In that case, folks should sue their parents for taking their tonsils out, braces, taking HGH supplements and any of the other stuff we do with kids.
In that case, folks should sue their parents for taking their tonsils out, braces, taking HGH supplements and any of the other stuff we do with kids.
Parents don't do those thing in their childs' infancy. That's like saying everyone should have a prophylactic appendectomy, tonsillectomy, and inner ear tubes in their first week of life. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
No, the overwhelming science has shown, and the medical community around the world has agreed---there is no medical reason to circumsize an infant male.
That leaves only religious or cultural reasons. But that's a tough row to hoe, since that is also how people justify cutting little girls' genitals.
:donkey:
Except they haven't all agreed. Putting the "infant male" caveat doesn't really change the debate. But we've had this discussion before, foreskin militants vs. foreskin agnostics.
Medically, physicians around the globe agree. The consensus has the majority and the science.
That means Jews (plus others) want to keep circumsizing minor males. By default, that suggests it's okay for Muslims (plus others) to keep circumsizing minor females. Both are either "religious or cultural" reasons, not medical. At some point we need to recognize the double standards, between religions/cultures/genders.
That's why we keep debating. :p
You do know that Muslims circumcise males, right? And that female circumcision isn't an Islamic thing as much as it's a cultural phenomenon of certain areas that makes women actually unable to orgasm? Men and women have different anatomy, which begets different debates. We've been over this one and just disagree. Foreskin militants vs. foreskin agnostics.
I did say (and others). :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
It doesn't matter so much that male and female genitals are "different" from one another. I see it more as the evolution of medical ethics, and questioning "conventional wisdom". You can say it's about the foreskin all you like, but I think it's more about treating infants and minors with some respect and dignity that only adults can offer, as protectors.
Perceptions and practices can change along side with science. It's the ingrained attitudes that are harder to change.
I'm still sort of waiting for the Judaic justification, when I've given links showing many Jews are deciding against the bris.
Seriously, you've never read the bible? Lots of Jews don't do everything in the bible. I don't do everything in the bibiel. But there's tons of circumcision in the bible, which means it's a template for many Jews.
That doesn't really answer my question. The bibiel ( :D ) says lots of things that's not necessarily a template. I'm curious why many Jews draw the line at male circumcision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
My guess is (and this could be wrong) that it's really hard for cut men to admit that cutting baby boys may not be the best idea.
I've had to admit, quite painfully and regretfully, that letting my ex decide to cut our sons for cultural reasons was a bad choice. It goes against several generations of gentile cutting. All the relatives knew, it was expected behavior.
It'd just be refreshing to hear a Jew admit that cutting isn't all it's cut out to be. Pun intended.
Because some of the early of the revered folk that religious people honor in the bible were circumcised. Plus that whole part where God tells Abraham to do it or something: http://bible.cc/genesis/17-13.htm
Your guess is wrong; foreskin militants obsess over this more than "cut men" do.
To do it...or something? :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
There's also the notion that making the penis head take a heart shape, via cutting, was part of that whole God seed creationism thing. Puts a new spin on "hand to heart, heart to God" and masturbation.
Cut men don't obsess about this until uncut men tell them they're crazy. Then it does sound really crazy to amputate a part of your baby's penis, because some passage in the Old Testament refers to others having done it. Or that your folks did it, and previous generations did it, as a rite of passage, so you must do it to your baby, too.
It's circular reasoning at its worst.
You said: "They did not discuss it."Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
They did discuss it, albeit shortly and lined up the most important arguments both pro and contra. Honestly, you don't need any more research.
What about this argument for example?
Why does the boy have to be circumcised when he absolutely cannot say anything about the matter?Quote:
it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives.
I have to admire dreads attempt to PR us into a red vs blue "militants" vs "agnostics" discussion here.
Funny since the two descriptions dont pair...
Lining up arguments != discussing research.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
@Spawnie- Drawing some distinction between foreskin militants and foreskin agnostics is pretty accurate -- some people don't particularly care and shrug, while others think this is a crime against humanity. That's why you don't see large numbers of pro-circumcision Web sites out there. Because it's foreskin militants vs. foreskin agnostics.
You still did not adress my question: Why is it okay to mutilate a baby when it can't speak for itself and the procedure is not necessary in any way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Violates the Hippocratic Oath, by the way.
Because it's not mutilation.
See? This can go round and round forever.
You still did not answer the question. At this age, the procedure is completely and totally unnecessary. You're trying to dodge the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Again: WHY CAN'T IT WAIT UNTIL THE CHILD IS OLD ENOUGH TO DECIDE FOR HIMSELF?
And it definitely can be argued that circumcision is a form of mutilation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MutilationQuote:
Some tribes practice some ritual mutilation, e.g. scarification, as part of a rite of passage (e.g. initiation ritual). burning, flagellation or wheeling. In some cases, the term may apply to treatment of dead bodies, such as soldiers mutilated after they have been killed by an enemy.
And before you go off the deep end again and only argue against the definition, try to answer the question for this time, will ya?
I wonder, since a nonbutchered cock is so filthy, how did the societies that didnt practice circumcision survive without someone to come along and lop off a bit of their cock on principle?
Not going to get involved in the argument, but I'll point out societies which practiced ritual cannibalism survived, even with the hideous risks of prion disease. Hell, not even 18th-19th century London killed the British Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
So, now you're comparing cannibalism to circumcision? Nice, Dread will have a stroke :pQuote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Well, you do know where bubble gum comes from, right?
Wikifist :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Why are you laughing? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Quote:
The traditional Chinese practices of lÃ*ngchÃ* and foot binding are forms of mutilation that have captured the imagination of Westerners, as well as the now tourist centered "long-neck" people, a sub-group of the Karen known as the Padaung where women wear brass rings around their neck.[1] The act of tattooing is also considered a form of self-mutilation according to some cultural traditions, such as within the Muslim religion.[2][3] A joint statement released by the United Nations and numerous other international bodies opposes female genital cutting (female circumcision) as a form of mutilation.[4] Denniston et al. have argued that male circumcision is a form of mutilation;[5] their arguments have been criticised by Benatar and Benatar.[6]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Great expectationsQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Repeated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Yeah. It's the usual style - try to open a completely different battlefield by targetting something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Again: WHY CAN'T IT WAIT UNTIL THE CHILD IS OLD ENOUGH TO DECIDE FOR HIMSELF?
I'm not sure if just being smug counts as a red herring, but that doesn't keep him from trying
Well, this only proves another saying of mine:
Slavish adherence to tradition only proves that your mind is incapable of anything else.
This is why I say folks are foreskin militants and others are foreskin agnostics. If you believe that the foreskin is a cherished, vital and Godly skin flap, of course you would be militant about when/how/if someone gets it removed. If you believe that it's a skin flap one can live with or without (and there may be some benefits to just not having it), you're agnostic and won't take sides.
:rolleyes: That's a perfectly fair assessment of the situation and the views presented, well doneQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Geeze man, you still did not answer the question. Is your brain fried or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Is yours? If you're a foreskin agnostic, you don't care if parents choose when a child is an infant. Just like if you're an ear piercing agnostic, you don't care if someone gets their baby's ear's pierced.
If you're a foreskin militant, you keep asking the same incredulous question over and over because you can't imagine that someone could be a foreskin agnostic, despite the hundreds of millions of perfectly happy circumcised people.
I refuse to believe you're this dense, but are just trolling/strawmanning, which is pretty damn lame from a moderator
Yeah, his brain is fried. And he still did no answer the question. I think it's because he does not have an answer and thus chooses the easy way out: Trolling.
What about the not-so-happy-because-they-lost-all-methods-of-procreation-due-to-complications circumsized people?
Dread, using the term MILITANT shows how you want to dismiss this, by demonizing one side. Won't work. :donkey:
Comparing infant ear lobe piercing to foreskin circumsion is doubly wrong. Different skins and procedures. Although I do agree neither should be performed on an infant, and both are considered cultural cosmetics, foreskin amputation is permanent---penile tissue won't grow back or repair itself. That's why it falls under the term MUTILATION. :donkey:
ear piercing ≠ circumsion
Dread, listen to yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Once again: If you're a foreskin agnostic, you don't care if parents choose when a child is an infant. Just like if you're an ear piercing agnostic, you don't care if someone gets their baby's ear's pierced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
If you're a foreskin militant, you keep asking the same incredulous question over and over because you can't imagine that someone could be a foreskin agnostic, despite the hundreds of millions of perfectly happy circumcised people.
I'm doing quote the opposite. I'm trying to make it clear why different people have different views on this, and why one group (the militants) finds the other's simply unacceptable. I'm not using the word "militant" pejoratively.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Dread, I love ya but,
ANSWER THE FRAKING QUESTION
Even if you were 'agnostic' about, your kid might not be, so why not wait?
It's unnecessary to do, you just can not admit that it is not an intellectually defensible thing to do.
So are braces. I'm not going to wait for my kid to be 18 before I get him braces if needed,
Beware the dentist trap. They sell more unnecessary crap than home shopping network.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
BRACES????
Really?
Braces can be a necessary procedure...is circumcision?