Heretic Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 So you're not defensive of parent's right to mutilate their daughters, just sons? Glad you made that clear. Pain is pain? Where did you get that from? It hurts to fix a break in a bone too, are you going to ask if setting a child's bone right is child abuse? You did not say "I want my son to look more like me so he should be circumsized", you said, I wasn't quoting, I was paraphrasing. Now I'm quoting. You're the one backtracking. Well okay, tell me how it was about the health benefits... Took me long enough? What was I alluding to? I don't understand what's wrong with what I said in my original comment. "Moot point though, not like Jews and Muslims do it for the health benefits, especially when the Rabbi sucks the penis." That doesn't say that a Rabbi puts his lips on a baby's penis after circumcision and performs a sucking action? Wait, do you actually think I was alluding to a Rabbi trying to get the baby off? After a circumcision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 May be "medically unnecessary" but not because of "ignorant parents". Remember, the knowledge we have today wasn't available 30 years ago (no source - just based on experience). Heck - 50 years ago the public at large thought it was safe to smoke - are you saying that everyone who smokes today is ignorant as well? It's not mediaclly neccessary to remove most moles or have some sort of plastic surgery...or change a slight defect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 Wrong - I didn't say I was defensive of "mutilating" sons - just stop it please. Stop paraprhasing. Stop atttacking. If you can't put 2 and 2 together on the last one then you're not as smart as I thought you were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 They have the info and research now. Whatever happened because of medical ignorance in the past, is past....whatever happens now with up to date medical knowledge and research buttressing the case against the unnecessary need for circumcision seems now solely at the feet of ignorant parents. and foreskin =/= moles. Apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Let me try it again. Are you defensive of parents' right to mutilate circumcise their daughters? Stop paraphrasing? Why, getting tired of being embarrassed all the time? Try paying attention to what you say instead. Stop attacking? Who's attacking? You're saying things that contradict the things I say, and I explain why you're wrong with your own words. Stop crying, please. I'm crushed. Now that's out of the way, want to help me put 2 and 2 together? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I can agree with that except the part about ignorant parents. Maybe some just do it becuase of religion or because of who knows why - but just becuase a family decides in a way that you don't like doesn't make them ignorant - that's all I'm saying... I spent a long time making my decision, talking with family, friends, doctors and reading...course it's really a mute point as I only have 2 daughters from back then. Then why am I being such a "take the other side" on this? Because I don't like one sided arguements - in order for people to make a well informed decision they need to see all sides... Just like abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Religion and social norms seem to be the leading reasons it seems. It's not about what I like and what I don't like....it has to do with putting a baby through an unnecessary surgery, when it's been shown and common knowledge in the medical community that it's unnecessary. The parents who dismiss the knowledge from the medical and research community in order to serve their religious dogmas or for aesthetic purposes, are very much willfully ignoring sound expert knowledge, or they simply don't bother to pay attention to the evidence or the reasoning behind not circumcising their children, whether male or female, then that is the very definition of the word ignorance. If your reasoning is based solely on religious grounds...then say so....but don't try to mask your personal decision in the past or the decisions of parents today as being a medically necessary one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I tried reading through the whole thread, but started to get a headache. Jesus. If god wanted the foreskin removed, we wouldn't be born with foreskin. Don't play god. Leave his creation in tact. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 If by dismissing to the "myth vs reality check" link you provided equates to "wilfully ignoring sound expert knowledge", I seriously doubt the anti-circumcision camp is all that much concerned about health either, but more with their political axe to grind that involves parents and their own babies. While it is not "necessary" for a male to be circumcised, calling it mutilation, especially side by side with female circumcision, which is vastly different, is the type of propaganda I ignore when deciding these things for my child, along with the superficial aesthetic and religious nonsense ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Go on, tell me how male and female circumcision is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Just leave the the children alone! They were born perfect, only operate under life threatening conditions! Duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 1. Removal of foreskin. 2. Removal of clitoral hood, clitoris, labia, and so on.. Yeah, no difference at all. More axe, less grind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 If by dismissing to the "myth vs reality check" link you provided equates to "wilfully ignoring sound expert knowledge", I seriously doubt the anti-circumcision camp is all that much concerned about health either, but more with their political axe to grind that involves parents and their own babies. While it is not "necessary" for a male to be circumcised, calling it mutilation, especially side by side with female circumcision, which is vastly different, is the type of propaganda I ignore when deciding these things for my child, along with the superficial aesthetic and religious nonsense ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 Religious leaders furious over Norway’s proposed circumcision ban BY BARRY DUKE – JUNE 17, 2012POSTED IN: RELIGION IN POLITICS, RELIGIOUS CHILD ABUSE, RITUAL MUTILATION, THE FREETHINKER JENNY Klinge, Norway’s Centre Party justice policy spokeswoman, has angered religious leaders by condemning the ritual circumcision of infant boys. Calling it “outdated” and “dangerous”, she called for its ban. She said: In my view, this is a custom that we cannot accept in a modern, civilized society. Our aim is to prioritise the rights of small children. Fortunately, it has become forbidden to circumcise girls, now it’s time for boys to get the same legal protection. Jenny Klinge says the ritual circumcision of infant boys is barbarous She stressed that boys who have been ritually circumcised can never remove what she called “a religious marker” if they choose to convert to another religion or have no religious beliefs. I’m not buying the argument that banning circumcision is a violation of religious freedom, because such freedom must involve being able to choose for themselves. But she stressed that she was not opposed to circumcision in cases where it was deemed a medical necessity. However, circumcision based on ritual and religion is actually about holding down a newborn baby boy and cutting off part of a healthy sexual organ, with all the consequences that this might have for an individual’s future health and sex life. With this in mind, performing a circumcision on religious grounds ought to be made a criminal offence, she added. Jan Helge Solbakk, a professor of medical ethics at Oslo University, agreed with Klinge’s criticism of the practice. It represents an irreversible operation on a boy who is not in a position to protect himself, and as such is in breach of basic human rights. Ervin Kohn, Chairman and Trustee of the Jewish community disagrees, saying a ban would serve as a very strong signal that the Jews are an unwanted minority in the country. He claims that 99 percent of all Jews in the world circumcise their male children. It is the visible covenant between Abraham and God. It goes directly on religious freedom and that Norway is a tolerant society. Kohn also points out that research has documented the health benefits of circumcision. Glen Poole, Strategic Director of The Men’s Network in Brighton & Hove, reports on his Ending Unnecessary Male Circumcision in the UK blog that the proposed ban had also been condemned by Espen Ottosen, Information Director of Misjonssambandet (Federation of Christian Missionaries), and a Muslim Norwegian physician, Mohammad Usman Rana, who voiced his opposition in a newspaper article entitled Circumcision: Those who will forbid circumcision of young boys in reality invite a totalitarian guardian-state. Poole points out that pro-circumcisionists claim: To circumcise boys is a minor operation. Internationally there is a plethora of medical studies which report few complications. We know that the procedure actually provides health benefits. Urinary tract infections for example are far less common among circumcised boys. The risk of HIV contamination is also reduced. Poole counters: We say all the reported health benefits have either been disproven, contradicted or considered too insignificant to justify the agreed risks and complications which include bleeding, infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. There isn’t a single medical association in the world that supports the procedure. The British Medical Association, for example, stated in 2003 that ‘the medical benefits previously claimed have not been convincingly proven’ and ‘that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. http://freethinker.c...rcumcision-ban/http://freethinker.co.uk/2012/06/17/religious-leaders-furious-over-norways-proposed-circumcision-ban/' rel="external nofollow"> In yo face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 1. Removal of foreskin. 2. Removal of clitoral hood, clitoris, labia, and so on.. Yeah, no difference at all. More axe, less grind. Please embellish more, equate it with terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 So aside from the shape and location between the two pieces of flesh, what else is so radically different from circumcision on a male's genitalia and a female's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Oh yeah, and I'd also love for you to explain what axe I'm grinding here. Defending babies' right to bodily integrity? What the hell? They're different physically, and that's your answer? I guess stabbing a man and a woman is different because a woman has ovaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Muslims originally practiced circumcision, for lack of water and getting sand under their hoods. I also love having a hood for it's ability to maintain sensetivity, catch urine drops and stuff that women will never understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.