religious circumcision IS okay

[Blakaize]

Corn Nibblet

Blakaize

Corn Nibblet

There is nothing wrong with circumcision. I'm not just saying this because I'm Jewish, but because does it really matter to a boy if he has that little piece of skin? How could something bother you if you've never had it to begin with? Sometimes it takes a long time for buys whom have been circumcised to figure out that there was supposed to be something there.

Also it has been proven that it can cause a health issue for some boys who haven't been circumcised.

Just putting in my 2 cents here.

Some anti-circs disagree. They cite reasons that the pros don't outweigh the cons. More to the point, it is more equal in pros/cons, and 57% of America agree with you and I, but, most of this is 'is this ETHICALLY right?' which is more difficult.

I'll admit, they do have good points, but, it is and probably will remain a parents' preference and no one can really tell a parent what is ethically right with something so down the fence. It's like telling a person that they shouldn't have a dog because it is against the dog's rights to be an animal and free, it is ethically wrong.

There really is no point arguing the difference because what is ethical for one person is not the same as what John down the street sees as ethical. It's a matter of societal norms, and, for right now, the majority of America sees it as the societal norm. This can change, it probably will, but, until then, it is wrong to tell a parent they are a bad one because they want to circumcise.

The only opinions that should matter are ones own, in matters such as this.

You have a valid point, but also think of it this way. Do you support a parent who won't get their children vaccined because they don't want their baby to be poked by a needle or think its against nature?

I try not to busy myself with what other people do to their children, however, I'd like to mention a case involving a close friend of mine, before I answer.

She recently gave birth to a premature child with a SLEW of medical problems, the largest of which being a cancerous tumor on the shaft, head, and forskin of the p***s. because of her strong-anti-circ beliefs, she refuses to have the foreskin removed. Now, the probablity that this kid will survive is a 3 in 10 chance. He has a 7 in 10 chance of dying. After the removal of the tumor, he may have a 50-50 chance.

I have reported this woman or will report her to Child Services because of neglect. What is more important to her, her beliefs or her son's life? Obviously, not her son's life.

I would strongly urge a parent seeking to never vaccinate their kid to reconsider. But, should they refuse, I would step back. No one is as blind as those who will not see

[PumpIcin]

Blakaize

Corn Nibblet

Blakaize

Corn Nibblet

There is nothing wrong with circumcision. I'm not just saying this because I'm Jewish, but because does it really matter to a boy if he has that little piece of skin? How could something bother you if you've never had it to begin with? Sometimes it takes a long time for buys whom have been circumcised to figure out that there was supposed to be something there.

Also it has been proven that it can cause a health issue for some boys who haven't been circumcised.

Just putting in my 2 cents here.

Some anti-circs disagree. They cite reasons that the pros don't outweigh the cons. More to the point, it is more equal in pros/cons, and 57% of America agree with you and I, but, most of this is 'is this ETHICALLY right?' which is more difficult.

I'll admit, they do have good points, but, it is and probably will remain a parents' preference and no one can really tell a parent what is ethically right with something so down the fence. It's like telling a person that they shouldn't have a dog because it is against the dog's rights to be an animal and free, it is ethically wrong.

There really is no point arguing the difference because what is ethical for one person is not the same as what John down the street sees as ethical. It's a matter of societal norms, and, for right now, the majority of America sees it as the societal norm. This can change, it probably will, but, until then, it is wrong to tell a parent they are a bad one because they want to circumcise.

The only opinions that should matter are ones own, in matters such as this.

You have a valid point, but also think of it this way. Do you support a parent who won't get their children vaccined because they don't want their baby to be poked by a needle or think its against nature?

I try not to busy myself with what other people do to their children, however, I'd like to mention a case involving a close friend of mine, before I answer.

She recently gave birth to a premature child with a SLEW of medical problems, the largest of which being a cancerous tumor on the shaft, head, and forskin of the p***s. because of her strong-anti-circ beliefs, she refuses to have the foreskin removed. Now, the probablity that this kid will survive is a 3 in 10 chance. He has a 7 in 10 chance of dying. After the removal of the tumor, he may have a 50-50 chance.

I have reported this woman or will report her to Child Services because of neglect. What is more important to her, her beliefs or her son's life? Obviously, not her son's life.

I would strongly urge a parent seeking to never vaccinate their kid to reconsider. But, should they refuse, I would step back. No one is as blind as those who will not see

Riveting tale, chap! How was that relevant?

[Olya]

Herald of Lies

Olya

You make no sense. Cultures that practise tattooing, scarring, and female circumcision stick to their beliefs. Their beliefs just aren't legal around here. They are not allowed to stick to them while others are. I'm smelling something like "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others."

Parents have legal guardianship over their children. How far should that guardianship extend? Perhaps, that is a better question.

I am, forgive me, talking soley about American culture as I believe we're talking about America's laws about circumcsion, yes? And your nose is faulty, you idiot. I said that's how I THINK the world IS, not how I said it SHOULD be. Maybe you should chop it off, because it's rather offensive.

We all meandered through our schooling haphazard; so, to God be thanks,

And the excuse for North America supporting one religion and not the other while claiming to be a place that offers religious freedom is...? In discussing ethical standing of a practise, you address how things should be, how they are, and how they were, no?

By the way, I like my nose, thank you. If it offends you, I suggest looking another way.

...it's easy, without too much fooling, to pass for cultured in our ranks.

[Soleil Niore]

Corn Nibblet

There is nothing wrong with circumcision. I'm not just saying this because I'm Jewish, but because does it really matter to a boy if he has that little piece of skin? How could something bother you if you've never had it to begin with?

First, something that makes up 50% of the skin system of the p***s is far from 'little' unless you're going to say all adult penises are 2 inches long? Second, if no one was bothered then NORM, I tihnk it was, wouldn't have a million members worldwide. Thousands upon thousands of men have joined various organizations in the fight against RIC.

Blakaize

Sometimes it takes a long time for buys whom have been circumcised to figure out that there was supposed to be something there.

So? If you removed the female foreskin it would take the female a long time to figure out something's missing, so that makes it alright, yes?

Blakaize

Also it has been proven that it can cause a health issue for some boys who haven't been circumcised.

A 1% rate is so small as to be nearly insignificant especially in light of the fact girls have a far greater risk of health issues, including UTI's, yeast infections, and cancers, but we don't remove the female foreskin or inner labia to greatly reduce those risks.

[Corn Nibblet]

Olya

Corn Nibblet

Godwins Legal Aid

Corn Nibblet

Just putting in my 2 cents here.

Thank you for your contribution.

Ok that was terribly rude of you..I would have more respect for you if you just posted your opinion and not changing mine to make a point in which had nothing to do with what I was saying. Boys in ANY sort of way are not being raped. Doctors do it in hospitals for crying out loud! It would not be considered rape also because the act is not one of pleasure, but pure tradition and health care. You rather a boy be seriously sick or have to live without a small flap of skin his whole life?

We all meandered through our schooling haphazard; so, to God be thanks,

I will be the first to point out that Legal Aid IS rude as hell. That being said, I'm on her side here.

The boys in question are having their genitalia mutilated without their consent. Would you like to be circumcised? There are some parts of your v****a that can be snipped out. No big deal and no big loss.

Doctors do nose jobs in hospitals too. I already asked this before. Why can't I take an infant to have his nose fixed up for no apparent reason other than my wish to have it so?

Health care? I'd like some proof of that! The reduced risk of HIV infection is not one, by the way simply because there is ZERO excuse for having casual sex without a condom in the first place. And I would also like some examples of a boy being "seriously sick."

...it's easy, without too much fooling, to pass for cultured in our ranks.

Arguments in favor of (non-religious) circumcision:

Lower chance of urinary tract infection (UTI) in first year of life

Penile cancer prevention Cancer of the p***s is three times more common among uncircumcised men than circumcised men.

Lower risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) Some studies have shown that the risk of STDs, vaginal disorders in partners, and HIV are lower for circumcised men.

Cleanliness Uncircumcised males risk infection of the foreskin.


I could care less about loosing an uneeded part of my v****a. And about how the medical procedure is rude. I can't help that. I do agree that Doctors need to take a new less painful approach.

[Blakaize]

Godwins Legal Aid

Blakaize

Corn Nibblet

Blakaize

Corn Nibblet

There is nothing wrong with circumcision. I'm not just saying this because I'm Jewish, but because does it really matter to a boy if he has that little piece of skin? How could something bother you if you've never had it to begin with? Sometimes it takes a long time for buys whom have been circumcised to figure out that there was supposed to be something there.

Also it has been proven that it can cause a health issue for some boys who haven't been circumcised.

Just putting in my 2 cents here.

Some anti-circs disagree. They cite reasons that the pros don't outweigh the cons. More to the point, it is more equal in pros/cons, and 57% of America agree with you and I, but, most of this is 'is this ETHICALLY right?' which is more difficult.

I'll admit, they do have good points, but, it is and probably will remain a parents' preference and no one can really tell a parent what is ethically right with something so down the fence. It's like telling a person that they shouldn't have a dog because it is against the dog's rights to be an animal and free, it is ethically wrong.

There really is no point arguing the difference because what is ethical for one person is not the same as what John down the street sees as ethical. It's a matter of societal norms, and, for right now, the majority of America sees it as the societal norm. This can change, it probably will, but, until then, it is wrong to tell a parent they are a bad one because they want to circumcise.

The only opinions that should matter are ones own, in matters such as this.

You have a valid point, but also think of it this way. Do you support a parent who won't get their children vaccined because they don't want their baby to be poked by a needle or think its against nature?

I try not to busy myself with what other people do to their children, however, I'd like to mention a case involving a close friend of mine, before I answer.

She recently gave birth to a premature child with a SLEW of medical problems, the largest of which being a cancerous tumor on the shaft, head, and forskin of the p***s. because of her strong-anti-circ beliefs, she refuses to have the foreskin removed. Now, the probablity that this kid will survive is a 3 in 10 chance. He has a 7 in 10 chance of dying. After the removal of the tumor, he may have a 50-50 chance.

I have reported this woman or will report her to Child Services because of neglect. What is more important to her, her beliefs or her son's life? Obviously, not her son's life.

I would strongly urge a parent seeking to never vaccinate their kid to reconsider. But, should they refuse, I would step back. No one is as blind as those who will not see

Riveting tale, chap! How was that relevant?

It is relevant to her question.
Now, please, stop replying to my posts with such foolishness, you will be ignored

[Blakaize]

Soleil Niore

Corn Nibblet

There is nothing wrong with circumcision. I'm not just saying this because I'm Jewish, but because does it really matter to a boy if he has that little piece of skin? How could something bother you if you've never had it to begin with?

First, something that makes up 50% of the skin system of the p***s is far from 'little' unless you're going to say all adult penises are 2 inches long? Second, if no one was bothered then NORM, I tihnk it was, wouldn't have a million members worldwide. Thousands upon thousands of men have joined various organizations in the fight against RIC.

Blakaize

Sometimes it takes a long time for buys whom have been circumcised to figure out that there was supposed to be something there.

So? If you removed the female foreskin it would take the female a long time to figure out something's missing, so that makes it alright, yes?

Blakaize

Also it has been proven that it can cause a health issue for some boys who haven't been circumcised.

A 1% rate is so small as to be nearly insignificant especially in light of the fact girls have a far greater risk of health issues, including UTI's, yeast infections, and cancers, but we don't remove the female foreskin or inner labia to greatly reduce those risks.

Please fix your posts so it does not appear as if I am saying the last two quoted sections.
Now.

[Olya]

Corn Nibblet

Olya

Corn Nibblet

Godwins Legal Aid

Corn Nibblet

Just putting in my 2 cents here.

Thank you for your contribution.

Ok that was terribly rude of you..I would have more respect for you if you just posted your opinion and not changing mine to make a point in which had nothing to do with what I was saying. Boys in ANY sort of way are not being raped. Doctors do it in hospitals for crying out loud! It would not be considered rape also because the act is not one of pleasure, but pure tradition and health care. You rather a boy be seriously sick or have to live without a small flap of skin his whole life?

We all meandered through our schooling haphazard; so, to God be thanks,

I will be the first to point out that Legal Aid IS rude as hell. That being said, I'm on her side here.

The boys in question are having their genitalia mutilated without their consent. Would you like to be circumcised? There are some parts of your v****a that can be snipped out. No big deal and no big loss.

Doctors do nose jobs in hospitals too. I already asked this before. Why can't I take an infant to have his nose fixed up for no apparent reason other than my wish to have it so?

Health care? I'd like some proof of that! The reduced risk of HIV infection is not one, by the way simply because there is ZERO excuse for having casual sex without a condom in the first place. And I would also like some examples of a boy being "seriously sick."

...it's easy, without too much fooling, to pass for cultured in our ranks.

Arguments in favor of (non-religious) circumcision:

Lower chance of urinary tract infection (UTI) in first year of life

Penile cancer prevention Cancer of the p***s is three times more common among uncircumcised men than circumcised men.

Lower risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) Some studies have shown that the risk of STDs, vaginal disorders in partners, and HIV are lower for circumcised men.

Cleanliness Uncircumcised males risk infection of the foreskin.


I could care less about loosing an uneeded part of my v****a. And about how the medical procedure is rude. I can't help that. I do agree that Doctors need to take a new less painful approach.

We all meandered through our schooling haphazard; so, to God be thanks,

I'm aware of all of those. I'd like to see actual hard percentages by which they are lowered. And, as far as I know, urinary tract infections are not very common among men in the first place. As for cleanliness, it IS possible to teach a boy how to wash his p***s. It truly is.

...it's easy, without too much fooling, to pass for cultured in our ranks.

[Soleil Niore]

Herald of Lies

Soleil Niore

Olya

We all meandered through our schooling haphazard; so, to God be thanks,

Tattooing, scarring, and female circumcision also have religious and cultural significance in some parts of the world. Why not respect them alongside with male circumcision? Ah yes, they are repulsive and vile practises that are a taboo in our society. So much for freedom of religion. Yet, just because something IS culturally accepted in our society does not mean that it is not just as repulsive and vile.

...it's easy, without too much fooling, to pass for cultured in our ranks.

Precisely, and anyone trying to use the 'but those aren't legal, circumcision is' are just appealing to authority in order to avoid having to address the fact they are hypocrites who do not want religious freedom for all, just for one religion.

It's not hypocritical to support religious freedom for only one religion.

Yes, it is. Do you know what being a hypocrite means? Here, let me give you the definition.

Quote:

* Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
* Pronunciation: ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
* Date: 13th century

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Link

She wants 'religious freedom' for herself (and others who follow her religion) but in turn wants to DENY religious freedom to others. She is acting in contradiction to her stated beliefs.

[Soleil Niore]

Herald of Lies

Soleil Niore

Herald of Lies

Olya

We all meandered through our schooling haphazard; so, to God be thanks,

Tattooing, scarring, and female circumcision also have religious and cultural significance in some parts of the world. Why not respect them alongside with male circumcision? Ah yes, they are repulsive and vile practises that are a taboo in our society. So much for freedom of religion. Yet, just because something IS culturally accepted in our society does not mean that it is not just as repulsive and vile.

...it's easy, without too much fooling, to pass for cultured in our ranks.

Nothing you said proves it to be repulsive of vile though, and really cannot as repulsive and vile are nothing really concrete.

ADDRESS HER ******** POINT DAMN IT. I put it in bold for you.

Stupid b***h, I don't need to address it or justify anything to you.

You can always tell when someone cannot back themselves up; they resort to flames and personal attacks.

[Herald of Lies]

Olya

And the excuse for North America supporting one religion and not the other while claiming to be a place that offers religious freedom is...?

Why does there need to be an 'excuse'? I would think the reason is rather clear. Certain religious practices bled over and became cultural practices and there's no promise of cultural equality.

Quote:

In discussing ethical standing of a practise, you address how things should be, how they are, and how they were, no?

Who said I was discussing the ethical standing of it right then?

Quote:

By the way, I like my nose, thank you. If it offends you, I suggest looking another way.

Well it makes you say stupid things apparently.

[Blakaize]

Soleil Niore

Herald of Lies

Soleil Niore

Olya

We all meandered through our schooling haphazard; so, to God be thanks,

Tattooing, scarring, and female circumcision also have religious and cultural significance in some parts of the world. Why not respect them alongside with male circumcision? Ah yes, they are repulsive and vile practises that are a taboo in our society. So much for freedom of religion. Yet, just because something IS culturally accepted in our society does not mean that it is not just as repulsive and vile.

...it's easy, without too much fooling, to pass for cultured in our ranks.

Precisely, and anyone trying to use the 'but those aren't legal, circumcision is' are just appealing to authority in order to avoid having to address the fact they are hypocrites who do not want religious freedom for all, just for one religion.

It's not hypocritical to support religious freedom for only one religion.

Yes, it is. Do you know what being a hypocrite means? Here, let me give you the definition.

Quote:

* Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
* Pronunciation: ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
* Date: 13th century

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Link

She wants 'religious freedom' for herself (and others who follow her religion) but in turn wants to DENY religious freedom to others. She is acting in contradiction to her stated beliefs.

However you people's idea of 'religious freedom' is doing whatever the hell you want but slapping a label on it that makes it religious and then you turn around and call her a hypocrite

[PumpIcin]

Blakaize

Godwins Legal Aid

Blakaize

Corn Nibblet

Blakaize

Corn Nibblet

There is nothing wrong with circumcision. I'm not just saying this because I'm Jewish, but because does it really matter to a boy if he has that little piece of skin? How could something bother you if you've never had it to begin with? Sometimes it takes a long time for buys whom have been circumcised to figure out that there was supposed to be something there.

Also it has been proven that it can cause a health issue for some boys who haven't been circumcised.

Just putting in my 2 cents here.

Some anti-circs disagree. They cite reasons that the pros don't outweigh the cons. More to the point, it is more equal in pros/cons, and 57% of America agree with you and I, but, most of this is 'is this ETHICALLY right?' which is more difficult.

I'll admit, they do have good points, but, it is and probably will remain a parents' preference and no one can really tell a parent what is ethically right with something so down the fence. It's like telling a person that they shouldn't have a dog because it is against the dog's rights to be an animal and free, it is ethically wrong.

There really is no point arguing the difference because what is ethical for one person is not the same as what John down the street sees as ethical. It's a matter of societal norms, and, for right now, the majority of America sees it as the societal norm. This can change, it probably will, but, until then, it is wrong to tell a parent they are a bad one because they want to circumcise.

The only opinions that should matter are ones own, in matters such as this.

You have a valid point, but also think of it this way. Do you support a parent who won't get their children vaccined because they don't want their baby to be poked by a needle or think its against nature?

I try not to busy myself with what other people do to their children, however, I'd like to mention a case involving a close friend of mine, before I answer.

She recently gave birth to a premature child with a SLEW of medical problems, the largest of which being a cancerous tumor on the shaft, head, and forskin of the p***s. because of her strong-anti-circ beliefs, she refuses to have the foreskin removed. Now, the probablity that this kid will survive is a 3 in 10 chance. He has a 7 in 10 chance of dying. After the removal of the tumor, he may have a 50-50 chance.

I have reported this woman or will report her to Child Services because of neglect. What is more important to her, her beliefs or her son's life? Obviously, not her son's life.

I would strongly urge a parent seeking to never vaccinate their kid to reconsider. But, should they refuse, I would step back. No one is as blind as those who will not see

Riveting tale, chap! How was that relevant?

It is relevant to her question.
Now, please, stop replying to my posts with such foolishness, you will be ignored

But it was contradictory. You said that you did/will report that woman to child support because she was neglecting her child, but then you go and say how you would step back if a parent chose to not vaccinate their child, despite obviously seeing it as somewhat neglectful to the child's health.

[Soleil Niore]

Vixianna

Soleil Niore I've posted our entire discourse on the last page. So as to clear up this misunderstanding you jumped the gun,

No, YOU made an error in posting, when my response was to someone who was not you, and said 'I added that in a later post', which left it wide open for me to call you on backpedaling as you inadvertently implied that you were Blakaize. Do you know what inadvertently implied means?