Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"As God and nature intended" is a specious statement. If you refer to God's intent, then the Jews have every reason to continue to circumcize their sons, because they believe that was God's command. And does nature intend anything? Spina bifida, harelips, cleft palates, club feet, microcephaly, hydrocephaly ... are those conditions that nature intended? Is it wrong to act against nature in those instances?
"As God and nature intended" is a specious statement. If you refer to God's intent, then the Jews have every reason to continue to circumcize their sons, because they believe that was God's command. And does nature intend anything? Spina bifida, harelips, cleft palates, club feet, microcephaly, hydrocephaly ... are those conditions that nature intended? Is it wrong to act against nature in those instances?
There is no comparision here. 100% of boys are born intact and cutting of the foreskin is not medically necessary. 100% of boys do are not born with nature misfirings and intervention is usually medically necessary.
If you believe God made man in his imagine, you can easily see how mutilating an infant child is some wierd twisted idea born from the mouth of some religious leader, not God. Even Jews are beginging to come around.
How can we say we have the right to do this to another human being? It sounds just like slavery when people believed God gave us the right to own slaves and that each person had the freedom of choice to have them. At some point, you just have to realize what is acceptable and what is not, taking humanitarian responsibility against ignorant fools, that only the child has the right to choose to be mutilated. The parent should not make that choice for their child anymore than they should arrange marriages for them, decide their religious stance, their sexual orientation, ect. Sexual mutilation is by far one of the worst outdated traditions that we need to destroy.
There is no comparision here. 100% of boys are born intact and cutting of the foreskin is not medically necessary. 100% of boys do are not born with nature misfirings and intervention is usually medically necessary.
I think you're way off on this one. If anything, meddling with diseases and deformities goes against what nature "intends." In other species, those creatures die. My cat had five kittens; the youngest was a runt male tortoiseshell. Male torties never live. There's something wrong with the genes. My cat ate him, her own baby kitten that was not one day old. She didn't just kill him, she ate his whole body out of instinct, so that predators (in my bedroom closet!) would not find the others. Nature has no pity or mercy.
If anything, the parents who refuse to give their sick children medicine, like those parents who let their diabetic daughter die without insulin, are following what nature intended. "Medically necessary" is a simple construct within our social standards. We deem people worthy of helping or saving. In ancient Sparta, any type of infantile deformity resulted in the baby's death.
Anyway, I am getting off track. We seem to agree that it's okay to perform procedures on babies without their knowledge or consent. I am merely pointing out that we draw the line in different places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flik_becky
If you believe God made man in his imagine, you can easily see how mutilating an infant child is some wierd twisted idea born from the mouth of some religious leader, not God. Even Jews are beginging to come around.
I don't believe God made man in His image, no. I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God, and I differentiate between God and Jesus Christ. I believe the statement about God's image means something else, not the shape of our bodies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flik_becky
How can we say we have the right to do this to another human being?
See above. We mess with babies' bodies all the time. Why did you give birth in a hospital if not to intervene with God's or nature's intent in some way? With all three babies, my uterus did not tighten up right away, so I continued to bleed. I bled quite a lot with the first baby, and I'm glad I was in the hospital. My second child had a problem with her heart, where her heart sped up and up and up. She had to be defibrillated and almost died. If nature had prevailed, she'd never have made it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flik_becky
It sounds just like slavery when people believed God gave us the right to own slaves and that each person had the freedom of choice to have them. At some point, you just have to realize what is acceptable and what is not, taking humanitarian responsibility against ignorant fools, that only the child has the right to choose to be mutilated. The parent should not make that choice for their child anymore than they should arrange marriages for them, decide their religious stance, their sexual orientation, ect. Sexual mutilation is by far one of the worst outdated traditions that we need to destroy.
Yes, I see that you view circumcision quite strongly.
I think you're way off on this one. If anything, meddling with diseases and deformities goes against what nature "intends." In other species, those creatures die. My cat had five kittens; the youngest was a runt male tortoiseshell. Male torties never live. There's something wrong with the genes. My cat ate him, her own baby kitten that was not one day old. She didn't just kill him, she ate his whole body out of instinct, so that predators (in my bedroom closet!) would not find the others. Nature has no pity or mercy.
If anything, the parents who refuse to give their sick children medicine, like those parents who let their diabetic daughter die without insulin, are following what nature intended. "Medically necessary" is a simple construct within our social standards. We deem people worthy of helping or saving. In ancient Sparta, any type of infantile deformity resulted in the baby's death.
Anyway, I am getting off track. We seem to agree that it's okay to perform procedures on babies without their knowledge or consent. I am merely pointing out that we draw the line in different places.
I don't believe God made man in His image, no. I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God, and I differentiate between God and Jesus Christ. I believe the statement about God's image means something else, not the shape of our bodies.
See above. We mess with babies' bodies all the time. Why did you give birth in a hospital if not to intervene with God's or nature's intent in some way? With all three babies, my uterus did not tighten up right away, so I continued to bleed. I bled quite a lot with the first baby, and I'm glad I was in the hospital. My second child had a problem with her heart, where her heart sped up and up and up. She had to be defibrillated and almost died. If nature had prevailed, she'd never have made it.
Yes, I see that you view circumcision quite strongly.
All you are doing here is comparing medically NECESAARY procedures against medically UNNESSARY procedures. I am an advocate for the rights of the newborn infant, not of that of religious extremists or the doctors who are interested in further lining their pockets. I am also very against the sexual mutilation of children who are not allowed to have their opinion on the subject. Are you ready to chop your daughters genitalia apart and find its just as ok? I doubt it.
I am just a little bemused at the idea of a female asserting that men have zero aftereffect from circumcision. Thankfully I dodged that bullet and didn't have to think about what do do with my own children... all are girls. I think we would all mostly agree that circumcision of girls is mutilation?
The funny part about this "debate" is that it still rages on. If you're of the opinion that you view circumcision as helpful or "ordained by god" by all means go for it.
One thing that sticks out in my mind remains clear though. If you are one of those people that believes in a higher power that has created us in "his" image, then would we not be people designed in that image? I say that, meaning if we are the ordained few, wouldn't he have created us that way to begin with originally? He's got the playbook.
On the other hand, if you're atheist or agnostic, wouldn't you THEN believe that circumcision wasn't done (or us as human beings at least evolved into that state for the survival of the species) if it meant survival of the species, as a matter of preservation? If it was that important a move, I'm sure that nature would have certainly taken over. We don't have tails. We have opposable thumbs. Is a lack of foreskin that much of a stretch?
The one thing that I know as an uncut member of society is that I've NEVER had a problem with performance, duration, or anything of the sort, outside influences not withstanding. (Of course I'm talking about whiskey.) That being the case, I also don't understand the fact that inconclusive proof could drive people to such strong opinions. There has been less proof used to justify ritual killing, female "circumcision" and all sorts of things because it was deemed good at the time. (We also once believed that the Earth was flat, that a virgin bore a son, and that a fairy came by and collected bloody teeth in exchange for money.)
The bottom line is that if people believe that circumcision is necessary for the continuation and propagation of the species, so be it. They would still believe that was the case even in the event of evidence to the contrary. People still believed that vaccination for polio was a terrible idea until their kids started dying. The difference here is that the people in the States that view circumcision as a panacea are going to exist, and they're going to convince their kids that it's the "right thing to do" even in the face of evidence that shows it isn't. Why is that? Because if they acknowledged that fact, that would mean that they as parents had somehow gone wrong. While that's not the case, that's the realization that they're going to come to, in any case. [Parents who HAVE circumcised their children, take note: I'm not saying anything about your decision. As with any other parenting decision, you made the best choice that you could given the information available at the time.]
What I do think is weird is the fact that people get all up in arms about female genital mutilation, yet refuse to take the same stance when it comes to young boys. That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. There are going to be a lot of strawmen created, there will be a lot of baseless analogies. The core tenet is that none of them are grounded in reality. If you are questioning the idea of circumcision, don't do it. Let your son decide when he is old enough. That should be his choice. Hell, if he decides SOONER, let him. It's a personal decision. (Not a parental one.) The one thing that I know is that there will be no consensus within the US because we as a nation have absolutely NO sense of history. In contrast with other nations, we're the teenagers. We know better than anyone else with half the experience. This is the last I'll speak on the matter.
If you believe God made man in his imagine, you can easily see how mutilating an infant child is some wierd twisted idea born from the mouth of some religious leader, not God. Even Jews are beginging to come around.
Okay, we can't take and believe in one part of the Scriptures, but not the other. If you believe that God made a man in His Image, then surely you should believe that shortly, just few pages later, He commanded the Jews the circumsize their kids.
I personally believe that there is no medical benefit to circumcision. However, it is a very important part of Jewish faith and this is something that's untouchable. It is what it is.
What Is the Foreskin? (http://www.enotalone.com/article/3509.html - broken link)
One of the many functions of the foreskin is to protect the head of the penis, which is an internal organ. The head of the penis is analogous to the clitoris of the female. The clitoris is covered by a fold of skin also. It is an internal organ only meant to be exposed upon sexual excitement, exactly like the head of the penis. The penis head is supposed to be as sensitive as the clitoris of the female, and an uncircumcised male will tell you that is true. However, a circumcised penis has a head which is calloused and relatively unsensitive because it's protective covering has been removed. Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the head of the penis. Why was it put there then? Of course it is a matter of personal choice whether or not to remove it. However, since it is an extremely important part of the body (that is, if any part of the body is more important than another) why not leave it intact and let the little one decide for himself when he approaches the age of 18 if he wants to cut off part of his penis? I do not see anything radical or extreme with the aforementioned statement. Actually, I think it rather pragmatic.
What Is the Foreskin? (http://www.enotalone.com/article/3509.html - broken link)
One of the many functions of the foreskin is to protect the head of the penis, which is an internal organ. The head of the penis is analogous to the clitoris of the female. The clitoris is covered by a fold of skin also. It is an internal organ only meant to be exposed upon sexual excitement, exactly like the head of the penis. The penis head is supposed to be as sensitive as the clitoris of the female, and an uncircumcised male will tell you that is true. However, a circumcised penis has a head which is calloused and relatively unsensitive because it's protective covering has been removed. Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the head of the penis. Why was it put there then? Of course it is a matter of personal choice whether or not to remove it. However, since it is an extremely important part of the body (that is, if any part of the body is more important than another) why not leave it intact and let the little one decide for himself when he approaches the age of 18 if he wants to cut off part of his penis? I do not see anything radical or extreme with the aforementioned statement. Actually, I think it rather pragmatic.
This is why I personally see no difference whatsoever in the genital mutilation of boys and girls--it is comparable tissue with similar functionality.
The blasé attitude toward male circumcision is, to me, utter sexism. We in the Western world would never tolerate the mainstream genital mutilation of infant girls--to tolerate it in male infants is obscene.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
