|
| Thread: The Male Genital Mutilation Bill.... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted May 28, 2011 02:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The health benefits that come form circumcision come from the removal of a part of yor body that has the potential to cause you harm (much like the removal of the appendix). Circumcision prevents multiple types of cancers and infections that can only exist or originate in the foreskin. Like the removal of the appendix, there is an amount of pain involved, but (also like the removing of the appendix), circumcised males no longer have the potential of getting these diseases. Therefore, since there is a benefit (unlike the removal of an arm, leg, limb or large graft of skin) there should be no ban. If the parents, child or individual wants a circumcision, then more power to them! There should be no ban.
Edit: PS, that is my line. Ultimately, is more good or harm caused?
I just got 1 disagreement: Breaking bones and letting them heal increase their sturdyness.
Which means it is not harmful unless the bones are extremely shattered. And the spine is not touched too much.
Would you be ok with a pair of social darwinists breaking their childrens bones to get them a more sturdy skeleton?
We are talking about repitition to perhaps the age of 5-6.
Would it still be ok? It has not exactly crossed your line, but it would be extremely painful, like removal of the foreskin.
____________
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 02:44 PM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 19:29, 28 May 2011.
|
Penile cancer is SO rare that having Circumcision as a preventive matter is somewhat ridiculous. If the Cancer is located on the foreskin, then fine, circumcise it... but what if it is NOT? From what I've read, penile cancers could just as well develop onto your dick, regardless of whether you're cut or not. So while it could prevent foreskin cancer (for which the treatment is so laughably easy I wouldn't even bother with it), it does not prevent any penile cancer ONTO the penis, which is much more severe and harder to treat. Hence, I personally don't think "the prevention of penile Cancer" is hardly a factor you should take into account.
Additionally, from what I know of (although I would be glad is someone - Cor? - would point me towards a source more official and reliable than Wikipedia) the rates of penile cancer are -percentagewise- similar in both North America and Europe. North America, and especially the US systematically circumcises, while Europe does not. The Prevention via Circumcision doesn't seem to have any effect on the matter, if those numbers are correct.
However, the Penile Cancer numbers in both North America and Europe are very, VERY low. If you compare our numbers to Africa's (a continent where about half of the men are cut and the other half aren't), you'll notice that Penile Cancers is much more common than in Europe or America (and similarly, so are STDs like HIV and Syphillis).
I think that if we take the above paragraph into account, we can only conclude that it more has to do with Hygienic facilities than Circumcision. Africa -and there's no point denying it- is lacking in such facilities so Circumcision MAY have a beneficial effect in preventing such deseases... unfortunately the scientific reports on the matter are contradicting each other, so I cannot make an accurate statement on whether it actually works or not... though I am inclined to say that it doesn't, simply because the difference between Europe and America is so minute. (I am not 100% sure of this however, mind)
But, to finally come to a conclusion of this long-winded jibber-jabber: I do not think Circ has any use as a means for Cancer/STD prevention anymore, at least not in the Modern Western Society. If you take care of it well, have safe-sex, shower daily, etc, you will have about as much risk as anyone else, cut or not.
Admittedly, I am not a physician, but I think it is safe to state that Circumcision as Cancer Prevention is redundant in modern society.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 29, 2011 04:37 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:50, 29 May 2011.
|
Quote:
Will you answer my question? How much is it okay to damage a child before it becomes abuse, in your view? You think it's okay to circumcise - then, is it okay to peel off all the skin of the penis, if some religion wanted that? I want to know where you draw the line, and by what standard.
I don't see circumcision as damage to a child. Like I said before a parent should not be allowed to cause significant damage to a child. People will differ in what they define as damage. No religion involves peeling the entire penis so your question about that is nothing but hyperbolic rhetoric. I would not support such a practice since I think it would cause significant damage to the child. But I think there are too many control freaks in certain groups, particularly anti-theist groups, that want to control the religious practices of everyone in society.
Some questions for Corribus and Mvass:
Since studies show followers of theistic religion are more mentally healthy than atheists should parents be allowed to teach a child atheism since that is essentially harming a child? Should children be removed from atheist homes?
The founders did not consider circumcision to be child abuse or they would have outlawed it. Instead they practiced it. Since circumcision has been considered moral and practiced for the entire history of the US (and of all known history, really) what is the basis of declaring it immoral and who gets to decide it is immoral and illegal in the United States? (assuming you think it should be illegal) Prove your viewpoint of what is moral is what should be imposed on all parents, assuming you think parents should not be allowed to circumcise their children.
1) What exactly does "harmful/damage" to a child mean and who gets to decide the definition, and on what basis should it be them who decides it? Who gets to decide what practices are harmful and why is it them who get to decide? Is something that hurts a child's feelings like being grounded from going out on a date for a couple of weeks harmful?
2) The burden of proof falls on you to prove that something like circumcision that has been practiced for the entire known history of mankind is without a shadow of a doubt excessively harmful to a child. You have offered no proof that it is. Prove that circumcision is excessively harmful to a child if you believe it should be illegal.
3) The majority of American males are circumcised. Are you claiming 79% of all the males in America have been abused? If so, should the doctors and parents be prosecuted for child abuse? Should most children be taken away from their parents since most parents are abusive of their sons if your claims about circumcision is correct? Are you claiming the majority of America is wrong about circumcision being moral and you are right? Why is your moral code superior to the moral code of the parents of circumcised children? On what basis should parents be forbidden to circumcise their child even though most people find the practice to be a moral practice? Should laws be based on a general consensus of morality or should government bureaucrats decide the laws?
Quote:
Data from a national survey conducted from 1999 to 2002 found that the overall prevalence of male circumcision in the United States was 79%.[14] 91% of men born in the 1970s, and 83% of boys born in the 1980s were circumcised.[14] An earlier survey, conducted in 1992, found a circumcision prevalence of 77% in US-born men, born from 1932–1974, including 81% of non-Hispanic White men, 65% of Black men, and 54% of Hispanic men, vs. 42% of non U.S. born men who were circumcised.[15]
4) Should most abortions be legal? Should circumcision of everyone below 18 be illegal? If you support abortion but not circumcision why is circumcision immoral but abortion (child murder) not immoral? If abortion should be legal should prenatal circumcision be legal? Justify your answers please.
5) Should parents be allowed to make decisions about cosmetic surgery for their children?
Quote:
Elodin, I think we're arguing in perpendicular directions. You deflect when asked simple questions and you also keep moving the goalposts.
No, I don't deflect questions and I did not realize any "goalposts" had been set. Who set them and why do they get to set them?
Quote:
Your contention seems to be that (male) circumcision is moral/permissible because religious people should be allowed to do what they believe they're commanded to do by their religion.
No, my position is that male circumcision is moral because it is moral. I don't believe in relative morality or that society or a government bureaucrat makes anything moral or immoral.
I do think the government should only be allowed to interfere with a religious practice under extreme circumstances and that was the viewpoint of the founding fathers. I realize that some atheists on this forum have said there are no good religious people and only atheists can be good but I reject that. That founding fathers rejected that. The founding fathers said the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. The founding fathers knew that theism is the very foundation of a civilized society. The officially atheist nations have certainly proven them correct by being a cesspool of mass murder and denial of basic human rights.
The founding fathers said theists don't owe the government an account of their religious practices. The famous "wall of separation" quote was Jefferson ensuring the Danbury Baptist Association that the government would keep its nose out of their affairs.
Quote:
"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."--John Adams
Quote:
Many people also believe that females should be circumcised, that their female children should have their entire clitoris removed and their labia sewn shut save for an opening small enough to urinate through. I ask - should they be allowed to do this?
On page 2 I addressed female circumcision as well as linked to a couple of good articles and a video relative to female circumcision. The articles I linked to are by circumcised women who deny that female circumcision is harmful and offers proof that it is not as well as make a number of arguments for allowing female circumcision.
Unless the government can establish that the female circumcision you described is a practice that is significantly harmful for a child it must be allowed. Having the labia sewn shut would seem to me to be easily proven to be harmful. Proving significant harm for the removal of the clitoris is somewhat more problematic as the articles I linked to addressed. Like I said before I PERSONALLY disapprove of such practices.
Since it has been practiced for all of recorded history among a population that considers it to be a loving thing to do for their daughter it is up to you to prove that it is in fact beyond a doubt an excessively harmful thing to do if you want to prove the right of the government to infringe on religious liberties.
Quote:
If you answer no, your position is not internally consistent so there must be some other criterion that determines why male circumcision should be allowed but female shouldn't.
Your choice to introduce false dichotomies is sad. I've never said all religious practices should be allowed. I have in fact named things like child sacrifice that should not be allowed. Please don't misrepresent my positions.
I've addressed this too. Male circumcision only involves removal of some skin, as does most female circumcision. Those should be protected practices. Female circumcision that involves removing the clitoris is more problematic but the government would need to prove significant harm beyond the shadow of a doubt in order infringe on the right of the parents to practice their religion.
Quote:
Fine, we can ask another question - some parents withhold medical treatment from their children for religious reasons. Children have died and been permanently disfigured because of it, like this child. So I ask - should the parents be allowed to do this?
Yes, parents have the right to practice their religion and have a right to raise a child in their religion. Even though atheism is one of the more harmful religions I think even atheist parents have a right to bring up a child in their religion.
You see, materialistic atheists reject the spiritual side of life. They are utterly ignorant of it, and that is actually a case for declaring them unfit parents, but I digress. Parents love their children. Some loony atheistic government bureaucrat may decide that all there is is the physical body. The vast majority of people who have ever lived disagree with that position. That bureaucrat may wish to impose his religion on all of society. I don't think he has the right to do so.
Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusion. They think it will damn one's soul. I disagree. But I believe in freedom of religion, not in government tyranny. So I think Jehovah Witnesses should be able to reject blood transfusions or any other medical treatment for themselves or their family. I know you have that that there are no rational beliefs but theists would say that atheism is the irrational belief. I respect your right to hold irrational beliefs and to raise your children in them. You should respect the right of others to follow their own conscience. Sadly it seems many anti-theists and liberals want the government to be able to control everything a person does or says. But that is not freedom.
Also, doctors have been known to misdiagnose conditions, to recommend the wrong treatment, and even to do things like amputate the wrong leg. Doctors do not always make the correct medical decision. In fact, doctors are really only supposed to present the options to the patient/guardian and to recommend a course of action but not to unilaterally determine the course of action. It is not the role of a doctor to force a medical treatment on an unwilling patient.
Quote:
If you answer no, your position is not internally consistent because the parents clearly think what they are doing is in their child's best interests, even though it clearly isn't. How can letting a child go blind be in its best interests? Maybe "best interests" depends on who you're asking, in which you need to clarify your position.
Another false dichotomy.
This has been the subject of discussions before. Of course I think parents should able to reject medical treatment for their child that violates their religious beliefs. However, if the child is mature enough the child should be the decision maker. Parents love their children, but the children are only a number or opportunity for political gain to government bureaucrats.
You have not proven that medical concerns should be the only concern of a parent. Frankly most of the world believes there is more to life than the physical body and parents should be able to consider spiritual implications of their decisions. I am quite sure that any parent rejecting medical treatment for their child for religious reasons does not do so lightly.
Do you think it should be illegal for parents to reject medical treatment for their children for religious reasons? Who is it that should make medical decisions for children and why? Justify you position.
Quote:
We can also ask some hypothetical questions. The purpose here is not to compare male circumcision to some extreme mutilation as you've contended. It's a style of rhetoric which tries to show an inconsistency by extrapolating a position to an absurd end. For instance, we ask: if a certain religion requires you to kill and eat your child, should this be allowed?
No it is not, it is a word game style of rhetoric that tries to distort someone's position. My positions have been completely consistent. 
Murder is immoral. Of course a parent should not be allowed to murder their child, including murder through abortion. I believe you support allowing murder through abortion for most reasons, do you not? Cannibalism is also immoral.
I believe in absolute morality.
Now, more questions for you and Mvass. Is morality absolute? Is raping a baby always immoral? Justify your answers.
Should parents be allowed to teach children their religion is the only true religion? Should the State determine the religious teachings and practices of the child? If a seven year old child wants to be baptized should he be allowed to be baptized? If a child wants to reject a blood transfusion because he believes it will damn his soul should the State force him to receive the blood transfusion? If so should they drug the child or strap him down to force the medical treatment on him? Justify your answers please.
Should children be taken away from religious parents who don't believe in certain medical practices if a doctor says the child "needs" the medical procedure?
If the government passes a law saying everyone must kill and eat one of their children if they have children should parents obey the law? Is the law moral? Justify your answer.
If the government passes a law saying that every child must have his tonsils removed should parents take their children in to have the tonsils removed?
If a child dies why under treatment forced by the government who should be held responsible for the death?
Quote:
My guess is that you would say no, of course not. But this would contradict your original point that a person should be allowed to do what their religion tells them.
No, my answer does not contradict my original point because you are falsely stating what position I hold. Another tactic you frequently use.
I have said that things like Muslim terrorists killing innocent people in the name of their religion is wrong. Or atheists murdering theists in the name of atheism, such as Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, ect, did is wrong. Or Satanists sacrificing children in the name of Satan is wrong.
You see, my position has always been murder is immoral. Morality is absolute. Murder is always wrong. Morality is not determined by a vote or a government bureaucrat or a denominational body or by Richard Dawkins.
____________
Revelation
|
|
TheBaron
Promising
Known Hero
dreamer of dreams
|
|
posted May 29, 2011 05:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
1) What exactly does "harmful/damage" to a child mean and who gets to decide the definition, and on what basis should it be them who decides it? Who gets to decide what practices are harmful and why is it them who get to decide? Is something that hurts a child's feelings like being grounded from going out on a date for a couple of weeks harmful?
2) The burden of proof falls on you to prove that something like circumcision that has been practiced for the entire known history of mankind is without a shadow of a doubt excessively harmful to a child. You have offered no proof that it is. Prove that circumcision is excessively harmful to a child if you believe it should be illegal.
3) The majority of American males are circumcised. Are you claiming 79% of all the males in America have been abused?
1) This is definition is arrived at by philosophers, medical practitioners and policy makers. They arrive at these conclusions through research, reason and debate.
2) Just because something has been practised for a long time does not make it right. North Americans also practised slavery for 300 years, and I'm pretty sure you would say that was wrong. Women were also denied voting rights in various places until early last century, do you still think that women are absolute subjects of men and incapable of making an choice in regards to who governs them? There is proof that circumcision is harmful, you are just ignoring it.
3) Like 2, except that rather than time making something right you are saying it is the number of people. If you are a moral absolutist (which you claim to be) you would say that it doesn't matter how many people condone an action for it to still be wrong. For example, most of the people in Canada believe that abortion is not wrong, but you would still say that they are murdering children, no?
Maybe 79% of Americans have been abused? Many people have gone through Hazing at College, but doing so was a choice.
A child has no ability to decide if it wants a portion of its skin removed.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 29, 2011 02:30 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 14:31, 29 May 2011.
|
Quote:
Or Satanists sacrificing children in the name of Satan is wrong.
But Satanists performing group masturbation on a child bathed in lamb blood in the glorious name of the Prince of Darkness, according to you, is not.
(Yes I just made that up.)
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheBaron
Promising
Known Hero
dreamer of dreams
|
|
posted May 29, 2011 02:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But Satanists performing group masturbation on a child bathed in lamb blood in the glorious name of the Prince of Darkness, according to you, is not.
They do that!?
...
Time to become a Satanist!
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 29, 2011 02:42 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 14:44, 29 May 2011.
|
But why do that when we can do the same while calling ourselves Christians and piss Elodin off even more.
Also
Quote:
Are you claiming the majority of America is wrong
dun DUN DUNNNNNNNNNN
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 29, 2011 06:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But Satanists performing group masturbation on a child bathed in lamb blood in the glorious name of the Prince of Darkness, according to you, is not.
of course it's wrong... they killed a poor lamb 
Quote:
Since studies show followers of theistic religion are more mentally healthy than atheists should parents be allowed to teach a child atheism since that is essentially harming a child? Should children be removed from atheist homes?
which criterions do you use to determine if a person is mentally healthy?
for exemple, I studied buddhism a bit, mental health is an important part of their philosophy, and it doesn't mean the same thing for them than for the average occidental psychologist.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 08:26 AM |
|
|
Elodin:
Some brief answers to your questions:
1. I think most of the time the standard for what's harmful for an adult applies reasonably well in determining what's harmful for a child. For example, murdering an adult is unquestionably harming them, and so is murdering a child. However, children's rights are a difficult issue because one has to balance individual rights and the authority parents have over their children. It's illegal to lock your neighbor in his room when he does something you don't like, but few would suggest a similar standard when it comes to a parent punishing their children.
2. It inflicts pain on the child, and the medical benefits (if any) are questionable.
3. I would argue circumcision is a socially acceptable form of abuse. That doesn't make it any less abusive, though. But because it's socially acceptable, it's reasonable to assume that parents who circumcise their children probably don't think about it much, assume it's the default, or something like that. They're not the typical image one has of a child abuser. Most of them would probably stop having their children circumcised if it became illegal - or even if it stayed legal but became uncommon. I don't think the majority has the right to determine what is moral - I believe in objective morality, and that the only justifiable use of force by a private entity is to prevent or retaliate against harm being inflicted to it. Circumcision is neither defensive nor retaliatory, and its benefits are questionable, so it's not justified.
4. Abortion should be legal within the first trimester (which most abortions fall under), while circumcision for minors should be illegal. This is because babies are individuals possessing rights, whereas 1st trimester fetuses are not.
5. That's a good question to which I don't know the answer to. On one hand, giving parents complete control over this will lead to some performing unnecessary surgeries and inflicting nothing but pain to the child. On the other hand, not letting parents decide would prevent them from their child having surgeries that could greatly enhance their quality of life. On the third hand, giving government bureaucrats the authority to decide when to allow a plastic surgery or not isn't a good idea either. So I don't think there's a good answer to this.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 01:17 PM |
|
|
1. So we are agreed that parents have the right to things to/for their children that they can't do to other adults.
2. The pain is minimal and there are established physical benefits for circumcision. However, most people circumcise their children for the spiritual benefits they believe it brings.
medical benefits
Quote:
• Decrease in physical problems involving a tight foreskin [Ohjimi et al., 1995].
• Lower incidence of inflammation of the head of the penis [Escala & Rickwood, 1989; Fakjian et al., 1990; Edwards, 1996].
• Reduced urinary tract infections.
• Fewer problems with erections, especially at puberty.
• Decrease in certain sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV, HPV, genital herpes, syphilis and other micro-organisms in men and their partner(s).
• Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.
• Decrease in urological problems generally.
Reviews:
Besides the information contained in the present internet review, the reader can consult other reviews on the topic of circumcision and its benefits. These are as follows: [American, 1989; Schoen, 1990; Lafferty et al., 1991; Russell, 1993; Australian, 1995; Fetus, 1996; Morris, 1999; Adelman & Joffe, 2004; Alanis & Lucidi, 2004; Schoen, 2005a; Short, 2006; Thomson et al., 2006; Morris, 2007a; Schoen, 2007e; Schoen, 2007d; Schoen, 2007c; World, 2008a; World, 2008b; Austin, 2009; Ben et al., 2009; Morris, 2009; Morris & Castellsague, 2010; Morris & Cox, 2010; Tobian et al. 2010]. The message they convey is consistently a positive one.
The present review is, however, the most extensive by far, as one can appreciate by reading each specific section.
As can be appreciated, the benefits are different as the human male progresses through life. Each of these benefits will be now be reviewed in detail.
The pain is minimal, if any, when anesthetic is used.
Clicky
Quote:
No adverse psychological aftermath has been demonstrated [Schlosberger et al., 1992]. A longitudinal study in the UK, beginning in 1946, involving over 5,000 individuals followed from birth to age 27 found no difference in developmental and behavioural indices between circumcised and uncircumcised males [Calnan et al., 1978].
Long-term psychological, emotional, and sexual impediments from circumcision are anecdotal [Williams & Kapila, 1993; Moses et al., 1998] and can be discounted. It must be recognized that there are many painful experiences encountered by the child before, during and after birth [McIntosh, 1997]. Circumcision, if performed without anesthetic is one of these.
Cortisol levels, heart rate and respiration have registered an increase during and shortly after the procedure [Taddio et al., 1997a; Taddio et al., 1997b], indicating that the baby is not unaware of having had something painful done in instances when circumcision has been carried out without anesthesia. It is therefore generally advised that local anesthetic be used for all circumcisions on infants (more on anesthesia later).
The response is variable and, even without anesthetic, some babies show no signs of distress at all. Most do, however, and this may be contributed by the restraining procedure, not just the surgery itself.
In the past doctors and parents had to weigh up the need to inflict this short-term pain in the context of a lifetime of gain from prevention or reduction of subsequent problems. Use of anesthetic for circumcision makes it either relatively or absolutely pain-free.
3.
Quote:
I would argue circumcision is a socially acceptable form of abuse.
You have not established that circumcision is abuse. Circumcision offers physical benefits and no pain is involved when anesthetic is used, which is surely the case in any developed nation. You have also not proven that there are no spiritual benefits from the procedure.
The purpose of circumcision is to benefit the child, not to hurt the child. It is something the parent does out of love for the child.
Are sports activities abusive? If Junior joins the wrestling team he is going to experience pain. Same for martial arts. Same goes for just playing chase on the playground or riding a bicycle as the child will at some point fall down and skin himself up.
4.
Quote:
Abortion should be legal within the first trimester (which most abortions fall under), while circumcision for minors should be illegal.
A fetus has multiplying cells, unique human DNA, and is the product of human conception. Therefore a fetus is a unique human life. At the moment of conception the zygote is genetically complete and is a human life.
Why do you say it is ok to snuff out human life that is in the first trimester?
What if a child wants to be circumcised? I asked to be baptized when I was about 10 years old. What if I had wanted to follow Judaism and had asked to be circumcised instead. Should it be illegal for a child who wants to be circumcised to be circumcised?
5) Quote:
On the third hand, giving government bureaucrats the authority to decide when to allow a plastic surgery or not isn't a good idea either. So I don't think there's a good answer to this.
How does circumcision differ from cosmetic surgery other than there also being religious issues involved?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 01:56 PM |
|
|
Please reply to my epic point with Satanists and group masturbation.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 01:56 PM |
|
|
Yes, I'd be interested in hearing that as well.
____________
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 08:35 PM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 20:36, 02 Jun 2011.
|
*sigh*
I've replied to this thread multiple times, and way too much for my liking... but I guess I've been too *involved* into this discussion not to have a (hopefully) final say about it.
Elodin, you are obviously more in favor of circumcision than against it (I wouldn't say exactly "pro", because you might be playing the proverbial devil's advocate or simply because you only defend it from a religious p.o.v.). The rest of HC (or at least nearly everybody in HC) clearly isn't. Fine. What else has changed? You've got your opinions, we got ours. I personally do feel you have a very valid point (imagine that!) about jews and muslims being allowed to practice their religion, and should be -on that matter- exempt from that ruling. I agree with this.
What I do not agree with however, is infant circumcision for the reasons the CHRISTIAN or ATHEIST Americans have been practicing for so long. Do note however that I use the phrase Christian/Atheist in reference to all non-jewish, non-muslim American denizens. I could also have added Hindus, Buddhists and whatnot to the list, but then it would be would become a summarization too long-winded. (But by no means am I pointing fingers to Christians or Atheists - just a fyi)
Years ago, when Infant circumcision was practiced on a grand scale in the Anglo-American world (USA, England, Australia, NZ, and Canookistan I suppose) for medical reasons that have -as I said before- have been previously outdated. Global and Personal Hygiene has skyrocketed over the last 50 years or so, and since EVERY non-religious reason if actually (or disguised) as a medical one.
Like I said, those are pretty much outdated.
And... I'll try to debunk some of the myths about it, from the top of my head.
Reason 1: Foreskins are dirty, smegma, "dick stink" and the like  JUST WASH IT IN THE SHOWER. I take it that, in modern society, it isn't that big an issue to shower on a daily, or if you must, two-daily basis? Since you stand their idly anyway, you could just as well spend 2-3 seconds washing it. Big deal. In Western Society, particularly the USA, this should barely be an issue.
Reason 2: Circumcision reduces the chances of penile Cancer: I'll gladly redirect you to my previous post where I noted that reports on the actually use of circ to counter Penile cancer are contradicting each other and therefor can be ignored (or at least should not be followed because there isn't a clear solution to the problem). Secondly, Such cancers are rare anyway. Thirdly, Circumcision is a treatment, not a means of prevention. Cancers that develop of the foreskin can be removed via circumcision (which is a VALID procedure in my eyes). Cancers on any other spot on the penis... well, I don't see Circumcision helping there... or what is next? Chop your kid's weiner off to make sure he (or should we say: she) will never penile cancer? Don't be ridiculous. And Fourthly and most importantly: percentage-wise, the cancer rates are somewhat equal between Europe and America, America having a slightly higher rate. TO me, it is clear that Circumcision something that prevents cancer, and definitely not in comparison to a healthy life-style.
Reason 3: Circumcision Prevents AIDS, HIV and STDs Again, there is no valid proof of this - reports are once again contradictory. If we DO take a look at the cut/uncut rate of diagnosed patients, there's barely any difference... and once more, the are percentage-wise more Americans contaminated with these, and Europeans are. To me, the *real* treatment is obvious: Personal hygiene, for one and obviously safe sex. If you abolish the use of condoms or other means of anti-conception for religious reasons, fine. But there's no excuse for not taking good care of your body, especially your genitals for whatever reasons. Don't bull me on that one, please.
Reason 4: It looks better. :massive eyeroll:. Easily the most common and infuriating "reason" (or as I liked to call it: fauxrguement) of them all, and also the most foolish one. So what if you think it's prettier? Is it your penis? If it is, then fine it's your thing, cut it up if you must. It is isn't... then why -permanently- change someone else's bits because YOU think it looks better that way? Don't be stupid, stupid.
Reason 5: A boy must look like his father. *vomit* So *WHAT* if the father is circumcised? Do you expect the infant to be bald, sport tattoos or wear glasses as well? If the "father" is indeed the child's actual father, the child will bear enough likeness to him already. Isn't that enough? The child is his own person, not the clone of the resident paternal figure.
Reason 6: He cannot possibly miss it, it's just a bit of skin and a little snip. how can you be so certain of that? Sure not even 1% of the circ'd men are angry at their parents for snipping them, but still... you do want your child to be angry at you for doing something to it the child itself didn't ask for in the first place?
Reason 7: It is virtually painless. Not circumcising is even LESS painless, imagine that. And again, that is hardly a reason itself, just some fauxrguement backpedaling parents on either side of the dispute use to state their case. Pain is barely an issue if the procedure is undertaken properly, but of course not undertaking it will always be less painful than undertaking it. Then again, I barely find it a valid reason myself W/E.
Reason 8: Peer-Pressure. You've got to be fricking kidding me. Now you let OTHERS decide how the genitalia of YOUR son will look like? Are. You. Effing. KIDDING. ME? BULL WE SAY! BULL! BULL! BULL!
Reason 8: My religious wants me to do it. Uh-oh. This is a delicate debate that I personally do not like engaging in. Followers of Christianity or any religion that does not explicitely demands it have - imo - just as much reason to circ their infant as an atheist has: which imo, is none at all. Nearly EVERY Christian on this planet is uncut, especially Catholics and Orthodox Christians. None of them have had any more trouble preforming their religion than a cut Christian had. There's absolutely no reason to be circ'd if your religion doesn't require it. I mean, just look at the rest of the world: Buddhists don't do it, Zoroastrians don't do it (unless out of peer-pressure which is *eyeroll* unfortunate), Hindus don't do it, etc.
By my knowledge only Jews and Muslims and some tribal religions require it. Fair enough to me. It you think Circumcision, as odd as it may seem to somebody who is neither Jewish, nor a Muslim nor Circumcised even, is a valid device for some sort of ceremonial initiation into your religion, then fine, preform it. I personally don't see what foreskins have done to Jahwe or Allah to warrant being cut off somewhere during childhood.... but fair enough. There are some ethical questions concerning whether that still excuses permanently changing the physique of your son, but hey at least there's some reason behind it, and one more valid than "It's prettier" (B!tchplz)
But I cannot seem to notice that, canonically, Circumcision as a religious practice only started with Abraham and Isaac... which HEAVILY implies any Jews/Clergymen/Whatchamacallit preceding Abraham must have been uncircumcised! This -in fact- INCLUDES NOAH, ALL OF HIS ANCESTORS AND THE NINE GENERATIONS THAT FOLLOWED HIM. (Abraham was -from my information- born 10 generations after Noah was).
Maybe not cutting of the foreskin is an obselete thing for Jews and Muslims ever since Abraham... but if NOAH, one of the most important and iconic figures in the Old Testament can be uncut and be simultaneously caressed by Jahwe, then it of course raises a question whether Jews or Muslims actually need to be cut in order to become a "good" jew or muslim.
There are probably more issues to be adressed, but this will have to suffice for now. This is my third post on the whole matter, and sadly, I'm afraid it may not be last. *sigh*
Have a fun read, Elodin, and I'm anticipating your reply, particularly on the last paragraph.
(Bak: If in Satanism group masturbation is mandatory, then every "good" Satanist must practice as often as he possibly can. I'm sure Elodin would agree with this, no?)
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 09:03 PM |
|
|
I would rather have to masturbate than be cut 
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 09:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I would rather have to masturbate than be cut
Oooh, that reminds me of a tidbit I haphazzardly forgot to mention in my post - Circumcision was actually introduced into Victorian England as a treatment against... MASTURBATION.
Just two words to describe this: 1) lol. 2) Fail.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 10:01 PM |
|
|
1) Certain people have refused to answer most of my questions (see my first post on this page) yet if I don't answer every turn of every phrase of every question they ask I am accused of dodging the question, deflecting, and misdirecting the questions and being a generally deceptive person.
2) How do you know what the viewpoint of most people in the Heroes Community is about circumcision? Relatively few people have posted in this thread.
3) You claim the medical benefits of circumcision are outdated. The claim that circumcision offers no benefits is false as I have shown. The claim that circumcision is necessarily painful is false as I have shown. Some people claim circumcision has spiritual benefits. You have not proven otherwise.
I offer another link, the Center of Disease Control, that gives some health benefits of circumcision.
clicky
4) The claim that it is questionable whether a person can be a good Jew or good Muslim without being circumcised is false since both Judaism and Islam require circumcision. I have quoted previously the Old Covenant requirement for all Jewish infants to be circumcised on the eighth day after their birth.
5) Quote:
What I do not agree with however, is infant circumcision for the reasons the CHRISTIAN or ATHEIST Americans have been practicing for so long.
I am a Christian. The New Testament teaches that circumcision is no longer required. However, some Christians are ignorant of the New Testament teaching in that regard and think it is required for them to be circumcised. For a person to think circumcision is required by God and yet refuse to practice it would be sin. Paul addressed this indirectly by addressing the issue of whether or not Christians should eat meat bought from the public markets. Meat sold at markets was often from animals that had been sacrificed to pagan gods. Paul said it is ok to eat the meat because there is only one real God. But he also said that a person who thinks it is wrong to eat such meat but who does so anyways is sinning.
Quote:
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
A Christian who wrongly thinks circumcision is still required but who does not practice circumcision would be sinning.
6) Circumcision was made a requirement to be in covenant with God at the time of Abraham. This requirement was repeated for the Law given through Moses.
Quote:
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Lev 12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
@Baklava: Please note this is the OSM, not the Volcanic Wastelands.
Exposing yourself to a child and masturbating is illegal and immoral. Kidnapping a person and raping them on a satanic alter is illegal and immoral.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 10:33 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
1) Frankly, I hadn't even read your first post on this page, so how could I possibly comment on it
2) The vast majority of men on this board (me included) are European and Uncircumcised and find circumcision to be a very weird, borderline disturbing ritual. It may have been a tad entitled to assume everyone thinks on the matter like those that have posted in this thread, but well - I think I'm fairly correct in my assessments on the matter. I haven't seen a single positive response towards circ from that particular demograph to date. Even American Citizens like Cor or Mvass (although Mvass is the son of Russian immigrants, so idk which demograph I should lump him in with.) have made negative remarks about it.
3) I never said Circumcision had zero benefits. I said INFANT Circumcision is outdate and unnessecairy. I also said that Circumcision as a means of diseas prevention is outdated and unnessecairy. These are the only context in which I had used those words in, or at least intended to use in. I also said the "pain" arguement is seen from the wrong angle - It doesn't matter whether Circ is very painful or virtually painless, not circ'ing the penis will ALWAYS be less painful than circ'ing it. (Unless the "owner" of the penis doesn't take care of it properly, resulting in infections or worse, in which case - obviously- circumcision is nessecairy for health reasons - but these cases are very rare to begin with)
4) Like I said Religion is a touchy subject... but that doesn't mean that you have to apply every single rule to a religion. I -personally- know muslims who drink, smoke don't fast during the Ramadan, etc... and they STILL consider themselves "good" muslims and feel one with Allah regardless of their -by lack of better word- sins. But I do have a feeling you'll vehemently disagree with this.
5) Interesting read, and that only underlines my previous statement that Christians have to reason to circ' their infants. (albeit for totally different reasons - but hey, I think we can call this teamwork.)
6)I still ask myself why this is SO nessecairy to be done. No, "Because God told us so" is not a legitimate reason to me. Especially since prior to Abraham, circ is unheard off. So what about his ancestors, most notable of which is Noah? What about them?
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 10:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Reason 6: He cannot possibly miss it, it's just a bit of skin and a little snip. how can you be so certain of that? Sure not even 1% of the circ'd men are angry at their parents for snipping them, but still... you do want your child to be angry at you for doing something to it the child itself didn't ask for in the first place?
Where does that 1 % come from? Over the years, I seem to have talked to several persons who were actually frustrated that they had been circumsized and that, for obvious reasons, it could not be undone. Now, it's not that many people I've discussed this subject with, so I will hardly call myself a statistical sample, but I wondered if that number (< 1 %) was something that was well established or just some random number?
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 10:56 PM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 22:57, 02 Jun 2011.
|
It's a random pick, but I had to guesstimate it would be around that number. (maybe 2% at best) Don't forget the demograph "Circ'd men" also includes muslims and jews all around the world and I have yet to meet one of either group that regrets getting cut.
Of course, I would guess the percentage of circ'd men who would NOT circumcise their sons, it would be much higher. idk how much though, because I admittedly don't know enough on the subject - and frankly I never asked any man about their penis so I wouldn't know. (not to mention it'd be awkward like hell). What I do know is that the rate of non-religious circumcision is declining all over the globe, most notably in Australia and NZ.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 02, 2011 11:26 PM |
|
|
Oh ok, that's fine, just wanted to know!
____________
What will happen now?
|
| |
|
|
