillars to liberal democracy along the way.

Parents teach children early in life. The child decides later in life which concept from parents' teaching applies to him/her. You do NOT IMPOSE your values on your child when you teach, but you may if you coerce your child. Performing the circumcision on your child is coercion. Mutilation is coercion performed for a lifetime and you child has no means to defend himself. Written with sorrow.

When children grow up many of them (now called adults; also called 'us') do make choices. Many choices are different from the way their parents brought them up, in religion, behavior, morals, etc. Being circumcised is not much of a control on the thinking of an adult.

I will stop the kudos as they will become tiresome. But these latest posts are clear and well thought out. Thanks.