Satan's Evil Twin Posted July 14, 2012 Author Share Posted July 14, 2012 Well, he's obviously not posting from work. Hey Sharp, mind going upstairs to see what your mom's doing later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 No what I'm saying is the human body has evolved over millions or billions of years to what it is today. All body parts are there for a reason. Some ppl get ingrown nails resulting in infection. Should we start snipping the tips of our toes off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Definition of AD HOMINEM 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made http://www.merriam-w...nary/ad hominem Put a fork in him, he's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Ed Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Meh I'm glad my mom had me snipped. Wouldn't want to revert. Don't remember a thing so it couldn't have been that bad. Oh and my mother wasn't religious either. I'm not sure any government should be forcing things. It's up to the parents to decide in my opinion. There are far more harmful things to a child to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted July 14, 2012 Author Share Posted July 14, 2012 Well, the reality is that the parents are the guardians who are responsible for making decisions on behalf of the child. This is how it works. Here we are talking about a procedure that has been practiced for thousands of years with no observable negative consequences. A great number of cultures and families (including in the West) have had this procedure done to their children for generation after generation with no observable negative effects. Your argument can also be taken the other way, and you essentially answered your own question with the quote you provided: I believe the studies, statistics and medical/sociological etc. perspectives and opinions we are discussing here are specifically and explicitly related to male circumcision (mutilation) so let us remain on point. And why go as extreme as cutting off earlobes? Why not outright ban ear-piercings since this is a form of mutilation that can very well be considered as irreversible as well as a violation of bodily integrity. I had my ear pierced as a rebellious youth and actually got quite a bad infection as a result. On top of this, my ear now has a permanent hole as well as a permanent protrusion on the back of my ear lobe from the piercing. By your definition, my ear lobe has been mutilated. How many little girls (and even some boys) have also been mutilated and bodily violated by their parents by having their childrens' ears pierced? If sticking a rusty nail in one's cheek or a bone through one's nose was socially and culturally acceptable here, parents would be arguing for these rights as well. The sky is the limit when it comes to hypotheticals. I do not know of any professional medical or pediatric associations that have recommended parents to decide whether or not 'waterboarding' is in the best interest of their child and view this comparison to be extreme ill-suited irrespective to the fact that it is a form of 'punishment'. I am also unaware of any professional medical organizations and/or associations who advocate for parents' rights to cut the earlobes off their children. On the other hand, professional medical and pediatric associations have declared notable, potential benefits that can result from male circumcision. Based on this data, they have taken the balanced approach of not recommending routine circumcision yet also not recommending the prohibition thereof. The American Medical Association has also stated that evidence showing long-term health benefits of male circumcision has increased significantly over the past 6 years. This has also been echoed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. I suppose I could have just saved myself some time and effort by simply retorting with...and you're qualified to dismiss qualified professionals on what grounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Snipping toes is not homologous with circumcision whatsoever and such statements merely display utmost ignorance on the matter. Similarly like your other comment would be homologous to me assuming that you still walk around with your umbilical cord dangling, and you do not cut your nails or hair since all parts are there for a reason. And the human body has evolved for billions of years now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kass9 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I guess what we can conclude from this entire discussion is that no matter what, it is still the parents' choice/preference. I've said this before, it's just a piece of skin. Why does it matter so much? If a snipped person doesn't like being snipped, why don't they just give their parents hell? They wouldn't because it isn't a big deal. It isn't the end of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Yeah, you and your perspective is the only one concerned about the well-being of infants and anyone who agrees with or does not oppose circumcision is a 'barbaric butcher of infants'. And I was more referencing your previous two bipolarized posts; though admittedly one of which was likely a tongue-in-cheek comment while the other was an emotionally corrupted and ignorance laden diatribe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Medical reasons? Read the following quote from Sharpshooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I grew up on a farm raising many animals including cows. I've known since I was a child that the umbilical cord does not need to be cut because it dries up and falls off. Nails and hair are not fore skin. Its absolutely ridiculous to compare cutting nails and hair to circumcision. How long have humans been using nail cutters for? Nails remain short just from ware and tare or they break off. Most of the populations in African villages don't have nail cutters. They don't cut their nails yet their nails remain short. Your foreskin doesn't fall off from friction or ware and tare, its cut off resulting in extreme pain and bleeding. Hardly like getting a hair cut. Yes billions of years. Life on Earth started billions of years ago eventually evolving to humans. I'm sorry I don't believe in the christian mythology about how God created the earth and life a few thousand years ago. You can do what you wish to your body, I don't believe you should have the right to mutilate your baby because of your religious beliefs or made up medical reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Good - cause there's no such thing - I'm a Christian and I don't believe that God created the earth a few thousand years ago neither. Not too sure where you get your information from - no where in the Bible does it say that neither - at least if you're not going to not believe something - do some research before you attack it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 first world problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I dont consider biased sources specifically put up to support the position someone pre determines. Anyone can do that. Instead lets up an objective source that goes to the basics of the pros and cons. http://www.nlm.nih.g...rcumcision.html Doctors do the procedure all day every day without bias or prejudice and have no qualms about it either. They are the professionals and they would not do it if they felt there were some kind of issue. If you disagree, I would advise taking it up with the medical profession who endorse the procedure if its the parents wish. . It would be a better use of your time then trying to get into arguments about the religious angle on a hockey blog. That solves nothing. p.s. On a lighter note: I still cant believe that guy walked around as a goalie with 'Red LIght' as his nickname. Lol. Still cracks me up after all these years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 first world problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Of every 1,000 boys who are circumcised:20 to 30 will have a surgical complication, such as too much bleeding or infection in the area. VS Of every 1,000 boys who are not circumcised:7 will be admitted to hospital for a UTI before they are one year old. Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. http://www.caringfor...ts/circumcision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 For those who dont live to argue in negativity and want to see an objective opinion, here is some evidence told by an objective source with both pros and cons. You can decide for yourselves. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/circumcision.html Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, which is the skin that covers the tip of the penis. In the United States, it is often done before a new baby leaves the hospital. There are medical benefits and risks to circumcision. Possible benefits include a lower risk of urinary tract infections, penile cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. The risks include pain and a low risk of bleeding or infection. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend routine circumcision. Parents need to decide what is best for their sons, based on their religious, cultural and personal preferences. Its important to note off the hop that ,(as I stated in earlier posts going right back to the beginning of this thread ) Its not a religious procedure to doctors. Its a personal choice by the child's parents. I am good with it both ways. Either choice is good . The fact that all doctors will gladly do the procedure if the parents agree means its safe and nothing is wrong with it. It has nothing to do with religion anymore. Not for decades. Some folks stll consider social reasons ( would be irrelevant in my opinion as a father) but the doctors do not. The doctors do not recommend it for something to do on by default. Why would they? Leave it alone. However, there are practical medical benefits listed above why parents decide to do it. So doctors give them a choice. So suggesting its absolutely unnecessary is to ignore the medical benefits. Only in the religious and social considerations i is it unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Except that it says the circumcized boys will need to be admitted to the hospital. It also uses the modification "before the age of 1". What about over the entire lifetime? What about the other benefits of being circumcizes. Lower cancer rates? Lower HIV and STI rates? Why is infection before the age of 1 the only stat looked at? The 20-30 boys with complications, however, will usually just have some bleeding, which can be treated at home. Here's the paper they lifted and twisted those facts from: http://www.cirp.org/...ements/ama2000/ Basically the AMA does not promote or call for a ban on circumcision. If it was as dangerous as you say, they'd be calling for a ban on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Except that it says the circumcized boys will need to be admitted to the hospital. It also uses the modification "before the age of 1". What about over the entire lifetime? What about the other benefits of being circumcizes. Lower cancer rates? Lower HIV and STI rates? Why is infection before the age of 1 the only stat looked at? The 20-30 boys with complications, however, will usually just have some bleeding, which can be treated at home. Here's the paper they lifted and twisted those facts from: http://www.cirp.org/...ements/ama2000/ Basically the AMA does not promote or call for a ban on circumcision. If it was as dangerous as you say, they'd be calling for a ban on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 First, second and Third world problems, my friend. It's just that they're relative issues in varying degrees, in each of those places, but they are present in them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Born without.....or with a very short one as to not cover your helmet? Either way, not a mutant, most likely. Your brothers were simply not one of the ones who had complications is all. Not sure if we can define it in terms of 'luck'. Again, it's a medically unnecessary surgery that happens to babies because of their ignorant parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.