Welcome to Gaia! ::

black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
.


The health benefits of circumcision have been widely disputed. There is no widespread agreement in the medical community on the health benefits of circumcision. It does seem to be widely seen as a cosmetic and religious procedure more than a health one.

It is agreed though that there are risks to circumcision.

You said earlier that you don't need your foreskin. When technically a woman does not need her clitoris and yet when that is taken off/out it is called genital mutilation. Men also don't need their nipples. Should it be allowed for parents to get their male children's nipples removed?


I have no opinion either way, on any of that. Because it's not my place to tell another person how to raise their child.

My point there, was simply that "what's done is done. And you'll never know the difference. So why make it into a much bigger deal than it actually is, when it has next to zero affect on your overall life?"

People act like it's comparable to chopping off a finger. No...it's really not. Unless you're Ron ******** Jeremy, you'll get a lot more use from your finger, than from your foreskin.


If we don't tell people how to raise their children then wouldn't child abuse be allowed?

My point on male nipples still stands and you have not disputed it.
Major Lima Charlie's avatar

Devoted Explorer

Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
.


The health benefits of circumcision have been widely disputed. There is no widespread agreement in the medical community on the health benefits of circumcision. It does seem to be widely seen as a cosmetic and religious procedure more than a health one.

It is agreed though that there are risks to circumcision.

You said earlier that you don't need your foreskin. When technically a woman does not need her clitoris and yet when that is taken off/out it is called genital mutilation. Men also don't need their nipples. Should it be allowed for parents to get their male children's nipples removed?
Angel's using weak arguments to justify harming infants. False equivalency and so on. Why bother?
Major Lima Charlie
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
.


The health benefits of circumcision have been widely disputed. There is no widespread agreement in the medical community on the health benefits of circumcision. It does seem to be widely seen as a cosmetic and religious procedure more than a health one.

It is agreed though that there are risks to circumcision.

You said earlier that you don't need your foreskin. When technically a woman does not need her clitoris and yet when that is taken off/out it is called genital mutilation. Men also don't need their nipples. Should it be allowed for parents to get their male children's nipples removed?
Angel's using weak arguments to justify harming infants. False equivalency and so on. Why bother?


Because it's my day off and I'm bored.
Major Lima Charlie's avatar

Devoted Explorer

black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
.


The health benefits of circumcision have been widely disputed. There is no widespread agreement in the medical community on the health benefits of circumcision. It does seem to be widely seen as a cosmetic and religious procedure more than a health one.

It is agreed though that there are risks to circumcision.

You said earlier that you don't need your foreskin. When technically a woman does not need her clitoris and yet when that is taken off/out it is called genital mutilation. Men also don't need their nipples. Should it be allowed for parents to get their male children's nipples removed?


I have no opinion either way, on any of that. Because it's not my place to tell another person how to raise their child.

My point there, was simply that "what's done is done. And you'll never know the difference. So why make it into a much bigger deal than it actually is, when it has next to zero affect on your overall life?"

People act like it's comparable to chopping off a finger. No...it's really not. Unless you're Ron ******** Jeremy, you'll get a lot more use from your finger, than from your foreskin.
Actually, societally, it is. If someone's abusing their kids, you nail them to the ******** wall.

See, that point there? It's ******** bullshit. What's done is done can be used to justify damned near anything a person did to someone else. It has no bearing on the morality of the situation. Abuse of a child to satisfy superstitious beliefs, and that's all they're doing it for, is undeniably immoral. Doesn't matter if they only do it once. Repetition does not a crime designation require.

It's injuring a child for absolutely no reason. It's equivalent to injuring a child for absolutely no reason.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,150 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
.


The health benefits of circumcision have been widely disputed. There is no widespread agreement in the medical community on the health benefits of circumcision. It does seem to be widely seen as a cosmetic and religious procedure more than a health one.

It is agreed though that there are risks to circumcision.

You said earlier that you don't need your foreskin. When technically a woman does not need her clitoris and yet when that is taken off/out it is called genital mutilation. Men also don't need their nipples. Should it be allowed for parents to get their male children's nipples removed?


I have no opinion either way, on any of that. Because it's not my place to tell another person how to raise their child.

My point there, was simply that "what's done is done. And you'll never know the difference. So why make it into a much bigger deal than it actually is, when it has next to zero affect on your overall life?"

People act like it's comparable to chopping off a finger. No...it's really not. Unless you're Ron ******** Jeremy, you'll get a lot more use from your finger, than from your foreskin.


If we don't tell people how to raise their children then wouldn't child abuse be allowed?


You do realize that "child abuse" is a fluid and loosely defined construct, right?

Anything that someone doesn't like, can be argued as "child abuse". There are people who claim that allowing a child to watch TV, is child abuse.

Quote:
My point on male nipples still stands and you have not disputed it.


I have no opinion with which to dispute it.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,150 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Major Lima Charlie
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
.


The health benefits of circumcision have been widely disputed. There is no widespread agreement in the medical community on the health benefits of circumcision. It does seem to be widely seen as a cosmetic and religious procedure more than a health one.

It is agreed though that there are risks to circumcision.

You said earlier that you don't need your foreskin. When technically a woman does not need her clitoris and yet when that is taken off/out it is called genital mutilation. Men also don't need their nipples. Should it be allowed for parents to get their male children's nipples removed?


I have no opinion either way, on any of that. Because it's not my place to tell another person how to raise their child.

My point there, was simply that "what's done is done. And you'll never know the difference. So why make it into a much bigger deal than it actually is, when it has next to zero affect on your overall life?"

People act like it's comparable to chopping off a finger. No...it's really not. Unless you're Ron ******** Jeremy, you'll get a lot more use from your finger, than from your foreskin.
Actually, societally, it is. If someone's abusing their kids, you nail them to the ******** wall.

See, that point there? It's ******** bullshit. What's done is done can be used to justify damned near anything a person did to someone else.


The point isn't to justify it. But to ask "why make such a big deal out of something that didn't really affect your overall life?"

It's the equivalent of me bitching and moaning about what I was forced to wear on May 18, 1994. I don't even know what I wore on that day, so why should it bother me, today?

Quote:
It has no bearing on the morality of the situation. Abuse of a child to satisfy superstitious beliefs, and that's all they're doing it for, is undeniably immoral.


There is no such thing as "undeniably immoral". Morals are always subjective.

Quote:
Doesn't matter if they only do it once. Repetition does not a crime designation require.

It's injuring a child for absolutely no reason.


Highly debatable, depending on personal perspective.

Quote:
It's equivalent to injuring a child for absolutely no reason.


What reason do people have for pretty much anything they do to their children?
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
.


The health benefits of circumcision have been widely disputed. There is no widespread agreement in the medical community on the health benefits of circumcision. It does seem to be widely seen as a cosmetic and religious procedure more than a health one.

It is agreed though that there are risks to circumcision.

You said earlier that you don't need your foreskin. When technically a woman does not need her clitoris and yet when that is taken off/out it is called genital mutilation. Men also don't need their nipples. Should it be allowed for parents to get their male children's nipples removed?


I have no opinion either way, on any of that. Because it's not my place to tell another person how to raise their child.

My point there, was simply that "what's done is done. And you'll never know the difference. So why make it into a much bigger deal than it actually is, when it has next to zero affect on your overall life?"

People act like it's comparable to chopping off a finger. No...it's really not. Unless you're Ron ******** Jeremy, you'll get a lot more use from your finger, than from your foreskin.


If we don't tell people how to raise their children then wouldn't child abuse be allowed?


You do realize that "child abuse" is a fluid and loosely defined construct, right?

Anything that someone doesn't like, can be argued as "child abuse". There are people who claim that allowing a child to watch TV, is child abuse.

Quote:
My point on male nipples still stands and you have not disputed it.


I have no opinion with which to dispute it.


I'm talking about legally defined child abuse though I can be more specific. If you think we shouldn't be telling people how to raise their children then do you think we should allow parents to beat their children as punishment? After all, it's the parents belief and decision that that is the best way to raise their child.

So you think it should be okay for a parent to decide to cut off their male child's nipples?
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,150 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7


The health benefits of circumcision have been widely disputed. There is no widespread agreement in the medical community on the health benefits of circumcision. It does seem to be widely seen as a cosmetic and religious procedure more than a health one.

It is agreed though that there are risks to circumcision.

You said earlier that you don't need your foreskin. When technically a woman does not need her clitoris and yet when that is taken off/out it is called genital mutilation. Men also don't need their nipples. Should it be allowed for parents to get their male children's nipples removed?


I have no opinion either way, on any of that. Because it's not my place to tell another person how to raise their child.

My point there, was simply that "what's done is done. And you'll never know the difference. So why make it into a much bigger deal than it actually is, when it has next to zero affect on your overall life?"

People act like it's comparable to chopping off a finger. No...it's really not. Unless you're Ron ******** Jeremy, you'll get a lot more use from your finger, than from your foreskin.


If we don't tell people how to raise their children then wouldn't child abuse be allowed?


You do realize that "child abuse" is a fluid and loosely defined construct, right?

Anything that someone doesn't like, can be argued as "child abuse". There are people who claim that allowing a child to watch TV, is child abuse.

Quote:
My point on male nipples still stands and you have not disputed it.


I have no opinion with which to dispute it.


I'm talking about legally defined child abuse though I can be more specific. If you think we shouldn't be telling people how to raise their children then do you think we should allow parents to beat their children as punishment?


Depends on what you mean by "beating". I'm all for corporal punishment, to a reasonable extent.

Quote:
After all, it's the parents belief and decision that that is the best way to raise their child.


A valid point.

Quote:
So you think it should be okay for a parent to decide to cut off their male child's nipples?


*shrug* I don't care, either way. It's not my child.
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel


I have no opinion either way, on any of that. Because it's not my place to tell another person how to raise their child.

My point there, was simply that "what's done is done. And you'll never know the difference. So why make it into a much bigger deal than it actually is, when it has next to zero affect on your overall life?"

People act like it's comparable to chopping off a finger. No...it's really not. Unless you're Ron ******** Jeremy, you'll get a lot more use from your finger, than from your foreskin.


If we don't tell people how to raise their children then wouldn't child abuse be allowed?


You do realize that "child abuse" is a fluid and loosely defined construct, right?

Anything that someone doesn't like, can be argued as "child abuse". There are people who claim that allowing a child to watch TV, is child abuse.

Quote:
My point on male nipples still stands and you have not disputed it.


I have no opinion with which to dispute it.


I'm talking about legally defined child abuse though I can be more specific. If you think we shouldn't be telling people how to raise their children then do you think we should allow parents to beat their children as punishment?


Depends on what you mean by "beating". I'm all for corporal punishment, to a reasonable extent.

Quote:
After all, it's the parents belief and decision that that is the best way to raise their child.


A valid point.

Quote:
So you think it should be okay for a parent to decide to cut off their male child's nipples?


*shrug* I don't care, either way. It's not my child.


I'm not talking spanking. I'm talking beating black and blue.

So you think a parent should have full control? What about those parents that don't want their child to have lifesaving procedures due to religion?
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,150 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7


If we don't tell people how to raise their children then wouldn't child abuse be allowed?


You do realize that "child abuse" is a fluid and loosely defined construct, right?

Anything that someone doesn't like, can be argued as "child abuse". There are people who claim that allowing a child to watch TV, is child abuse.

Quote:
My point on male nipples still stands and you have not disputed it.


I have no opinion with which to dispute it.


I'm talking about legally defined child abuse though I can be more specific. If you think we shouldn't be telling people how to raise their children then do you think we should allow parents to beat their children as punishment?


Depends on what you mean by "beating". I'm all for corporal punishment, to a reasonable extent.

Quote:
After all, it's the parents belief and decision that that is the best way to raise their child.


A valid point.

Quote:
So you think it should be okay for a parent to decide to cut off their male child's nipples?


*shrug* I don't care, either way. It's not my child.


I'm not talking spanking. I'm talking beating black and blue.

So you think a parent should have full control?


Reasonable control, yes. But I don't think something that won't generally affect their overall life, is outside of the realm of reasonable.

Quote:
What about those parents that don't want their child to have lifesaving procedures due to religion?


That's a lot different. That actually poses a clear-cut risk to their life. Circumcision does not.
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel


You do realize that "child abuse" is a fluid and loosely defined construct, right?

Anything that someone doesn't like, can be argued as "child abuse". There are people who claim that allowing a child to watch TV, is child abuse.



I have no opinion with which to dispute it.


I'm talking about legally defined child abuse though I can be more specific. If you think we shouldn't be telling people how to raise their children then do you think we should allow parents to beat their children as punishment?


Depends on what you mean by "beating". I'm all for corporal punishment, to a reasonable extent.

Quote:
After all, it's the parents belief and decision that that is the best way to raise their child.


A valid point.

Quote:
So you think it should be okay for a parent to decide to cut off their male child's nipples?


*shrug* I don't care, either way. It's not my child.


I'm not talking spanking. I'm talking beating black and blue.

So you think a parent should have full control?


Reasonable control, yes. But I don't think something that won't generally affect their overall life, is outside of the realm of reasonable.

Quote:
What about those parents that don't want their child to have lifesaving procedures due to religion?


That's a lot different. That actually poses a clear-cut risk to their life. Circumcision does not.


"Affect their overall life" is a very vague and subjective line. Such as the fact that I see any type of perminent modification as effecting someone's overall life. A person should always have a choice in what happens to their own body and a parent does not own their child's body.

Circumcision does contain risks. I believe it has already been posted in this thread about babies who have died due to the procedure.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,150 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7


I'm talking about legally defined child abuse though I can be more specific. If you think we shouldn't be telling people how to raise their children then do you think we should allow parents to beat their children as punishment?


Depends on what you mean by "beating". I'm all for corporal punishment, to a reasonable extent.

Quote:
After all, it's the parents belief and decision that that is the best way to raise their child.


A valid point.

Quote:
So you think it should be okay for a parent to decide to cut off their male child's nipples?


*shrug* I don't care, either way. It's not my child.


I'm not talking spanking. I'm talking beating black and blue.

So you think a parent should have full control?


Reasonable control, yes. But I don't think something that won't generally affect their overall life, is outside of the realm of reasonable.

Quote:
What about those parents that don't want their child to have lifesaving procedures due to religion?


That's a lot different. That actually poses a clear-cut risk to their life. Circumcision does not.


"Affect their overall life" is a very vague and subjective line. Such as the fact that I see any type of perminent modification as effecting someone's overall life.


Except....it's not. Effecting their overall life, means it changes something, dramatically. If I had a finger get severed in an industrial press, that will affect the rest of my life. However, the permanent scar I have on my inner elbow from being burned, compliments of a die casting machine? 97% of the time, I forget it's even there. Permanent? Yep. Life affecting? Not in the least.

Quote:
A person should always have a choice in what happens to their own body and a parent does not own their child's body.


So should a parent only feed a child what they WANT to eat? Since, you know, it's their own body...

Quote:
Circumcision does contain risks. I believe it has already been posted in this thread about babies who have died due to the procedure.


Oh, if you look hard enough, I'm sure you can find babies that have died from drowning on their milk. Better not let anyone have milk, because there are "risks", amirite?

There are risks in everything you do. Every. Last. Thing. We base our decisions on what risks we're willing to take.
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel


Depends on what you mean by "beating". I'm all for corporal punishment, to a reasonable extent.



A valid point.



*shrug* I don't care, either way. It's not my child.


I'm not talking spanking. I'm talking beating black and blue.

So you think a parent should have full control?


Reasonable control, yes. But I don't think something that won't generally affect their overall life, is outside of the realm of reasonable.

Quote:
What about those parents that don't want their child to have lifesaving procedures due to religion?


That's a lot different. That actually poses a clear-cut risk to their life. Circumcision does not.


"Affect their overall life" is a very vague and subjective line. Such as the fact that I see any type of perminent modification as effecting someone's overall life.


Except....it's not. Effecting their overall life, means it changes something, dramatically. If I had a finger get severed in an industrial press, that will affect the rest of my life. However, the permanent scar I have on my inner elbow from being burned, compliments of a die casting machine? 97% of the time, I forget it's even there. Permanent? Yep. Life affecting? Not in the least.

Quote:
A person should always have a choice in what happens to their own body and a parent does not own their child's body.


So should a parent only feed a child what they WANT to eat? Since, you know, it's their own body...

Quote:
Circumcision does contain risks. I believe it has already been posted in this thread about babies who have died due to the procedure.


Oh, if you look hard enough, I'm sure you can find babies that have died from drowning on their milk. Better not let anyone have milk, because there are "risks", amirite?

There are risks in everything you do. Every. Last. Thing. We base our decisions on what risks we're willing to take.


Again, that's your definition. I have a different definition.

A child is not able to make their own decisions but that doesn't mean their parent has complete control. Especially when it comes to permanent body modification that's not for medical reasons. Just as a parent should not be allowed to give/get their child a tattoo they should not be allowed to get their child circumcised.

There's a difference between a risk in something that is needed for survival and a risk in something that has no need.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,150 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7


I'm not talking spanking. I'm talking beating black and blue.

So you think a parent should have full control?


Reasonable control, yes. But I don't think something that won't generally affect their overall life, is outside of the realm of reasonable.

Quote:
What about those parents that don't want their child to have lifesaving procedures due to religion?


That's a lot different. That actually poses a clear-cut risk to their life. Circumcision does not.


"Affect their overall life" is a very vague and subjective line. Such as the fact that I see any type of perminent modification as effecting someone's overall life.


Except....it's not. Effecting their overall life, means it changes something, dramatically. If I had a finger get severed in an industrial press, that will affect the rest of my life. However, the permanent scar I have on my inner elbow from being burned, compliments of a die casting machine? 97% of the time, I forget it's even there. Permanent? Yep. Life affecting? Not in the least.

Quote:
A person should always have a choice in what happens to their own body and a parent does not own their child's body.


So should a parent only feed a child what they WANT to eat? Since, you know, it's their own body...

Quote:
Circumcision does contain risks. I believe it has already been posted in this thread about babies who have died due to the procedure.


Oh, if you look hard enough, I'm sure you can find babies that have died from drowning on their milk. Better not let anyone have milk, because there are "risks", amirite?

There are risks in everything you do. Every. Last. Thing. We base our decisions on what risks we're willing to take.


Again, that's your definition. I have a different definition.

A child is not able to make their own decisions but that doesn't mean their parent has complete control. Especially when it comes to permanent body modification that's not for medical reasons. Just as a parent should not be allowed to give/get their child a tattoo they should not be allowed to get their child circumcised.


So you going to tell all of those tribal people in other countries that they should not be allowed to carry on their traditions, because they're not medical?
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel
Mei tsuki7
black_wing_angel


Reasonable control, yes. But I don't think something that won't generally affect their overall life, is outside of the realm of reasonable.



That's a lot different. That actually poses a clear-cut risk to their life. Circumcision does not.


"Affect their overall life" is a very vague and subjective line. Such as the fact that I see any type of perminent modification as effecting someone's overall life.


Except....it's not. Effecting their overall life, means it changes something, dramatically. If I had a finger get severed in an industrial press, that will affect the rest of my life. However, the permanent scar I have on my inner elbow from being burned, compliments of a die casting machine? 97% of the time, I forget it's even there. Permanent? Yep. Life affecting? Not in the least.

Quote:
A person should always have a choice in what happens to their own body and a parent does not own their child's body.


So should a parent only feed a child what they WANT to eat? Since, you know, it's their own body...

Quote:
Circumcision does contain risks. I believe it has already been posted in this thread about babies who have died due to the procedure.


Oh, if you look hard enough, I'm sure you can find babies that have died from drowning on their milk. Better not let anyone have milk, because there are "risks", amirite?

There are risks in everything you do. Every. Last. Thing. We base our decisions on what risks we're willing to take.


Again, that's your definition. I have a different definition.

A child is not able to make their own decisions but that doesn't mean their parent has complete control. Especially when it comes to permanent body modification that's not for medical reasons. Just as a parent should not be allowed to give/get their child a tattoo they should not be allowed to get their child circumcised.


So you going to tell all of those tribal people in other countries that they should not be allowed to carry on their traditions, because they're not medical?


Source for tribal people tattooing infants please. All I've ever heard and/or read is about rites of passage when a child is grown in their culture. Plus female genital mutilation is also a tribal rite and that is being outlawed. Just because something is tradition does not make it right or that it should be legal.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games