They are actually trying to ban circumsision in Sanfrancisco.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/1 … 63945.html
i dont know how anti-semetic it is,..... it just strikes me as a way for buisy body uptights to weasle thier way into our pants,.... the health benifits far outwiegh the risks for this procedure,... and its mostly cultural the reasons for having a child circumsized.
for the love of god, alah, or the toad fairy worshipped at the shrine on 9th ave,..... arent thier better things, more important things to get work up about?????
children are beaten and abused every day, they starve on our american streets, vicimized by those who would prey on them, become quickly addicted to drugs, and feel very little love and compassion ffrom a secular socioety that only wants to sell tem the next marketable thing,....
circumscision that also has the benifit of preventing comunicable dissease and urinay tract infections in addition to other dissorders seems a small thing,.... its up tight insecure ass's that cant nuter a dog because of the "idea" that do this sort of thing,.. cold fish buisy boddies that have nohing bettter to do than look for a fight like a fat kid looks for ice cream
My wang's circumsised, and I ain't Jewish.
Making circumsision illegal is a tyrannical act that only a despotic government would attempt.
Circumsised wangs have a tendency to be cleaner and healthier, at least according to both articles cited on wikipedia and my weird friends who talk about their "D**k cheese".
Sorry if this is inappropriate, but it comes with the territory.
Making it illegal to mutilate a baby makes sense to me. Foreskins are there for a reason, but - seeing as you had yours surgically removed at birth - you will never know just how sensitive your glans would have been - will you? Not given any choice in the matter were you? Mummy and Daddy were quite happy to cut you.
Circumcised wangs are no more likely to be clean and healthy than uncircumcised wangs. I suppose you advocate surgical removal of middle toes to prevent fungal growth as well do you?
Or do you think it makes sense to wash between your toes instead?
That's got to be the most ridiculous sort of reasoning I've heard in a while. You would probably advocate anything as long as it supresses religious values.
For 5,000 years the Jewish people have been following God's command to be circumsised, and you have the audacity to call it mutilation.
Well let me give you a little exerpt from the first ammendment of the United States Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."
I'm not even really sure that it's religious. I'm atheist/secularist, and my family comes down from a heritage of Christian and Catholic... my wang's snipped.
Also, if you read the part of the Constitution that you quoted:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You'll notice that the subject of the sentence is "CONGRESS". Thus it is ONLY illegal for CONGRESS to make a law of the sort. However, it would be legal for the State of California to make such a law.
While it may be legal, however, it would be tyrannical.
well that may be, but I think that any state which deliberately craps all over the constitution needs a little congressional intervention. Not that I think the bill will actually pass, the mere fact that this outlandish rule is even being considered to be put into law is an astonishing testament to the low level of real tolerance this country has.
A bit weird!
Stopping the mutilation of children is outlandish but mutilation is considered normal!
Don't you think it a bit off when you give more rights to the unborn child than the born child?
I don't quite understand this. Children are born under the protective wing of their parents, and thus it's their decision.
If you don't like it, don't do it. But you have to outlaw it because "you think you know better than everyone else". That's nonsense.
It's just a piece of skin, who f**king cares?
So - you favor more mutilation at birth then? Perhaps the surgical removal of appendixes and middle toes? I guess you think the Aztec ceremonies of cutting out hearts are OK as well?
Did you get your weiner cut too and want to make sure everyone else does?
Heaven inspired, foreskin removal, yes I am absolutely in favor of. Aztec heart removal ritual not so much.
This is a classic example of moral relativism. Just because it is ubsurd to remove toes and organs based on beliefs held by noone in current American socioty, does not justify banning the religious freedoms of hundreds of thousands of practicing Jews, or anyone who's right it is to make that decision.
I personally don't know who is cut and who is not, nor do I care weather or not they decide to have it done to themselves or their children, it's the decision of the parents and not the government.
Tell me, do you think it is the right of a woman to get an abortion whenever they choose to?
So - popular opinion is what you are all about? As long as it is a time honored relious mutilation (Unless it is VooDoo) all good. Parents should be allowed to mutilate their children as long as their parents mutilated them? Gotcha. Not impressed with your morals Dude. Where did you get them?
I don't expect somone like you to be impressed with basic morality. I expect you to be opposed to it, hence when you disagree with me I'm all the more certain that my stance on this issue (or any other issue for that matter), is morally sound. In fact I am extatic to know that you disagree with me.
Where does morality come into the question?
It is purely a hygiene measure, perhaps necessary in days when there was no plumbing, but these days when it is perfectly possible to wash your bits daily or more often, a totally unneeded mutilation.
Who cares if it's unnecessary? If some guy wants it done to his kid, why should it be illegal?
Surely if it's "MUTILATION OF GENITALIA! AND IT'S EVIL!!!" then people will willingly stop the practice.
... or maybe it's not that big of an f*ing deal, and we should just let freedom reign.
I will forever refer to piercing ears as mutilation.
No, but people MUTILATE themselves by ramming a metal needle through their skin and making a HOLE in their body.
But freedom for whom? Not for the child that's for sure.
Let the child make up its own mind when it is old enough to do so, then you can spout freedom all you like.
I got no problems with that -- but you're asking to make it illegal to circumcise.
That's tyranny, buddy. And I ain't gonna allow that.
No, not making it illegal to circumcise, just making it illegal to force circumcision on others.
It is perfectly legal to decide to have your self circumscribed after the age of 18.
Actually, what you are arguing for is tyranny, not as you seem to think, freedom.
So you're arguing that we need to have people in government tell us how to raise our children.
That's nonsense, and you know it.
So you believe parents have the right to treat their children any way they feel?
Do you feel that government should control how you raise your children?
In some cases yes. Someone has to stand up for them when they can't stand up for themselves.
And how does the government pay for it's "defending of the innocent"?
When you respond, please delete the word "taxes" and replace it with "theft at gunpoint".
So what your saying is that you are incompetent to care for your own child? You will get up in the middle of the night to feed, cradle and comfort, feed them, Teach them your values that you believe in, support them etc... But you feel you are not capable of making every decision for your own child and need help from the Government..whom jerks off on the internet and lies and has worse ethics then many others? Very sad for you, I hope you do not have any kids since you feel your not competent to make sound decisions for them.
No, what I am saying is that some people abuse their children. Sometimes someone has to step in. Why do you have to be such an angry jerk in all of your postings?
Your talking about actually(physically) hurting someone! that is totally different. since this procedure started has anyone been harmed from this? If someone physically abuses someone that is different.
So if you still need to have Government help you raise your child because you might beat or abuse them in any other way, Then I suggest you hand them over and get them a better home.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just wanted to point out how pointless your statement was. I can tell by your posts that you are very intelligent and sound like a very sweet person. I do not think you need to have the Government who is not as qualified as you to make decisions for your child.
So you think it is a sound decision to mutilate your children do you?
I'm not mutilating them. I'm actually helping them from catching and spreading disease. It is much cleaner. Why must you put your socialist spin on everything? You just want the Government to tell you when you can $hit and eat. I do not, I want freedom to do as I please as long as it isn't hurting anyone. Maybe you like to take direction from people who jerk off over the internet and lie and steal! I have much better feel of what I think is right. you can be a puppet, Do not force it on me!
Fine words Danny, if somewhat contradictory.
Since when has hygiene been a socialist spin?
You want freedom to do as you please, which in your case amounts to depriving others of the freedom to do as they please and hurting them in the process!
On the contrary, you are the puppet, doing something unnatural to your children for no better reason than plenty of other people do it!
I don't need the government to tell me that circumcision is cruel and unnatural, I know.
Good Spin as usual John. Who said Hygiene is a socialist thing?
As far as Having a turtle D!ck, I call it this because when hard it comes out of the shell. I have had my boys circumcised because it is cleaner and healthier. There is no data that shows otherwise! please post Documented facts if you have some.
Here is a wikipedia link that shows as I stated. ENJOY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_eff … rcumcision
You said that it was a socialist thing!
There is also no data that shows it is cleaner and healthier.
The wiki link you post is inconclusive and does not justify mutilation.
Again show me where I said it was a socialist thing? I said you were putting your usual socialist spin on things. Never said that!
So your words claim that it is inconclusive to be mutilation. So you are admitting that there is no proof that it is mutilation.
My older uncles were not circumcised and they had infections etc... Common sense would tell you that if not clean you can easily get infections and disease! Yes you can clean, but when your young your not as good hygienically and prone to get infections.
As far as feelings! I can say with the most confidence that I have very good feelings!
And if it is as all you supporters claim that don't want circumcision that you lose nerve endings, Then that is good and we will not get premature ejaculation! Do you premature Ejaculate? maybe it is because you have too many nerves!
And about pleasure, That has to be the most ridiculous statement because everyone is different in size! so if you have 5" and uncut and someone is 8" and cut why would the 5" be better? It wouldn't.
Also you hear some men say it is not the size of the Boat, but the motion of the ocean! I guess a small person came up with that one.
OK - I agree it is OK to mutilate and surgically remove. Like wot god sed
Gawd u r brave,
You are REALLY good at twisting arguments.
Someone: "Other people should be allowed to do what they want"
Evolution Guy: "THEN YOU MUST LIKE RIPPING HEARTS OUT OF PEOPLE!!!"
Someone: "We shouldn't make things illegal just because other people have a problem with it"
EG: "THAT MEANS THAT YOU ARE MINDLESS AND ARE CONTROLLED BY POPULAR OPINION"
... Come up with a CREDIBLE argument for tyranny or give it up, dude.
Like I said, more respect for the unborn child than the born child!
What part of your belief covers circumcision? It seems to be covered by the same tome that allows for all sorts of inhumane practices that no right thinking Christian today follows, I mean, when did you last stone your wife?
I'm glad I don't have "Dick Cheese", and I don't want my future son to have to deal with chicks freaking out at his Uncut wang.
... how bout that for religious indoctrination.
Growing up, I always thought this was 'dick cheese'
I don't have Dick Cheese either, I wash it everyday at least.
It's no big deal washing you know.
Maybe give the chicks a wide birth and stick to women who are more interested in performance than appearance.
I'm not so sure that I trust parents to do only reasonable things to their children. While I have never heard of any parent in this country going too far, it will happen. I might be OK with ear piercings for small children for instance, but would never agree than any parent should do a nose piercing on their infant. With various body piercings becoming more common that will happen.
As other cultures continue to immigrate into America we could see them bringing in their own version of beauty or necessity as well. No one here would support female genitalia mutilation, for instance, but how long will it be before someone from the culture that practices such behavior wants to do it to their child in the US?
Govt. has assigned itself the task of protecting helpless children and while the programs don't work very well at all it may be that they are necessary. Child abuse is very common in many aspects and what one person calls abuse is called helping by the next. Children are neither slaves nor objects for parents to carry out their own desires on; they are people with an innate right to be free from torture or mutilation.
Because I think that getting circumsised is ok, I think it's ok to rip people's hearts out of their chests.
... nice argument...
Stupid people, please go away. You're arguments are nonsensical. Cancer is all-natural, so we shouldn't mutilate people to remove it according to you. Give me a break. Apply your insane reasoning to your own treatment. Don't try to force it on rational people.
So what you are saying is peopel should be forced to have surgical treatments? Is that correct? I think you need to check your reasoning before telling me that mutilating babies is acceptable because some people choose to have surgery to remove cancer.
A foreskin is not the same thing as a life threatening disease.
Learn what your saying! Here is the definition of Mutilation! 2 women already posted that it looks better and is cleaner! so where is the mutilation?
Mutilation is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death. how is this mutilation? And again as 2 woman stated it actually enhances the look and is cleaner!
I see, Well - I don't like the smell of an unclean vulva. Perhaps vulvas should be removed at birth also in that case?
Enhances the look? Nothing subjective there.
An uncircumcised penis is far more sensitive than a circumcised one - so the function has indeed been downgraded. Thank you for agreeing with me that this is mutilation.
The state ISN'T "crapping" on the constitution. The Constitution only prevents CONGRESS from passing religious laws -- that's why the sentence says "Congress shall not"
If you read the 10th amendment - the most important of them all - you'll see that states ARE allowed to pass religious laws (but most do not).
And furthermore, if you have to make people "tolerant" by outlawing "intolerance", then you'll only end up with deaths.
I'm pretty sure the civil rights amendment has 'religion' in there, so the states are not allowed to discriminate against religions.
The word religion appears no where in the 14th amendment.
The first clause of the 14th amendment only demands that the states can't deprive people of the RIGHT to life, liberty or property without due process.
So, no, that's not right.
The one employers use where it says all those things they can't discriminate against, maybe it isn't the 'civil rights' amendment but definitely concerns civil rights.
Once again, the actual Constitution, in the Civil Rights Amendments (13 and 14) do NOT mention Religion.
Hence, states CAN write religiously biased laws.
I'm an Atheist/Secularist, and so it pisses me off that this is allowed... but... there it is.
California is perfectly able to wake up tomorrow and ban Judaism (so long as the California Constitution doesn't outlaw such an action)
Okay, well I was talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which definitely mentions religion in its amendments based on discrimination in the public domain. That is not relevant so I won't dwell on it further but I believe you are missing the fundamental implication of the 14th Amendment.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So when it says that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" that means the states cannot pass laws that deny the rights of the first amendment. Originally it was probably meant to deal with things along the lines of if a black person is allowed to vote because they are a United States Citizen, then Georgia can't pass a law removing their right to vote.
So even if the 14th Amendment does not directly mention religion it still secures religious civil rights from being abridged by the states.
while i admittedly loved the midle toe comparison,... and my foot rot would make considder it! ha!,.... for what reason is a foreskin there?...... for what reason is an apendix there?..... both would apear to be genetic evidence of our previous history,... the latter being eveidence of a past previous digestion pouch as some suspect,... the former a cover of sorts for when we ran naked as jay birds,... but now that we wear cloths, building up body heat, keeping our personal filth close to ourselves, not to mention the evolution of std's along side our evolving sexual habbits,... and i once more must say that my georgia work boots do indeed make removing my toes a viabl option at times,....
if you prefer the natural "wang",... then i respectfuly sugest that you run naked as hell and where no clothing too,.... good luck with that
Well, that argument made no sense.
"If you like foreskins so much, why don't you run around naked"
The real issue is simply that government shouldn't be deciding these things.
Remember freedom? When we entrusted people to make their own decisions? ... good times!
But you aren't allowing people to make their own decisions, you are arguing for other people to make decisions for them, government or parents, what's the difference?
The proposed law does allow people to make their own decisions in that it only prohibits the snip below the age of eighteen.
What's the difference between government and parents?
Government didn't have to go through 9 months of labor to birth me. Government didn't raise me. Government didn't knowingly create me from nothingness. Government didn't feed me for the most of my life.
Sure, I never asked to be born, but...
... seriously? You can't see the difference between government and parents?
When it comes to making life changing decisions on my behalf, not a lot.
Alright, let's play the game.
You give birth to a child, and, according to you, have absolutely no control over that child whatsoever. Thus, you have no need to care for that child.
Thus, it is perfectly logical and allowable -- in your mind -- to have a child, and then leave it to starve to death.
Not at all, my good sir.
If you're claiming that parents don't have control over how to raise their children (because government is in charge -- that's why it's making things illegal), then you claim that I can just put my baby on the side of the street and a "baby collection" truck will come by and start taking care of it.
It's one or the other: either parents and communities raise children, or government does.
Making things like circumcision illegal means that government is in charge.
So - you do advocate other mutilations then? Or is this one "special."?
I'm not advocating mutilation.
I'm not advocating circumcision.
I'm advocating "parents know how to raise their children better than government officials".
So why doesn't that count when governments make child prostitution illegal?
Mutilation is not by definition taking care of a child. It is child abuse and as such the government is right to outlaw it.
Because it is common practice doesn't make it right, we used to send children up chimneys.
I don't mean to be a jerk, but I don't feel mutilated at all because my wang's cut. In fact, most chicks today are freaked out by the uncut variety.
Sorry that I backed my argument up with a few sources:
But it does seem to be that uncut have a higher chance of getting infected.
Also, I've never heard of any cut guy talking about "dick cheese".
I don't really give a flying F*** what California decides to do because I don't plan on living there.
But making things illegal that people WANT to do is Tyranny.
sick 'em friend,... you state the case better than i
furthr more,...what constitutes the mutilation of a baby?,..... my niece has her ears pierced at 1 yr old,.... shall i round up my inlaws and have tem shot for mutilating her?,... or fine them 1000$?
Emperor Hadrian made circumcision illegal too and it resulted in the Bar Kokhba revolt, it didn't turn out too well for the Jews.
Isn't there anything more important than the winkie ... and its muffler ... to raise the racial discrimination issue ... ?
Next will be the Aryans,your saying, Hitler was not circumcised !
Arabs, Palestinians, and Jews have common Ancestry ...
Shem, is their Common ancestor ... and after the Flood, Shem's progeny had settled around Mount Ararat, in Turkey ... The 12 Tribes of the Jews, are descendants of Prophet Abraham, Peace be Upon him ... he belonged to Ur, in Babylonia.
All Humans are the Progeny of Prophet Noah, Peace be upon him.
Circumcision is an Islamic Practice ... also followed by orthodox Jes, with the Practice's origins in Abrahamic Tradition ...
So what does your being a tad anti-semitic mean ... does it imply, that Arab cousins should stop circumcising their thing ?
The city of San Francisco has put a proposition on their ballot to ban circumcision for everyone, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists whoever. So yes, they want the Arab cousins to stop circumcising their thing.
I took the title, 'a tad anti-Semetic' to be an understatement because it seems extremely anti-Semetic to me, just scroll down at AnnCee's racist cartoon where the evil Jewish mafia is coming to steal the babies foreskin.
One of my penises in circumcised, the other is not.
I find no difference between the two other than a few inches in size... which is no big deal when taking the whole larger packages into account
I don't think the question is as simple as it sounds. For centuries mankind has mutilated their bodies in the name of religion, beauty and health. Stclairjack mentioned poking holes in an infants ears - how about a nice tattoo on a 6 month old infant to go with holey ears? Or a nice nose piercing?
Other cultures have other mores and customs. Japanese girls used to have their feet bound until they were so deformed they could barely walk. Some cultures bind the neck so tightly that the shoulders deform to produce the appearance of an extremely long neck. Female genitalia mutilation is fairly common. Lips and ears are cut and otherwise deformed. Deep cuts may be made into flesh to produce fearsome scars. The list is nearly endless, and nearly all these things are commonly done to helpless children.
No one here would ever support the genitalia mutilation of young girls; why do we assume it is OK for young boys? While the male mutilation could have a health reason, few parents do it because of that - rather it is because they are Christian or because it is the accepted norm in this country and they don't want their sons to look weird. Should we then allow female mutilation of immigrant children because it is the norm for them?
We are a nation of laws and many of those very laws govern the abuse of helpless children and infants. How do you write a law that allows mutilation of one but not the next? How do you choose which mutilation is acceptable to perform on children that can have no say in the matter? Should we simply allow any infant mutilation the parents choose? Or none of them (including ear piercings)? Or are we somehow able to pick and choose which ones are acceptable?
And yes, I was mutilated as an infant and am happy with it. I mutilated my two sons and they seem happy with that.
A pity you will never know the sensations you are missing.
... what a boneheaded argument.
You don't know what it feels for me, and I don't know what it feels like for you.
That's true FOR EVERYONE ON THE PLANET!!!
I don't know what it feels like to be a female, a doctor, a narcolepsy patient, Paris Hilton, etc. etc.
No one knows what it's like to be someone else, so using that as an argument to MAKE SOMETHING ILLEGAL is pretty lame (pardon the pun).
Some religions believe in female circumcision, are you saying that is okay?
You have to remember you are talking about San Francisco. They have a history of trying to get stupid laws on the books. I guess if it passes and you can't get it done in the hospital, the moile business will sky rocket.
Cultural trend has changed since WWII when having a circumcised weiner was a dead giveaway (literally) that you were Jewish.
Here in the US -- perhaps it's different in other countries, MOST boys are circumcised either in the hospital as hours old infants or in a religious ceremony.
I don't think female circumcision is a direct parallel. Cutting a woman's clitoris off prevents her from feeling sexual pleasure. Not so cutting a male's foreskin...
I think SF could find much better ways of addressing child abuse than prohibiting this procedure.
I mean, who's going to enforce this?
So little Johnny's parents defy the law and he goes to daycare and the daycare provider calls CPS and reports the parents cuz Johnny's circumcised??? Sorry, but if Johnny's malnourished or covered with bruises -- that's child abuse. This is not.
This is an interesting forum thread.
Evan and MM on the same side of an issue with John Holden on the opposite.
This is why stereotyping people based on perceived political bias is so ridiculous!!!
for the record - my stance on politics leads me to my stance on circumcision (or, at least, the outlawing of circumcision).
Outlawing things that people WANT to do is tyranny. Thus drugs must be legal, circumcision must be legal, and so must prostitution.
Those who are pro-drug yet anti-Circumcision (i never thought that this would be a political issue) are hypocrites.
The case may be made "well adults can make decisions for their own selves, but children are at the mercy of their parents. Thus, it is against liberty to deny the child's right to choose", but I must demand that there be a time in a child's life until when they are allowed to make their own decisions.
This time in the US is 18 (or until emancipated). But this is a largely artificial setting. I prefer the Rothbardian idea that one is not able to fend for oneself until they own property of their own -- that is, you must work and own your own property to be emancipated from a caregiver.
Anyway, caregivers exist, and they can make decisions for young ones.
Yes, caregivers exist and make decisions for young ones.
Some spank a child with their palm while others beat the child with belts and sticks leaving welts, bruises or worse. Some poke holes in their children and some cut off body parts. One in my area is on trial for torturing an 8 year old boy to death in the name of punishment.
While we both would agree that removing a foreskin is OK and that a 260 pound man dropping a knee into the abdomen of a spread eagled child is not, the possibilities between the two extremes is enormous and somewhere a line must be drawn.
Where do you draw the line? More importantly, how do you draw the line and who does the drawing? The question is not one of tyranny, nor drug use nor prostitution. It is one of societies need to protect helpless children from abusive caregivers.
Indeed, how does one draw the line?
Here's the question that must be answered: do you want each individual coming up with the answer, or one individual coming up with the answer?
Clearly a monopoly on child-rearing would be horrible.
And even more clearly is that when each individual may do as s/he wishes with their children the result can be, and all too often is, an indescribable horror for the child. It was and individual that tortured the child to death near me. It is always an individual, not a society, that rapes a small child, or sells it into prostitution. It was an individual, not society, that tried to murder her children recently when the world didn't end as predicted.
None of these people will ever agree that they have abused another human being. It is always for the child's good, or because the child belongs to them and they can do what they want with it. It is because they know better than anyone else what the child needs.
No, Evan, depending on each and every person with a child to actually love and care for that child does not work. A govt. clearing house on what is right and proper in child rearing is a terrible thing to contemplate but it absolutely pales before the horrors that people inflict on their own children.
So - you honestly do not see the difference between taking drugs and surgically mutilating a baby? This is utter nonsense. Where is your line as a matter of fact? Is it OK to perform plastic surgery on babies that do not look the way the parents want them to look?
There is a difference between taking drugs and mutilating children.
But there is a huge similarity if we're talking about making them illegal.
Both are demanding that we "Strip freedom away from individuals". And that's wrong.
The same argument for keeping circumcision LEGAL is the same argument being used to make drugs LEGAL: I'm free to raise my children and myself.
Those arguments are completely irrelevant, we are talking about the individuals right. That does not mean an individual making a decision for someone else.
Nonsense. This is talking about making "doing something to some one else" illegal. How is stripping your "freedom" to mutilate your baby the same as "making it illegal to smoke pot so the alcohol companies keep their monopoly on mind altering drugs and teh Gove Inc gets to collect taxes" the same thing?
You are not making any sense. Unless you advocate complete and total authority of parents to do as they wish with their children, - which you do not. Foreskin off - OK, middle toes off - Not OK?
Fine, let's keep the drug analogy out of the argument.
You're arguing that I don't have a right to raise my own child the way that I see fit.
You're arguing that the government can make things illegal that have been common practice for millenia.
You're arguing that I don't have control over my children.
You're arguing that you want bureaucrats that I've never met to be in charge of my children.
I'm against this nonsense.
I am saying no such things. "Common practice" is your argument?
So - you are OK with some rules, but not others it seems. Circumcision is "special" because we started the practice a long time ago?
You are speaking nonsense. You do not have control over your children. you cannot kill them, starve them. beat them with a iron bar and any number of other things. You cannot sell them either. A Practice that was banned in your country some years ago after a long period of acceptance.
No. "common practice" is not my argument.
My argument is "I know how to raise my children better than some dipsh*ts in Washington DC."
Judging from your argument here - I would question that.
Nonetheless - you are making a "special" case here. Or do you demand the right to sell them into slavery and mutilate them in other ways?
You're arguing that government can control how we parent our children.
I oppose this.
So - you think you have the right to do what ever you like to your children and the government should butt out?
While I prefer mimimal Gove intervention, who else is going to protect your children from people like you who will kill or mutilate them?
If you are in complete opposition to any govt control of parenting how do you stop child abuse? How do you prevent the torture and murder I mentioned earlier?
You may be an excellent parent, I don't know. What I do know is that there are people out there that abuse their children as objects they own to the point of death. Hitlers SS corp had nothing on some of the insanity that roams our country today.
Child Protective Services is an effort to control such abuse, as pathetic and pitiful as they are. Nevertheless every time they visit an abusers home they are reviled - the abuser always knows better than they do, just as you do.
Your answer would seem to be to eliminate all such efforts at control and let parents do whatever they wish to children, but I can't accept that.
Even though I hate the thought of bureaucratic interference at least as much as you do I can think of nothing better than a vastly improved CPS which means someone somewhere will set standards. Standards I may not agree with, but standards that will protect the helpless around us.
The trial testimonies from the torture case are stomach churning to the point that I seldom read them any more. I will give up some of my freedom if it will even help prevent such things in the future.
But don't you see? You're taking away the child's freedom, or doesn't that count in your book?
Absolute cobblers, unless you are arguing for giving babies drugs, and why not! You are arguing that a parent should have absolute control over their children.
I would give no baby of mine drugs and neither would I mutilate it in any way.
Um... it isn't ... "cobblers"... (does that mean "nonsense"?)
If caregivers don't have absolute control over their child, then who does? You act like we can find a balance, but that's "cobblers" (nonsense). Either I'm allowed to raise my own child, or someone tells me what's OK and what isn't (thus they're in charge).
No offense, but I'd rather let caregivers raise their children than a bunch of politicians getting bribes from companies.
What I do with my body parts is my business unless I leave them strewn all over the place
Having worked in the Foster system here in Los Angeles, and based on my own experiences growing up, I don't see a clear correllation between parents and parenting...
Just looking at the history of government involvement in child welfare....it began with neglectful, hostile parenting and the exploitation of youth at the hands of those who are supposed to "love" and "nurture" them...
In the case of my own family....as soon as government became involved, the familial-based abuse subsided...
Big bad government didn't try to tyrannize or terrorize....rather, the intervention got to the root of the problem.... Of course, based on my subsequent experiences with the foster system, I realize that I was fortunate to have parents who backed off when abuse was discovered...and we were fortunate that drugs and alcohol had no role to play in our familial life (unlike the overwhelming majority of those who find themselves under the authority of Child Protective Services...
It's interesting. Many are against female circumcision, women wearing burkas in public, Muslims being allowed to build mosques...but start screaming when some state wants to ban circumcision. Besides, I bet it won't be passed anyway.
It's a classic case of "What I think is OK is universally OK because I say say so. What others think is OK is only actually so only if I think it is".
This thread is a microcosm of humanity in general.
And no, it won't pass. Too many think that removal of that particular part of the body is righteous. Or beautiful. Or healthy. Or whatever.
It is interesting how you can honestly compare female circumcision to male circumcision? That is ridiculous.
Muslims can build Mosques if they like, Have you not seen hundreds of them across the USA? We have about 5 in a 10 mile area where I live.
The Burkas, Yes and No, In a perfect world yes, But with all the terrorist and bombings, Sorry! safety first! You would not be thinking the same way if one blew up a bus with your love ones on it.
The OP of this thread and others seem to think circumcision should be allowed because of its religious meanings. Those other things I talked about are part of other religions. Why should one be defended due to religious freedom and another not be?
And...no, I don't support female circumcision...
Like I stated, Build all the Mosques you want!
The Burka Thing is a safety issue! as I said In a perfect world yes! again until you have a loved one blown up by these creeps we need to protect ourselves.
You have not mentioned how female and male circumcision is the same?
I guess you forgot all about the stink in New York City...
I did say why I was saying the two are the same
"The OP of this thread and others seem to think circumcision should be allowed because of its religious meanings. Those other things I talked about are part of other religions. Why should one be defended due to religious freedom and another not be?"
To get it straight the STINK in NYC as you call it was because they wanted to build a Mosque Feet from the WTC site. Nobody said they could not build one. Also the name of the mosque means VICTORY in Arabic! So you see it is quite different than not wanting to have them build a Mosque.
I do not believe we have people here practicing female Circumcision. Your confused with other countries. As I said, You can not compare the two!
Yes. Quite a few feet, in fact. Wasn't it 3 blocks away? Or 5 blocks? At 100 yards per block (pretty short block) that's 1000 feet away. Perhaps 1000 miles would be better - central Iowa, in the middle of the bible belt, maybe. That would go over like a lead balloon!
In fact having been hit by landing gear from the weapon the enemy used against us I would call it ground zero. Plus the imam who wants to build this mosque has stated that he chose the site because of its proximity to ground zero.
It is exactly 2 blocks away. NYC blocks are not big and would take no more than 2 minutes walking! It is close!
Not the point I was trying (poorly I see) to make. It wouldn't matter if it were adjacent to and touching the twin towers ground.
The point was that religion was used to prevent a 100% peaceful group from doing something entirely benign to everyone else using a group of madmen with no connection at all as an excuse. Religion doesn't need a reason to demand that what they want is righteous, just as it doesn't need an excuse to cut up infant babies. That doesn't make it right but it all too often makes it acceptable as organized religion is a powerful opponent.
About the Cordoba House name ? Read a little; The Caliphate of Córdoba ruled the Iberian peninsula from 929 to 1031. This period is known as the heyday of Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula. The economy of the Caliphate was very diverse and successful, primarily consisting of trade and plundering; state-sponsored raids into neighboring Christian kingdoms were very lucrative throughout the history of the Caliphate.
The Caliphate would be rocked with violence, with different revolutionaries claiming to be the new Caliph. After years of infighting, it fractured into a number of independent kingdoms.
Don't doubt their symbolism for a moment. Acknowledge their right to intrude and insult us and then resist and protest this to the ultimate. These people are not as peaceful as you think.
Don't forget that Spain itself at the time was fractured into many warring states that made great profit raiding each other and the Muslims. When Ferdinand and Isabella unified the area they gave the Muslims and Jews a couple of options: 1. Convert. 2. Die horribly with new torture techniques. 3. Go on a suicide mission to the new world.
Danny I respect a lot of what you have had to say in this forum, but I think you need to seriously reconsider the NYC Mosque, or more accurately, the community center.
There is a Catholic School in my town called, "Saint Cyril's". He is the one who burned the Library of Alexandria and thrust us into the dark ages, the little things like how to make cement were lost for over 1000 years because of him. Not to mention he expelled the Jews from Egypt and murdered entire groups of Christians who did not agree with him.
The name of the school doesn't bother me at all, because the version of history I just described is not celebrated by the Catholics there.
The community center that raised all the media attention would have helped to fight against the terrorism ideology in American Muslims, it is a shame that so many people were so rude to them and tried to deny their religious freedom which actually fueled the terrorist ideology.
I respect you also. I have no problem with a Mosque, It just seems very coincidental that they purposely wanted a mosque that close and the Imam has said many things that are questionable.
I live in New York and seen the devastation and just think it just isn't right at this moment. I have muslim neighbors on my block. I'm very friendly with them. They were the first outside when everyone was doing the candle vigil outside their homes. It is just a little insensitive right now.
It was not coincidental, the plans had been around for months. The immam responsible had worked for the Bush administration and had appeared on Fox News several times just a few months before the community center received flak in the media which resulted from inflammatory anti-Islamic fervor which I believe stemmed from a single Sarah Palin tweet. They continued to spread misinformation regarding the community center, and a many people now believe that misinformation to be fact. Did you know that Fox News said the community center was awesome, two months before it spent weeks damning it? I don't know where to find the clips right now so you will just have to take my word, but I have seen them.
It is not insensitive of the Muslims, it has been a decade for crying out loud. If anything we are being insensitive to a part of the Muslim community that we really should be reaching out towards.
As a Jew I was appalled at the way that many of my fellow Jews received the film, "The Passion of the Christ", this to me is a very similar situation except Christians are the majority and Muslims are the minority.
Tell me Wilderness, if you were standing 528 feet away from the twin towers when they were coming down, would you think you were AT Ground Zero?
Only Danny could turn a debate on circumcision into an anti Islam rant!
Sorry but I did not bring up the Mosque! maybe you should read a little before accusing. Might help you a bit. I just posted facts! sorry if they make you far lefties and socialist mad.
No, you didn't bring it up but you caught it and ran with it.
And Danny, you are becoming awfully boring with your anti-socialist rants. Some of us actually have views that aren't predicated on our political beliefs.
I believe in the freedom of the individual, end of story.
Why???? You don't know why??? Then you don't know what IS female circumcision. Check here and maybe you won't ask this question anymore. http://www.middle-east-info.org/league/ … ctures.htm
Fraid I do know what female mutilation is. It can involve removal of the clitoris which is obscene and not comparable. It can also involve removal of the labia which is comparable.
No, it is not comparable. Foreskin is just a piece of skin, no more. Unneeded piece of skin, removed for many sound reasons.
Reasons for female circumcision are cruel and inhuman.
A piece of skin heavily laden with nerve endings.
Ask an adult who has been circumcised.
I have and again I have no problems! Never got an infection or disease. and no premature ejaculation. Feels very good to me. Again it is stated that there isn't any proven facts to support that it diminishes any feelings. Read a few up from a woman who states what she thinks after being with both kinds! do not ignore the facts John
I rather think it is you ignoring the facts Danny, the fact that it is an adult, or adults, mutilating an infant child quite obviously without consent.
I'm the Parent and doing what is best for my child! It has been done for over 1,000 years has not hurt anyone and many upsides to circumcision. Again tell me what harm comes from being cut? The woman who posted a few spots back is a very good example of a woman telling you that she prefers cut to uncut and said it was like a man in a smoking suit to a untidy man in a loose faded coat. where did I harm my child John? Please explain to me with facts how I harmed them.
Danny, medically rationalized circumcision started more that 1000 years ago. But in reality, this tradition counts approximately somewhere to 5000 B.C (Abraham Era).
Just for fun- I remember how way back in 1997 my then 10 year old son saw a replica of Michelangelo's David. He was looking on it for a long time, trying to understand what was wrong with the guy. Then he cried in Hebrew, "Ein lo brit milah!", which means "he is not circumcised". Actually, it shows the fact that Michelangelo was somewhat ignorant and didn't know the history. David for sure was circumcised in reality.
An interesting fact- my son's friend here in America decided to undergo circumcision in college. He did it for both himself and his fiance.
That is 2 woman now stating cut is better than not cut! And again show how it is mutilation!
Mutilation is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death. how is this mutilation? And again as 2 woman stated it actually enhances the look and is cleaner!
Speculations. Using the word "mutilating" in wrong circumstances.
" mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts."
What does it have to do with cutting off unneeded part of skin for the future benefits of a boy? Hypocritical speculations.
By the way, looking into the sources of process of circumcision, i.e into the agreement between God Almighty and Abraham. In Hebrew (the original source) circumcision it is called "brit milah"- "brit" means "union" and "milah" means "word", which means literally "union sealed by a word". Promise was made to celebrate union of Hebrews with God by means of removing a piece of unneeded skin. Lots of benefits and nothing else.
It is not by chance that this Hebrew tradition (and by the way, Muslim tradition too, as Abraham circumcised his both sons, Isaac and Ishmael)was followed by other nations.
God knew what was good for a man.
Thank you for setting him straight and giving a woman's view on the subject.
It seems as though when the far left wants to get attention they use fear and scare tactics to try and get their crazy ideology across. Using mutilation when it actually enhances the look and helps with hygiene.
Absolutely. This tendency can be traces everywhere. Examples- global warming, swine flu, now cucumber threat.
Who exactly has been using fear and scare tactics here?
I haven't been predicting all kinds of illness and disease, I rather think you'll find that was you.
Interesting to hear you call freedom a crazy ideology, but typical of a certain type of people.
First freedom is not letting the Government make choices for the people! second Me stating the obvious and you said in a statement that now we advanced we can clean better, So by this statement you acknowledge that it can get dirty and infected. Saying your Mutilating someone which I proved by the definition is incorrect is a scare tactic John, Now I know your not stupid, Stop with the socialist nonsense already. You did not even respond back to the woman? Why is that John? Did She not give you an answer you do not like and can not refute her?
Oh for crying out loud Danny, socialist nonsense! The only nonsense here is coming from you.
Freedom is not letting anybody make choices for others, in this case the government is giving males choice, not taking it away. It is you and your ilk that are depriving others of choice.
I did not respond to the woman because I thought that her responses were based on emotion and selfishness rather than any reasonable, if wrong, point and were purely subjective.
"Mutilation is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body"
and what are those nerve endings responsible for? nerve endings on a loose piece of unneeded skin. any reason?
An adult who has been circumcised is a lucky man. He does not have to move this ugly foreskin up to wash the hidden corners of his penis. After a sexual intercourse love fluids will not stay in the folds of this skin to rotten and stink there.
I am a woman, I knew both types. No comparison, believe me. Circumcision is a hygiene for both a man and a woman. And I agree with Daliah about the look. Of course, in relationship everything depends on mutual feelings and when love is there it does not matter how the penis look, indeed. But in general "a penis in a coat" (lol, great comparison) can't win.
I'm sure the citizens of countries practicing female circumcision would agree 100% with you. It is absolutely absurd to compare necessary female circumcision, required to lead a proper life or even to attract a mate, to the obscene practice of male mutilation that some degenerate and uncivilized people practice.
Yes, muslims can build mosques (or islamic centers). But only if their Christian neighbors don't become offended because the muslims own land too close to the scene of a madmans exercise in insanity and are thereby continuing that offense. After all, it is obvious to everyone that the mosque builders share all the same philosophy and beliefs of al qaeda!
It's all a matter of perception and culture.
Apparently some people in Frisco have nothing better to do with their time.
Well, that's your perspective. Circumcision has been a practice for thousands of years, and who can say that those old patriarchs didn't have the smarter view of what was good for men's health?
Now that I think about it, I've had a few male friends who elected to be circumcised later in life...they wish the procedure had been done when they were newborns. Would have saved them a lot of angst and agony.
Danny, you said;-
" I'm actually helping them from catching and spreading disease. It is much cleaner. Why must you put your socialist spin on everything? "
No, I don't say it is inconclusive that it is mutilation, that's crop. Check the dictionary definition of mutilation and then tell me I'm wrong.
And surely there is a difference between a government that tells you how to bring up your children and a government and one who tells you how you shouldn't bring up your children.
Imagine the reaction to a government that decreed all male children should be circumcised rather than leaving it up to the individual when they were mature enough to make that decision.
You left out the fact that the Muslim community centre where the mosque will eventually be built had been in the neighbourhood for years. Funny how it all went away right after the last election...
Put away all religious and political aspects of circumcision. Look at this in a simple way- as a woman or as a man. My cousin willingly went for this at the age of 18 and he blames his parents why they didn't do this for him when he was born.
I myself had a boyfriend who was NOT circumcised. We are not together any more and I am glad. As a woman, I loath pines "in a coat". No matter how often a man washes it, it will never be as clean as circumcised one. And it is just is not as neat and beautiful! It is just like to compare a gentleman in a perfectly fit smoking suite to an untidy guy in a loose faded coat.
Anyway, it's just a piece of skin, big deal! But the outcome is great!
way, way to much Social Engineering and Goverment interfearence with personal choice and decision making.
Those folks need to address real problems that California has, and San Fran has, not this B.S.
If they have no answers for real problems, get out, please.
My grandson was circumcized. It was the worst thing I've ever been through. I could not even change his diaper, because I could see the pain it caused him. He was bleeding, and raw and sore.........
I would Never ever in a million years do that again to another human being, Ever.
And what a lovely, loving and healthy environment to have an open wound in!
Wonder if it has anything to do with the high level of sex crimes in the USA compared to most of the rest of the developed world?
I wonder if AIDS was spread even more by having a dirty Turtle D!ck? I wonder why you spread lies and nonsense? Show facts, You can not!
I asked a question out load. I wonder if it does have something to do with that? What do you think? Does mutilating the penis of a large proportion of the male population cause higher levels of sex crimes? It is an interesting question - don't you think? Worth asking even?
And I too Was asking a question out loud that because someone was not cut could that spread aids? sounds like a good question also. After the act the turtle goes back into its shell and brings all the juices and cheese with it and then ferments and might spread AIDS even faster? Seems logical to me.
Again Mutilation is a BS scare word. I gave you the definition and actually it is the opposite of your claims.
"Mutilation is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body"
Yes - and it has degraded the appearance and function. Thank you for agreeing with me that it is mutilation.
Interesting logic you use.
So we should let people have abortions but we shouldn't let people circumsise their sons. Makes perfect sense.
Logic says that if you are against abortion you should be against mutilation as well, otherwise you are arguing for bringing children into the world in order to brutalise them!
Yes - it does. Glad you are beginning to understand that a cluster of cells in the womb is not yet a person, but a living baby is.
Odd you seem to care about a cluster of cells, yet are happy to mutilate a living baby. That makes no sense at all.
Right, foreskin is more valuable than a potential humanbeing.
This is why Evolutionists cause so much conflict.
No, it is the way that you seem to value the unborn baby but once born feel it incumbent upon yourself to mutilate it and cause it pain and suffering, that just doesn't equate.
I think I'll study to become a Mohel. Do you have a problem with this? Do you think it should be illegal for me to do this John?
I don't have a problem with that, I would only have a problem if you were to practice on children who were unable to give consent.
Well allow me to clarify what a Mohel does in accord with Jewish law and in exercising their guaranteed first ammendment right;
Genesis 17:12- "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed."
I live in the state of Washington, I checked it's constitution, I would be perfectly within my legal rights as a citizen to make a profession out of circumcising eight day old boys with the conscent of their parents.
Any law forged by a state in America that prohibits the free exercise of one's religion is tyranical, oppressive, intolerant, inhumane, and flat out wrong.
But circumcising eight day old boys is not tyrannical, oppressive, intolerant, inhumane, and flat out wrong!
Could have fooled me.
john moral relativism is a big part of the deconstruction movement in America, and that is the path to socialism.
So you're now saying it is a socialist trait to abhor the mutilating of small babies!
OK, I can live with that I suppose.
So again admitting to try and over take with socialism! the truth always comes out.
Not drinking John. High on The American Way Of Life!
Yay! Mutilate ur children now you cain't sell em inter slavery like wot u used to b able ter do!
Yeah,I've heard that sending children up chimneys protects them against Lassa Fever.
Your post are ridiculous! My kids are treated very well, the youngest is now 19 and a girl, The other 3 are boys 24, 22, and 20 and all cut and no problems!
All getting very good educations and do not need for anything! They were never tortured beaten or mistreated. You should not accuse people of wrong doing if you have no clue what your talking about. you can get yourself in trouble.
Danny, not everything that meets with your disapproval is socialism, or even distantly related to it.
Danny, AIDS is spread by the exchange of bodily fluids, a foreskin makes no difference.
Can't you actually read the things that you post!
"Mutilation is an act of physical injury" Where is the doubt there? It is an injury.
"that degrades the appearance" That is subjective, some people argue that extreme piercings are attractive.
"or function of any living body" The purpose of a foreskin is to aid penetration and lubrication, obviously removing it is going to affect that function.
And you claim that is the opposite!
exchanging bodily fluids and they get stuck in the cheese factory of skin when it covers the head after sex! so there is where it CAN cause more Aids!
Physical Injury means you purposely hurt someone. I do not think helping a child stay clean and help keep away infection is Physical Injury! Is ear piercing Physical Injury? Tattoos? Is getting a facelift physical injury? You have a computer look it up.
The purpose of a foreskin is to aid penetration and lubrication, obviously removing it is going to affect that function.
Please explain how it aids in penetration? And Lubricates? Does it lubricate with the cheese that is inside fermenting? I did not know the foreskin had some love juice.
Danny, you must be delightful company, you don't wash after sex!
I see, circumcision is entirely accidental is it, well it must be if you claim it isn't purposely injuring somebody.
You ask if ear piercing is physical injury, I suggest that you find an adult and force ear piercing on him against his will and then try to claim that you didn't injure him and anyway it was for his own good, and didn't it look better. Likewise tats and facelifts, they are done with consent, without consent they are physical assaults.
Get over your fixation with knob cheese, it only affects people like you who don't wash after sex.
Too many people agree it is healthier and better for the child! You have no proof that it takes away anything sexually!
You are comparing doing something without consent to a parents rights for their child that they support and take care of. The parents give the consent as it is their child and responsible for them until adulthood!
I wash after sex and do not have to worry about cheese as I'm cut. Can little kids clean themselves properly? Can they get infections from not cleaning properly? Parents do not clean 7-17 year olds! Maybe if everyone had to be cut their would be less disease and infections? As your aware John there are many filthy nasty people around and It only takes one to start something! so whether you clean your cheese factory or not, if you sleep with someone who slept with a dirty person, you can get it!
I see I must have hit a nerve their John a little attack that I do not clean. LMAO Your the one with the beard in all, I'm clean cut all around my friend.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/ … CM20081217
Danny is absolutely correct on AIDS transmission, not only is it healthier for the men but it also reduces risk of cervical cancer in women. This was just the first hit I received when typing in, "circumcision+cervical cancer". You can do your own research but even if you spend 20 minutes on the subject you will see that what Danny is saying is truth. Many foresaw this day coming so there are those out there who have spent a few decades researching circumcision in order to prove definitively that it is a health benefit.
Denial of scientific research in this bulk is either unethical because one only listen to research that supports their opinion, or the insane irrational belief they often accuse religious people of having.
Well try to avoid gay sex then as that is the most frequent form of transmission in the west.
http://unaskedadvice.wordpress.com/2009 … nsmission/
http://aidsaction.org.au/content/hiv_st … cision.php
You see for every pro argument there is an anti argument.
The greatest protection against AIDs is to not be promiscuous.
YOU LOST!!!!! Now you want to say the best way is abstinence? Your a clown bro. You also state not to be homosexual...LMAO you are whacked beyond belief! did you see what you write? you must be kidding! Doctors on here tell you the benefits, many women and men and give logical answers and you spew your socialist ideology nonsense. You a factory worker telling a doctor they are wrong! that is funny...CASE CLOSED
Drinking already Danny?
Not being promiscuous does not mean abstinence.
Certainly in the UK heterosexual sex between none drug users is pretty safe.
Doctors! I've only seen one and as for many logical answers, I've seen very few of those. Tradition isn't a logical answer and neither is the prevention of STDs in babies very logical either.
And WTF a factory worker! It's nearly forty years since I worked in a factory, and that only for a few years.
How does this relate to the benefits of circumcision?
Let me clarify, the first article is talking about HIV transmission in gay sex only. The second article clearly states that circumcised men are at lower risk, just not according to a study in Australia.
A vast majority of research will tell you the extreme health benefits associated with circumcision. "Denial of scientific research in this bulk is either unethical because one only listen to research that supports their opinion, or the insane irrational belief they often accuse religious people of having."
Quite, I'm not pushing the benefits of mutilating babies.
No you are just pushing for increasing the number of people afflicted with sexually transmitted diseases, and cervical cancer rates in women. Very humane of you!
A bit rich coming from somebody whose whole argument is based on conjecture.
circumscription is no more mutilation or child abuse than ear piercing or hair cutting is
Medically also it is proved that circumcision is correct otherwise semen collects between the skin layer which becomes dangerous.
DR. DURRESHAHWAR PERVEZ.
Thank you Doctor!
Lets see them respond to a medical professional!
For John I guess your right about the lubrication! LMAO
OK Danny, a response.
There is no excuse for an act of brutality against a child who is unable to consent to circumcision.
If an adult decides that he would rather be circumcised then fine, that's his decision but it isn't one that should be taken by another.
It is not an act of brutality that is an outright lie! you have a doctor state clearly that there is a great benefit to this and you want to refute someone who has studied in the field and has gone through extensive education? Do you think any normal parent would take your word for it over what Doctors say? Have you studied this? You said you worked in a machine shop, No disrespect John but I do not think you even qualify to know what is best for the child. Prove to the doctor that what you say is correct.
Danny, circumcision used to be common practice in the UK, now no more than 10% of boys are cut. There has been no leap in STDs associated with this.
The vast majority of doctors in the UK are opposed to it as well, would you go with the majority or with the one marching out of step because it suits you better?
Not having a foreskin you are unaware of how incredibly sensitive it is and whilst a local anaesthetic may be used, the effects are only short term, what sort of person could willingly inflict weeks of pain on their child?
You do realize that you linked to an article that says,
"Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. Male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa."
This is from your link, not mine. Let's wait a couple decades and see how those UK boys are doing.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that you lived in sub-Saharan Africa.
Yeah cause Africans are a different race than the civilized people of the United Kingdom and what is scientifically true about the savage phalus does not apply to your kind.
Am I getting the gist of why the study you linked can be so easily dismissed? Is there some other reason that the study you yourself brought us to does not show that circumcision is tied to HIV prevention?
No, not a different race but a different culture, African men are generally reluctant to wear condoms, even for casual sex, western men are generally not!
The reason why you can easily blow holes in the links I provided are probably very similar to the reason why I can easily blow holes in the links you provide.
Oh, and you still have to tell me all about these eight day old babies having sex.
I wasn't blowing holes in your links, the first one was irrelevant and the second one supported the health benefits of circumcision. If we are talking about condoms being involved then anything said about 'loss of sensation' is thrown out as condoms reduce sensation more than circumcision ever theoretically could. But what if I am in a committed relationship and don't want to use a condom? If the man is cut then he reduces the chances of his wife contracting cervical cancer.
As for babies having sex, you said 18 year olds get to choose, well I don't know about the UK but where I live I have heard of loads of people becoming sexually active as young as fourteen years old, but usually around 16. At this age they may not understand safe sex practices and if they aren't using condoms then as you have admitted, circumcision will reduce their chances of contracting STDs.
It also seems cruel to make someone be circumsized when they are more conscious of the situation and will remember the pain, unlike the 8 day olds.
But I'm a62 year old male, intact and still with a fairly active sex life, I've never caught an STD and never passed one on, and that isn't (largely) luck but normal care.
It was largely luck! even if you wash yourself properly if you have enough partners your bound to come into contact with someone who was with someone who has something! It has relatively nothing to do with you washing.
I personally think it is cruel to have the procedure done when your older! John you heard doctors and many others clearly state how much healthier it is. Also Read about the men whom actually had the surgery when adults and everyone says it doesn't effect feeling at all and most claim it is even better because the skin gets in the way. I posted the link from one mans view of it.
that is a Bull$hit article with not one bit of facts attached. That is someones view. You had a doctor on here clearly tell you that their are many benefits and you refuse to believe it? You would take the word of someone who just wrote an article based with no facts and some talking points over a doctor and growm men who has had the operation. It clearly shows you are very thick headed and just have your own agenda and regardless of facts by medical doctors you dismiss them.
Again I do what I think is right for my kids, I made them and until they are 18 it is my way! I'm responsible for them until 18 by law then I make the decisions.
There are plenty of Caucasian men who don't like to wear condoms.
but what if semen collection is a hobby?
I once knew a woman who....
Does circumcision make a penis easier to keep clean?
Making hygiene easier is often a reason given for performing circumcision. In the adolescent and adult male, the glands of the foreskin secrete a fluid called smegma. These secretions may accumulate beneath the foreskin and occasionally irritate the penis; and sometimes the penis becomes infected. Removing the foreskin removes the secretions, makes the care of the penis easier, and lessens the risk of infection.
Can baby have anesthesia to lessen the pain?
Yes, a local anesthetic can and should be used. Painless circumcision should be a birthright. I have used a local anesthesia in nearly a thousand babies for over twenty years. It is a safe procedure and it works. Sometimes the anesthetic will not remove all the pain, but it certainly helps. Within a few hours, after the anesthetic wears off, some babies exhibit no discomfort; others will fuss for the next twenty-four hours. The most common and effective method is called a dorsal penile nerve block, in which a few drops of Xylocaine (similar to the anesthetic your dentist uses) is injected into the nerves on each side of the penis circumferentially around the base of the penis.
another very good one that defeats your mutilation nonsense!
"Like the appendix and the tonsils, the foreskin is a part of the body we don't really need and it can cause painful problems."
And at what age do they remove the appendix and tonsils out at?
I've still got my appendix but when my tonsils were removed I fully understood why it was done.
Would you take the tonsils out of an eight day old baby as a matter of routine?
If a child refused to have their appendix or tonsils removed after a doctor explained it, would you mutilate their body and remove them anyway?
No, but very unlikely to happen and at least they'd have a chance, unlike your eight day old baby.
So your child is sick and their appendix is going to burst, and they say they don't want it removed, so you let your suffer rather than remove the unnecessary harmful body part...
Some babies are born with a short frenulum (ankyloglossya), so called tongue-tied. If this defect is corrected as early as possible, it saves lots of problems in later life (like eating/drinking difficulties and difficulties with speech). This procedure is done by clipping a short frenulum under the tongue and is better to be done while a child is a baby. It is done practically without any anesthesia and imagine, without baby's consent!
By some of you here it would be considered "mutilation" (oh my, what a bunch of....)
A foreskin can cause phimosis and then it will become a real trouble for a boy. I've seen little swollen penises, purple in color only because a foreskin was tight and the urine and cottage-cheese-like substance was collected under it. Circumcised penis will never have this problem.
After a baby is circumcised, don't trap him in those diapers. Diapers make parent's life easier, but just take a good care of your baby several days after circumcision, use cloth diapers, don't let the baby stay wet and the healing will be easy and speedy. I've seen so many circumcised babies in Israel, never it was any problem.
Wow, there's a lot of silly things being said on both sides of this debate.
And both sides of the issue also have some good points.
On the one hand, the rights of the baby in question are in fact being taken away when the parents make the irrevocable decision to circumcise their son. Foreskins don't grow back, after all.
On the other hand, the removal of the foreskin is really about as invasive as ear-piercing (which some parents do to their babies. It's not that big of a deal.
On one hand, it is absolutely the unnecessary* surgical removal of healthy tissue.
On the other, it's nowhere near the same thing as so-called "female circumcision," which I think we can all agree is bad.
Many women say they like a circumcised man better than an uncircumcised one, but is that because circumcision is the norm?
I don't see this law as anti-semitic, but it does raise a free exercise question: apparently a Jewish kid needs to get circumcised within a certain time of being born? Can someone who actually knows the Jewish rules about infant circumcision set us straight on that, please? Deborah Sexton or LiveLonger might be able to help us out?
But nonconsensual circumcision also raises a free exercise clause: what if the kid decides to renounce Judaism later in life. It's not the same as infant baptism: he can't get his foreskin back. It's not even quite the same as piercing an infant's ears: someone who doesn't want their ears pierced can let the holes grow closed again.
All things considered, I'd have to come down against the law; the removal of a foreskin, while violating the kid's right to an intact foreskin if he wants one, doesn't significantly impair the kid's life. If the law was against cutting the last joint of the left pinky off, though, I'd be in favor of it. I'm not entirely sure why this is, but it might have something to do with deriving a lot of joy from playing a stringed instrument (that is, it's purely subjective).
*Circumcision of male infants became routine in the US after WWI, when doctors noticed a higher rate of infection among uncircumcised soldiers than circumcised ones. Since then, however, the higher rate of infection has been attributed to improper cleaning of those soldier's penises. (I wonder if the fact that it was the late 19-teens and people were very hung up on touching each other's naughty bits if they weren't married had something to do with this?)
it is covered here.
ReuVera you get the MVP - most valuable poster, award for this thread in my book. You have argued better than I ever could, thank you for participating and defending Judaism, Religious Freedom and sexual health/cleanliness!
Thank you, Sethareal. I posted just a couple of replies. As a rule I do not participate in HP forum threads for obvious reasons.
To summarize I have to flash back into my old country
Soviet Union (a first and hopefully last socialistic country). Circumcision was prohibited in Soviet Union, as many of freedoms of choice. The reasons for prohibiting were political. But we lived in Kazakhstan, an Asian republic of USSR. Kazakh people are Muslims and though "the big brother" (Russia) suppressed them pretty much, they had their own loops for some of their traditions, circumcision one of them. Kazakh doctors were circumcising Kazakh boys (mostly under diagnosis of phimosis) and Jewish people who lived in Kazakhstan could use this loop too if they wanted.
The tendency in SF that started this thread is viewed by me not at all as anti-semitic, but rather as a threat for our freedom. We should have a choice. No one pushes parents to circumcise their sons, but as well no one have a right to forbid this.
by M. T. Dremer 6 years ago
Does the first atheist monument take us forward or backward?The first atheist monument was constructed on government land in Florida. It was done as a compromise when courts refused to remove a reproduction of the ten commandments. As an atheist, seeing the monument is encouraging; the more...
by Julie Grimes 9 years ago
Why Are American Doctors Mutilating Girls? Is one of the lead blogging articles and stories on the Daily Beast today.http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- … =obnetworkIf you don't want to go to the website, it talks about female circumcision. The first paragraph reads, "The...
by Tessa Schlesinger 2 months ago
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … ive-speechCould it have been because they were cynics or atheists and they didn't believe that the church should rule the country?
by IntuitiveMind 3 years ago
Should a teenager be allowed to wear what they want without parental permission or approval?
by Chitrangada Sharan 6 years ago
Do you allow your children to take their own decisions?What in your opinion is the right age, when the children should be encouraged to take their decisions?
by Ralph Schwartz 14 months ago
President Trump is taking action on immigration due to decades of failure by Congress. He plans on issuing an Executive Order to remove citizenship for babies born within the US border by non-citizens or illegal aliens known as "anchor babies." This action is guaranteed to be...
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|