I agree with the article, make it illegal to do it to anyone under 18, after that it's a personal choice.
Wrong. In fact, the WHO even goes so far as to recommend infant circumcision in African nations because studies have shown that circumcised men have 60% less chance of contracting HIV.Father Time said:There is no medical organization that recommends routine infant circumcision, it is not medically necessary and the medical benefits are questionable at best. This is not a medical decision.
Ask someone in 1936 if the Holocaust was a possibility, and they'd have laughed in your face as a psychotic nut. By 1941 they were systematically murdering Jews with laboratory precision. That's the thing about change, rights, and freedoms... by the time you notice that something is wrong, it's almost usually too late, because the changes are subtle. It starts with "We the government are wiser than you, we the majority are better informed, so we will make decisions for you. We will take away your right or ability to do what you think is best in the interest for yourself and your family and WE will dictate. Don't think it happens? Ask those parents in Illinois where the school district suddenly 'dictated' that parents were no longer allowed to make their kids' lunches and that they would be provided by the school directly, whether the parent approved or not. I'm not a conspiracy nut, I just call things as I see them. Already I've seen things that have changed dramatically from when I was a kid to the way they are today. Things we are no longer allowed to "do" or "have." Oppression starts slowly at times, bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, until one day you wake up and realize that you don't have any rights at all.Father Time said:That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Yes not allowing doctors to painfully cut off foreskins will lead to government abductions of kids.
No, you prefer dramatics, blind assumptions, and arrogant dismissal of opposite points without giving them careful consideration. "Mutilating kids genitals." REALLY?! Talk about your dramatics. Sadly, kids have FEW "consents." Would you say that being able to choose what food you will and won't eat (or should) is a right? Parents can't be left to feed their own kids, because they might not feed them healthy things to keep them trim, putting their lives at risk, then these tubby kids grow into depressed sad fat adults.. they didn't get a choice! The Government should step in and DEMAND that parents feed their children a STRICT diet, government issued, until the kid is old enough to buy its own food. Not much difference in the scenarios. One is "mutilating" their genitals, the other is turning them into obese little kids with problems that have a far more potential to ruin their lives both health-wise and psychologically than a circumcision they won't remember and as MANY, MANY circumcised men here have attested regardless of your deaf ears (or eyes rather) actually have no PROBLEM with their circumcised state and even enjoy happy productive sex lives. So I guess you'd have no problem with a state-sanctioned diet?Father Time said:You prefer straw men, garbage doomsday scenarios and the ability to mutilate a kids genitals. Freedom is great until it allows you to harm someone without their consent. I prefer people have the right to decide what goes on to their own body instead of letting parents cut them up as infants for a sleeker look.
Well said. That is an excellent point of view.Rottweiler said:My wife pointed out something as well: many parents do not know how to properly clean an uncircumcised baby. You could say this is of course their responsibility, but then- aren't we setting what is and what isn't their decision already? Will that education be made available free of charge?
And what else shall we decide cannot be done? Is the decision for a belly-button to be an 'innie' or an 'outie' to be decided 18 years after birth?
Perhaps the removal of extra toes, or other mutations should be left to disfigure children until at age 18 they can (after dealing with it for 18 years) maybe have the money to get it removed?
Me, I honestly don't see what this particular issue could possibly benefit children, other than yet another "take decisions from the Parents" lawsuit. It would be nice if the people who remove parental control take up the slack, but you know what? They don't. They sit back and have smug grins at having had power over the decisions of others, but hey- any consequences of that change isn't *their* fault, no no.
That is an incredibly valid question. So you can't have it done in San Francisco. Guess I'll hop over to Sacramento or Oakland or any other city just over the city limits. Wait, wanna make a state law? Quick trip to Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Oregon... whose gonna stop them? Like someone said... it's probably better just to have doctors "educate" parents about the benefits of NOT doing it and letting the parent decide.henritje said:and how are they going to prevent people from:
A: doing it themselves
B: going to a different state to get it done?
Or it might be a way to pick a fight. We've all seen what "banning" things accomplishes. It just makes people more determined to exercise their "freedom" by skirting around the law somehow.Ferrious said:Good job sir, I tip my hat to you.Spangles said:Phallacy.
Personally, I was circumcised as an adult for medical reasons. I don't think it's right to force permanent decisions on children more than we have to. Hell, I don't even agree with baptising children before they can show they understand the commitment it means.
That said, outlawed? That might be going a bit far, but if people are doing it just because its always been done with no thought behind it, then outlawing it might be the only way to curtail the practise.
The first post in this thread says it all. Children are protected by this and religious (or for whatever reason) adults can decide for themselves.Radoh said:It should be a decision made by adults if they want it for themselves.
Wrong. You CAN have it repaired. Go do your research.Ultratwinkie said:You cannot repair the damage done by circumcision. None. The damage you done to it is far worse than what is medically possible to recover.
1. Yes children ARE property. Of their parents. I know that doesn't jive in your cute little world of perfect absolutes, but the bottom line is, that parent MADE that child. If God didn't, and it's all about genetic material, then at an extreme point of view, that child really has no rights at all. I mean, technically we think it's okay to abort them before they even are born, so it's not a great leap to simply disposing of your own genetic material should you decide you no longer want it around. But that sounds terribly clinical doesn't it? It also sounds like what you get at the end of the road you want to go down with your particular brand of ideology.Ultratwinkie said:The idea of it being cleaner in the age of plumbing, showers, and soap are plain retarded. If you actually taught you kid worth a damn you wouldn't need to resort such extreme measures. If you cannot handle the responsibility of teaching or caring for a child, don't have them.
Children are not property.
I don't know if you're trying to be sarcastic, but:HyenaThePirate said:Well? Which is it? Circumcision isn't a heinous act or my parents are awful monsters who should be severely punished for abusing me. Which one you want to stand by?
Ah. I see this is going to turn out to be one of those pointless back and forth things where we sit around dancing around each other's points, never actually giving ground or changing our opinions. And while I can honestly say I enjoy having such discourses with you from time to time Father Time, because I respect you as one of the more learned and well argued members of the community, I have neither the desire nor the energy to engage so deeply on what is in my mind such an insignificant issue. I've already invested far more time than I should have here. It's a circumcision, not a castration. I'm circumcised, I've enjoyed it all my life, no messed up kid here, just a simple lad who probably could use an extra inch or two on his willy to make him completely satisfied with the tackle he's got.Father Time said:Well I can't find them recommending it in the link you gave me.HyenaThePirate said:Wrong. In fact, the WHO even goes so far as to recommend infant circumcision in African nations because studies have shown that circumcised men have 60% less chance of contracting HIV.Father Time said:There is no medical organization that recommends routine infant circumcision, it is not medically necessary and the medical benefits are questionable at best. This is not a medical decision.
I'm not playing this stupid game with you. You either argue why circumcision specifically should be allowed or you shouldn't bother being in here. I'm not going to argue the possibility of a slippery slope doomsday scenario because it's very VERY easy to ban circumcision without slipping into that. Now stay on topic.HyenaThePirate said:Ask someone in 1936 if the Holocaust was a possibility, and they'd have laughed in your face as a psychotic nut. By 1941 they were systematically murdering Jews with laboratory precision. That's the thing about change, rights, and freedoms... by the time you notice that something is wrong, it's almost usually too late, because the changes are subtle.Father Time said:That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Yes not allowing doctors to painfully cut off foreskins will lead to government abductions of kids.
No it's accurate.HyenaThePirate said:No, you prefer dramatics, blind assumptions, and arrogant dismissal of opposite points without giving them careful consideration. "Mutilating kids genitals." REALLY?! Talk about your dramatics.Father Time said:You prefer straw men, garbage doomsday scenarios and the ability to mutilate a kids genitals. Freedom is great until it allows you to harm someone without their consent. I prefer people have the right to decide what goes on to their own body instead of letting parents cut them up as infants for a sleeker look.
mu·ti·late
   /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ Show Spelled[myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA
?verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
You're disfiguring the penis by chopping off part of it. Mutilation. And don't think I haven't given this consideration.
That's a horrible analogy. You really going to compare "don't cut off parts of your boy's penis" with micromanaging their diet? No one is suggesting the government micromanage the kid's lives. We are talking about not cutting off a piece of a kids genitals, that's it. Now stop with the stupid slippery slopes and again stay on subject.HyenaThePirate said:Sadly, kids have FEW "consents." Would you say that being able to choose what food you will and won't eat (or should) is a right? Parents can't be left to feed their own kids, because they might not feed them healthy things to keep them trim, putting their lives at risk, then these tubby kids grow into depressed sad fat adults.. they didn't get a choice! The Government should step in and DEMAND that parents feed their children a STRICT diet, government issued, until the kid is old enough to buy its own food. Not much difference in the scenarios.
Do you have a problem with female circumcision?HyenaThePirate said:One is "mutilating" their genitals, the other is turning them into obese little kids with problems that have a far more potential to ruin their lives both health-wise and psychologically than a circumcision they won't remember and as MANY, MANY circumcised men here have attested regardless of your deaf ears (or eyes rather) actually have no PROBLEM with their circumcised state and even enjoy happy productive sex lives. So I guess you'd have no problem with a state-sanctioned diet?
By any definition of the word person, you are wrong.HyenaThePirate said:I guess I just have the opinion that in a way, children are not "people." They are "people in progress".. they are CHILDREN.
I do not think parents should have absolutely free reign on how to raise their kids. Some parents think that beating, not spanking but actually beating their kids is an appropriate way to raise them. You think the government shouldn't intervene on that?HyenaThePirate said:And children have very few rights except those their parents grant them in order, and the few necessary ones to protect them from death and life altering harm. And at the end of the day, you wouldn't want me or anyone else telling you how to raise your child. To say anything else would make you a liar and/or a hypocrite.
Believe whatever you want but freedom of religion doesn't give you a right to do whatever you want.HyenaThePirate said:I know we all as a modern secular-leaning society have a hard on for railing against all things religion, but we can't forget in our anti-religion zeal that EVERY person has a right to believe in their traditions and beliefs just as we have the right NOT to believe in them.
So you'd be OK with human sacrifices?HyenaThePirate said:If it's their tradition, their religion and they want to raise their children in it, quite frankly you can fuck right off.
No was being quite serious. There is no false dilemma only a very real situation. Look through the posts. You'll see people basically saying that anyone who does this to their child are barbarians and guilty of mutilating their children in some sort of perverted form of child abuse. So either my parents are child abusing monsters who ruined me or they aren't. You can't argue that "well.. from now ON, they would be." or "I mean some OTHER people's parents."Jonluw said:I don't know if you're trying to be sarcastic, but:HyenaThePirate said:Well? Which is it? Circumcision isn't a heinous act or my parents are awful monsters who should be severely punished for abusing me. Which one you want to stand by?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma