Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Male infant circumcision is safe and benificial

Page 4 of 9 [ 132 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Obres
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

26 Oct 2011, 3:13 pm

Lecks wrote:
Joker wrote:
I advocate it as a religious practice it is apart of my culture and religion the only reason most christian's are circumcised is because Jesus was.

You are for abortion but against circumision both are infant mutilation but you can survive being circumcised.

Oh no, don't bring abortion into this. We're not talking about something as ambiguous or debated as whether fetuses are children, neonatal circumcision is mutilation. You don't get a "mutilate your children" free card just because you bring up religion and culture, it didn't work for female circumcision and doesn't work for male circumcision.

What would you say to those men who have a severe sense of loss because they were circumcised as infants?


I can only assume that Jews would do the same thing to their men who come out openly against circumcision that fgm-practicing Muslim sects and African tribes do to their women who come out against female circumcision: ostracize them. And for the record, Ruveyn, you're old school, and do not speak for the majority of the population, Jewish or otherwise, moving forward into the future. I know many Jewish men my age, who are highly educated, who are not personally in favor of circumcision, but are considering carrying on the tradition basically for the sake of familial appeasement.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Oct 2011, 3:27 pm

Obres wrote:

I can only assume that Jews would do the same thing to their men who come out openly against circumcision that fgm-practicing Muslim sects and African tribes do to their women who come out against female circumcision: ostracize them. And for the record, Ruveyn, you're old school, and do not speak for the majority of the population, Jewish or otherwise, moving forward into the future. I know many Jewish men my age, who are highly educated, who are not personally in favor of circumcision, but are considering carrying on the tradition basically for the sake of familial appeasement.


[tevye voice/on] Tradition! Tradition! .......[tevye voice/off]

There you are. It will be done.

ruveyn



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

26 Oct 2011, 3:30 pm

Lecks wrote:
Joker wrote:
I advocate it as a religious practice it is apart of my culture and religion the only reason most christian's are circumcised is because Jesus was.

You are for abortion but against circumision both are infant mutilation but you can survive being circumcised.

Oh no, don't bring abortion into this. We're not talking about something as ambiguous or debated as whether fetuses are children, neonatal circumcision is mutilation. You don't get a "mutilate your children" free card just because you bring up religion and culture, it didn't work for female circumcision and doesn't work for male circumcision.

What would you say to those men who have a severe sense of loss because they were circumcised as infants?


I would say suck it up they lost something they didn't need in the first place you don't need your apendix so snipping a little foreskin off the penis isn't something to get really upset about :wink:



Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

26 Oct 2011, 3:45 pm

Joker wrote:
Lecks wrote:
Oh no, don't bring abortion into this. We're not talking about something as ambiguous or debated as whether fetuses are children, neonatal circumcision is mutilation. You don't get a "mutilate your children" free card just because you bring up religion and culture, it didn't work for female circumcision and doesn't work for male circumcision.

What would you say to those men who have a severe sense of loss because they were circumcised as infants?


I would say suck it up they lost something they didn't need in the first place you don't need your apendix so snipping a little foreskin off the penis isn't something to get really upset about :wink:

Despicable. I wonder if you feel the same way about women who've had their breasts removed. After all, they don't need them.


_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

26 Oct 2011, 4:02 pm

Lecks wrote:
Joker wrote:
Lecks wrote:
Oh no, don't bring abortion into this. We're not talking about something as ambiguous or debated as whether fetuses are children, neonatal circumcision is mutilation. You don't get a "mutilate your children" free card just because you bring up religion and culture, it didn't work for female circumcision and doesn't work for male circumcision.

What would you say to those men who have a severe sense of loss because they were circumcised as infants?


I would say suck it up they lost something they didn't need in the first place you don't need your apendix so snipping a little foreskin off the penis isn't something to get really upset about :wink:

Despicable. I wonder if you feel the same way about women who've had their breasts removed. After all, they don't need them.


No I do not feel that way about women having their breasts removed :roll: And I am against female circumcision but not male circumcision.



Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

26 Oct 2011, 4:09 pm

Joker wrote:
Lecks wrote:
Despicable. I wonder if you feel the same way about women who've had their breasts removed. After all, they don't need them.


No I do not feel that way about women having their breasts removed :roll: And I am against female circumcision but not male circumcision.

You're being very inconsistent. You support one form of mutilation but the same reasoning doesn't validate other forms of mutilation. Your cultural brainwashing is showing.


_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

26 Oct 2011, 4:15 pm

Lecks wrote:
Joker wrote:
Lecks wrote:
Despicable. I wonder if you feel the same way about women who've had their breasts removed. After all, they don't need them.


No I do not feel that way about women having their breasts removed :roll: And I am against female circumcision but not male circumcision.


You're being very inconsistent. You support one form of mutilation but the same reasoning doesn't validate other forms of mutilation. Your cultural brainwashing is showing.


Oh so now your going to attack my religion culture and family that isn't very nice :wall:



Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

26 Oct 2011, 4:22 pm

Joker wrote:
Lecks wrote:
You're being very inconsistent. You support one form of mutilation but the same reasoning doesn't validate other forms of mutilation. Your cultural brainwashing is showing.


Oh so now your going to attack my religion culture and family that isn't very nice :wall:

When your religion, culture and family endorse barbaric practices then I'll most certainly point out this fault, regardless of how "nice" it makes me look.


_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.


phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

26 Oct 2011, 4:34 pm

Mutilation:

" 1520s, in Scots law, "act of disabling or wounding a limb," from L.L. mutilationem (from mutilatio), from pp. stem of L. mutilare "to cut or lop off," from mutilus "maimed," which is perhaps cognate with Gk. mytilos "hornless." Of things, "to destroy the unity of by damaging or removing a part," it is recorded from 1630s." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mutilation)

Circumcision :

" late 12c., from L. circumcisionem (nom. circumcisio), noun of action from pp. stem of circumcidere "to cut around," from circum "around" (see circum-) + caedere "to cut" (see -cide)." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?ter ... in_frame=0)

Bolded the pertinent parts. Care to explain how circumcision is not mutilation* now ruveyn? ^.-



Obres
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

26 Oct 2011, 4:42 pm

phil777 wrote:
Mutilation:

" 1520s, in Scots law, "act of disabling or wounding a limb," from L.L. mutilationem (from mutilatio), from pp. stem of L. mutilare "to cut or lop off," from mutilus "maimed," which is perhaps cognate with Gk. mytilos "hornless." Of things, "to destroy the unity of by damaging or removing a part," it is recorded from 1630s." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mutilation)

Circumcision :

" late 12c., from L. circumcisionem (nom. circumcisio), noun of action from pp. stem of circumcidere "to cut around," from circum "around" (see circum-) + caedere "to cut" (see -cide)." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?ter ... in_frame=0)

Bolded the pertinent parts. Care to explain how circumcision is not mutilation* now ruveyn? ^.-


Well, he keeps referring to his as "a wick", so I'm guessing it doesn't really qualify as "a limb" :lol: But yeah, you can't really get around that "to destroy the unity of by damaging or removing a part".



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

27 Oct 2011, 1:24 pm

phil777 wrote:
Mutilation:

" 1520s, in Scots law, "act of disabling or wounding a limb," from L.L. mutilationem (from mutilatio), from pp. stem of L. mutilare "to cut or lop off," from mutilus "maimed," which is perhaps cognate with Gk. mytilos "hornless." Of things, "to destroy the unity of by damaging or removing a part," it is recorded from 1630s." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mutilation)

Circumcision :

" late 12c., from L. circumcisionem (nom. circumcisio), noun of action from pp. stem of circumcidere "to cut around," from circum "around" (see circum-) + caedere "to cut" (see -cide)." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?ter ... in_frame=0)

Bolded the pertinent parts. Care to explain how circumcision is not mutilation* now ruveyn? ^.-


I'll jump in on this one.

If we look to the OED (as authoritative a source as we can find for the meaning of english words), we find three senses for the verb, "mutilate."

The OED wrote:
1. trans. To render (a thing, esp. a book or other document) imperfect by cutting out or excising a part; to change or destroy part of the content or meaning of.
2. trans. To deprive (a person or animal) of the use of a limb or bodily organ, by dismemberment or otherwise; to cut off or destroy (a limb or organ); to wound severely, inflict violent or disfiguring injury on. Also intr.
3. trans. In extended use: to cut back or curtail so as to render ineffectual; to impose brutal or ruinous change on.


Nowhere in any of these three senses of the verb is mere cutting or resection of a part of the body sufficient to convey the meaning. The first (and oldest) sense is largely limited to written works, and carries with it the essential requirement that go beyond mere excision, and require destruction or substantial change to the meaning or content of the thing excise.

The two later senses do encompass anatomy. But here the word also carries meaning beyond mere cutting.

I certainly agree with the point of view that says that absent medical indication, circumcision is not necessary, that it is invasive, and that it destroys healthy, functional tissue. But the words "mutilate," and, "mutilation," carry senses that go beyond that deterministic simplicity.


_________________
--James


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,672
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

27 Oct 2011, 1:32 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Shower rooms and the destruction of teenage privacy are a whole different topic and is not well-relevant - If you lived in a country with majority uncircumcised you would have preferred not to be circumcised under that logic.


Yes, but I do live in a country where the majority of males are circumcised, and thus I consider it to be very relevant. Particularly, as I had already stated, not being snipped would have only left me with even more psychological scars at the hands of assorted jocks, bullies, and other butt holes.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Weird, where are you from exactly? If most of your males are circumcised then you probably live in a Muslim country (or at least an oriental country?).

Usually such countries don't have opened communal shower rooms, but small separated shower rooms. It's the case in the whole middle-east (not sure about Israel) and even among the Christian communities here.

The concept of nudity and private parts is different here, public nudity isn't acceptable in any form or shape here even if all members in the room are of the same gender.

In the orient/mid-east, private parts = parts which are private from all strangers (except doctors).
in the west , private parts = parts which are private only from strangers of the opposite sex (except doctors).

I find the latter concept very weird and alien.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Oct 2011, 1:45 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Shower rooms and the destruction of teenage privacy are a whole different topic and is not well-relevant - If you lived in a country with majority uncircumcised you would have preferred not to be circumcised under that logic.


Yes, but I do live in a country where the majority of males are circumcised, and thus I consider it to be very relevant. Particularly, as I had already stated, not being snipped would have only left me with even more psychological scars at the hands of assorted jocks, bullies, and other butt holes.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Weird, where are you from exactly? If most of your males are circumcised then you probably live in a Muslim country (or at least an oriental country?).

Usually such countries don't have opened communal shower rooms, but small separated shower rooms. It's the case in the whole middle-east (not sure about Israel) and even among the Christian communities here.

The concept of nudity and private parts is different here, public nudity isn't acceptable in any form or shape here even if all members in the room are of the same gender.

In the orient/mid-east, private parts = parts which are private from all strangers (except doctors).
in the west , private parts = parts which are private only from strangers of the opposite sex (except doctors).

I find the latter concept very weird and alien.


I'm an American. Most American boys - Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. - are snipped at birth for cultural reasons as much as for religious ones.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Oct 2011, 1:49 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

I'm an American. Most American boys - Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. - are snipped at birth for cultural reasons as much as for religious ones.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


"snipped" is a misleading word. "trimmed" is much better or even "peeled". Peeling a banana does not destroy the fruit therein.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Oct 2011, 2:08 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

I'm an American. Most American boys - Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. - are snipped at birth for cultural reasons as much as for religious ones.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


"snipped" is a misleading word. "trimmed" is much better or even "peeled". Peeling a banana does not destroy the fruit therein.

ruveyn


Correct; but snipped just has more humor to it. :lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



lilypadfad
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 297
Location: banned :(

27 Oct 2011, 2:14 pm

Quote:
"snipped" is a misleading word. "trimmed" is much better or even "peeled". Peeling a banana does not destroy the fruit therein.


But once exposed to the elements, it dries out rather quickly making it inedible. :lol:


_________________
Crom is a grim, gloomy and unforgiving god, ever watching from atop his mountain in dark clouds and obscuring mists, ready to pass disapproving judgment on any and all. But he is said to value courage and tenacity in mortals, even if they ultimately fail.