Circumcision - Irrational Precept?

doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Circumcision - Irrational Precept?

A topic came up yesterday while the RRS was recording. KellyM brought up male circumcision as an irrational religious custom.

----

At this point, if you dislike this subject because it's taboo or gross, or whatever, feel free to excuse yourself. I'm not going to treat it as taboo, and I'm going to address it with medical professionalism and candor. This topic, in my opinion, DOES belong in such a category as "irrational precepts" although I doubt the practice need be "eradicated off the face of the Earth."

----

Based on my own education as a chiropractor, I had been exposed to this topic rather briefly (since it is not within my scope of practice). However, I had been taught that there were actual medical reasons for circumcision beyond religious custom; including decreased risk of HIV & other STD's, decreased risk of penile cancer, decreased risk of infection, hygenic purposes, and prevention of "phimosis" which is an inability to retract the foreskin.

Based on this data, I am inclined to challenge Kelly's assertion that it is purely based on religious custom. However, I might posit that because it is such a widespread custom and because it may have began as a religious custom; certain physicians might have looked for "medical reasons" for such a procedure -- whilst clinging to religious reasons as the undertone of their efforts.

----

Now to get a bit more taboo, I must confess that all the men of my family and extended family (including myself) are/were Catholic, and circumcision is the custom of our family.

Thus, confronting the possibility of non-circumcision is a psychologically difficult thing to do for one who is circumcised. So again, psychologically, I could also posit that some physicians and researchers have had personal justification to find a rationalization for a procedure that had been done to them unwillingly.

----

The point is that upon further examination, I must conclude that circumcision is probably NOT a wise decision. The medical claims made in favor for circumcision are minimal, false, and vastly outweighed by the negative effects of the procedure. Almost all of the complications of non-circumcision are so minimal that they should be considered negligible. Furthermore, the risks of the actual circumcision surgery -- such as amputation of the glans of the penis -- or even death in some cases; are much greater problems than non-circumcision.

The greatest concern is that research indicates the foreskin serves a genuine purpose in sexual arousal, as it contains a vast number of nerve endings; and it protects the glans of the penis from "chafing," that is, it prevents a callousing effect from rubbing on clothing, and hence decreasing the sensitivity of the glans.

Most convincing was a study on 5 men who had circumcisions as adults for overhyped "medical reasons". These 5 men all regretted their decision due to loss of sexual arousal. One man compared it to "seeing in black and white" vs. "seeing in color." One man said he'd even sell his house in order to get his foreskin back.

For one who has never know what it would be to have it, I cannot even understand what these men are talking about.

----

There are other arguments for circumcision, such as "fitting in" or for aesthetic purposes.

Curiously, while the rate of circumcision in the US has fallen from 90% to 60% in modern times; Great Britain has about a 6-10% circumcision rate. Only 1/6 of the men in the world have a circumcision. So fitting in is purely a cultural thing. One might ask WHY he would care about having a circumcision "just to fit in." I can say for a fact in my hometown locker room that non-circumcision was taboo.

Still more curious, I wondered if women found non-circumcision "gross" or unattractive. Unable to find a survey on such a topic, I posted a question to Yahoo! answers. Only 3 responses, but to my amazement, there was no preference either way. I found a couple other questions on Yahoo! answers who had posted before me with similar questions and there were few if any female respondants who had a problem with non-circumcision.

----

In conclusion on this topic, I would posit the following broad health care policy:

1. Circumcision should probably illegal for parents to make such a decision unless there is some kind of special medical reason that outweighs the risks of the procedure. (Such as a saturated family history of penile cancer.)
2. Circumcision should be legal for young men to decide at the age of puberty -- circa age 13.
3. Young men should be thoroughly informed about the procedure -- the pros and cons, so that they can make a fair decision.
4. Parents should not pressure their children into such a decision -- ie Jewish Bar Mitzvah.

----

In the stickam chatroom, 2 analogies were brought up:

1. comparing female breasts to the male foreskin.
2. comparing the end of one's nose (risk of skin cancer) to the foreskin.
AND
3. Although no one brought it up, I could see someone comparing the female clitoris to the male foreskin. In some African countries, it is custom to remove the female clitoris in order to prevent female sexual satisfaction and ensure fidelity.

Although I have ultimately sided with the non-circumcision position, I think all of those analogies are poor. While the male foreskin [may] provide some functions for male sexual arousal, which I cannot attest to, I highly doubt that the function lost is comparable to a female having a double mastectomy, cutting off your nose Michael Jackson style, or cutting off a female clitoris.

The function of the female breasts are both for milk production and aesthetic necessity (in western culture, at least). Cutting off your nose makes no good sense, as it is vital for breathing and prevention of inhaling particulates. And the function of the female clitoris in arousal, although I am certainly not an expert, is far more important than the preservation of the foreskin.

Since we have no studies in existence (to my knowledge) measuring or comparing the arousal of the foreskin vs. the clitoris, there is no definitive answer. I can only conjecture that some women without a clitoris may have NO arousal at all while men without a foreskin still have some degree of arousal. The degree lost would be completely subjective, and would be impossible to objectively measure.

Thus, I will concede that non-circumcision is a better public health policy. I believe medical data is the most convincing way to go about it, though.

----

And if you simply type, "circumcision," in on any web browser, in my research, there is plenty out there to support such a case. In fact, I did not find ANY PRO-circumcision literature. I found some spurious articles on Medline (medical research article browser), but meta-analytic reviews are hard to come by. There appear to be some books on the subject, but I see no one coming out waving a pro-circumcision flag.

----

I can only guess that the reason this is not in the forefront of cultural debate is
1. Taboo.
2. Religious.

This would seem to be an extremely important issue, if indeed non-circumcision is like "seeing in color" and circumcision is like "seeing in black and white." I will never get that precious flap of skin back!


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Pretty good sum of the

Pretty good sum of the situation doc, I'm only going to comment on the things I think I can add to after I put in my two cents. I think your assessment of why circumcision is so prevalent in the US and the arguments used to support it are pretty spot on - and ultimately fail miserably.

We're essentially left with the grim fact that millions of infants and children have part of their penises cut off against thier will for purely religious or cultural reasons, or because their parents have been misled into believing it is medically necessary or even advisable.

Cutting chuncks of flesh off your child for cultural/religious reasons or out of pure ignorance is certainly irrational. It's not just irrational, it's barbaric.

I think medical professionals ought to be ashamed and even prosecuted or have their liscenses revoked for doing such a thing to a child incapable of making such a decision for himself. I think a doctor's first responsibility is to do no needless harm to the patient, and I certainly think circumcision for reasons other than disease or birth defect or quality of life issues on minors is causing unecessary harm. If an adult wants to modify their body, that's their business, but an infant is in no position to make such a decision.

 

doctoro wrote:
In conclusion on this topic, I would posit the following broad health care policy: 1. Circumcision should probably illegal for parents to make such a decision unless there is some kind of special medical reason that outweighs the risks of the procedure. (Such as a saturated family history of penile cancer.) 2. Circumcision should be legal for young men to decide at the age of puberty -- circa age 13. 3. Young men should be thoroughly informed about the procedure -- the pros and cons, so that they can make a fair decision. 4. Parents should not pressure their children into such a decision -- ie Jewish Bar Mitzvah. ----

That seems like a sensible policy.

 

Quote:
In the stickam chatroom, 2 analogies were brought up: 1. comparing female breasts to the male foreskin. 2. comparing the end of one's nose (risk of skin cancer) to the foreskin. AND 3. Although no one brought it up, I could see someone comparing the female clitoris to the male foreskin. In some African countries, it is custom to remove the female clitoris in order to prevent female sexual satisfaction and ensure fidelity. Although I have ultimately sided with the non-circumcision position, I think all of those analogies are poor. While the male foreskin [may] provide some functions for male sexual arousal, which I cannot attest to, I highly doubt that the function lost is comparable to a female having a double mastectomy, cutting off your nose Michael Jackson style, or cutting off a female clitoris. The function of the female breasts are both for milk production and aesthetic necessity (in western culture, at least). Cutting off your nose makes no good sense, as it is vital for breathing and prevention of inhaling particulates. And the function of the female clitoris in arousal, although I am certainly not an expert, is far more important than the preservation of the foreskin.

OK, here I'm going to have to disagree. I think the analogies are pretty apt. I will give you that the foreskin is something one can live without, but so are the others organs you mention; breasts, nose, clitoris,ect. Now while the foreskin may not have as great a utility as the breast in females, it still has utility. As far as the level of stimulation in the clitoris vs. the foreskin go, I think the point is moot - both organs serve similar functions, and neither is required to enjoy sex, would be missed if you never had a frame of reference or is required for reproduction - they are also removed for the same irrational reasons.

The point here is, we shouldn't be in the practice of cutting things off of people without their permission unless there is a sound medical reason for doing so. I don't consider the very minimal risks of infection or cancer able to justify what would be for lack of a better term "preventative amputation".

At anyrate, you seem to see that such rationalizations cannot justify circumcision in boys or girls.

Quote:
I will never get that precious flap of skin back!

Yeah, I was cicurmcised as an infant as well, so I don't have that frame of reference either. Still, it would have been nice if the decision were left up to me, and if it were, suffice it to say, I'd probably still have it.

I did see in an episode of P&T's Bullshit on this subject that there are various methods to "restore" one's foreskin, but IMO, the treatments looked more horrible than the affliction. I'm not curious enough to know what it's like to have a foreskin to hang weights from my genitalia for several months 8O

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


slowhand
slowhand's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
I can't argue on any of your

I can't argue on any of your points, but I can add this.  From what I know of biology, I think the foreskin/clitoris anaology is a little off.  THe better comparison would be the clitoris vs. the glans (might make a good porn title), as I think they develop from the same tissue in the fetal period.  Losing the glans would be a MAJOR deal, much moreso than the foreskin.

“The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.”

“It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him.”

<


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
I'd have to agree.  My

I'd have to agree.  My developmental biology textbook is at the office, but you're spot on. 

 The clitoris actually has a "hood" equivalent to the male foreskin.

Perhaps comparing the clitoral hood to the male foreskin would be a more apt analogy.

 

In any event, quibbling over these analogies misses the point:  circumcision is an irrational precept on many other stronger arguments than analogies.

-----

 BTW, I like the picture from that Rage against the Machine album.  But self-immolation is a rough way to go.

"Killing in the Name" is a rad tune.

 

 


HellyK
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-07
User is offlineOffline
Here's a very good profile

Here's a very good profile that explains in detail what circumcision is, where does the idea come from, the function of the foreskin, how does male circumcision affect women and more. Needless to say, I'm extremely against unnecessary male and female circumcision, and I think it this practice should be illegal.

 

www.myspace.com/dontcircumcise

 

 

 


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
While there is no benefit

While there is no benefit to female circumcision one study (therefore inconclusive) hints at a lower risk of acquiring HIV if males get the circumcision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4371384.stm

Funny thing though, if God designed the penis the way it is then why do we remove the intelligenty designed foreskin so our hands don't slip when we jerk off? 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
I don't think circumcision

I don't think circumcision is necessary at all. However, I'm under the impression that female circumcision is far more detrimental than male circumcision.  First of all, not only is the clitoris cut off, but in many cases the labia as well.  The the whole thing is sewn up, leaving a small outlet for urine and menstrual fluids.

I was also under the impression that a woman cannot actually orgasm via intra-vaginal, that the orgasm is actually brought about by stimulation to the clitoris.  If that is true, then removal of the clitoris would also make it impossible for a woman to orgasm. I don't have anything to back that statement up, I can't go crazy on the web at work. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Big Willem
Posts: 34
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
I think except for a direct

I think except for a direct medical need, circumcision should be illegal for children. (Or to be more precise, for parents) To me its not a case of good reasons against bad reasons. Even if there were benefits, its not up to the parents to make that decision. The parents are not the owner of the Childs body. I think child circumcision is immoral, because the decision should be up to child as an adult.

If your an adult, its your choice, with al the potential risks an benefits.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I hear there are other ways

I hear there are other ways for a women to orgasm besides the clitoris, but it would make things a lot more difficult. Also I can't imagine the sewing up part would be good for anything.

In the US, as far as I know, female circumcision is rare if not non-exist, but male circumcision is popular. I think that is why doctoro focused on that more.



Its kinda odd that some of the same kind of people who look down or even demonize voluntary body modification praise the involuntary...


HellyK
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-07
User is offlineOffline
Big Willem wrote: The

Big Willem wrote:

The parents are not the owner of the Childs body...

If your an adult, its your choice, with al the potential risks an benefits.

 

 

I agree with you.


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Circumcision?  It's no skin

Circumcision?  It's no skin off my nose.


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Personal freedom...

I dont think any government should have the right to change a persons right to practice religion.

 

If that is the case is all modification of your natural body wrong?  Is it only wrong to modify for astetic reasons?  What about Ear piercing, would that be allowed?  I think circumcision is a safe practice, if someone chooses it for thier child so be it.  I dont know very many people who are circumcised that are really angry because of it. 

 

Yes you could wait until you are 13 but why?  Someone is much more self aware at 13, at least when you are an infant you really dont know what is going on. 


     When it came time to have my son circumcised I chose to, not for any other reason than if I were given the choice today I would choose to be cicumcised.  So I made the choice in what I thought he would want in the future.


 

Most girls I know rather have a circumcised penis connected to thier lover, but most girls I know are American, my Ex was from Iceland and I was her first circumcised guy and she said she didnt care either way.  But I think American women are used to circumcised penises so they look more appealing.

 

I do think in time the practice will be abandoned, but I would never like to see it made illegal.

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


pipelineaudio
pipelineaudio's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
I think its kind of scary

I think its kind of scary that we use the same word "circumcision" to describe cutting off some skin on a penis and also using it to describe MUTILATING a female so that she loses her clit completely.

 Im a circu,sized male, and I know Id WAY rather have lost some foreskin than what girls have to go thru from the barbarians! I don't enjoy that the choice was not mine, but I can live with it. I CANNOT live with the idea of what people do when they commit FGM

 I guess its like the media tries to slant things by referring to both legal entry into the country, and illegal tresspassing/violating national sovereignty as "immigration"

 

http://pipelineaudio.net/

http://reaper.fm/ - spreading the REAPER Madness!


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote: I dont

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
I dont think any government should have the right to change a persons right to practice religion.

You can't mean that. Animal and human sacrifices? Blowing up buildings? Preventing your children from receiving necessary medical care to save their lives?

I agree that the government in the broadest sense should not prevent the practice of religion, but there IS a line in the sand where religion does not get a free pass.

This is when harming others. I don't care if you want to flagellate yourself, nail yourself up on a cross, commit suicide to catch a spaceship, or whatever to yourself... It's not my business to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself. I think, however, that forced circumcision may be a matter of child abuse.

Sexual, physical, and verbal abuse are considered to be wrong when they are turned towards children. Taking away pieces of their anatomy without their permission should also be cause for pause.

I'm asking you to step outside of custom and your preconceived notions about the issue and look at the issue with a "blank slate".

I showed in my initial posting that the foreskin of the male penis has true biological function that in at least some men, provides extra arousal during sex for two reasons. First, the foreskin has a mass network of nerve endings that have the potentiality to be "aroused". Secondly, the foreskin prevents chafing and a gradual loss of sensitivity to the glans of the penis.

Do you dispute these claims? I saw nowhere in your response any refutation of these points.

Let me ask you this question: Would it be permissible for you to pierce your child's tongue without his permission? To give him a full back tatoo of the American flag? Or to shave his head and tatoo it blue?

This would probably sound absurd. And it should. These choices about body modification, EVEN IF cosmetic and customary, should be the choice of the child when they are old enough to comprehend the decision. This is akin to protecting the virginity of a child until he or she is ready to handle the decision and deal with it effectively.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
If that is the case is all modification of your natural body wrong? Is it only wrong to modify for astetic reasons? What about Ear piercing, would that be allowed?

Point noted. What about forcing your child to get his ears pierced? Not at all am I saying that modification to your natural body is wrong. Some men get sex change operations. Some men protecting and serving the harems of crazed polygamists would hack off their members completely so that no risk of impropriety could be taken (eunuchs). But the difference here is choice. To take it a step further, consider the case of hermaphrodites. I read an article in the Rolling Stone several years ago about a hermaphroditic child who had its penis cut off at birth. The child then grew up as a girl, but later had a sex change operation to a man because the child was "psychologically male". Was it right for the parents to snip the child's penis? In sum, I don't think this is a religious issue whatsoever. We have laws that prevent certain acts, period. Polygamist mormons are forbidden to allow statutory rape and incest... We don't give a damn about their religion. So I don't think the religious card should even be played here. If we create a standard to follow, why does circumcision get a free pass? I have demonstrated how it causes REAL and SEVERE harm to a man.

I realize you and I have both had this procedure done. I was actually on your side, and I was voraciously defending the practice against Kelly in the chatroom. I then decided to research the topic and found how mistaken I was.

The thing that did it for me was reading accounts by men who had the procedure done later in life. One described it as "seeing in black and white versus color." Having never had this flap of skin, I have no idea what he's talking about... And that pisses me off a bit. I'd at least like to KNOW the sensation and decide as a mature adult whether or not I neede to get rid of it. Why does the practice need to be done to a child? What women are going to see the child's penis -- in a sexual setting -- PRIOR to the child's maturity and ability to make the decision on his own?

You make a point that women think circumcised penises are icky. Probably, some do. I wouldn't dispute that. I would think it sure would be interesting to take a poll for some scientific data on it. But why cut the foreskin of a child who is not even having sex? When the child comes of age to HAVE sex, then he can make the decision!

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
I think circumcision is a safe practice, if someone chooses it for thier child so be it. I dont know very many people who are circumcised that are really angry because of it.

If you were color-blind, would you be mad about it? Maybe not. But what if you didn't even KNOW that you WERE color blind? Then you take a test at age 20 and someone tells you that you're color-blind? You may not be mad about it, but you'd probably want to know what it's like to see color. Furthermore, what if you were then told that your parents had a procedure performed to your eyes or brain that caused the color-blindness unnecessarily, because it was their religious belief that red and blue were the colors of the devil and their perception needed to be prevented?

You need to meet the argument head on that loss of the foreskin results in significant loss of sexual sensation.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Yes you could wait until you are 13 but why? Someone is much more self aware at 13, at least when you are an infant you really dont know what is going on.

Ever heard of anesthesia? Name one adult circumcision done without anesthetic.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
When it came time to have my son circumcised I chose to, not for any other reason than if I were given the choice today I would choose to be cicumcised. So I made the choice in what I thought he would want in the future.

1. Did you have all the information necessary to make an effective choice?

2. Whether or not you chose to makes no difference. I do not care whatsoever what my father would have chosen. I make many choices in my life that differ from my father's choices. I think that's a poor standard.

3. I think you're in defense mode. Perhaps you understand that now, that decision may not have been the best thing. As such, you're searching for ways to defend your decision because it would imply that you're a bad guy. But that's not really what I'm arguing here. You probably made a decision based on poor information without even having access to alternative views/facts. I don't think you're a bad guy at all. I think parents make the best decisions for their children based on the information that they have. And because at least you thought at the time you made the decision that you were doing the right thing, I don't think I can fault you. I don't hold a grudge towards my parents for the procedure. BUT; the fact that we don't have access to all the information is the real crime, and whatever forces are preventing more mainstream discussions about this in the medical community, in my opinion, is to blame.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Most girls I know rather have a circumcised penis connected to thier lover, but most girls I know are American, my Ex was from Iceland and I was her first circumcised guy and she said she didnt care either way. But I think American women are used to circumcised penises so they look more appealing.

You really have no scientific data to support the idea that "most" American women prefer circumcised penises. Just your opinion and personal experience. I would certainly agree that some prefer it. But as I stated in my original post, I posted a question on yahoo! answers about this, and no female respondents said that they preferred circumcision. Realistically speaking, if you were promiscuous and having sex with lots of women, it might be more of a concern. But if you fell in love with the right woman in a monogamous relationship... you could reason all this out with her, and if the circumcision issue was still a problem, then you can have the procedure. But it should be a rational decision, not a religious one or a decision based on possibly unwarranted fear of rejection.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
I do think in time the practice will be abandoned, but I would never like to see it made illegal.

Well, perhaps there is a compromise. I think there is probably a very large proportion of people who know NOTHING about the information that is out there. Doctors at least have the responsibility to give a pamphlet to their patients or discuss this in detail. It's the medical profession that is to blame, in my opinion.

The process would certainly be abandoned if full disclosure of the evidence was made and parents could make these decisions better.


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
doctoro wrote: iluvc2h5oh

doctoro wrote:

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
I dont think any government should have the right to change a persons right to practice religion.

You can't mean that. Animal and human sacrifices? Blowing up buildings? Preventing your children from receiving necessary medical care to save their lives?

I agree that the government in the broadest sense should not prevent the practice of religion, but there IS a line in the sand where religion does not get a free pass.

This is when harming others. I don't care if you want to flagellate yourself, nail yourself up on a cross, commit suicide to catch a spaceship, or whatever to yourself... It's not my business to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself. I think, however, that forced circumcision may be a matter of child abuse.

Sexual, physical, and verbal abuse are considered to be wrong when they are turned towards children. Taking away pieces of their anatomy without their permission should also be cause for pause.

I'm asking you to step outside of custom and your preconceived notions about the issue and look at the issue with a "blank slate".

I showed in my initial posting that the foreskin of the male penis has true biological function that in at least some men, provides extra arousal during sex for two reasons. First, the foreskin has a mass network of nerve endings that have the potentiality to be "aroused". Secondly, the foreskin prevents chafing and a gradual loss of sensitivity to the glans of the penis.

Do you dispute these claims? I saw nowhere in your response any refutation of these points.

Let me ask you this question: Would it be permissible for you to pierce your child's tongue without his permission? To give him a full back tatoo of the American flag? Or to shave his head and tatoo it blue?

This would probably sound absurd. And it should. These choices about body modification, EVEN IF cosmetic and customary, should be the choice of the child when they are old enough to comprehend the decision. This is akin to protecting the virginity of a child until he or she is ready to handle the decision and deal with it effectively.

 

No But I do go as far as religion is ok if it doesnt hurt anyone outside of your family.  I dont think people should do things to thier children that are unpleasent for any reason.  But I would rather have that happen than a government saying which things are acceptable and which are not.  It is a sticky situation and I dont think there is a perfect solution just the lesser of two evils...

So yes I would rather see child brides than government intervening in personal/family matters.  Actually I think most of those things sort thier self out.  If Incest wasnt illegal would you be more likely to try it? I didnt think so.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
If that is the case is all modification of your natural body wrong? Is it only wrong to modify for astetic reasons? What about Ear piercing, would that be allowed?

Point noted. What about forcing your child to get his ears pierced? Not at all am I saying that modification to your natural body is wrong. Some men get sex change operations. Some men protecting and serving the harems of crazed polygamists would hack off their members completely so that no risk of impropriety could be taken (eunuchs). But the difference here is choice. To take it a step further, consider the case of hermaphrodites. I read an article in the Rolling Stone several years ago about a hermaphroditic child who had its penis cut off at birth. The child then grew up as a girl, but later had a sex change operation to a man because the child was "psychologically male". Was it right for the parents to snip the child's penis? In sum, I don't think this is a religious issue whatsoever. We have laws that prevent certain acts, period. Polygamist mormons are forbidden to allow statutory rape and incest... We don't give a damn about their religion. So I don't think the religious card should even be played here. If we create a standard to follow, why does circumcision get a free pass? I have demonstrated how it causes REAL and SEVERE harm to a man.

I realize you and I have both had this procedure done. I was actually on your side, and I was voraciously defending the practice against Kelly in the chatroom. I then decided to research the topic and found how mistaken I was.

The thing that did it for me was reading accounts by men who had the procedure done later in life. One described it as "seeing in black and white versus color." Having never had this flap of skin, I have no idea what he's talking about... And that pisses me off a bit. I'd at least like to KNOW the sensation and decide as a mature adult whether or not I neede to get rid of it. Why does the practice need to be done to a child? What women are going to see the child's penis -- in a sexual setting -- PRIOR to the child's maturity and ability to make the decision on his own?

 

The point I made for doing it at a young age had more to do with awareness than sexuality, I think you read that part later.

You make a point that women think circumcised penises are icky. Probably, some do. I wouldn't dispute that. I would think it sure would be interesting to take a poll for some scientific data on it. But why cut the foreskin of a child who is not even having sex? When the child comes of age to HAVE sex, then he can make the decision!

Sure, but that should be up to the parents. 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
I think circumcision is a safe practice, if someone chooses it for thier child so be it. I dont know very many people who are circumcised that are really angry because of it.

If you were color-blind, would you be mad about it? Maybe not. But what if you didn't even KNOW that you WERE color blind? Then you take a test at age 20 and someone tells you that you're color-blind? You may not be mad about it, but you'd probably want to know what it's like to see color. Furthermore, what if you were then told that your parents had a procedure performed to your eyes or brain that caused the color-blindness unnecessarily, because it was their religious belief that red and blue were the colors of the devil and their perception needed to be prevented?

You need to meet the argument head on that loss of the foreskin results in significant loss of sexual sensation.

 

I dont need to meet anything Im just saying what my opinion is.  I am aware my stance is an IRRATIONAL one in a vacuum. but I think it is a rational one in the world we live in.  If my son was born with a physical defect that would not affect him in anyway other than apperance.  There was a cure that was painful but would correct the unpleasing visual defect would I get it done?  Yes I would...this too could be considered irrational in a vacuum because it doesnt change who he is at all but we know people look at someone differently based on appearance that is just the way it is.

 I know that a foreskin is not a physical defect I am just trying to draw parallels.  I think it is more acceptable to be circumsized in the USA.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Yes you could wait until you are 13 but why? Someone is much more self aware at 13, at least when you are an infant you really dont know what is going on.

Ever heard of anesthesia? Name one adult circumcision done without anesthetic.

 

I didnt mean actual physical pain.  But fear of the upcoming operation.  Time missed from school/work.  I just think if you are going to get it done and you have a choice you would choose to have it done when you are an infant as opposed to when you are 13.  (as a side note religion makes it get done early more to force someone into the religion without giving a choice)

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
When it came time to have my son circumcised I chose to, not for any other reason than if I were given the choice today I would choose to be cicumcised. So I made the choice in what I thought he would want in the future.

1. Did you have all the information necessary to make an effective choice?

I was not an expect but I felt comfortable with my choice.

2. Whether or not you chose to makes no difference. I do not care whatsoever what my father would have chosen. I make many choices in my life that differ from my father's choices. I think that's a poor standard.

But when yo uare a child parents make choices for you in your best interest, sometimes they are wrong but if they wait until you are old enough to make your own choices with everything that would be a sad state of affairs. 

 

3. I think you're in defense mode. Perhaps you understand that now, that decision may not have been the best thing. As such, you're searching for ways to defend your decision because it would imply that you're a bad guy. But that's not really what I'm arguing here. You probably made a decision based on poor information without even having access to alternative views/facts. I don't think you're a bad guy at all. I think parents make the best decisions for their children based on the information that they have. And because at least you thought at the time you made the decision that you were doing the right thing, I don't think I can fault you. I don't hold a grudge towards my parents for the procedure. BUT; the fact that we don't have access to all the information is the real crime, and whatever forces are preventing more mainstream discussions about this in the medical community, in my opinion, is to blame.

 I didnt even bother reading this whole thing honestly.  I am not defense about it nor regret my choice.  If I have another son I will choose the same procedure. 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Most girls I know rather have a circumcised penis connected to thier lover, but most girls I know are American, my Ex was from Iceland and I was her first circumcised guy and she said she didnt care either way. But I think American women are used to circumcised penises so they look more appealing.

You really have no scientific data to support the idea that "most" American women prefer circumcised penises. Just your opinion and personal experience. I would certainly agree that some prefer it. But as I stated in my original post, I posted a question on yahoo! answers about this, and no female respondents said that they preferred circumcision. Realistically speaking, if you were promiscuous and having sex with lots of women, it might be more of a concern. But if you fell in love with the right woman in a monogamous relationship... you could reason all this out with her, and if the circumcision issue was still a problem, then you can have the procedure. But it should be a rational decision, not a religious one or a decision based on possibly unwarranted fear of rejection.

 

Well not a scietific poll, but my biased sample group I never met a girl that prefered uncirc.  And I think most girls my son will sleep with will be American so I choose that.  And dont all mean want to be promiscuous?  I try to be as often as possible.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
I do think in time the practice will be abandoned, but I would never like to see it made illegal.

Well, perhaps there is a compromise. I think there is probably a very large proportion of people who know NOTHING about the information that is out there. Doctors at least have the responsibility to give a pamphlet to their patients or discuss this in detail. It's the medical profession that is to blame, in my opinion.

The process would certainly be abandoned if full disclosure of the evidence was made and parents could make these decisions better.

 

Yes we agree, 100 years from now I hope it isnt discussed.  I just think conforming is sometimes best.

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote: I dont

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

I dont think any government should have the right to change a persons right to practice religion.

We aren't talking about that. We're talking about ritualistic mutilation forced upon infants and children.

Quote:
If that is the case is all modification of your natural body wrong?  Is it only wrong to modify for astetic reasons?  What about Ear piercing, would that be allowed?

I have absolutely NO problem if an ADULT wants to CHOOSE to modify theri OWN body. Split your toungue, piece your clit, even cut off your big toe, whatever - if you are an adult, it's your choice to make.

We're talking about infants here though. 

 

Quote:
I think circumcision is a safe practice, if someone chooses it for thier child so be it.  I dont know very many people who are circumcised that are really angry because of it. 

 Let's leave aside the fact that there are at least SOME botched circumcisms and that the proceedure is NOT necessary. Let's also leave apart the fact that most people aren't pissed about it, because they have NO frame of reference, because the tip of their penis was snipped before the had the cognitive ability to understand what was happening.

Let's focus on the simple fact of the matter that things are being amputated from infants for purely cultural and religious reasons. That is beyond brutal. Beyond barbaric.

The same justifications are used to cut off the clitorisis and labia of young girls in many cultures. It would be no more or less palatable if the they simply nipped an earlobe or cut off a finger. For fuck's sake, you're slicing things off of little children because an old book says it pleases god.

That's disgusting, there isn't any other word for it.

Quote:
Yes you could wait until you are 13 but why?

We should wait longer than that, until the person is a legal adult or at least capable of making that decision on their own free of the coercive pressures of their family and religion.  

 

Quote:
Someone is much more self aware at 13, at least when you are an infant you really dont know what is going on. 

But a 13 year old is still easily coerced, and you know it. I imagine things like, "Get the tip of your dick cut off, or you're out on the street".

That's just as fucked up as cutting up an infant.


    

Quote:
When it came time to have my son circumcised I chose to, not for any other reason than if I were given the choice today I would choose to be cicumcised.  So I made the choice in what I thought he would want in the future.

 Reread what you just wrote. You made a permanent and lifelong decision for your own son based on YOUR beliefs, and based on irrational tradition.

What if your son doesn't grow up to embrace the same beliefs you do?

Don't you think that maybe you should have left it up to him? Afterall, it's his penis.


 

Quote:
Most girls I know rather have a circumcised penis connected to thier lover, but most girls I know are American, my Ex was from Iceland and I was her first circumcised guy and she said she didnt care either way.  But I think American women are used to circumcised penises so they look more appealing.

So, like you've been saying all along, tradition is a good reason to slice the tips of infants penises off. That's the ONLY argument you have, and you honestly think it can justify such a thing?

Quote:
I do think in time the practice will be abandoned, but I would never like to see it made illegal.

It shouldn't be made illegal, concerning ADULTS. If an adult wants to get the hood of his penis sliced off, more power to him. If you want to slice up a newborn, you're a fucking monster.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
I have said multiple

I have said multiple times:

The foreskin has biological function.  It is filled with nerve endings and seems to assist in arousal during sex.

Why have you not responded?  This is the crux of the whole debate?  If it has function, then we are not talking about body modification, we are talking about mutilation! 


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote:   I dont

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
  I dont know very many people who are circumcised that are really angry because of it. 

How many people know what benefits there are to not being circumcised? Most thing its a good thing that people get it.
Also, I am extreamly angry about it. I have even bitched my mother out for doing it. Of course her excuse was "It is medically healthy".  >:o
 


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Another point about

Another point about banning.

 

It is not healthier to have the foreskin removed....all you need to do is keep up on standard hygeine.  I think we all agree with that.

The problem is there are people who don't keep up with thier childs standard hygeine.  How many times do you see a small child with teeth that should not be that damaged at thier age.  If you ban circumcision there will be infections in the children who are not taken care of properly.

And no the mothers will not be repremanded because there is nothing the law can do.  It is not severe enough to take the children away, they cant force the mother to pay out of pocket or fine her...they can just say it would have been better if the child was circumcised.

 

 About the biological function...yeah it seems as though it does have a biological function, but as I said before I didnt get my child circumcised for biological reasons.  I got him circumcised for social reasons.  Until we live in a 100% rational world, which will never happen, it will be the fact that you will need to do irrational things to be socially accepted.

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Talk about a blast from the

Talk about a blast from the past here, wow.

Anyway,  i luvc2h5oh is missing the point here. Should parents be permitted to perform medically unnecessary (ie cosmetic) surgical procedures on a non-consenting infant? The AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) even has an official stance on this that FORBIDS that and also forbids parents from denying medical treatment based on religious reasons, but they fail to see the hypocrisy in permitting circumcision. Also, you need to consider the burden on the healthcare system of paying for this procedure routinely. The issue should not be decided based on what is "socially acceptable" now--that is how a society stagnates. We need to look at it objectively and make a decision based on what is in the best interests of everybody, particularly these newborn male infants.

And, just FYI, I'm American and I don't "prefer" one to the other.

 


HellyK
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-07
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh, your logic is

iluvc2h5oh, your logic is just awful.

 

 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
When it came time to have my son circumcised I chose to, not for any other reason than if I were given the choice today I would choose to be circumcised. So I made the choice in what I thought he would want in the future.





1. Just because YOU think you would want something for yourself doesn't mean that your son would want the same thing for himself; you two are different people.



2. There’s no way for you to know what decision you would have made for yourself if you had been intact, so you can't compare the two and say that you would choose one over the other.

 

 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
I said before I didnt get my child circumcised for biological reasons. I got him circumcised for social reasons


It's this simple, do not use the "SOCIAL STANDARDS" to make decisions for your child. It should be obvious TO YOU that what the majority of people want is not always beneficial for each individual.


iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Until we live in a 100% rational world, which will never happen, it will be the fact that you will need to do irrational things to be socially accepted.



Well, I've got news for you. It's Because of people like you that we are still living in a world polluted by irrational beliefs. Until people stop doing stupid things like practicing unnecessary circumcision to children for religious reason or because their shallow parents think it is necessary to fit in society, the world will never change.

 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Why is it a big deal not to

Why is it a big deal not to be circumsized?  Who cares if circumcision is the 'socially' acceptable stance.  it's a penis!  It's not like he's going to be walking around with it hanging out for everyone to see. 

I know people who aren't circumsized and it's just not a big deal. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


atrijez
atrijez's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2006-09-09
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote: "The


iluvc2h5oh wrote:
"The problem is there are people who don't keep up with thier childs standard hygeine. How many times do you see a small child with teeth that should not be that damaged at thier age. If you ban circumcision there will be infections in the children who are not taken care of properly.

And no the mothers will not be repremanded because there is nothing the law can do. It is not severe enough to take the children away, they cant force the mother to pay out of pocket or fine her...they can just say it would have been better if the child was circumcised."

parents should be obligated to take care of their children. (that's actually sorta the whole point to this discussion.) so these are some very antiquated ideas that you have that infections are "not severe enough to take the children away" or that "they cant force the mother to pay out of pocket". --- who says there can't be laws like these? the only reason you say there can't is because that's just what you're used to. frankly, i maintain that many people should not even be allowed to have children. (and based on the things you've said in your post, i would deem you one of them.)

 

you mention children with dental problems, and i'm glad you brought that point up. do you think that children should have their teeth removed too on the off chance that the parents might not teach their kids how to brush their teeth correctly? obviously, when it comes to another body part that you're not already brainwashed into thinking is removable, you immediately see that it's best just to wait until there's an actual problem with that body rather than remove it preemptively.

 

Quote:
"About the biological function...yeah it seems as though it does have a biological function, but as I said before I didnt get my child circumcised for biological reasons. I got him circumcised for social reasons."

 

do you think there's any chance that your son might not be quite as shallow as you are when he grows up? he might grow up, and unlike yourself, actually turn out to be a somewhat intelligent person who doesn't care what other people think. unfortunately for him however, he will now be irrevocably scarred forever because you made his decision for him based on your own superficial hangups. moreover, in many parts of the country, circumcision has been on the decline, and circumcised youths have become the minority rather than the majority. so if it was your goal to have him fit in, then, depending on where you live, you fucked up and did the exact opposite of what you should have done.

 

Quote:
"Until we live in a 100% rational world, which will never happen, it will be the fact that you will need to do irrational things to be socially accepted."

 

what a ridiculously stupid thing to say. i half hope that you're just in denial and trying to rationalize the criminal act that you inflicted upon your son. if you really think this is good logic though, then i assert that had you lived in nazi germany, that you would have supproted the nazis, or had you lived in america 200 years ago, that you would have supported slavery. etc. you can say all you want that you wouldn't have endorsed such terrible things, but hopefully nobody will believe you now that you've already said what you did. it's clear from your statement that you would have mindlessly supported any system that you had happened to have been born into. it's because of people like you that the world is in as terrible a state as it is.


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok...Ill respond to all at

Ok...Ill respond to all at once...

 

I think you are missing the point, I think personal choice for oneself and ones child trumps all the other arguements.

 I think many people posting on this now are just reading the last 3 or 4 posts and thinking, "hey I know something that hasnt been brought up" but they have been, time and time again and I answered them.

So the way it looks I am the only one who does something harmful for the sole reason of social conformity?  If you buy a $80 shirt because it is more stylish than a $2 shirt from goodwill you are doing something irrational for social reasons....if any of you have ever taken a weight loss pill you are also guilty, Ladies if you get your eyebrows waxed you are doing something physically painful to better be accepted by society....if you tan on purpose you are doing the same thing...

 

Ahh I see the retort, but those things are on a different level than circumcisian...I agree but where do you get to draw the line by what is just irrational even to be BANNED by the government.

 

I think our main disagreement seems to be what say one has over thier child.  I am on the side of nearly 100% control and you are closer to the side were you get to choose is what is right for OTHER peoples children.

 

Overall I am glad we are talking about this because I think it is a good topic.  I think the one major thing you and the religious right have in common is that both of you know what is better how how OTHER people should live thier lives.

 

You could enforce laws to take children away from mothers due to mild neglect but where do you put those children, you could fine the mothers? but what if they cant pay? or if they are already poor who does that really hurt the mother or the family as a whole?

 

artijez...you are not really worth my time so Im just going to skip you. 

 

 

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Ahh just because I have

Ahh just because I have time...

 

HellyK wrote:

iluvc2h5oh, your logic is just awful.

Well my logic is fine, you just dont understand my goal.



1. Just because YOU think you would want something for yourself doesn't mean that your son would want the same thing for himself; you two are different people.

I already answered this twice, so just scroll back.

2. There’s no way for you to know what decision you would have made for yourself if you had been intact, so you can't compare the two and say that you would choose one over the other.

 

No there is not, but I can only make decisions on what information I do have.  I would be rather be circumcised than not.  So using that information I have to do what I think is in the best interest of my child, which is what I did.  It might be incorrect, it might be correct, I choose the path which I thought best for me and my son, I would hold nothing agaisnt someone else who chose somthing else.  If someone is informed they are FREE to make a choice that pertains to them and thier child.

 

 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
I said before I didnt get my child circumcised for biological reasons. I got him circumcised for social reasons


It's this simple, do not use the "SOCIAL STANDARDS" to make decisions for your child. It should be obvious TO YOU that what the majority of people want is not always beneficial for each individual.

You are 100% right.  But everyone does. Including you. And if you have children I am sure you make social standard decisions for them too.


iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Until we live in a 100% rational world, which will never happen, it will be the fact that you will need to do irrational things to be socially accepted.



Well, I've got news for you. It's Because of people like you that we are still living in a world polluted by irrational beliefs. Until people stop doing stupid things like practicing unnecessary circumcision to children for religious reason or because their shallow parents think it is necessary to fit in society, the world will never change.

Well the fact is everyone must pick and choose battles the want to fight, I am not wasting my energy fighting every thing I feel is irrational or that society would be better without.  I think Golf courses are a waste of space and energy, but I am not going to protest agasint golfers or the course.  Id rather use my energy on things I think more more important...I think circumcision does not have us on the brink of destruction.

 

 

I guess that is it.

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


atrijez
atrijez's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2006-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote: artijez...you are

Quote:
artijez...you are not really worth my time so Im just going to skip you.

 

 uhm, no, actually you're skipping me for the same reason that you haven't addressed anyone else's points., because this whole discussion has gone right over your head. you're just using my having been candid with you as an excuse to get yourself off the hook., which is the sort of thing that christians pull. it's a shame too, because it encourages people to beat around bushes rather than be frank. i refuse to be intimidated though. i meant every word i said. if you're going to opt not to reply, then that's a reflection of your character, not mine.

 

Quote:
I think you are missing the point, I think personal choice for oneself and ones child trumps all the other arguements.

 

no, i think YOU'RE missing the point. that sentence is a contradiction. you cannot allow personal freedom AND parental freedom as one infringes on the other. 


HellyK
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-07
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh, I hope you don't

iluvc2h5oh, I hope you don't try to run away from the argument with the excuse of being too busy.

 



HellyK previously wrote:

iluvc2h5oh, your logic is just awful.

 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Well my logic is fine, you just dont understand my goal.


Your logic is not "fine". Please correct me if I'm wrong but your goal is to make desicions for your son based on what you want. In your last argument you said that you had mutilated your son just so he would be appealing to "american girls". You don't KNOW WHAT YOUR SON IS GOING TO WANT, you don't even know if he is going to be interested in women, or if he is going to wish he was intact. Your "goal" is just as terrible as your logic.


HellyK previously wrote:


1. Just because YOU think you would want something for yourself doesn't mean that your son would want the same thing for himself; you two are different people.

 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
I already answered this twice, so just scroll back.



Please spell it out for me because I can't find it.



HellyK previously wrote:


2. There’s no way for you to know what decision you would have made for yourself if you had been intact, so you can't compare the two and say that you would choose one over the other.



iluvc2h5oh wrote:

No there is not, but I can only make decisions on what information I do have. I would be rather be circumcised than not.


You can't compare being intact to being circumcised and then say that being circumcised is better because YOU WERE NEVER INTACT.Do you follow? you can only say that being circumcised is good for you, that's all.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
So using that information I have to do what I think is in the best interest of my child, which is what I did.


You based your desicion on information that you made up in your head, because you don't know what it feels like to be intact.
And it was NOT in your child's best interest because his best interest would have been to decided for himself. It was in Your best interest because you think "american women" like circumcised penises.



iluvc2h5oh wrote:
If someone is informed they are FREE to make a choice that pertains to them and thier child.


WRONG, information doesn't give people a free pass to do as they please.

HellyK previously wrote:


It's this simple, do not use the "SOCIAL STANDARDS" to make decisions for your child. It should be obvious TO YOU that what
the majority of people want is not always beneficial for each individual.


iluvc2h5oh wrote:
You are 100% right. But everyone does. Including you. And if you have children I am sure you make social
standard decisions for them too.


You say that you agree 100% with me, but you are still saying that it's ok for you to make desicions based on "social standards" because everybody else does it. First of all, it's not true. Not everybody makes desicions in their life based on "absurd social standards". I for one don't. But even if everybody did, that wouldn't excuse you from
circumcising your child just so he can be appealing to certain type of women.



iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Until we live in a 100% rational world, which will never happen, it will be the fact that you will need to do irrational things to be socially accepted.



HellyK previously wrote:


Well, I've got news for you. It's Because of people like you that we are still living in a world polluted by irrational beliefs. Until people stop doing stupid things like practicing unnecessary circumcision to children for religious reason or because their shallow parents think it is necessary to fit in society, the world will never change.



iluvc2h5oh wrote:

Well the fact is everyone must pick and choose battles the want to fight, I am not wasting my energy fighting every thing I feel is irrational or that society would be better without. I think Golf courses are a waste of space and energy, but I am not going to protest agasint golfers or the course. Id rather use my energy on things I think more more important...I think circumcision does not have us on the brink of destruction.




Nobody is talking about protesting against circumcision therefor your answer is completely IRRELEVANT to my post.

I think you comnpletely forgot your original argument and the reason why I said what I said in response, so let me remind you.

The argument you had was that you have to do irrational things(LIKE CIRCUMNCISION)because we don't live in a world 100%
Rational.

My argument was that YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IRRATIONAL THINGS BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN A WORLD THAT IS NOT COMPLETELY FREE OF IRRATIONAL IDEAS.

The moment you join the irrational side you become part of the problem.Your logic is fucked up if you think that you have to do irrational things just to fit in society.



iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok ms. 100%

Ok ms. 100% rational...

 You own 0 designer clothes I hope...that would be irrational to pay more for just the tag.

And you better not do anything for solely cosmetic reasons.

And no irrational cosmetics I hope.

 No, Alcohol, Tabacco or Caffine...those are all irrational...

 No Food you didnt make yourself....why pay $5 for a sandwich you can make yourself for $3 that would be very irrational.

 

 

All I said from post one is I think it is right for a person to choose for himself or his child whatever he wants.  And you will not change my mind.  I choose what is best for us...you choose what is best for you.

Wait 10 years and he will tell you If I made the right decision.

I try to make this in easy to understand blocks.

please read slowly.

 

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


HellyK
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-07
User is offlineOffline
Don't change the subject,

Don't change the subject, and please keep your answers relevant to the argument.

 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Ok ms. 100% rational...

You own 0 designer clothes I hope...that would be irrational to pay more for just the tag.

And you better not do anything for solely cosmetic reasons.

And no irrational cosmetics I hope.

No, Alcohol, Tabacco or Caffine...those are all irrational...

No Food you didnt make yourself....why pay $5 for a sandwich you can make yourself for $3 that would be very irrational.

 

I don't take part in any of those things you mentioned, but even if I did, those are social preferences that I would have chosen for myself. The problem here is that you forced your social preferences on to someone else.

 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
All I said from post one is I think it is right for a person to choose for himself or his child whatever he wants.

I hope you don't gloss over this point, I need an answer to this question.

 

Does this mean that if your father had castrated you as a baby that you'd be ok with his decision? (in case you don't know what castration is, it's the removal of the entire penis)

 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
And you will not change my mind.


1. No rational person would make a statement like this.

2. Your logic is no better than that off a brainwashed Christian.

 

 

 

 


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Point 1) You dont partake

Point 1)

You dont partake in any social acceptance activities....at least I see now why you are so bitter.

 

Point 2)

Would I be alright with it, I doubt it.  But I stand by the fact that I think parents have say over thier children not the government.   Children cannot decide things for themselves.  Someone has to decide for them...someone has to, I choose parents for that role.  You might have parents out there who do things I dont agree with, but I think it is thier right to do them. 

 

Point 3)

You will not change my mind because personal freedom over oneself and one's child is a core belief of mine.  If you were trying to convince me I was gay, I could say I know you will not change my mind to make me think I am gay.  Would I be able to convince you to become a bigot? 

Some things you can swayed on.  By information but some things you cannot.  This is one area where I seriously doubt my opinion will change during this forum discussion. 

I am saying this so instead of trying to convince me about how evil and stupid I am you just try to look at things from my perspective and give the same level of respect for my beliefs as I am giving toward yours.

 

Honestly I dont think there is anything else to say about this topic as pertaining to circumcision...if you want to continue the debate on parenting or how much say one should say concerning the lives of thier children or something thats fine.

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


Bigg
Bigg's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-06-10
User is offlineOffline
Little something to

Little something to read

http://www.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html

 

How much does circumcision alter what a man ultimately feels? Scientific studies aiming to answer this question have been inconclusive.

Now researchers prodding dozens of male penises with a fine-tipped tool have found that the five areas most receptive to fine-touch are routinely removed by the surgery.

The finding, announced today, was detailed in the April issue of the British Journal of Urology (BJU) International.

Circumcision surgery involves the removal of the skin that covers the tip of the penis, called the foreskin. Infant male circumcision is the most common medical procedure in the United States, with an estimated 60 percent of male newborns undergoing the surgery.

Morris Sorrells of National Organization of Circumcision Information Resources Center and colleagues created a “penile sensitivity map” by measuring the sensitivity of 19 locations on the penises of 159 male volunteers. Of the participants, 91 were circumcised as infants and none had histories of penile or sexual dysfunction.

For circumcised penises, the most sensitive region was the circumcision scar on the underside of the penis, the researchers found. For uncircumcised penises, the areas most receptive to pressure were five regions normally removed during circumcision—all of which were more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis.

Circumcision is a procedure practiced in several countries for medical as well as cultural reasons. Most scientists agree that the surgery confers some protection against infection and the risk of contracting sexual diseases. Recent studies have also shown that circumcision can lower the risks of HIV infection by as much as 60 percent in sex between males and females.

But Robert Van Howe, a study team member at Michigan State University, thinks such claims are somewhat overblown. “The [health benefits] that have been consistently shown are very small, and there are less aggressive, less invasive, less expensive ways of dealing with the problems [circumcision] is supposed to address,” Van Howe told LiveScience.

Other practices, such as choosing sexual partners wisely and using condoms consistently, are far more effective in protecting against diseases, he added.

Circumcision is opposed by some groups on the grounds that it is painful and not a life-saving procedure, and that it also makes sex less pleasurable by exposing and numbing the tip of the penis, called the glans. Some have gone so far as recommending foreskin restoration.

Some previous studies found that circumcision led to little, if any, decrease in penile sensitivity, but Sorrells and his colleagues say such findings are suspect because many are based on self-reports from men who were circumcised to correct medical problems.

"Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions."--Frater Ravus


HellyK
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-07
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote: Point

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Point 1)

You dont partake in any social acceptance activities....at least I see now why you are so bitter.


Your answer is irrelevant to the argument.


iluvc2h5oh wrote:

Point 2)
Would I be alright with it, I doubt it.



yeah, I bet you wouldn't. And yet you mantain that the parent should have the right to do something like that. I don't believe for one minute that if such a thing had actually happened that you would still be defending their actions. You're obviously saying whatever you have to to defend your point.



iluvc2h5oh wrote:
But I stand by the fact that I think parents have say over thier children not the government. Children cannot decide things for themselves. Someone has to decide for them...someone has to, I choose parents for that role.


when a decision needs to be made for a baby, then it should be the parents' responsability to make that decision. In this situation though it was not urgent to make that decision.



iluvc2h5oh wrote:
You might have parents out there who do things I dont agree with, but I think it is thier right to do them.



You can't possibly be in favor of allowing parents to sexually abuse their children or torture them just because you think it's their right to do that, are you?



iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Point 3)

You will not change my mind because personal freedom over oneself and one's child is a core belief of mine.



You can't say that you are all for personal freedom when you decided to circumcised your kid instead of waiting until he was old enough to decided for himself. You took away his right to decided what to do with his own body.





iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Some things you can swayed on. By information but some things you cannot. This is one area where I seriously doubt my opinion will change during this forum discussion. I am saying this so instead of trying to convince me about how evil and stupid I am you just try to look at things from my perspective and give the same level of respect for my beliefs as I am giving toward yours.


Looking at things from your perspective is precisely what made me get involved in this argument. And I can't respect such a retrograde belief as yours that parents should be allowed to do what ever they please with their children. The whole point of my argument has been to show you that children are not private property, that parents shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want with their children and that circumcision to new born babies as a standard procedure should be made illegal because it takes away their right to choose for themselves.


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes that is exactly what I

Yes that is exactly what I mean...children are private property.

 

Yes technically that means that parents could do all sorts of horrible things to their children.  But why would they?  Very few people hurt thier children on purpose. And those who are disturbed enought to sexually or physically abuse there child dont refrain because it is illegal.  Nearly all parents have concern for thier child, to say, "we cant have parents choosing what is right for a child" because there is a very small minority that would misuse that power. 

The fact is I am more afriad of giving governments control over citizens than giving parents power over thier children.

 

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


AnAirplane
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote: Yes that

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

Yes that is exactly what I mean...children are private property.

Unless you condone slavery, no, they aren't. Humans aren't private property. Children are human. Therefore, children are not private property. I don't think I'm making a big leap of logic there.

But for argument's sake, let's say that children aren't yet moral agents, and thus can be considered private property. There'd have to be an arbitrary demarcation between childhood (property) and adulthood (independent moral agency). So I have to ask, at what moment, in your opinion, do they stop being property? And why?

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

Yes technically that means that parents could do all sorts of horrible things to their children.

No, it means that anyone could do horrible things to children.

If a child is property, then kidnapping is theft, molestation is trespassing, and murder is vandalism. Most people (and maybe you disagree) would consider killing a dog to be worse than vandalism, so certainly killing a child isn't as innocent as spraypainting an overpass. And while you didn't suggest this and I'm only extrapolating, the idea that a child is property when affected by the owner, but human when affected by anything else, just doesn't make sense.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

But why would they? Very few people hurt thier children on purpose. And those who are disturbed enought to sexually or physically abuse there child dont refrain because it is illegal. Nearly all parents have concern for thier child, to say, "we cant have parents choosing what is right for a child" because there is a very small minority that would misuse that power.

True, but, as above, it's not the parents I'd be most concerned about; it's the consequences of equating a child with a china set.

And yes, parents should choose what is right for their children. However, mutilation isn't in that realm, because (A) they have a right over their own body and (B) it can always be done later of their own accord.

Choosing to raise a child vegetarian is fine, because they can always eat meat if they choose to. Choosing to teach a child a religion is fine, because they can always convert or denounce it later. Choosing what school to send them to is fine, because if you waited until they could decide rationally, that might be far later than it needs to be, and they can relearn or further their studies if they'd like. Choosing what language to teach them is fine, because without it, they won't be able to communicate anything at all, let alone their decisions.

But choosing to chop at a child's genitals or pierce his ears is mutilation. It leaves a permanent scar and denies the child the right to his own body--and the right to one's own body is the fundamental property right and the foundation for all other rights.

On a bit of a tangent here: For some reason male circumcision is acceptable and normal, but female circumcision is taboo, almost unheard of, and criminal if done to a child. But note, female circumcision (that is, "cutting around" ) is a far cry from excising the clitoris. Some women do it for aesthetic or sexual reasons (albeit a very, very small minority), and there's no reason for it to be considered cruel and relegated to the domain of torture or patriarchy.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

The fact is I am more afriad of giving governments control over citizens than giving parents power over thier children.

This still leaves holes. Are children citizens? If they are citizens, isn't the government controlling them by allowing other citizens to control them? If they aren't citizens, do they have any rights, and if so, which ones? At what point do they become citizens?


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
You make some good

You make some good points..

I dont think you read all the post prior, but if you did some of the things you asked I already answered.

But there are two seperate points that are getting tangled here because they are related. First, should the government be allowed to make decisions involving personal decisions. Second, is it always good for a person to make choices for there child before the child can give his/her input. 

I think parents have 100% control over children that are unable to think for themselves.  So I meant private property in the sense the parents have total control over thier child, I didnt mean private property in the sense of monetary value.  So killing a child would still be murder. Kidnapping is still kidnapping.

But there is a point where a child becomes freethinking...I dont think 18 should be that age, I think people are capable of choosing thing on thier own before that...I dont how to figure when a child is capable of making his/her on choices.  Maybe if they child ever doesnt like how his parents are choosing for him, he could leave?  But as long as someone is supporting you 100% you have not earned the right to be in charge of yourself, once you are supporting yourself it is hard for someone to make tell you what to do (besides the government).

(tangent of my own, does that mean if you are 13-14 and you want to get tattoos your parents wouldnt be able to stop them?)

 That is fine you think some things are fine for parents to choose for the child but I support 100% choice making for children, like I said you could come up with exotic examples of nuts doing wierd things to their children and it being 100% legal, but that would be the exception not the rule.  Also remember cultural standards would be hard on people that are hurting thier child.  Neighbors, co-workers, employeers my choose not to assosiate with you.

Remember terrible things still happen to children all the time now...it is not like we are debating "should bad things happen to children or not". 

 

So...my stance is still parents are in control of thier children.

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
You make some good

{Edit - double post}


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
I am circumcised, so

I am circumcised, so far no problems, i have no problems AT all with sexual arousal, last time i checked, my wife would like it a bit less at times but hey what can i say i am a healthy horny male. As for sensitivity, umm no problem with that, very senstive for me. Would it be for everyone? don't know i am not everyone, i can only atest for myself. As for the Callous part, from what i have seen, and yes i have watched many a porno and compared in my youth to others in bragging rights, mine is fine like many of my uncircumcised friends. As for the STD part, yes in our society we have condoms, not all societies allow due to religous, taboo or ignorance, africa we see this occur, thank you vatican. But there are medical reasons which we cannot just simply discard because you view it as barbaric, and yes there are studies that show that circumcision does help in the fight against AIDS, it is not a cure by any means, and it does not mean that other forms of protection should be discarded, but does seem to help lower the risk of infection. Yes more studies are required to confirm all this, but in the event of it, I as a circumcised male see no problem with circumcision. I don't see this big problem with it, yes there are butchered job, there is a small percentage, but these days in with our modern medince that is small percentage (again this is north american society that i am talking about), as long as it is done by a professional doctor, but this can be said with any medical procedure, c - sections, babies have been cut due to it, should we stop it? women have had complications after a c-section, should we stop it as well? again this is a medical procedure.

As for claiming female circumcision the same as male i don't think so, the tip of my penis where most of the sensitivity is not damaged, it is not done to DECREASE my sensitivity, female circumcision is done to take away sexual pleasure, that is really barbaric. Maybe i am biased (ok i am biased) but if it leads to sexual arousal problems then the porn industry should be litered with people that are uncircumcsied, but from what i have watched, the majority are circumcised. I could be wrong but not from what i have watched. That's just my 2 cents.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
AnAirplane

AnAirplane wrote:

On a bit of a tangent here: For some reason male circumcision is acceptable and normal, but female circumcision is taboo, almost unheard of, and criminal if done to a child. But note, female circumcision (that is, "cutting around" ) is a far cry from excising the clitoris. Some women do it for aesthetic or sexual reasons (albeit a very, very small minority), and there's no reason for it to be considered cruel and relegated to the domain of torture or patriarchy.

actually, my understanding of female circumcision is that it's quite painful, and is intended to inhibit a woman's sensitivity. Not only that, but after the removal of the labia and sometimes the clitoris, the vagina is then sewn nearly shut, with only a small hole to allow urine and menstrual blood through. This effectively creates a chastity belt of human flesh, so that the husband knows his new bride is 'intact' on the wedding night.

While some women might choose to do this for cosmetic purposes, then I'm assuming that they are adults and a very small minority. To perform this on a child is horribly cruel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision

this quote from this website: http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

Nawal El-Saadawi, a Muslim victim of infibulation, stated:

"The importance given to virginity and an intact hymen in these societies is the reason why female circumcision still remains a very widespread practice despite a growing tendency, especially in urban Egypt, to do away with it as something outdated and harmful. Behind circumcision lies the belief that, by removing parts of girls' external genitals organs, sexual desire is minimized. This permits a female who has reached the dangerous age of puberty and adolescence to protect her virginity, and therefore her honor, with greater ease. Chastity was imposed on male attendants in the female harem by castration which turned them into inoffensive eunuchs. Similarly female circumcision is meant to preserve the chastity of young girls by reducing their desire for sexual intercourse." 3

You simply cannot compare male circumcision to female circumcision.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


AnAirplane
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote: I think

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

I think parents have 100% control over children that are unable to think for themselves. So I meant private property in the sense the parents have total control over thier child, I didnt mean private property in the sense of monetary value. So killing a child would still be murder. Kidnapping is still kidnapping.

If a parent has total, one-hundred percent, complete control over a child, then the parent can kill or abandon them at any point. That's not what you're trying to say though, as far as I can tell.

So, the question lies in, how much immunity does a parent have? If killing is murder, then physical harm is assault and battery. Circumcisions and ear piercings (I pick on these two because, obviously, they're the ones considered socially acceptable.) cause physical harm. Are circumcision and ear piercing exempt from the law for some reason?

If the parent circumcises their child personally (that is, a untrained layman taking a knife to the child), is that allowed? If not, what makes a doctor more capable than the parent?

If the parent pierces the child's ear with a rusty nail, is that allowed? If the parent places the child in someone else's care--which is pretty much what is being done with the doctor--can they have the child's ears pierced? (To clarify, there's a flaw in this question because the doctor is hired for a specific procedure, whereas a sitter is hired for general, temporary care; but if piercing falls in the parents' realm of general care, does it fall in the sitter's if not explicitly prohibited?)

The biggest problem finding where the parents' rights end and the child's rights begin. I'd have to draw the line before causing physical harm.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

But there is a point where a child becomes freethinking...I dont think 18 should be that age, I think people are capable of choosing thing on thier own before that...I dont how to figure when a child is capable of making his/her on choices. Maybe if they child ever doesnt like how his parents are choosing for him, he could leave? But as long as someone is supporting you 100% you have not earned the right to be in charge of yourself, once you are supporting yourself it is hard for someone to make tell you what to do (besides the government).

Yeah, I'm going to agree that arbitary age limits aren't right. And I'm not even against the idea of "when they're able to leave," but it denies that the child has rights before they can declare them by their actions. To get back to the point of physical harm, if today one of your parents punched you in the face (say, because black eyes were trendy or something), you'd be rightly upset, I imagine. However, had they done this when you were an infant, it's justified as parents' rights.

Somewhere there's a cut off, and it can't be arbitrary, for then we could set it at forty if we so choose. It also can't be when they declare their independence, because that basically equates to saying, "It isn't oppression until the people revolt."

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

(tangent of my own, does that mean if you are 13-14 and you want to get tattoos your parents wouldnt be able to stop them?)

Essentially, yes. But it's also up to the tattoo artist to choose if they'd like to tattoo someone, and I imagine most quality artists would turn them away. But this isn't so much a hypothetical, because kids do pierce their ears without permission, and kids to tattoo themselves with india ink without permission. So you can't stop them entirely as it is, you can only lower the quality and safety of the work by forcing them to do it through alternative avenues.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

That is fine you think some things are fine for parents to choose for the child but I support 100% choice making for children, like I said you could come up with exotic examples of nuts doing wierd things to their children and it being 100% legal, but that would be the exception not the rule. Also remember cultural standards would be hard on people that are hurting thier child. Neighbors, co-workers, employeers my choose not to assosiate with you.

Remember terrible things still happen to children all the time now...it is not like we are debating "should bad things happen to children or not".

Granted, and everything above is argued on the grounds of things that are culturally acceptable.

The problem is the divide between childhood and adulthood. The only clear-cut divides in life are conception, birth, and death. Before birth, the mother is supporting it entirely, and for the most part it would die if removed. After being born, the child can physically survive on it's own, and the parents are actually not supporting it entirely.

Feral children are an example of kids not requiring the parent to live. These kids have a right to their body, even if they have no concept of standard human values. I don't think taking away a child's right to his body is a good way to instill a concept of human rights.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

So...my stance is still parents are in control of thier children.

And my stance is still that the word children creates a Sorites paradox.

pariahjane wrote:

actually, my understanding of female circumcision is that it's quite painful, and is intended to inhibit a woman's sensitivity.

I didn't explain what I was getting at well. It's a semantic issue, but it's a semantic issue caused by misdefining the term. Even the Wikipedia article you linked to points out the debate, and then explains that there are different types of multilation/modification.

This is BMEzine's wiki (and, as a warning, though this page doesn't have pictures, some of the linked pages do):

http://wiki.bmezine.com/index.php/Circumcision

So, no, I don't disagree with you about infibulation being horrible and cruel, I disagree with connecting the word circumcision to something else entirely. Comparing male circumcision to infibulation is like comparing female circumcision to a penectomy.

 

 


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote:

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Yes that is exactly what I mean...children are private property.

Are you fuckin' serious? You must be pulling my leg. Playing devil's advocate? Just trying to waste our time?

With a statement like this quote, I don't know if debating with this fellow is worth the time.

 Just to reiterate for the highlight reel on this topic:

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Yes that is exactly what I mean...children are private property.

That's just nuts. 


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
doctoro wrote: iluvc2h5oh

doctoro wrote:

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Yes that is exactly what I mean...children are private property.

Are you fuckin' serious? You must be pulling my leg. Playing devil's advocate? Just trying to waste our time?

With a statement like this quote, I don't know if debating with this fellow is worth the time.

Just to reiterate for the highlight reel on this topic:

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Yes that is exactly what I mean...children are private property.

That's just nuts.

Whoa, yeah. I've never seen a law that states that children are property. You cannot purchase, sell, or resell children (legally). You can't even send them back if they're defective!

Anyway, what it really comes down to is whether parents have the right to have possibly needless and life risking surgery performed on their children. If so, I would like to add the following to mine:

 

* Rocket launchers

* X-Ray vision

* A jetpack

* Chaingun 

* Cup holders 

 

That'd be one reason for me to adopt. 


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Does everyone here just

Does everyone here just read the last 3 post and jump into the debate?

 

Read the whole thread. I never said children were, by law, private property to be bought or sold.  I said they were private property, in a metaphorical sense, where all decisions should be made for them by the parent until they are at a point of self sufficency.

 

And dont bother on commenting on this unless you read the whole thread.

 

And no I am not playing devils advocate because I dont agree with you.  Infants cant make choices for themselves. So someone must make choices for them.  I say they parent should be that person as opposed to the government or the fine memebers of the rational responders forums. 

 

Do any of you people ever see any grey area in any subject?  Every topic seems to be right and wrong with no room for personal opinion.  Many people hear remind me of mensans with lower IQ's but with all the pompus attitude.

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote:Ok ms.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

Ok ms. 100% rational...

You own 0 designer clothes I hope...that would be irrational to pay more for just the tag.

And you better not do anything for solely cosmetic reasons.

And no irrational cosmetics I hope.

No, Alcohol, Tabacco or Caffine...those are all irrational...

No Food you didnt make yourself....why pay $5 for a sandwich you can make yourself for $3 that would be very irrational.

I realize that other posts addressed some of these issues, but for the sake of keeping my arguments easy to follow, I will be somewhat redundant; feel free to skip what was already addressed.

You stated that you had your child circumcised for cosmetic social reasons. That is like having designer vagina surgery on young girls for "social reasons." Comparisons aside, irreversible surgery for cosmetic reasons is a bad idea. Surgery involves risk. Maybe some day your child will grow up and want that sensitivity that you denied him. Can it be given back? Not with today's surgery. This is why permanent cosmetic surgeries should be their decision.

You used designer clothing, cosmetics, alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine to prove that it is good to be irrational. One of the problems with this argument is that you can buy those things at your own choice and you can decide to change your mind later. Designer clothing is not permanently attached to your body; the skin that was removed was and cannot be put back.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

All I said from post one is I think it is right for a person to choose for himself or his child whatever he wants.

For unnecessary cosmetic procedures to regions of the body that are not visible in public that involve permanently removing sensitive skin, I see no moral defense for this.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
And you will not change my mind. I choose what is best for us...you choose what is best for you.

Wait 10 years and he will tell you If I made the right decision.

I try to make this in easy to understand blocks.

please read slowly.

I, perhaps like other male posters in this thread, are saying that would be the wrong decision for us, so I wonder why you have such certainty that you made the right decision. Maybe your son will have a different opinion than you. Maybe you will have a different opinion later on. Do sons have different opinions than their father's? Yes, of course; and they sometimes change over the course of their lives.

What was wrong with having your son circumcised later, so he could make the choice? Maybe it would be best for him to try out that sensitive skin and see if it is worth keeping. That would be a more rational thing to do. But you denied him even that option. Your son may never know what he lost except from what other men say about seeing in color vs. seeing in black and white and left to wonder what was denied to him because you had to make the decision for him. Sorry for the guilt trip, but I could not think of another way of putting it effectively.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
Do any of you people ever see any grey area in any subject?

Yes, but we cannot morally defend the gray area in this subject.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson


AnAirplane
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote: Do any

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

Do any of you people ever see any grey area in any subject? Every topic seems to be right and wrong with no room for personal opinion.

There is no gray area here because you haven't made one. At least creationists and cold readers cultivate an air of rectitude and have the foresight to make shit up.

Instead of asking questions which you'll ignore, I'm just going to point out, in the spirit of this forum's name, that your argument boils down thusly: "There's nothing wrong with irrational precepts if they're my irrational precepts."


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
AnAirplane

AnAirplane wrote:
iluvc2h5oh wrote:

Do any of you people ever see any grey area in any subject? Every topic seems to be right and wrong with no room for personal opinion.

There is no gray area here because you haven't made one. At least creationists and cold readers cultivate an air of rectitude and have the foresight to make shit up.

Instead of asking questions which you'll ignore, I'm just going to point out, in the spirit of this forum's name, that your argument boils down thusly: "There's nothing wrong with irrational precepts if they're my irrational precepts."

 

No I say there are irrational precepts.  And the 1st step to getting rid of them is IDing them...which we are doing here.  2nd step people who choose that battle challenging them.  3rd Social Abandonment of the irrational precept.

 

I am at step 1.  I choose the fight against the irrational precept but I am not going to force my child into this fight I choose.  Above all I dont think these grey areas,that I agree with or disagree with, should be banned by the Federal government.

 

 

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
AnAirplane

For the material things that I used as examples of social conformity were solely to show that social conformity can be neccesary, while also being irrational.

 I know nikes are not the same as a foreskin.

 

I know most people on here are going to agree with you, but this is not what I would call a fair sampling.  90% of people hear may agree with you while 90% of people my son will most likely assosiate with would agree with me.

 Does that mean one group is right or wrong?

 

 

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


Ralt
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-07-13
User is offlineOffline
 iluvc2h5oh, Have you

 iluvc2h5oh, Have you ever  watched a male circumcision? They are rather disgusting, and painful to watch. And as for people who are circumsized, and wish they hadn't been not being vocal, I'm definitely one of them. It's a permanent change, and one that I was not asked about. Something like this should not be happening to children who are helpless in the matter. 


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
It seems the thread has

It seems the thread has been dug up again. I've skimmed over the new posts. Social acceptance isn't good enough of a reason to summit a infant to body modification that will have life long physical effects on them.

I'm not saying something is wrong with body modification in general I'm just saying its not something people can decide for someone else. You might argue that saying it shouldn't be done is deciding, but all I'm saying is the person having it done should.

I do kind find it odd someone could argue social acceptance though its not like a child should be showing his penis off or something. I mean I'd be glad he is proud and every, but its not very social accepted to do that...