Circumcision outlawed in Germany!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

BiscuitTrouser:

Black Arrow Officer:

Stagnant:

Yes, much like birth-age vasectomies and mandatory removal of one testicle wouldn't. But I'm willing to bet you wouldn't quite be so comfortable with that.

Circumcision is different. It's done on a very tiny part and has no impact on genital functions. This is another case of government drastically overstepping their boundaries.

I think your "back alley circumcision" arguement was very strong. As someone who thinks abortion may as well be llegal for this reason im not entirely sure what to think.

However.

Id love to ask you if the government can stop me from doing the following:

1. I want to tattoo my sons penis matt black.
2. I want to surgically remove the end of his little toe
3. I want his earlobes carved into the shape of unicorns
4. I want one ball to be coloured green and another yellow using tattoos.
5. I would like 20% of his eyelashes permenantly lasor removed.

You think i can llegally do all this to my son? Every arguement you give against any of these i can use against circumcision. If you want that llegal. Im allowed to all of these to my son. FUCK YEAH :D How awesome it is to design my child like a fucking handbag because hes MY object and i get to customise him permenantly based on my random choices. WHOO!

Captcha "Im sorry". How apt "Im sorry son, when you were born i just customised you, if you like it, great, if you dont like it tough luck".

Can you point to specific legislation preventing any of those actions?

DevilWithaHalo:
snip

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. "

Cool. So according to that article, the only reason circumcision of infants should still be practiced is because there might be supposed health benefits. Recent studies have shown that this is not the case. So, in the end, the singular reason circumcision is still being practiced is because of the culture surrounding it. I'm sorry, but that is not a good enough reason to continue performing unnecessary surgeries on infant baby boys.

DevilWithaHalo:
You're right though, it isn't that simple. That's why most medical professionals will provide all the data and information regarding potential benefits and risks they can to parents to make an informed decisions on the best course of action they feel necessary for their child. I'm fine with that policy.

So it's perfectly acceptable for the entire medical field to cater to your cultural practice but not mine? Why is that?

DevilWithaHalo:
Either I can listen to the entire medical community, or a bunch of medically uneducated people on the internet screaming about mutilations and religious barbarianism. Who do you think I'm going to give credence to?.

The medical community is against you on this one. Infant circumcision is only widely practiced in the US. In Europe doctors generally do not perform circumcisions unless there is a medical reason to do so.

DevilWithaHalo:
These are near text book cases of emotional fallacies. I get the emotional reaction, I do, but that isn't an argument, and never will be.

Actually, yes it is. If you have the right to perform cosmetic surgery on a baby for religious/cultural reasons, why shouldn't I?

DevilWithaHalo:
Because when you start making inaccurate and inconsistent arguments, that's when I have to step in. And we all know no one enjoys it when I come here.

That false sense of superiority you like hanging around your neck? Yeah, that's either going away or this discussion is over.

Wolverine18:

1. I want to tattoo my sons penis matt black.
2. I want to surgically remove the end of his little toe
3. I want his earlobes carved into the shape of unicorns
4. I want one ball to be coloured green and another yellow using tattoos.
5. I would like 20% of his eyelashes permenantly lasor removed.

...

Can you point to specific legislation preventing any of those actions?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1969/24/contents

Tattooing a baby is illegal.

No doctor can perform surgery 2 and 3. Those are medical procedures. I challenge you to find any hospital that WOULD perform them.

A little research into the UK's top cosmetic surgery company revealed that the chances of them performing this operation are ludicrously low. Especially with lack of childs consent. The youngest i could find ANYONE performing cosmetic surgery on minors was the 12 year old with reconstructive type surgery. Her consent was asked for and given. Without ANY consent whatsoever cosmetic surgery is illegal to perform on anyone.

http://www.safercosmeticsurgery.co.uk/welcome-to-qa/whats-the-minimum-age-to-have-liposuction-on-my-thighs

4 Is covered by the act above.

5 is covered under cosmetic surgery.

PercyBoleyn:
Cool. So according to that article, the only reason circumcision of infants should still be practiced is because there might be supposed health benefits. Recent studies have shown that this is not the case.

Recent studies show a lot of things. Bottom line is they aren't against it as you're indicating. I don't actively support the WBLA, doesn't mean I'm against them. Learn the difference.

PercyBoleyn:
So, in the end, the singular reason circumcision is still being practiced is because of the culture surrounding it. I'm sorry, but that is not a good enough reason to continue performing unnecessary surgeries on infant baby boys.

Err... no, because people still perform it for medical reasons. Culturally I don't care, and neither should you (unless you'd like to be guilty of a superiority complex you'll later accuse me of).

PercyBoleyn:
So it's perfectly acceptable for the entire medical field to cater to your cultural practice but not mine? Why is that?

They aren't; I'm actually adapting my practices based on the suggestions of the medical community. I'm not strong arming the medical community into changing it's official policies to suit my world views... unlike some people in this thread.

PercyBoleyn:
The medical community is against you on this one.

You're failing to understand their position then; I'm with the medical community.

PercyBoleyn:
Infant circumcision is only widely practiced in the US. In Europe doctors generally do not perform circumcisions unless there is a medical reason to do so.

Different strokes for different folks. European policy doesn't dictate American policy, and vice versa. They can do whatever they generally want to, but if a doctor wants to assist a couple perform a circumcision on their infant, then let them.

PercyBoleyn:
Actually, yes it is. If you have the right to perform cosmetic surgery on a baby for religious/cultural reasons, why shouldn't I?

Because you're no doubt going to bring up some false equivilence. Let me guess, female circumcision? Because you don't see a difference between clipping a toenail and jamming a nail through a child's forehead. Unless you believe that any and all modifications to children under the legal age is wrong, then I'd give you points on consistency if nothing else.

PercyBoleyn:
That false sense of superiority you like hanging around your neck? Yeah, that's either going away or this discussion is over.

And you calling people religious nuts because they mutilate their children because zombie space jesus told them to is any less insulting? Once you discontinue your fallacious and hypocritical positions of smug superiority, I'll drop the attitude opposing it.

...wait a minute...

DevilWithaHalo:
Unless I see some credible evidence, or some semblance of rationality beyond; "omg, how barbaric!", I've said my peace on the matter.

...why the fuck am I even still having this discussion? Time better spent eating gay oreos.

BiscuitTrouser:

Wolverine18:

1. I want to tattoo my sons penis matt black.
2. I want to surgically remove the end of his little toe
3. I want his earlobes carved into the shape of unicorns
4. I want one ball to be coloured green and another yellow using tattoos.
5. I would like 20% of his eyelashes permenantly lasor removed.

...

Can you point to specific legislation preventing any of those actions?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1969/24/contents

Tattooing a baby is illegal.
4 Is covered by the act above.

I'm actually not surprised to see tattooing is age restricted, even though it isn't here.

No doctor can perform surgery 2 and 3. Those are medical procedures. I challenge you to find any hospital that WOULD perform them.

A little research into the UK's top cosmetic surgery company revealed that the chances of them performing this operation are ludicrously low. Especially with lack of childs consent. The youngest i could find ANYONE performing cosmetic surgery on minors was the 12 year old with reconstructive type surgery. Her consent was asked for and given. Without ANY consent whatsoever cosmetic surgery is illegal to perform on anyone.

5 is covered under cosmetic surgery.

Right, so its legal and some doctors may choose to do it. Just as some pediatricians will do circumcisions, but many won't. Thanks for confirming my point.

[/quote]

Wolverine18:

Right, so its legal and some doctors may choose to do it. Just as some pediatricians will do circumcisions, but many won't. Thanks for confirming my point.

Find a single recorded instance of the following ever:

1. Purely Cosmetic surgery
2. Performed on someone under the age of 5.
3. Not corrective in any shape or form.
4. Doctor was a respectable practitioner.

Circumsision gets a free pass where any other surgery would recieve a very negative social feeback. Doctors would also be loathe to perform it. No doctors will choose to do it. Find me even one that did.

Do you think the tattoo minimum age should be removed? Do you agree i am entitled to tattoo my child in any way i see fit to customise my bellonings?

PercyBoleyn:

DevilWithaHalo:
And you calling people religious nuts because they mutilate their children because zombie space jesus told them to is any less insulting? Once you discontinue your fallacious and hypocritical positions of smug superiority, I'll drop the attitude opposing it.

Strawman. Anyways, this discussion is over. When you start acting less like a fifteen year old and more like an adult hit me up.

Nice ad hominem. Can't say that I'm surprised though.

Wolverine18:

So you are against ALL cosmetic surgery for kids? As well as tats, piercings, Cochlear implants, and all other non medically required treatments?

If so, you are consistent, even if I disagree with you.

If you think other non required things are acceptable but this is not then you need to reexamine your motivations and logic.

Seems my post was so good you felt compelled to quote it twice ;)

In general I'm against any non-reversible and non-essential procedure performed on children who are too young to possibly understand, let alone consent.

Tattoos - no, parents shouldn't be allowed to tattoo their children, that's crazy.

Piercings - I'd question exactly why little Samantha needs earrings while she's still in diapers (isn't it a potential snagging/tearing/swallow hazard, anyway?) but if the parents desperately want to accessorise their toddlers, so be it. Piercings will heal over time, anyway.

Cochlear implants - I'm not too familiar with these, but would those not constitute actually improving the child's quality of life? They're far from being a frivolous body-modification.

But of course there's nothing binary or absolutist about my stance on this. It's a matter of degrees of risk, degrees of necessity and the degree to which any modification is reversible in later life should the child choose otherwise. In the case of circumcision, the risk is debateable[1], the necessity is likewise arguable, but reversibility is almost non-existent (yes, there are those skin-stretching gizmos, but they don't replace the lost nerve endings).

I think my logic is sound. We generally don't impose irreversible physical alterations on our children without good reason, and religious circumcision is an odd exception to this. The only real argument the Jewish community has in response to this is "But TRADITION!" which is a pretty flimsy argument.

To counter, I'd say that if Jews are happy cutting off their son's foreskin but would consider cutting off his earlobes a form of child abuse, then perhaps their logic and motivations need to be reexamined.

[1] The improved hygiene argument has been all but debunked, but a lot of the anti-circumcision health arguments seem overblown too, given modern standards of surgery

Ultratwinkie:

Gilhelmi:

everythingbeeps:
Hey, anything that "tramples on religious rights" is fine with me!

And the next time you get arrested for not beileving the same thing that the government does do not come crying about it.

I myself see this as another reason to stockpile weapons, ammo, and food. The day when the radical atheist telling me that I can not pray is coming. On that day the major faiths of the world will unite for the first time in millennium. If the coarse of fate does not steer clear to the road of open tolerance for all, ALL MEANS ALL, then I will weep for humanity.

Why do you want war?!?!

Are you that guy who wrote those two pages (in below link) saying Deists run a secret shadow government, who are attempting to make a religious war to wipe out all religions, just leaving Deism?

Because your brand of crazy is close to that.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.379846-Crazist-things-you-hear-about-your-beliefs-or-lack-of?page=1

I am not. Those people are just crazy.

Also, my beef is not with Atheists so-much-as Anti-Theists. There is a big difference in the two groups.

Do not misunderstand, there are atheist who agree with me. When I am told 'you are not allowed to pray' or something along those lines, I get scared and those atheist I speak of also gets scared for different reasons. They know the US Constitution and how many lawyers are working around the first amendment by claiming a difference between private and public speech saying that you only have free speech in private, not public. Now this means that I could disagree with the powers that be but I could not say so in public. Even the US Tax service is trying to limit churches/temples/(Muslim temples) by saying political speech is a violation of separation of church and state and that they could lose their nonprofit status as a result. So even though they are a private organization and Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution (also was only mention in the federalist papers too keep the state out of the church NOT the church out of state) the government is trying too limit the church going citizens right too speak.

Though in reflection on what I said yesterday. I think the Civil rights movement (inspired by Gandhi philosophy) might be a better first step. Then when Religious people are beaten and arrested by the Anti-Theist state (Take note I said Anti-Theist, not atheist) then the good upstanding atheists will come too our defense. Just like the British citizens did for Gandhi, and the American people did for DR King.

Gilhelmi:
Even the US Tax service is trying to limit churches/temples/(Muslim temples) by saying political speech is a violation of separation of church and state and that they could lose their nonprofit status as a result.

A little correction here: the requirements for being a nonprofit state that it can not "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." It's not anything to do with the separation of church and state. It's entirely about the requirements of being a nonprofit. If any nonprofit endorses (or states its opposition to) a candidate, it loses its nonprofit status. This policy has been in effect for over 50 years and does not exclusively affect religious organizations.[1]

So even though they are a private organization and Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution (also was only mention in the federalist papers too keep the state out of the church NOT the church out of state) the government is trying too limit the church going citizens right too speak.

First of all, even if you think separation of church and state isn't in the constitution, it's still an important thing to have. It is (and ought to be) a two-way street: the government doesn't involve itself with religious affairs, and in return religion shouldn't try to impose its beliefs on the government. That's what being a secular state is all about.

Secondly, taking away nonprofit status for an organization endorsing a candidate does not infringe on their freedom of speech. It only means they have to pay income taxes. A church can endorse whatever and whomever the hell it wants, but it doesn't get to be relieved of its tax burden if it chooses to. And both the pastors and the churchgoers can still say anything when they aren't on duty. As long as they're espousing their personal beliefs, and not the beliefs of the church organization, they can endorse people all day long without losing tax exempt status.

I don't think it is fair to characterize circumcision as purely "cosmetic"

-It is supported by the WHO and UNAIDS
-It is suspected to reduce the transmission of certain STD's
-It makes the nether regions easier to clean and less prone to infection

Maybe I was never given the option to "consent", but I certainly do not feel violated, yet alone mutilated.

BiscuitTrouser:

Wolverine18:

Right, so its legal and some doctors may choose to do it. Just as some pediatricians will do circumcisions, but many won't. Thanks for confirming my point.

Find a single recorded instance of the following ever:

1. Purely Cosmetic surgery
2. Performed on someone under the age of 5.
3. Not corrective in any shape or form.
4. Doctor was a respectable practitioner.

Circumsision gets a free pass where any other surgery would recieve a very negative social feeback. Doctors would also be loathe to perform it. No doctors will choose to do it. Find me even one that did.

Do you think the tattoo minimum age should be removed? Do you agree i am entitled to tattoo my child in any way i see fit to customise my bellonings?

I have no problem if doctors choose what procedures they will or will not perform. I also have no problem if professional medical associations set standards for their members (for example the cut off for abortion in Canada is effectively set by an ethical ruling by the physicians' regulatory body).

I do have a problem with politicians and lawyers making a call that should be a medical and parental one.

As a lawyer I'd have a problem with doctors telling me what is ethical for my profession.

Batou667:

Cochlear implants - I'm not too familiar with these, but would those not constitute actually improving the child's quality of life? They're far from being a frivolous body-modification..

While I think you are being fairly consistant in your logic for most of your post, this point is actually quite debatable. "Survivors" of implants have actually brought lawsuits against parents and doctors for implanting them without the permission of the child. So far they have lost, but they make pretty much the same argument as the anti-circumcision crowd about permanent change in function, potenial side effects, and emotional harm.

I've already stated I'd never have my son cut, but interfering with parental and medical rights is not something we should take lightly. The legal consequences are significant.

Also I'd argue that circumcision, if done for a deliberate cultural reason is beneficial and is not a "friviolous body-modification".

Even the cicumcision my parents gave me was non frivioulous as it was done when the medical evidence was pointing in a different direction. I would agree that doing it now without some sort of cultural or medical purpose would be friviolous.

thelittleman66:
I can see where they were coming from, but making a simple religious practice that has had practically no negative effect on society illegal is REALLY stepping over the boundaries that a respectable government should have. Hopefully, this is the furthest a first world nation will oppress the religious beliefs of it's citizens.

.
When I was 8 days old my dick was cut without my permission.
.
..
...
So what's now? I'm supposed to live with this deformity?

TheIronRuler:

thelittleman66:
I can see where they were coming from, but making a simple religious practice that has had practically no negative effect on society illegal is REALLY stepping over the boundaries that a respectable government should have. Hopefully, this is the furthest a first world nation will oppress the religious beliefs of it's citizens.

.
When I was 8 days old my dick was cut without my permission.
.
..
...
So what's now? I'm supposed to live with this deformity?

Anything done to you at 8 days old was without your permission. It's a silly argument.

Does your dick still work? Great, then there is nothing to get fussed about.

TheIronRuler:

thelittleman66:
I can see where they were coming from, but making a simple religious practice that has had practically no negative effect on society illegal is REALLY stepping over the boundaries that a respectable government should have. Hopefully, this is the furthest a first world nation will oppress the religious beliefs of it's citizens.

.
When I was 8 days old my dick was cut without my permission.
.
..
...
So what's now? I'm supposed to live with this deformity?

Does it stop you from doing anything?

Wolverine18:

TheIronRuler:

thelittleman66:
I can see where they were coming from, but making a simple religious practice that has had practically no negative effect on society illegal is REALLY stepping over the boundaries that a respectable government should have. Hopefully, this is the furthest a first world nation will oppress the religious beliefs of it's citizens.

.
When I was 8 days old my dick was cut without my permission.
.
..
...
So what's now? I'm supposed to live with this deformity?

Anything done to you at 8 days old was without your permission. It's a silly argument.

Does your dick still work? Great, then there is nothing to get fussed about.

.
Are you joking? When the Arabs take over and round all of the Jews, this will be the death of me!
...
Seriously now, I went to a doctor and it had caused some harm.
.

Helmholtz Watson:

TheIronRuler:

thelittleman66:
I can see where they were coming from, but making a simple religious practice that has had practically no negative effect on society illegal is REALLY stepping over the boundaries that a respectable government should have. Hopefully, this is the furthest a first world nation will oppress the religious beliefs of it's citizens.

.
When I was 8 days old my dick was cut without my permission.
.
..
...
So what's now? I'm supposed to live with this deformity?

Does it stop you from doing anything?

Yes it does. It stops me from living with a fucking normal dick.

mdk31:
It doesn't make your dick smaller. You clearly have no idea what circumcision is. This coming from a man who was circumcised at birth by parents' choice for health, not religious, reasons.

It makes it marginally smaller as there is no foreskin, while the largest impact being the large number of nerve endings removed.
My statement of making it smaller was a joke, playing on a very common anxiety.

I mean... Circumcision. A brief guide... By Quentin Tarantino :D


(obviously... another joke)

-----

Just my curiosity but what was the medical reason your parents sought circumcision? I mean, no harm if you have the standard Internet anonymity withstanding.

TheIronRuler:

Yes it does. It stops me from living with a fucking normal dick.

Assuming that your girlfriend doesn't care, and it doesn't effect your sex life, is it really a big deal?

TheIronRuler:

Wolverine18:

TheIronRuler:

.
When I was 8 days old my dick was cut without my permission.
.
..
...
So what's now? I'm supposed to live with this deformity?

Anything done to you at 8 days old was without your permission. It's a silly argument.

Does your dick still work? Great, then there is nothing to get fussed about.

.
Are you joking? When the Arabs take over and round all of the Jews, this will be the death of me!
...
Seriously now, I went to a doctor and it had caused some harm.

If it works, there was no harm.

And aren't you the Jew hating Jew? Doesn't that mean it was done by a religious expert or your father and not a doctor?

Helmholtz Watson:

TheIronRuler:

Yes it does. It stops me from living with a fucking normal dick.

Assuming that your girlfriend doesn't care, and it doesn't effect your sex life, is it really a big deal?

.
I didn't decide to do this. It's like asking a bald man what's the problem with his baldness? He already got used to it, and there's no harm done - it's just hair. What if that man found a way to stop baldness in males by doing a simple procedure while in the womb? Would he not do it to save others of being bald? But hey, some like it - But they didn't choose to loose all of their hair. They accepted it.
.

Wolverine18:

TheIronRuler:

Wolverine18:

Anything done to you at 8 days old was without your permission. It's a silly argument.

Does your dick still work? Great, then there is nothing to get fussed about.

.
Are you joking? When the Arabs take over and round all of the Jews, this will be the death of me!
...
Seriously now, I went to a doctor and it had caused some harm.

If it works, there was no harm.

And aren't you the Jew hating Jew? Doesn't that mean it was done by a religious expert or your father and not a doctor?

.
I would like to tell someone like you to piss off, but that would be rude. What so bad about asking to not cut my flesh without my consent?

TheIronRuler:
snip

Fair enough, I just thought that in Israel it really wouldn't be that big of an issue.

Helmholtz Watson:

TheIronRuler:
snip

Fair enough, I just thought that in Israel it really wouldn't be that big of an issue.

.
Because in the land of the bald, baldness is just normal.

TheIronRuler:

Helmholtz Watson:

TheIronRuler:

Yes it does. It stops me from living with a fucking normal dick.

Assuming that your girlfriend doesn't care, and it doesn't effect your sex life, is it really a big deal?

.
I didn't decide to do this. It's like asking a bald man what's the problem with his baldness? He already got used to it, and there's no harm done - it's just hair. What if that man found a way to stop baldness in males by doing a simple procedure while in the womb? Would he not do it to save others of being bald? But hey, some like it - But they didn't choose to loose all of their hair. They accepted it.

If a bald man thinks there is something wrong with his baldness then I feel bad for him. It's all in his head and his concern reflects a weakness of character and self confidence.

Wolverine18:

TheIronRuler:

.
Are you joking? When the Arabs take over and round all of the Jews, this will be the death of me!
...
Seriously now, I went to a doctor and it had caused some harm.

If it works, there was no harm.

And aren't you the Jew hating Jew? Doesn't that mean it was done by a religious expert or your father and not a doctor?

.
I would like to tell someone like you to piss off, but that would be rude. What so bad about asking to not cut my flesh without my consent?

8 day old children don't make medical (or any) decisions for themsleves.

Wolverine18:

TheIronRuler:

Helmholtz Watson:
Assuming that your girlfriend doesn't care, and it doesn't effect your sex life, is it really a big deal?

.
I didn't decide to do this. It's like asking a bald man what's the problem with his baldness? He already got used to it, and there's no harm done - it's just hair. What if that man found a way to stop baldness in males by doing a simple procedure while in the womb? Would he not do it to save others of being bald? But hey, some like it - But they didn't choose to loose all of their hair. They accepted it.

If a bald man thinks there is something wrong with his baldness then I feel bad for him. It's all in his head and his concern reflects a weakness of character and self confidence.

Wolverine18:

If it works, there was no harm.

And aren't you the Jew hating Jew? Doesn't that mean it was done by a religious expert or your father and not a doctor?

.
I would like to tell someone like you to piss off, but that would be rude. What so bad about asking to not cut my flesh without my consent?

8 day old children don't make medical (or any) decisions for themsleves.

.
So if my religion dictates I can do a circumcision on my daughter as well?

TheIronRuler:

Wolverine18:

TheIronRuler:

.
I didn't decide to do this. It's like asking a bald man what's the problem with his baldness? He already got used to it, and there's no harm done - it's just hair. What if that man found a way to stop baldness in males by doing a simple procedure while in the womb? Would he not do it to save others of being bald? But hey, some like it - But they didn't choose to loose all of their hair. They accepted it.

If a bald man thinks there is something wrong with his baldness then I feel bad for him. It's all in his head and his concern reflects a weakness of character and self confidence.

.
I would like to tell someone like you to piss off, but that would be rude. What so bad about asking to not cut my flesh without my consent?

8 day old children don't make medical (or any) decisions for themsleves.

.
So if my religion dictates I can do a circumcision on my daughter as well?

Depends what you mean by circumcision since there obviously isn't an identical procedure.

Also no religion requires that so its a strawman.

Wolverine18:

TheIronRuler:

Wolverine18:

If a bald man thinks there is something wrong with his baldness then I feel bad for him. It's all in his head and his concern reflects a weakness of character and self confidence.

8 day old children don't make medical (or any) decisions for themsleves.

.
So if my religion dictates I can do a circumcision on my daughter as well?

Depends what you mean by circumcision since there obviously isn't an identical procedure.

Also no religion requires that so its a strawman.

.
The ultimate challenge... Hippies.

Champthrax:
I don't think it is fair to characterize circumcision as purely "cosmetic"

-It is supported by the WHO and UNAIDS
-It is suspected to reduce the transmission of certain STD's
-It makes the nether regions easier to clean and less prone to infection

Maybe I was never given the option to "consent", but I certainly do not feel violated, yet alone mutilated.

Actually the people who pushed it in the WHO were not exactly sane. There is a group of people, friends of Brian J. Morris, who have a fetish for circumcision. Not the look, but the actual surgery itself.

Circumcision was used in Africa before WHO even recommended it, yet it has high instances of STDs. Countries who don't perform circumcisions have low STD/HIV rates. Even America has higher STD rates than the rest of the first world.

Circumcision has no conclusive evidence of benefit to any non-rare condition. Its the reason no medical organization wants to recommend it.

TheIronRuler:

Wolverine18:

TheIronRuler:

.
So if my religion dictates I can do a circumcision on my daughter as well?

Depends what you mean by circumcision since there obviously isn't an identical procedure.

Also no religion requires that so its a strawman.

.
The ultimate challenge... Hippies.

The main ariticle is paid, but the teaser gives it to you:

PART of the mystique and the attraction of the hippie movement has always been its invitation to freedom. It beckons young people out of the tense, structured workaday world to a life where each can do "his own thing." The movement has flowered and spread across the U.S. and to many parts of the world. It has drawn all sorts of people: the rebellious, the lonely, the poets, the disaffected, and worse. Some two years ago, says Dr. Lewis Yablonsky, a close student of the phenomenon, criminals and psychotics began infiltrating the scene. They were readily accepted, as anyone can be

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840466,00.html#ixzz1z353bSfy

For here:

By the end of the summer, the Haight-Ashbury scene had deteriorated. The incessant media coverage led the Diggers to declare the "death" of the hippie with a parade.[52][53][54] According to the late poet Susan 'Stormi' Chambless, the hippies buried an effigy of a hippie in the Panhandle to demonstrate the end of his/her reign. Haight-Ashbury could not accommodate the influx of crowds (mostly naive youngsters) with no place to live. Many took to living on the street, panhandling and drug-dealing. There were problems with malnourishment, disease, and drug addiction. Crime and violence skyrocketed. None of these trends reflected what the hippies had envisioned

Any movement that promotes LSD use is bound to have violence associated with it.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840466,00.html

Wolverine18:

.

.
*ehm*
Anyway.
Are you saying I have no right over my body? That now I need to live with this deformity and it's ok to let other parents do it to their children? You can't take it back, it's permanent. Why not brand slaves with a mark for life? Now you can see they are property and have a master!

TheIronRuler:

Wolverine18:

.

.
*ehm*
Anyway.
Are you saying I have no right over my body? That now I need to live with this deformity and it's ok to let other parents do it to their children? You can't take it back, it's permanent. Why not brand slaves with a mark for life? Now you can see they are property and have a master!

Childhood is not slavery. There is a societal reason we give parents control over children.

At 8 days old you are correct, you have no right over your body.

Oh, and I acknowledge your concession that judging any group by its weakest link is foolish.

Wolverine18:

TheIronRuler:

Wolverine18:

.

.
*ehm*
Anyway.
Are you saying I have no right over my body? That now I need to live with this deformity and it's ok to let other parents do it to their children? You can't take it back, it's permanent. Why not brand slaves with a mark for life? Now you can see they are property and have a master!

Childhood is not slavery. There is a societal reason we give parents control over children.

At 8 days old you are correct, you have no right over your body.

Oh, and I acknowledge your concession that judging any group by its weakest link is foolish.

.
This change is irreversible. You need to try and understand that.

Oh no, it still stands. An extreme doesn't have to be violent, and if a group does follow violence then there is a bloody reason for it. For fuck's sake, even Mahayana Buddhism has permission to kill people in certain aspects of life. These religions outright give out special circumstances where you can kill or not. War laws, etc. They give in certain laws you need to live in, and these refer to violence as a part of your life. Nowadays secular law which evolved from such laws dominates most of our lives. So if a group is capable of doing horrible things in the name of faith, the faith wills it. It is up to the individual to do what is right for him, and in my opinion nobody is "doing it right" because there is no "right" anymore. You can say that Islam is a religion of peace and war, because it wills both. You can say that the hippie movement is a movement of both peace and anarchy. Having both sides does not make one thing evil, but you need to accept that if a fringe group does this or that, it's because it is possible to interpret the text or sayings in this or that way, and this possibility brings in violence.

TheIronRuler:

Wolverine18:

TheIronRuler:

.
*ehm*
Anyway.
Are you saying I have no right over my body? That now I need to live with this deformity and it's ok to let other parents do it to their children? You can't take it back, it's permanent. Why not brand slaves with a mark for life? Now you can see they are property and have a master!

Childhood is not slavery. There is a societal reason we give parents control over children.

At 8 days old you are correct, you have no right over your body.

Oh, and I acknowledge your concession that judging any group by its weakest link is foolish.

.
This change is irreversible. You need to try and understand that.

I understand that, I'm circumcised, as I've said repeatedly.

Oh no, it still stands. An extreme doesn't have to be violent, and if a group does follow violence then there is a bloody reason for it. For fuck's sake, even Mahayana Buddhism has permission to kill people in certain aspects of life. These religions outright give out special circumstances where you can kill or not. War laws, etc. They give in certain laws you need to live in, and these refer to violence as a part of your life. Nowadays secular law which evolved from such laws dominates most of our lives. So if a group is capable of doing horrible things in the name of faith, the faith wills it. It is up to the individual to do what is right for him, and in my opinion nobody is "doing it right" because there is no "right" anymore. You can say that Islam is a religion of peace and war, because it wills both. You can say that the hippie movement is a movement of both peace and anarchy. Having both sides does not make one thing evil, but you need to accept that if a fringe group does this or that, it's because it is possible to interpret the text or sayings in this or that way, and this possibility brings in violence.

So you were unable to find any group that could pass the test in that last sentence of yours, and yet you still hold it against religion and not people. Sorry, but if you can't make your own case and still claim its correct, your world view and logic are warped by bigotry.

Wolverine18:

TheIronRuler:

Wolverine18:

Childhood is not slavery. There is a societal reason we give parents control over children.

At 8 days old you are correct, you have no right over your body.

Oh, and I acknowledge your concession that judging any group by its weakest link is foolish.

.
This change is irreversible. You need to try and understand that.

I understand that, I'm circumcised, as I've said repeatedly.

Oh no, it still stands. An extreme doesn't have to be violent, and if a group does follow violence then there is a bloody reason for it. For fuck's sake, even Mahayana Buddhism has permission to kill people in certain aspects of life. These religions outright give out special circumstances where you can kill or not. War laws, etc. They give in certain laws you need to live in, and these refer to violence as a part of your life. Nowadays secular law which evolved from such laws dominates most of our lives. So if a group is capable of doing horrible things in the name of faith, the faith wills it. It is up to the individual to do what is right for him, and in my opinion nobody is "doing it right" because there is no "right" anymore. You can say that Islam is a religion of peace and war, because it wills both. You can say that the hippie movement is a movement of both peace and anarchy. Having both sides does not make one thing evil, but you need to accept that if a fringe group does this or that, it's because it is possible to interpret the text or sayings in this or that way, and this possibility brings in violence.

So you were unable to find any group that could pass the test in that last sentence of yours, and yet you still hold it against religion and not people. Sorry, but if you can't make your own case and still claim its correct, your world view and logic are warped by bigotry.

.
Have I ever claimed there is such a group or movement that had a doctrine which could not be interpreted towards violence? I said that the weakest link in the chain show the weakness of the chain. If a group can justify violence and despicable with ideology A, then something is wrong with that ideology.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked