Circumcision could save your life

[BVS]

the analogy works fine, my kids didn't have a say in whether they got braces.

you really should try this site

www.rif.org

First of all that's too bad. Braces aren't always necessary.

Second, they at least can voice their approval, it doesn't matter if you listen or not. Comparing teens to infants, doesn't work.

Maybe you should try a dictionary and look up the word 'analogy'.

 

[BVS]

sensitive ? You are pro-choice to inflict medically unnecessary death, right ?

Do you know my stance or do you assume?

 

[Ormus]

Hands up everyone anti-circumcision because it causes temporary pain to an infant and is medically unnecessary and the child didn't have a say ?

Ok, now hands up everyone who is anti outlawing the medically unnecessary killing of an unborn child (who also doesn't have a say).

hmmm........interesting.....pain for a few minutes, no, but death, yes ?

See? I once stated a while back that there could be a secular humanist argument against abortion. Thanks for unintentionally illustrating an old point of mine.

I'm fairly consistent in my stances. How about you? Do you support the right of an African parent to remove their daughter's clitoris? After all, the pain is "only" temporary, and you clearly think that it is your right as a parent to do whatever you want to your children.

 

[Ormus]

That's all well and good, but how do you determine what's necessary and what's not? Give me a clear way of deciding. You're very eager to say that circumcision is totally unnessary, but what about the literature stating it can offer preventative benefits? Should that be completely disregarded?

It's not rocket science. A medical procedure is either medically necessary--as in fixing a defect or a problem--or not. As the foreskin is a normal part of biology, and we have normal foreskins being removed in 99% of all circumcision cases, it's obviously not medically necessary.

"Preventative benefits" mean nothing. If a child had the gene for stomach cancer, you wouldn't remove a child's normal stomach, because he "might" have stomach cancer in 40 years. But there have been adults who have chosen to do just that, after having a genetic test done, while others are happy to just roll the dice.

Circumcision, no matter how this is twisted and contorted, is still an optional procedure, and if an adult believes that circumcision will benefit their health, then so be it. Let an adult choose to have one.

 

[intedomine]

Never liked the idea of circumcision at birth just for the sake of it.

It's like abortion. Physically exploiting someone who doesn't have a voice.

 

[DaveC]

Why the hell did abortion have to get dragged into yet another topic?

Circumcision at birth is medically unnecessary because a) the tissue being removed is usually healthy, and b) there are no real benefits. The male penis is perfectly as functional without the procedure being done. Benefits supposedly received are slightly increased ability to fight against disease and an easier time in the shower washing your knob.

Medically unnecessary permanent procedure + patient not being able to consent to suffering received = mutilation at the very least, outright torture at the very worst.

If someone tried to give a coma patient plastic surgery, they'd be thrown in jail. Why is it legal to do this to babies?

 

[Ormus]

Why the hell did abortion have to get dragged into yet another topic?

The minute I started talking about banning medically unnecessary procedures on those who cannot consent, I saw it coming from a mile away...heh.

If someone tried to give a coma patient plastic surgery, they'd be thrown in jail. Why is it legal to do this to babies?

Tradition!

(I can hear the song from "Fiddler on the Roof" in my head. )

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Circumcision is not at all permanent. I've had my foreskin removed twice and it has grown back both times.

 

[BVS]

How do those who support intelligent design explain circumcision?

 

[Devlin]

Dwight> Then take the hint and leave it alone. Your penis apparently likes its hoodie. :grin: Sorry- I just had to tease you, just a tad.

I think the ear piercing/ circumcision analogy works best. Mine were pierced as a baby. Now, obviously, they don't cause any problem, and don't affect sensitivity, but it was a ridiculous waste of time - I don't bother with earrings. I will not ever bother with them. It would simply be too expensive to buy earrings that don't make me itch, that I'd be willing to wear. You don't really NEED to remove the foreskin - sure, it probably does have some benefits - ease of cleaning, for example - but plenty of uncircumsized men have no problem keeping themselves clean. And if they really want it gone, it can be done. In the off chance I have a male child, I won't have it done, unless there's a problem. Ironically, I'm not vehemently against parents doing it at infancy, either: Most Americans have no idea of how to care for an intact penis.

 

[anitram]

I'm fairly consistent in my stances. How about you? Do you support the right of an African parent to remove their daughter's clitoris? After all, the pain is "only" temporary,

Oh no it isn't.

 

[toscano]

We're speaking about infants who don't have a say.

Now your analogy really doesn't work.

what part of "don't have a say" did you not understand ?

we're speaking of procedures deemed useful by parents on their kids who didn't have a say, whether it's braces as a teen, circumcision as an infant, the point is the "proceduree" didn't have a say. Just as an unborn child also doesn't have a say in whether he/she gets to live or die due to medically unnecessary procedures.

 

[toscano]

See? I once stated a while back that there could be a secular humanist argument against abortion. Thanks for unintentionally illustrating an old point of mine.

I'm fairly consistent in my stances. How about you? Do you support the right of an African parent to remove their daughter's clitoris? After all, the pain is "only" temporary,

It is ? A lot of stuff I've seen says it causes pain/complications well into adulthood.

 

[toscano]

Most Americans have no idea of how to care for an intact penis.

Well, If Americans as a whole displayed more openness towards such issues rather fixate on microsecond displays of Janet Jackson's boob and Britney Spears' lack of underwear.....

 

[gherman]

It's not rocket science. A medical procedure is either medically necessary--as in fixing a defect or a problem--or not. As the foreskin is a normal part of biology, and we have normal foreskins being removed in 99% of all circumcision cases, it's obviously not medically necessary.

"Preventative benefits" mean nothing. If a child had the gene for stomach cancer, you wouldn't remove a child's normal stomach, because he "might" have stomach cancer in 40 years. But there have been adults who have chosen to do just that, after having a genetic test done, while others are happy to just roll the dice.

Circumcision, no matter how this is twisted and contorted, is still an optional procedure, and if an adult believes that circumcision will benefit their health, then so be it. Let an adult choose to have one.

Your first statement isn't true

 

[BVS]

what part of "don't have a say" did you not understand ?

we're speaking of procedures deemed useful by parents on their kids who didn't have a say, whether it's braces as a teen, circumcision as an infant, the point is the "proceduree" didn't have a say. Just as an unborn child also doesn't have a say in whether he/she gets to live or die due to medically unnecessary procedures.

Why did you choose to ignore my follow up?