I'm trying to imagine what this would look like.LOL
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...27&version=ESV
I once worked on a cattle and sheep farm, and know what it looks like when they "mark" the lambs, balls all over the place.
I'm trying to imagine what this would look like.LOL
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...27&version=ESV
I once worked on a cattle and sheep farm, and know what it looks like when they "mark" the lambs, balls all over the place.
First,God created man, then woman, then temptation,then confusion
Really.Originally Posted by jamieknyc
Better take a look at the real facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra..._United_States
You won't find Europe in the top 10.
First,God created man, then woman, then temptation,then confusion
This thread is about the criminalising of all infant and child circumcision, particularly of that carried out in the name of a God in the light of the decision of a German court... this latter kind of circumcision, where it is not cultural or aesthetic, becomes even more controversial because it involves deeply held personal religious beliefs, and I understand why so many objected to the decision by the German court even if events are fast putting that decision into reverse, and also to my own personal point of view. Yet I have outlined why I think it was a right decision, just as the historical decisions to outlaw many practices by many religions, from witch burning, burning for heresy, to stoning to the lopping off of hands to the burning of widows on a funeral pyre were, in my opinion at least, also right decisions... they were considered barbaric and the wishes of religious leaders was over-ruled by the wishes of the state as human beings struggled to become more enlightened and tolerant in how they saw the world.
If we believe in secular societies, the wishes of the people, through the state, while they must seriously consider the wishes of each religion and the religious views and ideals of those religions' adherents, must consider the wishes of all of its people, of all religions and of none.. it is the duty of the state as protector of the people to protect its people from practices which are generally considered to be wrong, even to the extent of over-ruling custom, practice and often belief of any religion. It is this multi-religious aspect of any society, and the fact that, certainly in the modern era, there are often vast populations who have no religion, at least in part require religion to be subservient to the people through the state and the states elected representatives, and subject very much to the over-riding jurisdiction of secular and religious law..
The state should tread lightly upon religions, yet it must never allow any religion to dictate to it or its people when that people are so varied in religion and belief, and so must draw lines which stop religion, or the leaders and principle of a single religion from running society. The state should not dictate belief, but the state has a duty to decide law for all of its people and occasionally must reign in some of the worst practices of tat belief.. How else would we have abolished the many barbarisms which religions inflicted upon humankind in ages past? Some things were considered too heinous to be allowed to continue.. in western society, we do not allow female circumcision upon infants and the young for any reason other than medical.. are girls any better than boys that we have law against allowing them to undergo their own form of the procedure? Some say it is different, but it is not... it is parents deciding that a child will be surgically modified in some way at the behest of cultural norms and often with a religious overtone.. it is considered different partly because it is an African procedure and therefore so much less important than circumcision of boys and so is in its way considered to be infinitely more primitive and barbaric.. my argument is that it is also it is racist and sexist to allow one and yet not the other.. or as I prefer, to ban one and not the other.. child's right to decide what happens to his or her body when he or she is able to do so has been removed and decisions taken for religious and /or cultural reasons. We have no right to condemn one without condemning the other..
Some have concentrated on my use of the word "unmolested" to illustrate my intolerance of them as parents as I consider them molesters of their children.. this is not the case and have said so if u care to read back and have explained why but shall repeat it and expand upon it but that expansion too will create greater controversy but I can't help that for it is what I believe....... because of a cultural and often religious attachment to circumcision of infants, to some degree parents should accept complicity.. the primary responsibility and even greater complicity is on the one hand, that of the medical professional and institutions in the US certainly who advise and push it for in my opinion.. money and profit primarily.. and on the other those religious leaders and preachers who insist upon it as the will of god..the molesters are those who perform the circumcision procedure... the result of which is of course the mutilation of a perfectly healthy child's penis for no medical reason but for aesthetic, cultural or because it is the will of their religious leaders... I am aware that this is a controversial claim, but it is one in which I sincerely believe. I'd not say it to offend but to explain why I think it..
Every parent makes mistakes and I am no different.. in my opinion, parents who opt for their child to be circumcised have made a mistake, but I will not condemn them for it.. they believe it right and who has the gall to condemn a parent for doing what they believe is right for their child? They bear some responsibility but the primary responsibility is not theirs but the prevailing cultural, medical and religious attitudes which surround them. Battering hell out of children for their own good was once considered a good thing... as was forcing left handed children to write with the right hand and many were severely chastised simply for being left handed.. and historically worse... we have moved on and few believe that now.. and that is what I argue.. we have moved on.. this is not the ancient past.. we supposedly in the west at least live in a more enlightened age. There is no good reason to circumcise a healthy foreskin.. certainly not as a precaution, or even for good hygiene... if we lopped off every part of our body susceptible to serious disease we would not exist... or every part that was likely to become a little less than clean... and no one.. no one in my opinion, has the right to decide for an infant or a child too young to decide for themselves that healthy parts of their body, it doesn't matter which parts, should be removed without good sound medically pressing reasons. That should be the child's decision to make when that child is able so to do when able to absorb all the information and the risk involved, and there is risk.. babies and children do die, and do end up with serious physical and sexual problems because of circumcision even with the best medical care that society can provide..... it is an arrogance for anyone to be so presumptuous, be it parent, church, mosque or state..
If I may answer Darling Darling who claims that all I am interested in is the aspect of molestation of children.. not so.. that certainly, and the resultant mutilation.. but I have written far more about my objection to infant and child circumcision over the last few years in these forums than a simple objection to molestation and even mutilation however much I abhor them.. whenever we are operated on surgically we are mutilated to a greater or smaller degree... some mutilations are even thought to be aesthetically pleasing; breast implants and other cosmetic surgeries for instance.. yes, even circumcision. and people have opted for them for themselves based on information they have been able to absorb and decide accordingly.. my own breast surgery for cancer was necessary, and the subsequent patch up to me was necessary, even if I wouldn't have died as a result of not having the cosmetic part if the surgery was not done. But it was my decision take in the light of all information which I searched out and was provided with... and that is the crux... the decision of the person whose body part is in question... their rights.. rights which in my opinion we all have but which have some decide to remove from children often long before they could even walk or say mama...
If a child requires surgery for good sound medical reasons, and afterwards some cosmetic work done on whatever part of the body, then of course t is a parent's obligation to do the best for that child they can and so few would object to a parent taking that decision on the child's behalf because that child is not capable of understanding or communicating his or her wishes... such a decision is taken to deal with an existing medical problem is a completely different thing from authorising the removal of healthy part of the body because they had it done themselves as a child, on parental whim, or because culture, religion or medical profession says it should be done as a precaution.... Few if any of us would appreciate being told by church or state that we have to have a circumcision because that is how it must be... and being taken against our will, strapped down, often not sedated and having a not insignificant operation on our genitals... we are adults.. we have freedom of choice.. what we call free will.. can we not allow a child to grow and develop his or her own and make that choice for his or herself? None of us would like our rights of control over our own bodies removed.. so what right have any of us to remove the rights of another human being simply because religion, culture or parents think it best when there is no medical need? Do we really think so little of our children? And are religions so lacking in confidence in their believers that they are unable to trust those believers to do "the right thing" when they become mature and well informed enough to decide for themselves what to do about their foreskin? Where is their faith in their followers?
Of course how I am and what I believe according to some, makes me unfit to be a mother. That I care about children and care about children having rights over their bodies which parents should only assume pro tem when there is a pressing medical reason for that to be is somehow a crime in the eyes of some.. I am an adoptive mother and yet my knowledge of children and my belief in the rights of the child and the views I hold make me unfit to be a natural mother...I have been accused of not being fit for purpose in that regard by more than just people on this site, both because of my sexuality and the fact that I do not believe in God, but also because I am not a patriot and refuse to teach our children to be patriots and for a myriad of other reasons. I too get offended at times, but it is not against the law to offend, neither is it my right not to have people say offensive things to me. I am a quite happy for people to speak as they find and as they believe and so am I not to be accorded the same courtesy? Those who throw at us that they are offended by what we say or do, or what we believe are telling us to shut up and stay quiet and wish to restrict our freedom not just to speak but also to believe. I do not go out of my way to be offensive, contrary to what Duckie has tried to make out, but I admit occasionally to doing just as he says...it is not the norm but sometimes circumstances are such that it is the best way to proceed in my view, but whatever we believe and say someone is likely to take offence and that is an unavoidable aspect of living and of having the ability to think speak and act. It is an inevitable consequence of the freedom of speech.
When xsailor posted on this thread again (for very dubious and questionable purposes I may add) I said I didn't intend to get involved but I have allowed myself to be sucked in.. it happens.. after this post I will say no more but I do find it sad that some posters have both ignored and minimised the overwhelming bulk of the contributions I made and concentrated so much on one word.. it is an important word I accept but it is not the most important aspect of anything I or others have said. My opposition to circumcision of infant or young boys is far more than about molestation or mutilation.. these posters have almost trivialised their importance by emotive over emphasis as well as inaccuracies in what I actually said and used that aspect to garner support and distract from the wider case against infant and child circumcision.. their choice, and good luck to them with it.
There are many hostages to fortune contained in the words I have written for those who detest what I say to get stuck into.. there always are... that's how it goes... no doubt also for those who are broadly in the anti infant circumcision side of the debate... trust me.. in life I have crossed swords with a few of them for my views on infant circumcision.. but if we speak we set ourselves up for criticism and to be shot down in flames..I have tried to stay calm and rational, minimise any offence but know that to avoid offence is unlikely given the controversial nature of the subject matter and knowledge of some of the people on site and off.. but what I say is what I believe and none of what I have said is for any other purpose than to defend both the rights of the child and children themselves.
Sorry about the length.. but a lot needed said.. enjoy the day..
Do not think so little of me as to grant me your tolerance. Allow me your acceptance and understanding of who and what I am with the love, respect and dignity with which I do you.
fran, you should pull your head out of your ass and realise that its not your opinion about things that is the issue... its what you are saying about other people that is the issue...... as rule two states ( and no I am not using it against you ) flame the idea ( circumcision ) not the people ( the circumcised, the parents, the medical professionals etc etc )..... we have feelings too....
The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands
Oops.. know I said I'd shut up... but this part should read "over-riding jurisdiction of secular rather than religious law".Soz.
Last edited by darkeyes; Feb 16, 2013 at 7:04 AM.
Do not think so little of me as to grant me your tolerance. Allow me your acceptance and understanding of who and what I am with the love, respect and dignity with which I do you.
I think circumcision is a human made thing. It is even worse, when done on a woman. It does affect person's sexual life. I had a muslim lover, who was circumcised, and he had problems to cum, because wasn't so sensitive.
and that comment isn't inflammatory? "somebody" needs to look in a mirror. Your comment to Fran "what you are saying about other people" applies to you in this post... shame on you.
Drew's comment about flaming applies to posters, not third parties.
"To love someone deeply gives you strength. Being loved by someone deeply gives you courage." -Lao Tzu
We should make responding to this thread by quoting another person's comments forbidden, that forces you to think about the issue rather than start off by immediately attacking another person's credibility.
Don't tell me who personally is "right" or "wrong", tell me about your own personal experience or your own personal thoughts regarding circumcision. Based on your own response about your own experience I will make my own judgment. If the purpose is to solicit feedback then there are no wrong thoughts - but there may be points of view I haven't considered before.
If you cannot respond to the thread by considering the topic only, then maybe it's better not to respond.
Ritual circumcision makes me sad, but it is a fact of life. I know that over the years there is a whole history of medical "professionals" dabbling in "moralism" that contrived everything from the vibrator to the device that pierces the penis or sets off an alarm if a young man touches himself at night. I know that our culture is quite schizophrenic when it comes to sex but I am not still not prepared to condemn my parents for doing what they thought was normal and trying to make it so I fit in with the rest of the group.
As much as I don't like the idea of infants not having a voice I don't think the state should be involved in these sort of matters. When I am a parent then I will be able to decide what is best for my own child, in partnership with my spouse.
Last edited by elian; Feb 16, 2013 at 9:32 AM.
Elain
I agree with your last sentence but have you not posted off topic as well? I will now in part post off topic to respond to your "procedural command".
It is called dialoguing and discussing when a person refers to what another person has written. The difference between some posts are that they are too emotive and personal about others.
The issue that you have posted is about communicating and not circumcision. Should I not refer to your "command" about what "we" should do? Should I phrase it in the personal and tell a story about when someone did X which has nothing to do with the thread topic because it reminds me of what you wrote?
NOPE. The thread is about "what should be done" or not done. One country bans circumcision and another country forbids the banning of circumcision as a law on the municipal level. Both are facts about differing societies dealing with circumcision.
Being emotive seems to be the intent of your proposal rather than logical and factual? That is not debating nor discussing. It is self disclosure but that self disclosure should relate to the topic such as an above post from someone who was intact and then cirucmcised as an adult. He was able to compare the two. His self discloure related to the topic. I think that we get enough emoting on this site..with the crisis threads about "bi boyfriends what should I do"..threads about "do you like your asshole stretched" etc. May we not have some intelligent posts and threads dealing with issues whether they be about bisexuality or some other socio political issue? Are they to be all about emoting and self disclosure?
It seems that some have difficulty debating without personalizing which is the point of rule 2. When will they learn to not make it personal attack rather than about the issue? When will they learn that if someone brings up a controversial idea and they get upset that they need to deal with the issue and not demand censorship. Emoting without fact is just emoting and has no real valid place in such a thread as this.
I agree with Peg about dealing with the idea and pointing out when someone personally attacks by writing such comments as "pull your head out of your ass". In a sense that is group moderation. In a sense drew seems to be realizing that there is a need for some moderation of the post behaviour.
The difficulty is when a poster slurs another poster not addressing what the poster has written. Rule 2 is about dealing with the ideas and not the person. The difference is about "who starts the slur and who merely refers to the slur with agreement or disagreement. If the thread becomes about the slur it fails. It can become a bit of a Catch 22.
I'm not sure about emoting as Elian is proposing.
Back to circumcision.Neither of us have dealt with the facts and opinions of what darkeyes posted. I'm going back to the article itself and think about my own country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know that circumcision may be dealt differently.
Here is the quote from the article that we might want to compare our own country's laws and constitutions. In Canada's section 15 it deals with minority rights. I wonder what is in the German constitution that makes the court decisions the way it is but in the US the court went in a different direction?
"The court in Cologne decided that a legal guardian’s authority over a child does not allow them to subject them to the procedure, which the court called minor bodily harm, reports The Financial Times Deutschland."
Last edited by tenni; Feb 16, 2013 at 9:41 AM.
I agree, Elian.. problem is we talk about personal experiences and are told we are wrong by people who can't possibly experience them to tell us we are wrong. I give up on this thread. Doesn't matter how you point out that words have power and the accusation by anyone to anyone of "molestation" will bring up certain contexts that can cost someone their livelihood without actually being accused and brought into court. Semantics aside, the flamers can just keep flaming, it makes the people who actually do put the health and welfare of their children as the uttermost in their minds look a whole lot better. Personally, I hate when someone pierces a babie's ears cause it looks nice. Doesn't mean I'm gonna accuse them of abuse or molestation or being a bad parent. It's just not a choice I would make. So keep on flaming guys. When Drew steps in I don't want to see a single word typed about the unfairness of the ban or censorship. Rules are clear, you can't follow them then get out of the sandbox with the big boys and girls.
I perfer to call it the truth........peg and if I look in the mirror any more, the fucking thing is gonna crack... and I am not going to apologise YET AGAIN
The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands
Thanks for sharing DD, I appreciate your honest opinion.
“If we believe in secular societies, the wishes of the people, through the state, while they must seriously consider the wishes of each religion and the religious views and ideals of those religions' adherents, must consider the wishes of all of its people, of all religions and of none.. it is the duty of the state as protector of the people to protect its people from practices which are generally considered to be wrong, even to the extent of over-ruling custom, practice and often belief of any religion. It is this multi-religious aspect of any society, and the fact that, certainly in the modern era, there are often vast populations who have no religion, at least in part require religion to be subservient to the people through the state and the states elected representatives, and subject very much to the over-riding jurisdiction of secular and religious law..”
In Canada, section 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms states
“
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.’
The Supreme Court has dealt with equality and religious rights. In the case of Siks wearing head covering and kirpans(small swords) it has found that the right of religion over ruled RCMP custom of head gear (hats as part of a uniform vs the religious requirement to cover all hair). It ruled that the turban is permitted due to religion. The kirpan was even more controversial. It was ruled that the kirpan could be worn in certain public places such as schools. Complete covering of the head (Islamic) has been declared as inappropriate in certain court cases where the facial expression of the witness might effect the decisions of the accused, it has been stated that the woman must reveal her face when voting and court exposure of the face will be decided by the judge depending upon circumstances where the hiding of the face might impact the charged with lack of justice. (complicated)
Circumcision has not been dealt with as a Charter challenge yet. Female circumcision is illegal on the basis that it impacts the woman. I suspect that if male circumcision is brought to the Supreme Court that it will rule as the Germans have made their law banning circumcision of infants. I don’t know though. What medical evidence was brought forth in the German decision to support making circumcision over ride the equality aspects and freedom of religion is not stated in the article. What is in the German constitution that permits such an over ruling of freedom of religion?
Last edited by tenni; Feb 16, 2013 at 10:37 AM.
Thanks for sharing tenni, it wasn't really my intention to stifle the discussion, I just want to focus on the issue, not the person writing the post.
In the US I think people would go crazy if you told them that the government was going to make a law to either ban or require circumcision. As far as I know there is no formal law, but there is a very strong societal pressure to require it, prominent medical professional organizations support it, etc.
Does that make it right? I don't think so but again - the only person I can speak for is myself.
Ah
I found a case about circumcision and the Supreme Court of Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...sion-scoc.html
The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously dismissed the appeal of a British Columbia man who tried to circumcise his four-year-old son on his kitchen floor with a carpet-cutting blade.
The boy needed corrective surgery to repair the damage from the botched procedure.
In a 7-0 ruling from the bench, the justices left intact a Court of Appeal ruling convicting the man of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.
In another article gave its reasons.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle5395259/
"The original trial was told the man felt his religious beliefs required that his son be circumcised. Doctors advised him to wait until the child was older and stronger before performing the procedure."
"The appeal court restored convictions on the assault counts and stayed the negligence charge, conditional on the conviction for aggravated assault."
"The trial judge found the kitchen was not a sanitary place for a surgical procedure, that the blade used wasn’t as sharp as a surgical instrument and it was inappropriate to use a veterinary product to try and staunch the bleeding from the boy’s partly severed foreskin.
DJW’s religious background was as a Jehovah’s Witness, although he was “disfellowshipped” by his family and the church. The Crown said his religious education and associations later led him to believe that male circumcision was a covenant with God.
He attempted to circumcise himself in 2005 and could not stop the bleeding. He had to go to an emergency room where a doctor sutured the wound."
In this case, the man went against medical advice. It was seen that the circumstances of the circumcision were aggravated assault rather than equality of religion. The question remains as to why the doctors advised to wait until the boy was older and stronger when infants are circumcised by doctors in Canada every day? (although I suspect the numbers of circumcisions are going down..not sure)
Last edited by tenni; Feb 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM.
Both DD & LDD make calls for Drew to close this thread. Both use drama and personal slurs to divert discussion from the topic, When their own claims and concerns are addressed, it is met with flat out arrogance and bitter rebutal. They are constantly the kiss of death to civility on any thread that has topics they dislike,DD has posted on such threads demanding that they are not discussed. When that doesn't work, trolling starts to sabutage.It can not be more obviouse IMO!Sorry for being off topic, but am more interested in how they get away with it at the mo. Sick of it too.
“problem is we talk about personal experiences and are told we are wrong by people who can't possibly experience them to tell us we are wrong.”
“I perfer to call it the truth........peg”
There are so many flaws in such statements as above.
Experience has its place but is not the only factor in determining right from wrong.
Was it right that race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex/gender/sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability prevented equality in a society?
Is age a factor and there is a need to protect with laws a person due to their age?
Are there situations where the parent's rights need to be over ruled in order to protect a person not of legal age?
Yes in some cases where the person's health and very life may be in danger but is circumcision such a situation is being debated? I would prefer that scientific evidence be weighed more highly than a parent's experience. I would prefer to pay attention to a male who had circumcision later in life's experience over a mother or father (if circumcised at birth) experience.
If you have not experienced discrimination, etc., that doesn’t exclude a person from knowing that it is wrong or right.
When someone tells us that we are wrong, consider the possibility instead of demanding that a thread or person should be censored.
Gear
Many of us tire of this less than humble behaviour and proclamation of victimhood unless the person(s?) controls the site. Some dare try to be the “boss of us” as if they have been assigned moderator roles.One has said to ignore or block the poster if it bothers you. However when an attempt to dominate threads is going on, it make it very difficult.
Last edited by tenni; Feb 16, 2013 at 1:11 PM.
Wow I was reading the story of the case with the Jehovah's Witness, ok, so your faith is important to you - why on Earth as an adult wouldn't you go to a doctor to have yourself circumcised? aggh. I feel so bad for the four year old, I can't imagine having your dad do that to you in the kitchen with a carpet knife... If it must be done it should be done by qualified, experienced medical personnel.
Creating a law to prohibit certain behaviors based purely on moral reasons hasn't worked very well for the United States. In particular I am thinking of the prohibition of alcohol and as sad as it is to think about abortion, what life used to be like before abortion was legal. People would resort to self-surgery. We used to send young women away and have them committed to an insane asylum if they had a child out of wedlock - I guess the family just didn't want to deal with it. Sort of sad to think that just because a young woman wanted love and affection not only was she humiliated but also subjected to enemas, courses of "opium therapy" and electroshock .. grrr..
I guess people will say we are a lot less "moral" now but young people are going to have children, I am glad that there is less stigma nowadays. The family has more of a chance to see the child as a blessing, even if the circumstances of the birth might not be ideal.
Last edited by elian; Feb 16, 2013 at 5:02 PM.
Oh right, isn't Jehovah's Witness one of the faiths that refuses medical treatment? So they wouldn't go to a doctor. Geesh, then find a Rabbi ... grrr
Jehovah's Witnesses do not practice literal circumcision for religious reasons. Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains, are forbidden to circumcise as it violates the body. Mormons, Christian Scientists, and the Amish are also forbidden to circumcise or be circumcised. As has already been stated the majority of males in North America are circumcised for a medical belief(some dispute the factual aspects of this medical belief) and not for religious reasons. Comparing the German or even European decisions on circumcision with North America are not equal or for the same reasons.
"Jehovah’s Witnesses actively seek medical care when needed, and many work in the health-care field. We accept the vast majority of treatments available today.—Luke 5:31" from a Jehovah Witness website.
Elian
You may want to look into Christian Science rather than Jehovah Witnesses for refusing medical treatment. JW refuse blood transfusion on religious grounds.
Oct. 2012 article
http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/10/04/andrew-hammel-why-the-circumcision-judgment-looks-so-weird-to-american-eyes/
“The Cologne Landgericht decision proclaiming religious circumcision to be a form of illegal assault will apparently soon be superseded by legislation permitting the practice under certain conditions. “
“An enlightening 2002 analysis by Geoffrey P. Miller shows that all U.S. published U.S. court cases about male circumcision involve botched operations or problems with obtaining parents’ consent. It appears that no U.S. court has yet addressed a situation in which a doctor has been criminally prosecuted for competently performing a circumcision with the consent of the child’s guardians.”
Last edited by tenni; Feb 16, 2013 at 7:12 PM.
Best place to be born.
Where is the US???
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....e-scandinavia/
First,God created man, then woman, then temptation,then confusion
I think it's a combination of all. And I think that blindsides a lot of folks. It is difficult
to draw a congruent thought process out of several exclusive notions.
About nearly agree with Fran on the issue. It's been decided in Germany. We can debate
all we want, what is, is.
I am not saying a small group of like minded folks cannot make a difference. They can and
often have. It seems irrelevant though, as in kicking a dead horse, to argue over something
done & dusted.
Completely off topic but to pick up on what Mars said about the appendix.... and no, I dont want an argy bargy 'bout whether or not it is useful...
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...ut-396277.html
Last edited by darkeyes; Feb 18, 2013 at 5:55 AM.
Do not think so little of me as to grant me your tolerance. Allow me your acceptance and understanding of who and what I am with the love, respect and dignity with which I do you.
Typically we only remove body parts if the condition is life threatening. I can see full well if it caused an infection or constriction and needed to be snipped later in life. I dunno, I'm kinda partial to my spleen, and I would be kinda partial to the full foreskin on my penis if I had it but I'm not going to accuse my parents of abuse for having it removed.
It's sort of like the people that I meet every once in a while in December that make sure to wish me a Merry CHRISTMAS (I understand that ultimately they are well-wishes and usually respond in kind) or parents thinking that their child will go to hell if they are not baptized as soon as they are born.. hmm.. All things aside, the church has a very interesting business model.
Another tangent, what do you say to your child if they are "different" than everybody else?
Last edited by elian; Feb 18, 2013 at 1:23 PM.
What u say Elian is what we say.. or at least it is our way... u say to them that everyone is different, everyone is unique, it is how we are made... and never to be ashamed of who and what you are..
Do not think so little of me as to grant me your tolerance. Allow me your acceptance and understanding of who and what I am with the love, respect and dignity with which I do you.
That brings up an interesting point, children model the behavior of their parents so sometimes an issue really is only an issue to a child if they see that their parents are upset about it. All things being equal, if I was a child and all my peers were circumcised then I wouldn't think that anything was wrong - at least not until someone made a big deal about it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/we.../Defending-FGM
I have a reason for posting that link... and it has to do with 3 paragraphs within it
In December 2012, this practice - now condemned as Female Genital Mutilation - came under an official ban by a UN Resolution, at the same time that the Hastings Centre Report, a leading biotethics journal, published an advisory statement dispelling many of the popular myths about female genital surgeries. Yet, in recent years, all over the internet and in Western women's magazines I see glossy advertisements of white women who have undergone what is now popularised as Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery (FGCS).
Doctors, including gynecologists with no surgery background, can charge thousands of dollars for procedures very similar to what I underwent and which the World Health Organisation (WHO) classifies as Type II Mutilation. I do find this puzzling. African women have been berated for over thirty years now for "mutilating" our own and our daughters' genitals. Medical practitioners are prohibited from performing these surgeries under clinical environments, even when requested by adult African women. But, white Australian girls as young as 14 and 11 can obtain "labiaplasty" underwritten by the National Health Service in local hospitals?
According to WHO, "Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons". So, how can Western public health officials, global health institutions and feminist organisations maintain a straight face in condemning African female genital surgeries as FGM, yet turn a blind eye and even issue guidelines for the performance of very similar and sometimes more invasive procedures on Western (mostly white) women, under the guise of cosmetic surgery?
its mutilation when people are opposed to it, its cosmetic / labiaplasty when its requested......
The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands
All I have to say to this is....I don't really see any disadvantage to getting circumcised. My parents had it done to me when I was still a newborn and thank god because I would not want to have to deal with it myself and having to remember the pain, and I'm not even Jewish or Muslim.
All I know is that this practice has gone on in religion for a long time, from what little I have read its a tradition as old as mankind itself and even people not of the religion get it done because I would assume it comes with a lot of benefits. In fact I have read though many of the benefits and while I am sure they are not all true, even if only a couple are true it seems worth the risk.
I'm not sure if this was posted already because I can't read every comment and open every link, but this seems clear cut: http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html
One thing I will highlight from it is that being circumcised prevents a lot of issues that can come later in life. And the motto already said in here was "If it ain't broke don't fix it."
Well what about "Prevention is the best cure."?
Post 186
I have reposted post 186 as its own thread. This thread is about religious (male) circumcision and not female cultural circumcision/female genital cosmetic surgery.
Post 186 is off topic of this thread imo but serious enough to deserve its own space. This thread has been emotive and confusing enough without muddying the issue.
I have laid a complaint with drew....tenni... you had no right to start a new thread in the main forum, with that post and using my name, as I have no intention of posting in your thread and you had no right to try and dictate who can post what in the forum
The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks