Circumcision Yay or Nay? (hit, vs, infant, parents)
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.
How did your daughter lose the tip of her finger? By accident, I'm assuming. Someone did not make the decision for no good reason that she would have to live without the tip of her finger for the rest of her life. Not quite the same thing. If I somehow lost my foreskin through some sort of accident, then no one would be to blame.
^Valid point. Losing a body part due to accident or medical necessity or your own personal choice is quite different from losing a body part due to someone else's whim.
There was a piece on the physical impact on circumcision on the penis at the peaceful parenting (DrMomma.org) site recently, which might be interesting to some, given that this thread has been revived.
It is. If you cannot demonstrate that the action was in some way harmful, you have no useful argument against the action.
Well m' dear I am seeing a pattern here. If you would like to add ad hom to your bag of tricks I will wish you well and be on my way.
I am not in any way saying you were traumatized. YOU have indicated that by virtue of the fact that you are male and circumcised and that you have to "live with it the rest of your life" that that is somehow a compelling argument against circumcision. There are many compelling arguments. But the fact that it happened to you is not one of them unless there is some harmful result.
Ah. Well I suppose you are entitled to be bothered if you wish. You can see though, how that does not make a compelling argument? It bothers me a bit that I was denied the option to eat nothing but french fries growing up. That bother, by itself, does not constitute an argument that others should deny their children the option to eat nothing but french fries.
Let's see if you can follow Logic 101. In the absence of an actual negative result, you have no argument. When you make a non-argument, you give your disagreers something to disagree with that distracts from possible decent arguments. You do your cause no service with this particular argument.
All true, because the first thing I said upon entering the thread is that circumcision is wrong simply because it bothered Nairobi. And then refuted my own argument by saying that many circumcised men are in no way bothered by it.
Me giving my take on how circumcision affected me personally was just that...my personal take. A reflection. Not once did I use that as a leading argument for my point. YOU are the one who suggested that.
^Valid point. Losing a body part due to accident or medical necessity or your own personal choice is quite different from losing a body part due to someone else's whim.
Newborn babies don't have choice. So the personal choice objection is frankly a touch moot. Newborns don't have choice. I was denied the choice to not be fed sugar water from a bottle. It is just the stupid thing that people did back then.
All true, because the first thing I said upon entering the thread is that circumcision is wrong simply because it bothered Nairobi. And then refuted my own argument by saying that many circumcised men are in no way bothered by it.
Glad to hear it. I missed that under the sheer volume of your assertions of how it is bothersome.
I'm black, but race never crossed my mind, as I fail to see what it has to do with the topic.
I'll help you out: could it be that I simply have strong feelings on the subject?
It's discussed as a cultural issue within many members of the Black community. For a variety of reasons including what was done in WWII.
But OK. If it's just something that you feel strongly about and you don't have any deep-seated issues I can cope with that. (But I'm old enough to know there is ALWAYS a reason behind "strong feelings". Always. Wouldn't be natural if you didn't.)
I just got tired of saying circumcised over and over again, but I'm sure you think there's some alterior motive at work here, so let's hear it....
I'm a linguist. Your use of that term (and the way you use it in a sentence) is part of your dialect. Dialects tell us all sorts of good things about people.
Sorry. Getting all geeky and way off the "Yay or Nay" topic.
Newborn babies don't have choice. So the personal choice objection is frankly a touch moot. Newborns don't have choice. I was denied the choice to not be fed sugar water from a bottle. It is just the stupid thing that people did back then.
Newborns don't have the ability to choose, nor the knowledge to discern between being circ or uncirc; although, if they were able to voice their opinion, as a human being with senses, we can ascertain that they would likely choose to not be cut into with a knife.
The point is (as someone who is against circumcision should know) that any elective procedure should be a choice made by a consenting adult.
Glad to hear it. I missed that under the sheer volume of your assertions of how it is bothersome.
Well seeing as how I have been permanently separated from part of penis, I'm sure you're sympathetic.
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.
And then refuted my own argument by saying that many circumcised men are in no way bothered by it.
