|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by jenk on 02:10 PM September 1st, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I do not agree with his atheism or condescention of religion, however I do agree with his idea that just because a religion deems it acceptable does not mean society should. Circumcision needs to be outlawed, and the religious folk will just have to hope that their sons will choose to undergo the procedure when they are legally able to make the choice.
I wouldn't hold my breath they will though. It is simply barbaric.
The misinfomation has got to stop. The number of people doing this to their sons for religious purposes is minimal, most do it, as we did, because we were lied to by doctors and told it was the right thing to do for the health of our children. The doctors must be held accountable for the information they give out to patients.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 07:45 PM September 1st, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Circumcision needs to be outlawed, and the religious folk will just have to hope that their sons will choose to undergo the procedure when they are legally able to make the choice.
Your suggestion is in this country, unconstitutional, as based on the constitution, the government has no right to tell people how to practice their religion, especially practices that have been directed by God.
In fact, I think this country would be a much better country if the government and the people of this country adhered more to all God's directives. It's when we start picking and choosing which directive we wish to keep and which we will ignore because we don't like them that bad things have a tendency to happen.
And by the way, if you were so naive when your son was born to the point of accepting what your doctor told you and you allowed the circumcision based solely on what he/she told you, that's your fault but you shouldn't be trying to force your curent beliefs upon everyone else in this country with the government by your side as coconspirator.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Acksiom on 08:51 PM September 1st, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Again, no, Dittohd; the State does have not only the right but the actual *responsibility* to do so.
That's because the right to the free expression of religious belief is a secondary right derived from and dependent upon the more fundamental right to self-determination. And that's why the right to the free expression of religious belief categorically CANNOT be used as a pretext for violating the right to self-determination of others.
And because the protection of the right to self-determination is the fundamental *purpose* of the State, its most basic reason for existence, the State is in fact *required* to recognize, identify, and defend that distinction between the two.
It is your position that is clearly unconstitutional and unamerican. If your precepts were in force, how exactly could the ritual genital amputation of female minors be constitutionally criminalized?
It has been empirically documented that routine and ritual male prepucectomy is *inherently* and *inevitably* harmful to its victims -- Taylor, Lockwood, & Taylor's groundbreaking work demonstrating this was published in the British Journal of Urology in 1996, and has since been followed up by Cold & Taylor's later expansion, to say nothing of the distinct similarities and commonalities found in the anecdotal experiences reported by those out of the estimated tens of thousands of men undergoing nonsurgical foreskin restoration who are willing to speak about it.
See: http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/ , http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/ , http://www.norm.org/ , http://www.foreskinrestorationchat.info/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a parent gives consent to have his or her son circumcised, then said parent is morally obligated to provide the means for his or her son's restoration, should that son request or demand it.
There are both surgical and non-surgical means to at least partially restore a foreskin. If someone gives permission to have his or son mutilated, then that same person is obligated (morally, if not legally) to bear the cost of that son's restoration.
So if anyone reading this has had or is contemplating having your son mutilated, then you'd damn well better have several thousand dollars saved up to pay for a surgical restoration, should your son choose to restore via a surgical route. Because like it or not, you're morally obligated to repair the damage you caused.
And if someone says that he's not responsible for his son's restoration, then please spare us the typical "I love my son and would do anything for him!" diatribe, because clearly you won't do anything for your son, by shirking your moral responsibility to repair damage you caused.
You damage your son's penis, (or give permission to have it done), you repair it. Anything less is nothing but sanctimonious bullshit.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 09:07 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>There are both surgical and non-surgical means to at least partially restore a foreskin.
I don't know what you mean by "partial restoration." Whatever it means, I'm sure it won't restore the person to what he would have had or felt before the operation. It sounds like a scam to me.
Has anyone ever considered the possibility that when we follow God's direction, He just might cause that person to be better off as a result, in a related or other way that may or may not be obvious to us?
I'm sure you've heard of people who have lost their eyesight or hearing who have their other accompanying senses become so much more sensitive to make up for or even surpass the lost sense. How do we know that men who have followed God's direction (or had it done to them as a result of their parent's faith and belief in God), are not better off over all in one way or other, than everyone else who hasn't had the operation?
Just something to think about. Everything is not always as it may seem. We are not always smart enough to figure out "logical conclusion" to happenings as there is so much about our body's inner workings that we still don't know. But God knows, since He's the one who created us.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:58 AM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what you mean by "partial restoration." Whatever it means, I'm sure it won't restore the person to what he would have had or felt before the operation. It sounds like a scam to me.
Were those people deprived of their senses due to involuntary surgery? Your analogy misses this fundamental violation of God-given rights.
I too thought, at first, that restoration was absurd. But my attitude changed.
When I was a little boy, I thought that I would grow up to have a "weenie case" like my father, who was intact. But that never happened. Many years later, I found out about foreskin restoration. As I educated myself about this important mens rights issue, I began to understand what was taken from me without my consent. When I began restoring and began realizing and seeing the benefits, my realization of the loss deepened; my initial sense that restoration was absurd turned to anger and outrage, and then to a determination to make that little boy's hope come true.
The experience of thousands of men who have restored shows that this is no scam. How sad and ironic that the true scam, circumcision, isn't recognized for what it is; whereas the example of men who were oppressed by involuntary neonatal circumcision helping themselves to reverse the damage is dismissed as some sort of scam.
All persons have an inalienable, God-given right to uninterrupted sexual and physical development. You have the spiritual means within yourself to recognize the wisdom of this.
I suggest reading the message boards of the Metropolitan Area Restoring Support group; a more neutral account of foreskin restoration is available at the website of the National Organization of Restoring Men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 12:23 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>All persons have an inalienable, God-given right to uninterrupted sexual and physical development.
Sorry, but with all due respect, I have a really hard time taking anyone seriously who makes a really big deal out of allegedly getting a bit less than 100% of the total sexual enjoyment they feel they have a God-given right to.
I think that this position is an outgrowth of the victim mentality so prevalent in the U.S. today and it's now popular to whine and cry if anyone doesn't get 100% of anything they feel they have a right to, including that last inch of enjoyment that some people feel they're missing out on because they're missing a foreskin on their penis. Well I'm sorry, but don't invite me to your pity party.
My basic opinion is that if a man is so hung up on that last inch of pleasure that he may or may not be missing as a result of a missing foreskin, I say that this person most likely would not be happy even if God came down and through a miracle, put his original foreskin back.
Furthermore, I strongly feel that if a man is so hung up on his missing foreskin when making love to a woman, he's either making love to the wrong woman, has a serious problem in his relationship with his woman, or he's totally narcissistic and is concentrating on the wrong person while making love. Not only that, I might suggest that if he feels he's missing out on some pleasure in sex, it could also very likely have a lot to do with the quality of the woman he's making love to rather than a missing foreskin.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:52 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but with all due respect, I have a really hard time taking anyone seriously who makes a really big deal out of allegedly getting a bit less than 100% of the total sexual enjoyment they feel they have a God-given right to.
That's none of your business, and your feelings are entirely beside the point, which concerns the right of an individual to his own body. All persons deserve that respect. Just because you don't respect another person's right to life, liberty and happiness does not mean you can cut off portions of their anatomy.
I think that this position is an outgrowth of the victim mentality so prevalent in the U.S. today and it's now popular to whine and cry if anyone doesn't get 100% of anything they feel they have a right to, including that last inch of enjoyment that some people feel they're missing out on because they're missing a foreskin on their penis.
You're radically mistaken. And you are a total hypocrite and a fool. All persons have a right to uninterrupted physical development. You don't have a right to interrupt it, and then, adding insult to injury, claim that the persons whose rights you violate possess a victim mentality for correctly identifing the persons who violated their rights, and for correctly identifying the rights violated.
Well I'm sorry, but don't invite me to your pity party.
It's not a pity party at all. What a stunning lack of comprehension and common sense. Imbecile! People who want to become whole have every right to become whole. Taking charge of one's life and restoring is not self pitying. I don't have kind words for the absurdity and spuriousness of your mischaracterizations. They are quite simply ridiculous and self serving.
Cut off portions of your own anatomy. But if you do it to me, mark my word: I pity you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:18 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
I think that this position is an outgrowth of the victim mentality so prevalent in the U.S. today and it's now popular to whine and cry if anyone doesn't get 100% of anything they feel they have a right to
this is not a question of "feeling" one has a right to one's own body. One DOES have a right to one's own body. Persons own their own bodies. It follows from this that they have the right to uninterrupted sexual development. The loss you are dismissing is very significant, not only for the person upon whom it is committed, without their consent, but for their sexual partners. Circumcised men have a higher incidence of impotence than intact men. Their penises are significantly shorter, and they irritate their partners by not having a foreskin.
But you are advocating the cowardly practice of tearing off the foreskin from the glans, to which it is physically and biologically attached, before the glans can complete its development. You are a genital terrorist.
including that last inch of enjoyment that some people feel they're missing out on because they're missing a foreskin on their penis. Well I'm sorry, but don't invite me to your pity party.
It's not a trivial loss, as you smugly seem to suggest. And foreskin restorers are reversing what was done to them without their consent. You can get away with your genital terrorism, because you inflict it on defenseless babies; then you sadistically jeer at the men whom you've maimed and who correctly and appropriately find fault with your moral reasoning, your profound ignorance of anatomy, and your indifference to the health and welfare of others. Cut off your own foreskin. But don't be a busybody and trivialize the amputation of what would become 15 square inches of irreplacable tissue if you could keep your hands to yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dittohd attempts to justify circumcising baby boys on the grounds of the Old Testament. Of course, the things of the Old Testament served a purpose, for their time. But Dittohd completely ignores what the New Testament and Christ Himself, God in the flesh, had to say about it.
Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh. But may it never be that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. - Galations 6:12-15 NASB
You see, the problem with Dittohd is that he's so caught up in boasting about his own flesh, that he fails to boast about what really should be boasted about: the cross of Christ. He's so quick to compel others to be circumcised that he forgets (or conveniently overlooks) what God Himself said about the subject: circumcision and uncircumcision are both nothing, when compared to the new creation that Christ brings about in the heart of the repentant sinner.
Instead of urging parents to cut off their boys' body parts, perhaps Dittohd would better serve God by urging parents to take their sons and daughters to church, and raise them in a God-fearing household.
God doesn't require that our penises be circumcised. He requires that our hearts be circumcised.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me clarify one statement I made:
But Dittohd completely ignores what the New Testament and Christ Himself, God in the flesh, had to say about it.
Yes, I realize that it was St. Paul speaking in those verses I posted, not Christ per se. However, if the Bible is indeed the Word of God, and Christ was/is God in the flesh, then every word of the Bible can rightly be called Christ's Word.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 11:21 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
"Sorry, but with all due respect, I have a really hard time taking anyone seriously who makes a really big deal out of allegedly getting a bit less than 100% of the total sexual enjoyment they feel they have a God-given right to."
Dittohd, I've never been sexually active and have no real plans to change that right now. That doesn't mean I take lightly the prospect of removing part of my body.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone ever considered the possibility that when we follow God's direction
Ah, but I have followed God's direction. He has directed us to believe in His Son. (i.e. to have our heart's circumcised.)
The first church council already dealt with the notion that physical circumcision is necessary for salvation, and properly dismissed it. Fleshly circumcision was a symbol given to the Jewish people for a specific purpose, not pertaining to one's salvation. That symbolism is no longer necessary since Christ already did everything in our stead.
Tread carefully when you claim to speak for God regarding what He allegedly commands.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 07:17 AM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
I was a single mother of 19 when my older son was born. I didn't know what circumcision was and the doctor simply said it cuts of a piece of skin that the child does not need, he will not feel it, it will keep him from getting infections later on, and it needs to be done the first few days. I was in the hospital, before the days of the internet-how on earth was I supposed to know to research it let alone actually find information?
Our second child we did not have circumcised. At 2, his foreskin would not retract, and our doctor sent us to a specialist. The specialist told us that if it had not retracted yet, it likely would not, and that the longer we wait, the harder the surgery would be on him. Unretractable foreskins, according to him, would cause infections because you could not wash the head of the penis. This made sense, and so we had it done. We later, on this board in fact, found information that this was all a lie. That the foreskin often does not retract until 7 years or more. So he LIED to us.
I am not a doctor. I go to a doctor because he has the education and expirience to help me make informed decisions. Yes, I do put blame on the doctor. I should not have to second guess everything everyone says to me. If a specialist tells me that something needs to be done, I must be able to trust him. At the very least that doctor was obligated to tell me there was some debate as to the necessity, but that he recommends to do it. Then i would know to look things up. This was a good hospital, and doctors who had previously been right with me as far as not prescibing extra medications, so I trusted they would not have suggested it if it were not necessary.
Needless to say, I was wrong, and I do not accept anything doctors say to me at face value.
I am not forcing my beliefs any more than you are. I am saying let an adult make the decision, you are saying force the decision on infants.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 03:13 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I am not forcing my beliefs any more than you are. I am saying let an adult make the decision, you are saying force the decision on infants.
I didn't say to force the decision on infants, God did. But then how stupid of me to think that God was smarter than an American woman. If only God had had an American woman such as yourself by his side back when he was making all these life-shattering decisions, he could have made better decisions that obviously showed more consideration for our male children. How inconsiderate of God. And how logical your decision is, to wait until each male is 18 years old so he can make this irreversible, earth-shattering decision as an adult. I wonder why He didn't think of that? How stupid and inconsiderate of Him.
I guess it all boils down to you being a woman and God was no doubt a man. If you're this way when you disagree with God, I can only imagine what your husband must go through when you disagree with him.
As far as your predicament with getting incorrect advice from your doctor, he could have just been repeating incorrect information that someone else fed him. Not only that, how often do we hear that something is one way based on a study, only to find out later that a new study proves just the opposite. It seems to happen these days all the time and knowing what's the best thing to do in every situation can become a real headache.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 08:46 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
SO in other words you cannot come up with a better arguement than to try and shame me for being a woman? Nice. My opinion has nothing to do with my sex. I though we were beyond that.
Maybe you need to re read the bible. "God" tells us a lot of things that we do not think acceptable today, like multiple wives, impregnating the help, and not masterbating. But then, God tells us so, right? No, humans who wrote the bible tell us so. It is your opinon is that it comes unhindered from God. After multiple translations, plus the original copying from prayer to words, much is likely different from what God thought intended. God gives us free will, and that includes the free will to screw up, including his own words.
That is my opinion, not as an American women but a Christian.
TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 08:32 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
That is pretty sleazy, Dittohd. You are playing really sleazy word games.
I am an American. And I am a woman. However, you put a definition on the term American Woman which I certainly do not fit. So while you can fall back and say "Oh, I just said what you technically are" that term is so loaded that you might was well have just come out and insulted me. Either say exactly what you want to say, which is that you think I am a privilaged, spoiled, man-hating bigot, or don't. But don't play these coy little mind games, they are really pathetic.
What is it, that you and Roy can't just come out and say what you mean? Just say it. AT least Bert is honest. You think I am a certain way, then fight fair and come out and say it. I certainly do not play games with you, I say what I mean. I would appreciate the same courtesy.
This is really ridiculous.
Is any time I disagree with you going to mean I am a feminist? That sounds...well...very feminist of you.
(In other words, if I don't tow to your party line, I must be the enemy, which is something feminists do, usually because their aruguements don't hold water.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 11:25 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
"No matter how Christian you are, you are still an American woman. And based on your posts and opinions, it shows."
So?
Does Jen need to undergo a sex-change operation for people to believe that she doesn't hate men? Good grief. What we've been complaining about on this website for years is women who see ALL MEN as the enemy. So here's a woman who clearly is our ally, and the response is: "Not good enough! You're an American woman! You must be bitter and hateful!"
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 11:47 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
I think that some people are going to feel the way they feel, and nothing is going to change their mind. I am fine with that, as long as they come out and say what they mean. I am not sure what he thinks I am, stupid?
I may be a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them.
The irony is that the radicals become that which they hate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 11:10 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#69)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Either say exactly what you want to say, which is that you think I am a privilaged, spoiled, man-hating bigot, or don't. But don't play these coy little mind games, they are really pathetic.
I always say what I mean. Always. I have no reason not to. I was being facetious, but so what? Anyone who isn't a foreigner and understands English fluently can understand not only facetiousness but sarcasm which are both utilized on this website as a communication tool on a fairly regular basis. My comment to your initial upset comment was meant to be humorous. Maybe your sense of humor needs a bit of a tune-up. You need to lighten up a little when you argue and not take everything so seriously.
I would suggest you get off your high horse and stop trying to tell me what to do and not do. It may work with your husband because he has to put up with you 24/7 but I don't. Whether or not I make you angry doesn't determine whether or not I get any at the end of the day either (Beep Beep! That's a little humor while being serious at the same time! Beep Beep!), so as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to say what I wish to say in the manner I feel is best going to get my point across, and if you don't like it...!
If you still want to argue with me on this or other subjects (although this one is really starting to get tiresome), fine. If not, that's fine too. But trying to boss me around and tell me how I should or shouldn't make a point? Ha! I've been on this earth too long to care whether or not a woman approves of what I do or say. Least of all an American woman (No hidden meaning in that term).
And by the way, adding to what I said and accusing me of saying what I never said doesn't get you any additional points. I never said you were a privileged, spoiled, man-hating bigot nor did I imply it (unless you equate that description with the term American woman. Do you? I did say I thought you were arrogant and misguided in one post, but then I still do. Nothing you've said since has changed my mind.
>Is any time I disagree with you going to mean I am a feminist?
Disagreeing with me doesn't make you a feminist. What you say, how you say it, what you do, and especially what you're really thinking as you say what you say and do what you do would make or not make you a feminist.
I hope all that's plain enough. If not, let me know.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 02:19 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#72)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>"Not good enough! You're an American woman! You must be bitter and hateful!"
You and Jenk really make a good pair. Quotes mean that you are copying exactly what a person said, word for word, which I'm sure you're aware of assuming you made it successfully through elementary school English.
I never said this and I strongly suspect you know it.
>So here's a woman who clearly is our ally...
Jenk may be your ally but any woman who advocates making circumcision illegal for me and all the Jewish people to have their sons circumcised in accordance with God's word based on her one bad experience with one bad doctor under differing circumstances is no ally of mine.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 08:07 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#75)
|
|
|
|
|
No, it is wrong because mutilating baby boys is wrong. I was mislead to do so by somone pretending it would benifit my son. The bad expirience has nothing to do with if it is wrong or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 09:48 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#79)
|
|
|
|
|
">"Not good enough! You're an American woman! You must be bitter and hateful!"
"You and Jenk really make a good pair. Quotes mean that you are copying exactly what a person said, word for word, which I'm sure you're aware of assuming you made it successfully through elementary school English."
It's called a paraphrase. If you feel I'm mischaracterizing your views, then what did you mean by this:
"No matter how Christian you are, you are still an American woman. And based on your posts and opinions, it shows."
"Jenk may be your ally but any woman who advocates making circumcision illegal for me and all the Jewish people to have their sons circumcised in accordance with God's word based on her one bad experience with one bad doctor under differing circumstances is no ally of mine."
Her goal is to protect newborn boys from being mutilated by those who seem to think they're following "God's word." So...yeah...on this, she certainly is my ally.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 08:27 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#84)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>It's called a paraphrase.
What you did is not paraphrasing. Paraphrasing does not have quotation marks. Furthermore, in paraphrasing, the person does his best to repeat what the person actually said. The only difference between quoting and paraphrasing is that the paraphraser doesn't have the exact words to copy. He does not translate and change the wording to what he thinks that person really meant.
Like I said, using quotes means what the person said word for word.
>If you feel I'm mischaracterizing your views, then what did you mean by this:
>"No matter how Christian you are, you are still an American woman. And based on your posts and opinions, it shows."
I meant exactly what I said. Being an American woman is certainly complex and there are a lot of signs that women give off in their conversation (just one among many ways) advertising that they are American women. Let's take just one example:
In Jenk's initial post where she starts explaining her past situation to me concerning the circumcision of her son, (September 3, #23) her first sentence is "I was a single mother of 19 when my older son was born." Now why do you suppose she told us that? How did it help us better understand the rest of her story? Most women of other countries that aren't infected by the feminazi victim mentality would never start an explanation with that sentence because they would never be proud of this. In fact, I would say they would be more ashamed that they got pregnant at 16 (give or take) and had their first baby out of wedlock (I'm surmising here, maybe she got married and soon after divorced, but we don't know this. Either way, it doesn't really matter).
So what was the real reason for telling us this? As an American woman, she no doubt was seeking everyone's sympathy that she was a single mother. Why? Because as a result of her being a young single mom, what went wrong was mostly if not totally the fault of the mean, inconsiderate, selfish man who made her pregnant and then left her. As a result, she didn't have another person to confide in and possibly take over the decision-making necessary in this situation for her. (This is the 20/20 hindsight responsibility of men when American women make a unilateral wrong decision, of course) She is subtly trying to take the blame off herself and put it on the slimeball who made her pregnant and then left her, not to mention the scumbag doctor who lied to her. All her problems are the fault of men. Even her mother whom she probably confided in (I'm surmising here again) is left out of the equation.
What is all left out? In my opinion, she was responsible for having sex at such a young age, for choosing a guy who wanted sex and not marriage to have sex with (unless she was raped), and for getting pregnant. She was also responsible for deciding to have the baby after becoming pregnant and choosing to keep the baby after she had it.
I understand there are always difficult choices and considerations, but the bottom line is she was mostly responsible for the whole mess.
Concerning the scumbag doctor, there are scumbags throughout the population. Scumbags are scumbags. Why do scumbags do scummy things? Because they are scumbags! They can't help it anymore than a scorpion can do anything other than what a scorpion does. She, as her child's mother, was responsible for protecting her son from this scumbag and all other scumbags. In my humble opinion, she was the gatekeeper and she didn't do her job. But don't ever tell this to an American woman because they are always the victim and are never responsible for anything that goes wrong!
Her goal is to protect newborn boys from being mutilated by those who seem to think they're following "God's word."
Sucker! She couldn't care less about other people's children (boys). What she's doing is trying to assuage her guilt for not protecting her son from the scumbag doctor. This way many people will say how wonderful she is and how scummy that male doctor was so that in her eyes and many other's eyes, she really is deep down, a wonderful American woman victim. It doesn't matter to her that she's imposing her opinions and anger and hurt on others because deep down she knows that the situation that caused the problem with her son was ultimately her fault and this possibility is anathema to a feminazi.
Have you ever noticed that whenever a feminazi wants to get something objectionable passed into law that is hurtful of others, it's always "for the children" so that everyone who opposes them is automatically seen as not for the children?
Feminazis are good at what they do.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 09:22 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#86)
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa, wait one minute here, who is reading into my posts?
I mentioned I was a single mother of 19 to show how utterly ignorant I was. I told you nothing more, so all of that post is simply you putting your prejudices on me. And that is what they are, right or wrong, prejudices.
I certainly am not proud of the fact I had a child that young out of wedlock, but I am not ashamed of it either. It happened. I was a pretty messed up teen, thanks to my own personality and choices.
My doctor was a woman.
I never married the slimeball-oh wait, we are still friends, and I don't think he is a slimeball. But we never married.
I never put any blame to anyone else for my own sexual decisions.
I did blame my female doctor for being an a position of authority and abusing that authority with misinformation.
Our second child's (Dave's) doctor was a man, which I saw as irrelevant to the idea that he too should be honest.
That whole post is a huge fantasy on your part. I didn't say any of that- you are projecting your ideas onto me. Excuse me while I wipe the screen of bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:30 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#90)
|
|
|
|
|
Most women of other countries that aren't infected by the feminazi victim mentality would never start an explanation with that sentence because they would never be proud of this.
This is as profoundly ignorant and presumptuous a statement about Jenk as your mean-spirited, hallucinated drivelling that restorers have some "victim mentality."
Restorers arent
1. demanding restitution
2. asking for special accomodations
3. asking for disability benefits
4. asking to be placed in shelters for abuse
[although the circumcisers most certainly
are sexual abusers]
5. asking for affirmative action
or whatever would correspond to protection under
a bill such as VAWA. The comparison is uninformed , airheaded and bigoted. Save it for people who deserve your contemptible ignorance.
You are a person who advocates violence against infants, and who rationalizes it as if it were something "minor"--how else could you live with yourself? But you are sadly mistaken.
As one restorer eloquently puts it, restoring is as far as possible from being a "metrosexual fetish" (whatever the hell that is--I reckon the restorers from the red states wouldn't cotton to that at all). The restorers attitude is one of patience and determination, and not at all a "victim mentality"
I can hardly think of any activity or effort that is more affirming of personal responsibility and individual initiative than
(1) confronting the fact that a violent sexual assault and mutilation was done to ones
genitals,
(2) resolving to accept that it can't
be undone completely,
(3) resolving to live life as fully as possible with the injury inflicted,
(4) determining that it can be improved to some
extent,
(5) undertaking to do what can be done by
personal effort, at personal expense,
(6) sincerely attempting to help others facing the
same problem, and
(7) speaking openly whenever possible to educate all others about the wrong done in order to try to prevent future injuries of the same type to innocent infants who can't defend themselves.
That's a fair and accurate portrayal of restoring men. Our rights were violated. But we're not asking society to pay us, for God knows what, like victims. We're informing others about their rights and what they can do to become as while as possible.
Some of us are asking society to stop mutilating infant boys. But we aren't asking for special consideration, and anyone who thinks so is either ignorant, mean-spirited or out of his mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 07:43 AM September 7th, 2005 EST (#103)
|
|
|
|
|
You, dear sir, are an idiot. Not only have I read Tom Ellis' book, I have a signed copy because unlike you I managed to get to the men's conference this year. I spoke with Tom at length, he is a great man. Not only that, but I loved the book. If you get your head out of your ass long enought to breath look over at the barnes and nobles thread where I told Tom last week that he should try and get the book on the shelves, because it is an important book.
God, I hate arguing with asshats, and you, sir, are quickly becoming one.
I think that since all you can do is assasinate my character in order to avoid the subject-circumcision- I am done with you. What a waste of freaking time.
TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 09:14 AM September 7th, 2005 EST (#105)
|
|
|
|
|
"In Jenk's initial post where she starts explaining her past situation to me concerning the circumcision of her son, (September 3, #23) her first sentence is "I was a single mother of 19 when my older son was born." Now why do you suppose she told us that? How did it help us better understand the rest of her story? Most women of other countries that aren't infected by the feminazi victim mentality would never start an explanation with that sentence because they would never be proud of this. In fact, I would say they would be more ashamed that they got pregnant at 16 (give or take) and had their first baby out of wedlock (I'm surmising here, maybe she got married and soon after divorced, but we don't know this. Either way, it doesn't really matter)...So what was the real reason for telling us this? As an American woman, she no doubt was seeking everyone's sympathy that she was a single mother. Why? Because as a result of her being a young single mom, what went wrong was mostly if not totally the fault of the mean, inconsiderate, selfish man who made her pregnant and then left her. As a result, she didn't have another person to confide in and possibly take over the decision-making necessary in this situation for her. (This is the 20/20 hindsight responsibility of men when American women make a unilateral wrong decision, of course) She is subtly trying to take the blame off herself and put it on the slimeball who made her pregnant and then left her, not to mention the scumbag doctor who lied to her. All her problems are the fault of men. Even her mother whom she probably confided in (I'm surmising here again) is left out of the equation."
WHOA. This is bizarre assertion on your part, five times as severe as anything I "paraphrased." She mentioned she was young when she had her kids, and to you that means she's seeking sympathy because of the "mean, inconsiderate, selfish man" you think she's "blaming"?
This is amazing. And you're criticizing me for MY posts? You just concocted two paragraphs of doggy doo from your false projections of her.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 09:27 AM September 7th, 2005 EST (#106)
|
|
|
|
|
"And that was my point as Boy Genteel asked me why I referred to you as an American woman. Seems everyone has their own ideas as to what that term denotes. Based on your posts, you are without any shadow of a doubt, an American womaaaaaaaaaaan. I backed up my assertion with one example and nothing's changed in your American womaaaaaaaan-type posts or demeanor to cause me to change my mind."
You really are delusional.
I say it again. One reason we have this group in the first place is that there are too many people out there who make grossly unfair generalizations about men, that ALL men -- American or otherwise -- are lazy, evil, stupid, abusive, and/or deserving of ridicule/violence/incarceration. We fight stereotypes here just about every day, and we don't need you making us ALL look like imbeciles by doing the same thing towards women.
JenK is an American woman, and...so what? The term denotes that she is a female adult who is from our republic, nothing else. In fact, I wish more American women were like her. It would be an easier row to hoe for all of us.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 09:35 AM September 7th, 2005 EST (#108)
|
|
|
|
|
"You, dear sir, are an idiot. Not only have I read Tom Ellis' book, I have a signed copy because unlike you I managed to get to the men's conference this year."
This is PRICELESS. EVERY assertion he made about you is false.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 11:14 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"I didn't say to force the decision on infants, God did."
According to a book, you mean...
"I guess it all boils down to you being a woman and God was no doubt a man."
Jen's the one trying to prevent more male babies from being needlessly mutilated. You believe the practice should continue, and then you have the effrontery to accuse her of being a female sexist.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 11:54 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>...you have the effrontery to accuse her of being a female sexist.
Where do you all come up with this stuff? Where in my post did I say or even imply that Jenk is a female sexist?
What I accused her of being is an American Woman. Do you refute that?
Whose side are you on, hers or mine? If you're on her side, which part of what I wrote in my last post to Jenk do you disagree with?
Dittohd
P.S. Effrontery? Ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! :-} It's good to see that there's at least one person left on this board who still maintains a sense of humor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 11:19 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
"What I accused her of being is an American Woman. Do you refute that?"
No, and there's nothing wrong with being an American woman. The sarcasm behind your "charge" is that, being an American woman, she obviously believes herself to be omniscient.
As for your other question, I believe I have made myself clear as to where I disagree: that would be the assertion that the Almighty wants us to mutilate little boys, all because a book tells us to do so. That book also condones owning slaves and condemns the mixing of certain fabrics, but I guess you've got to pick your places.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 12:08 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#70)
|
|
|
|
|
|
there's nothing wrong with being an American woman.
Wow! Wow! Wow! You and I sure disagree on that one! I'm not saying that all American women are the same, but saying there's nothing wrong with being an American woman? Based on how all American women are brought up and taught from cradle to grave by everyone around them, from their parents to the media to government policy?
There's a lot wrong with being an American woman and any man who says otherwise is either kissing up to one in hopes of getting some, or totally deluded, or brainwashed, or deaf and blind.
Are you one of these guys who still thinks that women are not competent enough to stand up for themselves and always need a man to do their fighting for them? Or maybe you're kissing up to Jenk in hopes of her returning the favor in some way in the future?
Jenk may or may not be a typical American woman, but she's certainly capable of fighting her own fights on this board.
>the Almighty wants us to mutilate little boys, all because a book tells us to do so.
Huh? The Almighty wants us to mutilate little boys because a book tells us to do so? Huh? I never said that.
>That book also condones owning slaves and condemns the mixing of certain fabrics, but I guess you've got to pick your places.
How do you know I'm picking places? You have no idea what I believe or don't believe. I would be happy to discuss each of these subjects with you, but I'm finding it burdensome following this discussion at this point based on all the posts accumulated so far (over 70).
A lot of people on this website seem to have a lot of trouble figuring out what I mean when I write something and have a bad habit of assigning meaning to my posts that isn't there, so I would suggest that you not assume what I mean or believe. If you're interested, ask. But we need to stay on subject, too, or replying and rereplying and maintaining a conversation gets really burdensome.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 09:12 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#78)
|
|
|
|
|
"Wow! Wow! Wow! You and I sure disagree on that one! I'm not saying that all American women are the same, but saying there's nothing wrong with being an American woman? Based on how all American women are brought up and taught from cradle to grave by everyone around them, from their parents to the media to government policy?"
You're not saying all American women are the same? You implied that her being an American woman requires certain distasteful qualities.
"There's a lot wrong with being an American woman and any man who says otherwise is either kissing up to one in hopes of getting some, or totally deluded, or brainwashed, or deaf and blind. Are you one of these guys who still thinks that women are not competent enough to stand up for themselves and always need a man to do their fighting for them? Or maybe you're kissing up to Jenk in hopes of her returning the favor in some way in the future?"
No. If Jen were a male poster being unfairly treated, I'd be doing the same thing.
>the Almighty wants us to mutilate little boys, all because a book tells us to do so.
"Huh? The Almighty wants us to mutilate little boys because a book tells us to do so? Huh? I never said that."
Oh! So you didn't, then, suggest that God (not man) makes up the rules with regard to circumcision? Because maybe three or four of us can point out where it looks like you did.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 09:09 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#85)
|
|
|
|
|
Dittold, if everyone has a problem reading into your posts, perhaps it is your writing style and not our understanding which is at fault.
Perhaps you could address some of the biblical concerns here. What in the old testiment do you also believe needs to be followed that we have addressed-such as not masterbating, having multiple wives, marrying your husband's brother if one is widowed, etc. DO you hold these to be true as well? Would you promote these as religious necessities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 09:37 AM September 7th, 2005 EST (#109)
|
|
|
|
|
"Also, I never said that circumcision should be done because "a book" says so. That's another mutilation (pun intended) of what I said, apparently what circumcision cry-babies like to do in their effort to downplay what I gave as the justification for circumcision. The bible is not just "a book" as much as you all would like to consider it to be, since you don't agree with what's in it."
Then how do you know that "you didn't make the rules, God did" with regard to circumcision, if not from the Bible?
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 04:56 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
I missed something in this reply.
You say my doctor probably was given incorrect information as well?
This doctor was a specialist. It is his job to know all the latest research about a very specific area, which is urology.
That circumcision is controversial, is no hidden secret. That the foreskin does not often retract until 7 is a common enough FACT that he should have known this. Once I found out I was able to find all sorts of literature dating back to before this happened, that as a urologist he would have read. Back in 1997 there was not as much out there on the net and we had no clue he would lie to us. To be honest I believe he saw dollar signs where my son was concerned. That my son trusted him made this whole thing sting even more.
AT the very LEAST this doctor had a responsibility to tell us there was controversy. He knew we did not want it done, we made it clear, so he framed it in such a way as to make us feel like bad parents if we did not have it done.
Not only did he mislead us, but then my son would not go into the operating room until the doctor took him by the hand-my son trusted him that much-he would not go in with the nurses. Then that doctor that my son trusted so much never even saw him again-had his staff tell us to go to our family doctor for the follow up.
The doctor was a scum. Anyone who would do that to a 2 year old for profit is a scum.
You can try and blame me for all this, say I am egotistical, say I am an american woman. But you come back and tell me this is all right when you have held a screaming 2 year old for over an hour because he is in so much pain. That sound will never leave my ears. You tell me when my son gets hysterical because he has to have eye drops, or a splinter removed, at 9 he gets screaming and cannot hear what you say he is so afraid. Yeah, it has no effects. Bullshit. This isn't about religion, or anything else. It is about little boys, and the men they will become.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 01:45 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#71)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never said or suggested that a boy should be circumcised for health reasons at the age of 2. Personally, I think that circumcision should be done for religious reasons on the eighth day after birth as prescribed by God, by parents of the Jewish faith.
I suggested that your doctor might have been given wrong information that he just passed on to you based on the little you told me but I didn't say that it couldn't have been something else or exactly what you are saying now, an operation for money.
Man, this habit of people on this website assigning meaning to my posts that isn't there and misquoting me is really getting tiresome. This is what I actually said:
As far as your predicament with getting incorrect advice from your doctor, he could have just been repeating incorrect information that someone else fed him.
I suggested a possibility. Suggested a possibility!!!
>You can try and blame me for all this, say I am egotistical, say I am an american woman. But you come back and tell me this is all right when you have held a screaming 2 year old for over an hour because he is in so much pain. That sound will never leave my ears. You tell me when my son gets hysterical because he has to have eye drops, or a splinter removed, at 9 he gets screaming and cannot hear what you say he is so afraid. Yeah, it has no effects. Bullshit. This isn't about religion, or anything else. It is about little boys, and the men they will become.
There is so little truth in what you are accusing me of here, it's pathetic. I'm not going to try to correct your incorrect perceptions anymore as based on past experience, this effort would no doubt be futile. I would really like to stop arguing with you from here on. I will try to avoid commenting on your posts in the future. I would like you to likewise stop commenting on mine. This business of repeatedly having to correct misstatements and misquotations of what I say is really a big waste of my time and we get nowhere.
From everything you've told us above, you are certainly justified in being angry, but it's not my fault or the fault of the Jewish people and I am not advocating what happened to your son at the age of 2. But your experience with your son and this doctor doesn't give you the right to make it against the law for Jewish parents to have their sons circumcised at 8 days of age as directed by God. Circumcising at 8 days of age is not the same as circumcising at 2 years of age. And we're not talking about a new, experimental operation here either.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 08:36 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#76)
|
|
|
|
|
If the world is going to become a better place for men, people like you - i.e the devoutly religious - are going to have to be slapped down. I couldn't care less what religion you are, or what your supposed 'God' or voices in your head tell you to do. I don't care what it says in your little book, or what your ganddaddy thinks. The genital mutilation of children has got to stop. Period. People like you are one of the main obstacles to that happening.
I have no doubt that back in the days before female genital mulitation was outlawed in the UK, people exactly like you were bleating about their traditional cultural rights. Nowadays, anyone doing that to their daughter goes to jail. Any doctor doing it to a girl loses her job and goes to jail. The interesting thing to watch was how quickly that particular religious/cultural community changed its tune. "Who? Us? No, we don't do that". The same thing needs to happen in the Muslim and Jewish communities. The only deal I can offer people like you is 'circumcise your son and go to jail'. That's non-negotiable. I'm just not interested in listening to your cultural special pleading.
"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Louis D Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:05 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
If the world is going to become a better place for men, people like you - i.e the devoutly religious - are going to have to be slapped down. I couldn't care less what religion you are, or what your supposed 'God' or voices in your head tell you to do. I don't care what it says in your little book, or what your ganddaddy thinks. The genital mutilation of children has got to stop. Period. People like you are one of the main obstacles to that happening.
Yes. I notice the pathetic argument that outlawing circumcions, which violates the right to uninterrupted physical and sexual development, is the same as outlawing Catholic confession, which doesn't violate any such right. Religious observances which don't violate the moral rules (posted elsewhere) are up to the individual. There is no anti-religious sentiment here. On the contrary, religion at its best can deepen humanity's capacity for compassion.
But there is no compassion in mutilating baby boy's penises. The God who commands this is a pedophile.
I was considering outlawing only non-religious non-therapeautic circumcision, but after reading to the hysterical, desperate and accusatory arguments of Dittohd and his comrades, I am disinclined to be lenient. I say ban the practice altogether. I saw this as a Jew who is horrified by the widespread Jewish inability to see how circumcision cripples and mains Jewish men. Indeed, like Dittohd, they dismiss the findings of medical association after medical association, and defend their wilful and vicious tampering with their own reproductive fitness on the dishonest and invalid grounds that it is "a minor matter." At least Muslim men are permitted to develop until they are eight years old, before they are circumcised. Unfortunately, they too are not given a choice.
I am ashamed of the circumcision-crazed members of my ethnic group, for their barbarism and for their intellectual dishonesty in the matter.
Those who insist on mutilating their sons, like unrepentant paedophiles should go to some third-world country where barbarism is encouraged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem, as I see it, is the sheer hypocrisy of the pro-circ religious crowd. On the one hand, they advocate cutting a baby boy's penis on the grounds of religion. On the other hand, they still advocate outlawing female circumcision, even for those who practice it strictly for cultural/religious reasons.
They're quick to proclaim "But God told me to circumcise my son!"
Yet they're not willing to extend that same reasoning to the person who wishes to have his or her daughter circumcised for religious reasons. "Equality for me, but not for thee."
Then the issue will come up as to which God or god is true, and which is false. "But my God is the true God, and He tells me to do it! Your god is false, and the law shouldn't protect your false religious practices!"
Believe it or not, I am a firm believer in the God of the Holy Bible. (Staunchly conservative Lutheran, here.) I most certainly do believe in one and only one true God. However, in a society which claims to protect the individual's right to freedom of religion, the government simply cannot pass laws which favor one religion over another.
Circumcision in the Old Testament was a symbol for that particular time. The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that circumcision itself has absolutely no bearing on a person's salvation, that real and true circumcision involves a person's heart, not his penis. THAT is why I choose to restore. The presense of a foreskin, or lack thereof, has no bearing on the state of my soul. Thus, I choose to get it back.
Methinks Dittohd should have his heart circumcised, instead of his penis.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:38 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#93)
|
|
|
|
|
Where did you get this idea from? All Jewish families have their sons circumcised.
Absolutely false. There are many Jews who are against circumcision: see this article on the
bris shalom.
There are Russian Jews who don't even circumcise.
There are Jewish doctors who don't recommend the procedure, and who recognize its harms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:41 AM September 7th, 2005 EST (#101)
|
|
|
|
|
You want other web pages? This refusal to believe that there are Jews who rationally oppose circumcision based on scientific evidence is astounding. You should do your own research, but you are like the feminists you abhor: you're too entitled. Someone has to do it for you. So here is are some web pages by Dr. Ronald Goldman about his book "Questioning Circumcision: a Jewish Perspective."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 07:37 AM September 7th, 2005 EST (#102)
|
|
|
|
|
Jews are a minority in this country. Not all Jewish people are circumcising. This means a great deal of people who are circumcising are not Jewish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by LibertyUNH on 02:27 PM September 1st, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
It is sad that some people in MRA movement want to alienate our Jewish and Muslim allies by Anti-Semitism. That goes hand in hand with the rest of our bitter fighting among ourselves.
Violations of men's rights are not sanctioned by the Bible. Like hate (Bible preaches love), or false accusations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:55 PM September 1st, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 08:01 PM September 1st, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
If God directed the sacrifice of each couple's firstborn ad infinitum yet even via biblical writings, would that be a reason to allow it under law? And can you prove the Bible is actually God's word? Who's to say my words aren't divinely inspired?
The point here is that religious practices that violate the rights of others, such as those of male infants, do not get a pass simply because they are religious practices. The reason is because no one can prove that a given religion is the "right" one. If so, none of us would be safe if the sort of religion that came into justification one day included random acts of murder as a sacrament. See the point? It's the actions being judged here, not the religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 01:04 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>If God directed the sacrifice of each couple's firstborn ad infinitum yet even via biblical writings, would that be a reason to allow it under law?
"If" means nothing. He didn't direct this so there's no point in discussing what we would do if He had. Besides, all those who don't believe in and have faith in God always have the option of doing anything they choose. Creating a man-made law puts our government in the position of being God.
By the way, have you noticed that man's laws are always changing from year to year to satisfy the loudest of the whiners at the moment? This doesn't bode well concerning the quality of man's laws, unless you feel that laws should constantly change based on which way the winds are blowing at the moment and who's yelling the loudest.
I'll take God's direction over man's every
time.
>It's the actions being judged here, not the religion.
You can't separate the two if you want to make it illegal for everyone. You sound like all the Democrats who say they support our troops but disagree with the war, then repeatedly demonstrate against the war giving aid and comfort to our enemies and further encouraging them not to quit, which in turn, causes our troops to be killed in higher numbers as a result of the extended length of the war. Please, save the psychological mumbo jumbo for someone else.
Dittohd
P.S. I hate these circumcision arguments.
Furthermore, I generally hate it when people use the bible to justify certain actions be required of others, so I really wish there would be some restriction against the circumcision subject on this website and that certain people would stop advocating that their beliefs be enforced upon all others at gunpoint through legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 06:59 AM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
But that is exactly what you are doing. You are saying that because you believe in circumcision,the bible tells us that you have the right to force that belief on your sons, in an irriversable and disfiguring way. Why not wait until the child is 18, then he can choose to be circumcized. Then it would mean something as well.
The fact is that the bible was written (and since translated) by men, not God. I believe it was inspired by God, but God did not hold the pen, thus the bible is subject to human influence. I always look at what God was trying to acomplish rather than a literal translation. Much of what is in the bible are not things ethical or even possible today. Many of the things in the bible were written to prevent problems of that day, such as eating pork (it was unclean not because God loves or hates pigs but that pork made you sick if not preserved correctly.)
Circumcision is no different. At the time a child could die from an infection. I think God would certainly understand if, with boys best interests at heart, we left the choice up to them. If you are jewish you could teach and encourage your child to get circumcised when he is of age. Thus your pact with God is fulfilled. I cannot see God shoving boys out of heaven because their parents did not circumcise them. And that is what this is about, isn't it?
This is about how much power parents should have over their children. Should parents be able to damage their children for their own beliefs? To question this is not anti-semitism, it is reality. This are now issues, and they need to be discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 01:04 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are saying that because you believe in circumcision, the bible tells us that you have the right to force that belief on your sons, in an irriversable and disfiguring way. Why not wait until the child is 18, then he can choose to be circumcized. Then it would mean something as well.
How do you feel about a woman's right to choose (abortion on demand)? Do you likewise feel that all abortion should be illegal, even in the case of rape? Do you feel that abortion is not as bad as circumcision since the baby hasn't fully developed and left the woman's body yet?
How about the teaching we all provide our children from the moment they are born until they are 18? Don't you think that we affect their destiny much more profoundly through our everyday teachings than we could ever affect them by what I consider, a minor operation that removes the foreskin from our son's penis, a practice that has been directed by God? Should we wait until our children are 18 before we teach them all that we do so they can be old enough to judge everything we say critically in order to decide whether to accept what we say or not?
I think you're making a really big deal out of something very minor in effect but major in its purpose. If it were minor and had no significance, God would never have asked that it be done in the first place. Whatever His ultimate reasons were for it to be done, I don't doubt for one minute that they had to be really good reasons and there are major benefits to it.
And I think that you are arrogant and misguided in saying that all people regardless of their beliefs or religion should be restricted by law from following God's word.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 08:49 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
I do think that abortion should be illegal. It is the murder of a viable human being.
You consider the operation to be minor That is opinion. The medical facts support there are long term negative effects to routine infant circumcision.
God either directed or men chose, to put a lot of things in the Bible that were applicable at the time; through technology, which I feel God gave us, they are no longer applicable.
I feel this is one of them. At the time not caring for one's penis could have long term effects, like infection, amputation, and death. This is no longer the case.
I do not buy the minor in effect major in purpose. Sounds a little to convenient.
This is not arrogance. This is critical thinking. Many people, much smarter and well read than I, have had the same concerns.
I certainly will agree to disagree here, you are a literalist, I am not when it comes to Bible translation. I doubt either of us will change the others mind.
Would you agree that routine infant circumcision should be discouraged by doctors and information on long term effects given to parents at hospitals? That would not be an out right ban, but would give parents all the information. Then those of you who believe in it could chose to have it done, but everyone else would not be pressured?
The Bisciut Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:50 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#66)
|
|
|
|
|
And I think that you are arrogant and misguided in saying that all people regardless of their beliefs or religion should be restricted by law from following God's word.
That depends whether the purported divine command violates moral rules. It's not a universal claim, as you seem to suggest. Each divine command has to be considered separately. Most observances are perfectly acceptable in society. But others, if theuy involve religious fanaticism are not.
You unwittingly undermine your case by making the factually and medically invalid claim that circumcision is "minor." You need to define this adjective. You also need to educate yourself about what circumcision removes. It's causes a highly significant impairment. You may believe that as long as a man is capable of an erection, and he can ejaculate, that everything is fine. This view is false. This is not merely a question of more sensitivity either: the quality of the sensations, including a sensory feedback mechanism to control and delay orgasm, is removed. Also, the rolling action of the foreskin over the glans is destroyed. Circumcised sex is more irritating for the female. The circumcised penis is smaller.
Merely because your opinion that this is "minor" and you can do it to whomever you feel like doesn't make it "minor." Actually, I'm tired of offering olive branches, just because we both happen to be Jewish. I say ban the practice outright. I hope that if Roberts gets confirmed, he agrees that this is mutilation and bans the damned practice. Go to Israel if you insist on mutilating your sons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Acksiom on 08:16 PM September 1st, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
How exactly is that anti-semitism? You need to explain that clearly.
Because as far as I can tell, it's nothing more than the fundamental egalitarianism of denying *anybody*, *regardless* of race, creed, or whatever, the *special privilege* to commit genital mutilation against male children.
I'm sorry, Dittohd, but unless and until you provide a valid and supportable explanation as to why little boys should be denied the same basic right to genital integrity that is guaranteed to little girls by federal law, your position is by-default indefensible.
See: http://tinyurl.com/c2jcd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:01 AM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
So, let's review. Here's a quiz. Who is anti-semitic:
1) The man who cuts the genitals and sucks the blood of jewish babies with his own mouth.
2) The man who condemns this practise.
Anyone who thinks the answer is (2) has no sense of ethics whatsoever. Utterly immoral.
If you use the Bible as an excuse to defend this practise, then you yourself are anti-God and anti-religious, and probably anti-semitic. It's a horrid insult to Judaism to claim that this practise is inherent to the culture and the religion. We should have enough respect for Jews to condemn this ridiculous practise.
Here is my revelation to you: God does not need you to cut the genitals of babies.
Call me presumptuous. I don't care. Just put the knife away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 02:28 AM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>The man who cuts the genitals and sucks the blood of jewish babies with his own mouth.
Are you insinuating that this is common practice in a circumcision? Using an exception to the rule to make a point about an entire subject is deceitful and doesn't prove anything, except to people who may not know better. Seems like I read the article that talked about this case recently but I don't remember where I read it. I think I remember that it talked about two babies who died from contracting a disease from this mohel who did this and in the article it explained that this is not a common practice. There are all kinds and quality of doctors in this world (being a mohel, this guy is Jewish) and thousands of people die from doctors' malpractice every year.
Do you advocate that we stop every medical procedure in the United States where someone dies as a result of some doctor doing something stupid while performing that medical procedure?
>If you use the Bible as an excuse to defend this practise, then you yourself are anti-God and anti-religious, and probably anti-semitic. It's a horrid insult to Judaism to claim that this practise is inherent to the culture and the religion.
I didn't say that this practice is inherent to the Jewish culture and the religion. What I said is that in the Jewish bible, God directs this practice. I'm not using the bible to defend this practice, I'm reading directly from it. The bible is quite clear on this and requires no interpretation. Apparently you haven't read it otherwise you wouldn't have said what I quoted above.
>God does not need you to cut the genitals of babies.
I would like to respectfully advise that you read the section (paragraph) I've referred to. And no, I'm not going to lead you by the hand and tell you where to look since you didn't ask. (Hint: It's in the first book, Genesis). But there are books sold at all bookstores that will tell you where to look to find all the various subjects that you might find of interest in the bible. In fact, if you go down to a large bookstore like Barnes and Noble, you can probably find the section easily by using a copy of the bible and one of these guides, find and read the section I'm referring to and put both books back on the shelf without even having to spend any money.
By the way, do you believe in God? Do you believe that The Old Testament includes the word of God?
Dittohd
P.S. Considering the quality of your writing, I can understand why you choose to remain anonymous. If I were you, I would do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:17 AM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Dittohd, all persons have a God-given, inalienable right to uninterrupted sexual and physical development: all persons, not only females. Men too. It is religious fanaticism to violate this moral rule to follow a religious command.
And it is religious fanaticism to claim that advocating against the non-therapeautic diminution of a man's genitalia is anti-semitic. It stunts the growth of the penis and causes sexual problems. All patients have the right to refuse treatment.
I realize that there are religious fanatics in the world who insist on mutilating the genitalia of infants. They can't live with themselves unless they sever the frenar arteries, the frenulum, and foreshorten their male progeny's sexual organs by removing over 50% of the irreplacable, specialized skin and muscle of their sons' penises. Do they stop to consider that their sons might want a say in whether they get to keep 15 squate inches of specialized, irreplacable tissue in adulthood? Do they stop to consider that their sons might not want their arteries and veins severed, and their penile growth stunted? Do they stop to consider the gliding action of the foreskin is an asset during intercourse, and that the absence of a foreskin is irritating for the female? Do they stop to consider that a man might not want peno-scrotal webbing? That he might not like that his penis shrivels more than an intact man? That he can't stimulate his partner's G-spot without the foreskin, which would bunch up at the right area (funny how few people know this, since they think of the mutilated penis as the standard)?
This has more to do with envy and destructive impulses inherent in human nature. On some level, they know they are diminishing their sons' sexuality: all parents and doctors know this on some level, or else they would dismiss the claim that they are acting out of destructive impulses with hardly any emotion at all, instead of the vehement denials we see. Those vehement denials are suspicious: something more than meets the eye is going on here; those angry protests that circumcision is done out of love point to a psychological flaw in human nature.
Do you agree at least that non-therapeautic, non-religious involuntary circumcision is morally indefensible? If you call that anti-Semitic, then you are a religious fanatic or something is cognitively wrong, or both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:52 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
> Are you insinuating that this is common practice in a circumcision?
No, I'm not -- I posed a simple question: Which man is anti-semitic? Go back and re-read.
> I would like to respectfully advise that
> you read the section (paragraph) I've referred to.
God gave us many gifts, and one of these gifts is the Bible, another of them is a functioning brain. God did not intend for you to throw away these gifts without using them. He certainly did not intend for you to blindly follow orders that make no sense.
There are plenty of directives in the Bible which are not followed nowadays, for obvious reasons. The Bible condones all kinds of activity which we today do not condone.
Yes, I do believe in God, and I am quite sure that He does not want people to mutilate their babies.
You pulled out the sword -- you started using the words "anti-God" and "anti-religion." I'm throwing them right back at you. My humble opinion is that male genital mutilation is wrong, and using the Bible to justify it is anti-God and anti-religous. If you think it's unfair to use these words, then don't use them yourself. You are no more of a spokesman for God than I am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:04 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Religious commands do not invalidate moral rules. Only religious fanatics and imbeciles believe this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 12:02 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
"You haven't done your homework and you're still arguing? Shame on you. I'm sending you to bed tonight without your supper.
Furthermore, I'm not going to argue with you any further until you get a user ID and identify yourself as the anonymous poster whom I had to send to bed without his supper for not doing his homework."
I, for one, DO have a user ID. And the homework I've done tells me that doctors, more and more, are describing male circumcision as a completely unnecessary practice. That's good enough for me.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 02:44 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>...doctors, more and more, are describing male circumcision as a completely unnecessary practice. That's good enough for me.
Let's see, who do I trust more? Human beings? God? Human beings? God? Gee, tough choice!
And by the way, I never said you couldn't trust or follow or even worship doctors. This whole big argument started when one of the posters said that circumcision should be made against the law to everyone, regardless of religion.
Since I don't care who you worship or believe or follow and you apparently do care who others believe or worship or follow based on whose side you're arguing for, it is you who are the interloper and busybody and telling me that all you care about is what some doctors say is irrelevant. What some doctors say means nothing because anyone can always find doctors to argue any side of any coin because all doctors are different. The only entity involved here that consistently stays the same is God's direction.
By the way, who said circumcision was a necessary practice? Certainly not me. Or even God, for that matter. As far as I'm concerned, you can do or not do anything you want. And I couldn't care less which you choose. I'm going to step in and argue, though, when people tell me they want a law passed making following my God's direction, as clearly stated in the Old Testament, against the law for everyone.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:36 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see, who do I trust more? Human beings? God? Human beings? God? Gee, tough choice!
Then it's clear that Dittohd is a religious fanatic: someone who would violate moral rules, and the law, to follow religious commands. He's not amenable to reason. It's not a men's rights issue for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 01:59 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Then it's clear that Dittohd is a religious fanatic
I keep saying to myself that I'm going to ignore these anonymous little boys, but it's so hard. I just had to ask:
Do you also consider God to be a religious fanatic?
Also,
Where do you get your moral rules from? Do you get them from any particular place or do you just make them up as you go along?
Finally,
What law are you saying I would violate?
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:12 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
Do you also consider God to be a religious fanatic?
A religious fanatic is a person who violates moral rules to follow religious commands.
Also,
Where do you get your moral rules from? Do you get them from any particular place or do you just make them up as you go along?
Good question. The right to uninterrupted sexual development comes from consideration of the moral rules. A statement of the moral rules is given in Morality: Its Nature and Justification, by Dartmouth philosopher Bernard Gert.The moral rules are implicit in accounts of Judeo-Christian morality.
Here's a list of moral rules violated by routine infant circumcision.
1. The moral rule do not deprive a person of pleasure (by desensitizing the organ and limiting its function); you may have a low opinion of other person's right to pursue pleasure, but it is not your business, you may not violate this moral rule without consequences; your rights must be violated in some way before you can be justified in violating any of the moral rules, and all impartial rational persons must agree that the violation is justified;
2. The moral rule do not deprive a person of freedom (by removing the choice to decide whether to undergo this procedure, and by limiting options to pleasure others);
3. The moral rule do not cause pain;
4. The moral rule do not disable (the procedure is sexually diminishing -- statistical evidence is available in the scientific literature, and anecdotal accounts from restoring men and their partners is available); see my previous post about what is lost, and also see the lost list--don't let a woman tell you you don't need your foreskin because she doesn't like them, since it's not her body. Feminists should have a deep appreciation for sentiments like that. After all: when it comes to their bodies, it's their body. Unless you believe that their bodies are worth more than male bodies. You may not agree with the feminists. In that case, the rule stands on its own.
In cases where the procedure causes death
5. The moral rule do not kill
is violated (a no-brainer).
Since doctors, and even the AAP recommendation do not provide parents with before and after photographs of the procedure (a medically responsible thing to provide for what might generously called plastic surgery--though this is not ordinarily supposed to result in loss of neurological function), inform parents about the possibility of distressing complications such as trapped penis, as happened to a relative of mine, inform parents what anatomical parts their son can look forward to missing in his adult life, and how the loss of sensory feedback mechanisms due to the amputation will affect his (and his future partner's) perception and performance of sexual intercourse and foreplay
6. The moral rule do not deceive
is also violated. Indeed, it's fairly certain that doctors and health-care professionals do not properly inform parents of precisely the specialized structures that are permanently removed by the practice. In addition, doctors take the Hippocratic oath, so
7. The moral rule to keep your promises
is violated, along with the general moral rule to
8. Do your duty.
and
9. Do not cheat.
These are violated in several ways. One way is that circumcising physicians will decline to say what the long-term negative effects of the procedure are, and will refer anyone who asks to a sex therapist. This is medically irresponsible. Surgeons should know the possible complications of the surgeries they perform, and must inform patients. They can't fob that responsibility off on others.
What are some of the complications?
Circumcision impairs sexual functioning; when performed on infants, it decreases the blood supply to the organ, and stunts its growth--see, for example, the lost list. Note the effects of the amputation of the frenar artery, and the forcible removal of the prepuce from the glans (a procedure analogous to removing a nail from the nail bed), which prevents the glans from completing its development. The volume of the intact glans is 12% greater than that of a circumcised glans, due to the altered blood flow (referred to as "back-flow") and scarring. Doctors don't inform parents and patients about these effects, so they can fairly be called professionally irresponsible.
Often, you'll hear a circumcising doctor claim that sex problems aren't his specialty; however, ignorance of the long term effects of this surgery, which removes what would normally become 15 square inches of specialized, irreplacable tissue; three feet of veins and arteries; and betweeen ten and twenty-thousand nerves in adulthood, can also fairly be called professionally irresponsible.
Yet all of this is acceptable for boys. Men don't want to admit they were impaired--a little experience restoring would be a real eye opener for them. The assumption is that if you can reproduce and ejaculate, you're still ok. FALSE. You can't experience "whole body" orgasms; you have no foreskin for foreplay, which many cirucmcised men want to skip, because it's not pleasurable--it has to become an intellectual exercise undertaken for the benefit of your partner since the sensory experience is gone; your neurological map is altered; you have no forekin to stimulate the G-spot of the female; and the mechanics of intercourse are different--hard thrusting is needed. Restoring--a process which takes several years--can reverse some of these effects significantly enough to be worth it for many men, and it give a person a sense of control over his body. There's no reason to give in entirely to the "medical-industrial complex."
With infant circumcision, generally so much skin is removed that the deficit has to be made up from scrotal and pubic skin, leading to penile webbing, and other complications which exacerbate the tendency of the immobilized, taut skin of the circumcised penis to pump out the female's lubrication during intercourse, leading to dryness and irritation; this effect does not happen with intact genitals. The experience of restoring men and men circumcisied in adulthood confirm these effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 11:30 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#56)
|
|
|
|
|
"Let's see, who do I trust more? Human beings? God? Human beings? God? Gee, tough choice!"
Then trust God, rather than a Bible that was written by human beings.
Or do you also believe in animal sacrifice (Lev. 1:9) and putting to death anyone who works on the Sabbath (35:2)?
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 09:45 AM September 7th, 2005 EST (#110)
|
|
|
|
|
My bad. I left out the book.
Exodus 35:2 -- "On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be complete rest to the Lord. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."
So GOD is telling us that we are free to take out anyone who violates the blue laws. Sez so right here.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 09:41 PM September 7th, 2005 EST (#117)
|
|
|
|
|
|
BG,
I read both your Bible references. These are my opinions concerning them.
#1 Animal sacrifice. I don't support animal sacrifice today, but would have back then. The purpose of the sacrifice is replaced today by the giving of money rather than an animal that previously was used by the owner for food. Today, money is used to produce food and the tything of our money serves the same purpose that the sacrificing of an animal did back then.
The sacrifice of an animal by a person that owned and used the animal for food is, in my opinion, a sacrifice against the person as he loses the animal which either provided food for that person and his family or was used to plow a field to produce food.
Anyone who cries that the killing of animals for food or sacrifice to God is cold and cruel must also say that the killing of animals that we do as a society for food (chickens, cows, fish, etc) and all other reasons is likewise cruel. And killing such an animal for sacrifice to God as opposed to killing it and eating it is not a whole lot different to the animal. Either way, the animal's fate is the same. (I know, I know, man is this guy cold!) Furthermore, as a society, we pay animal shelters in just about every city in the U.S. to collect stray animals and kill them by the thousands every week, just because they are homeless. In fact, Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) volunteers, the purported kings and queens of the animal protectors, were recently caught dumping dead animals into garbage dumpsters and when investigators went back and checked the records of the PETA-run animal shelter, they found they were killing their animals at a much higher rate than any of the other "regular" shelters nearby.
So I have a really hard time taking people seriously who yell animal cruelty when in fact, we are all supporting the widespread killing of animal pets (not those used for food) through our tax and charitable giving dollars. If we really cared, we would find alternative homes for every one of these homeless dogs and cats, in one way or other, no matter what it took. Don't you think?
#2 Putting to death anyone who works on the Sabbath. I don't believe that when this statement was made, it was meant that the people would do the putting to death since God stated the law, "Thou shalt not kill" as one of our ten commandments. God no doubt meant that He would do the "putting to death" in one way or other and since God is the one who created us, I would say he certainly has the right and ability to take us back out. Evidently, at the time, He felt that keeping the Sabbath was that important and the circumstances warranted it. Today there are plenty of people not keeping the Sabbath and they are not dying soon after the infraction, so maybe He's softened his stance a bit or decided to pay them back in a more subtle way. But then God is God, so he can do anything he wants and change his tactics whenever He deems it appropriate.
This is my last post on this subject. I've had enough. I must say I picked up a couple of things I didn't know before, found a source of information I want to utilize to read further on the subject, and will be thinking all this over for a while since I admit I'm conflicted on a point or two at the moment.
Thanks for the workout.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:55 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, I don't necessarily believe that boys and girls should be treated identically or equally. And I don't believe that too many other people in this world do either, except maybe the feminazis as a smoke screen for the purpose of actually obtaining increased rights for women whenever they feel that it's in their best interest.
Dittohd
Moral rules must be applied impartially to all persons: gender is not a consideration. They must even be applied impartially to morons such as yurself, who cannot understand them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:29 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
It says nothing about my level of intelligence: it says something about my level of frustration. I have a low tolerance--probably lower than I should--for persons with weak or impaired reasoning ability. I am ungenerous: I should feel pity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:58 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
My guess is that you're a liberal Democrat and that you voted for Algore, if you even voted at all.
Although this is irrelevant, you should know that
Christopher Hitchens, who is writing against circumcision, is a hawk, as this article by historian Juan Cole points out. So much for the theory that only liberal democrats oppose involuntary circumcision.
I see that there is no getting through to you.
So I see that politically, the best one can hope for, to protect the rights of men from the scourge of involuntary genital mutilation, is to outlaw non-therapeautic non-religious circumcision. If you are unfortunate enough to be the son of practicing Jews or Muslims (my mother was Jewish but did not practice, and my father was Catholic), your penis may well be mutilated, ten-thousands to twenty-thousand nerves removed and one quarter of its total length shortened without your consent.
Perhaps, if this is your dismal fate, in adulthood you may find out what was done to you, and you may decide to join the thousands of restoring men. Restoring men will tell you that restoring is the best thing they've ever done for themseves: none of whom regret their decision. They care about their right to uninterrupted physical development, their quality of life and the quality of their relationships with their partners. The act of restoring is a political statement: a negation of the branding of the medical-industrial complex, and of the callous disregard for the rights of the individual, for freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
But outlawing non-religious circumcision may be the best one can hope for, given the intransigence of the fanatical desire to mutilate babies--to violate moral rules in the purported survice of religious commands. It seems like paedophilia to me to insist on doing this, and to say that God commands it. But it may be the only politically feasible thing to do, given people who would believe, in effect that being against slavery (circumcision) is anti-white (anti-Semitic).
Finally, there are those who are threatened by the outlawing of non-religious non-therapeautic circunmcision, claiming anti-semitism. I offer my heartfelt condolences to their defective cognitive abilities: they are obviously not mental giants. It is not anti-Semitism, but one cannot take responsibility for those who cannot reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 03:05 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Although this is irrelevant, you should know that Christopher Hitchens, who is writing against circumcision, is a hawk, as this article by historian Juan Cole points out. So much for the theory that only liberal democrats oppose involuntary circumcision.
Who cares about Christopher Hitchens or whether or not he writes for or against circumcision?
I was referring to you, and my logic had nothing whatsoever to do with your support of circumcision. I was referring to your quick loss of brain power in an argument and the speed at which you found it necessary to resort to name-calling.
Since you avoided answering my questions concerning your political affiliation and who you last voted for, we'll all assume that I was 100% right on in my logic... both of them. Ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! :-}
Still didn't get your own user ID Mr. Anonymous? I also see you still didn't do your homework assignment either. Shame on you, little boy.
I have a suggestion. Why don't you sign all your future posts "Little Boy" so everyone will know which of our anonymous posters they are talking to each time they try to address one of your postings. It's not as good as an official user ID, but it's better than nothing.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:15 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
How do you determine a person's reasoning ability? Whether or not they agree with you and how quickly they come around to your way of thinking if they don't after listening to your rant?
I determine this on the basis of their ability to follow an argument and respond to it. Lower levels of cognitive ability are in evidence when: a person exhibits a pattern of asserting invalid arguments and appears incapable of recognizing them as such; the same formula is repeated endlessly, without justification; and when a person is incapable of comprehending other perspectives. This is what I see in your case.
You haven't responded to the statement of the moral rules.
Your response to the possibility of a restricted ban on non-religious, non-therapeatic circumcsion is that it is "anti-Semitic." This does not follow.
A restricted ban on non-religious, non-therapeautic circumcision was an attempt to see things from your perspective. It is imperfect, from my perspective, but it leaves you free to remove what you mistakenly believe to be a flap of skin, instead of specialized tissue intended to enhance your son's reproductive fitness, from your children; and it leaves my children safe from genital busybodies, religious fanatics, unscrupulous doctors and sadistic lunatics.
I'm half Jewish, so I can get away with saying this: did it ever occur to you why Jews joke that foreplay is 30 minutes of begging? It's because Jewish women are left high and dry by the circumcised penis. I myself will NEVER get involved with any woman who has or who would dare mutilate her sons. NEVER.
My attempts to respect your religion have elicited no response from you. I conclude that your reasoning ability is either clouded by the emotion of fanaticism, or that it is otherwise impaired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:30 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
Who cares about Christopher Hitchens or whether or not he writes for or against circumcision?
You do, presumably, if you are replying to a post on the Mens Activism site entitled "Hitchens on circumcision." It seems as if you have completely forgotten the context and your reason for posting. I rest my case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 08:03 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
"I was referring to your quick loss of brain power in an argument and the speed at which you found it necessary to resort to name-calling."
Hee hee-pot calling the kettle black, eh?
TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:55 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see. My guess is that you're a liberal Democrat and that you voted for Algore, if you even voted at all. Am I right?
Wrong: I'm further to the right than you are. After discussing this with you, I've decided to hell with your religious freedom to mutilate others. I hope that Roberts becomes Chief Justice of the United States, that Bush pushes through a conservative judge to satisfy the right wing Christians, that the United States becomes a Christian Theocracy and that they outlaw your miserable, vicious, petty little practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 03:03 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>You haven't responded to the statement of the moral rules.
Geez! Seems your posting of the moral rules, posting #50, is dated Sep 5th, 11:12 A.M. Your complaint above that I haven't answered is dated Sep 5th, 4:15 P.M. Only about 5 hours! Do you think I sit by my computer all day and constantly watch for your postings so that I can answer them while you sit by your computer anxiously waiting for my replies?
How long ago did I ask you to get a user ID and use it and you still haven't gotten one, or used it? Sorry, but I have a tendency not to take anonymous posters too seriously. If you want to be taken seriously, act like it.
I'm thinking about changing my policy on this website. I'm thinking about answering all the anonymous posters in the future that I can't resist commenting on with my own anonymous posts. All others I will ignore.
I've already typed several posts to other posters (with user ID's) and it's 2:55 A.M. I'm going to bed. I'll get back to you when and if I have the time.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:46 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#77)
|
|
|
|
|
I'll get back to you when and if I have the time.
Translation: Dittohd does not know enough about the subject to forumulate a substantive reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:34 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#92)
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't care less what Christopher Hitchens says on circumcision either and I'm posting on this board, reacting to your stupid, assinine post. I can't imagine why Dittohd would care either considering his stance on circumcision.
Another blithering idiot in favor of mutilating little boys. Mens activism is wasted on you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:34 AM September 7th, 2005 EST (#100)
|
|
|
|
|
If you had bothered to read the article at the link and the surrounding posts, you would have discovered a couple things:
1. Prof. Juan Cole wrote a critique of Cristopher Hitchens' articile; Cole's article is in Salon
2. Hitchens is a Hawk
3. Hitchens authored the article in Slate against a certain lethal practice of circumcision
4. Dittohd accused an anonymous poster of being a liberal democrat for his (or her) opposition to circumcision
5. The example of Hitchens shows that the theory that someone has to be a liberal democrat to be against circumcision, or at least against the ceratin lethal circumcision practices is false.
Too bad you are so entitled you have to be spoon fed, and can't figure out elementary things like that out for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:56 PM September 7th, 2005 EST (#116)
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing extremist about concern for following the moral rules, and improving discourse about them. You are mistaken.
And no, I have no affilitation whatsoever with NOCIRC or any other organization against circumcision. I speak as an individual. I regard your unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks as trolling.
Mars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 05:33 PM September 1st, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
But violation of a baby boy's rights are? Even if they are, by no means is that any reason for the law to sanction it.
Also, just because someone criticizes a practice in a religion doesn't make them bigoted against that religion. Plenty of people for example object to the Cath church's practice of penance by confession, but that doesn't make them anti-Catholic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:57 AM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
It is pathetic that LibertyUNH lacks the intellectual horsepower to understand that affirming the inalianble right to one's own body, which for men includes the right to uninterrupted sexual and physical development, does not amount to anti-Semitism. This is intellectually dishonest or simple-minded.
He even fails to see that NONRELIGIOUS NONTHERAPEAUTIC circumcision violates moral rules, and there is no anti-Semitism or anti-religious sentiment there. Let me say it again, you moron, NONRELGIOUS NONTHERAPEAUTIC circumcision is morally wrong and cannot be called anti-religious. Insisting that it is, when it is explicitly not-religious (or ethnic) is moronic. Stupid. There is no polite way to say it.
Defend your position, if you have any functioning neurons.
Moreover, it is no more anti-Semitic to expect to grow up with an anatomically complete penis, than it is anti-white to be against slavery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 08:12 PM September 1st, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I just want to point out here that anti-Semitism is a bigotry against an ethnic designation, not a religion as such. It is easy though to get this mixed up and I think that has been happening in the comments.
Judaism is distinct from most other religions in that it has a long history of tying birth-affiliation/ethnicity to religious its identity, both internally by those who identify themselves as being Jewish and those who don't. This tendency of people to see being Jewish as being an ethnic designation and a religious identity leads to a great many problems, mostly for Jewish people.
Understand however that there is a means of making it clear that yet even in Judaism, there is a distinction between the ethnicity and the faith. Even in the most conservative strains of Judaism, a person born to a non-Jewish mother can become a Jew by doing certain things, mostly studying really hard, keeping to certain practices, and taking lots of tests. After that person becomes a Jew, the tradition is that no one may ever mention that he was not a Jew *or that his family isn't Jewish*. When one is accepted into the Jewish faith, it's 100% - an ethnic conversion essentially takes place, from a Judaic legal perspective.
I can think of no other place, religion, or society where one can somehow "change his ethnicity" in this way. So this leads to confusion of definitions and mix-ups regarding motivations. This is true even among Jews. Simply put: oy, what a mess!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:47 AM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Involuntary neonatal circumcision is genital terrorism. Some have suggested a more adopting a more neutral stance. Some even object to the term "Male Genital Mutilation" and prefer to speak of "modification," a term of sufficient vagueness as to inappropriately suggest such relatively benign practices as ear-piercing, and to cloud the moral thesis that persons own their own bodies, and therefore deserve their own say in their physical and sexual development. On the contrary, given a commitment to the thesis that persons own their own bodies, a neutral position on routine infant circumcision seems incoherent. Moreover, anti-FGM (female genital mutilation) advocates use the term "terrorism" to characterize FGM. In connection with the sanctimonious institution of routine infant circumcision, the well-established rhetorical usage of the term "terrorism" by anti-FGM activists and feminists is broadened to include the institutionalized genital mutilation of all sexes, females, males and the intersexed.
I believe that men must be willing to speak out against what was done to them without their consent. Taking this like a man, especially if you were a neonate at the time, is counterproductive! What we should be taking like men is the conventional stigma directed towards men who express their failure to appreciate having their rights violated. As far as genital integrity is concerned, men have been less successful than intersexuals and women. Intersexuals have managed to obtain a sympathetic hearing within the medical community regarding neonatal gender re-assignment--many would prefer the option to decide for themselves whether to undergo surgery when they reach the age of consent. All sexes deserve impartial treatment in this regard.
Opposition to routine infant circumcision is not anti-religious. While some religious fanatics have attempted to press this rhetorical nonsense, I maintain that opposition to routine infant circumcision is no more anti-religious (or anti-Semitic or anti-Musilm) than opposition to slavery is anti-white.
There is no correlation between the desire to restore and sexual orientation, as one early reactionary medical paper in the literature suggests.
Regarding foreskin restoration:
Restoring is not a fetish: it concerns doing what has to be done to become whole, and getting on with one's life. Unfortunately, there is all too little support in the North American medical establishment for restoring men (see however, Doctors Opposing Circumcision). So a subculture has flourished, which hopes to join the mainstream one day, and then, if its mission is fulfilled, and the institution of genital terrorism is abolished, to vanish, like foot-binding, along with that barbaric practice into the ash heap of history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:20 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, by that time parents will/can just genetically engineer their sons not to have foreskins as is their wish, or do things that do not yet exist and may not ever exist have rights (like the right to be born with a foreskin)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:34 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
Science fiction has nothing to do with rights that are being violated, and minimized by genital terrorists today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:50 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
Leaving aside religious reasons for a second, I'm glad that these debates continually reinforce that on medical grounds, there is not a single shred of evidence that there is a single benefit derived from routine infant male circumcision.
For example, deaths from urinary tract infection in infant males are significantly lower than that from routine circumcision complications.
Equally, penile cancer is virtually unknown in Scandinavia - countries with the lowest circumcision rates in the world.
Indeed, male circumcision is almost the only procedure carried out in such huge numbers where the word "preventative" is used to justify it. Logically, if that were a medical tenet, most females should have their breasts removed at puberty to help prevent future incidences of breast cancer - a disease with an exponentially higher incidence rate compared to penile cancer and urinary tract infection deaths combined.
So medically, there is NO justifiable rationale for this procedure on anyone - male or female.
Ironically, "religious" and "traditional" are two of the key justifications used in female genital mutilation in those cultures which practice it. This has not stopped WHO, numerous governments and all internationally recognised human rights groups condemning and attempting to outlaw it. They have succeeded in many cases too.
It is hard not to believe that sometime in the future, routine infant male circumcision will be considered in the same vein, and a religious justification will be no exemption.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 02:43 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#81)
|
|
|
|
|
What percentage of Circumcised males have complained about being circumcised without their consent?
Almost NONE.. percentage wise I think it would be less than 1%. It seems most men that complain have not been circumcised. I have known thousands of circumcised men & little boys and I have never heard any of them lament about their foreskin or lack of it. Also as an OBSERVATION this is an act that has been going on for thousands of years and never has it been an issue until now.
As to the benefits of circumcision; their have been studies that say it helps against the spread of STDs. Also psychological studies on the affects of a son wanting to be like his dad etc..
“Circumcision can reduce the risk of men contracting Aids as a result of heterosexual intercourse by about 65%, according to a new study released last week by French scientists”
….OR TRY THIS ONE
“The latest experiments, carried out at the Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago, US, took samples of the tissues of the foreskin kept alive in culture and deliberately exposed them to the virus. They found that cells in the tissues called Langerhans cells actually reached out to grab the virus, draw it into the tissue, and even transport it to the lymph glands, from where it can begin its assault on the immune system.“
There have been a number of studies that have shown the advantages of male circumcision; the only problem it is not fashionable to propagate these studies. One other point there is the aesthetic issue of being circumcised.
“Restoring” it’s a fetish. Brainwashing: like the radical feminist brainwashing women into hating all men; making them view men as potential rapist, abusers blah blah blah. Mention it enough times and spice it up and then it becomes a trend. Cool: I am metro-male, pro-feminist, pro-abortion, anti-circumcision, misandrist (self-loathing), hetrophobic dumb-ass. The ideally twisted radical feminist!
I think for a good experiment on the affects of circumcision one needs to get rid of condoms and then make a comparison on STDs between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Of-course it would be slightly unethical.
As to female circumcision: well that is a totally different ball game. I have not come across any scientific news for its case, and as to religious view: I hold it is more on tradition than religion. I personally am totally against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:22 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#82)
|
|
|
|
|
The studies you refer to have serious methodological flaws.
Consider this:
http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/circumcisio n-india.html
Or read it here.
I am the executive secretary of Doctors Opposing Circumcision. I have
been asked to send you some material relative to the effectiveness of
circumcision at preventing HIV infection.
There is a recent story on the menstuff website that claims that intact
men have an eight-fold greater chance of contracting HIV infection. This
story is filled with inaccuracies.
Some circumcision studies were in fact carried out in Pune, India. They
had severe methodological flaws. In India, Muslim men are circumcised,
but Hindu men are not circumcised. The two groups studied came from
different religions and cultures.
The Cochrane Library is the leading source of evidence-based medicine.
The Cochrane Library recently published an exhaustive comprehensive
review of the evidence relating to the use of circumcision to prevent HIV
infection. That review included the Pune studies.
That review is available on line at:
www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/cochrane2003/ The file is very large
and slow loading so be patient. The Pune studies are listed as
Mehendale 96 and Mehendale 96a.
They have serious methodological flaws according to the Cochrane
Review. The studies are of "high-risk" individuals who attend Sexually
Transmitted Infection (STI) clinics and may not be applicable to general
population groups.
The Cochrane Library concluded, after an exhaustive two year analysis,
that there is insufficient evidence to support a intervention by
circumcision.
I might also mention that the incidence of HIV infection in the United
States, where most men are circumcised, is four times higher than the
incidence of HIV infection in Europe where most men are not
circumcised.
Three new random controlled trials (RCT) are underway. These may
provide better information on the value of circumcision in preventing
HIV. The data will have be carefully analyzed and the many negatives
factors associated with circumcised considered before a
recommendation for circumcision can be made.
It is very probable that Reynold's interpretation is influenced by North
American culture, which tends to favor circumcision.
Abstinence or safe-sex are the only safe preventive measures that can
be taken.
Very truly yours,
George Hill
Executive Secretary
Doctors Opposing Circumcision
Suite 42, 2442 NW Market Street
Seattle, Washington 98107
Web site: www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
Even if the research is true, it is not justified: all persons have the right to refuse treatment.
Restoring is not a fetish. Nor is it part of a victim mentality as you and Dittohd maintain.
Which of these are on the list of demands from
restorers?
handicap parking permits
monthly compensation checks
government payment for restoration costs
employment application considerations
job security protection
affirmative action in education efforts
counseling and training for employment
security
None of them. Absolutely none.
As for the aesthetic issue, that is entirely spurious. It's fine for an adult who consents to an elective procedure. It is immoral to impose it on innocents. You, sir, are a genital terrorist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 10:26 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#87)
|
|
|
|
|
And you sir, are one well spoken man. Your comment is well appreciated here.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:59 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#88)
|
|
|
|
|
Note: the letter is by George Hill; the text before and after the letter is by an anonymous poster, not George Hill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 09:33 AM September 7th, 2005 EST (#107)
|
|
|
|
|
"As to female circumcision: well that is a totally different ball game. I have not come across any scientific news for its case, and as to religious view: I hold it is more on tradition than religion. I personally am totally against it."
Suuuuuuuuure. "That's a totally different ball game" and you're "totally against it." In other words, "that's different."
What if someone showed you a study that demonstrated that circumsized WOMEN are 65% less likely to contract AIDS? Would you then turn around and defend female circumcision?
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What if someone showed you a study that demonstrated that circumsized WOMEN are 65% less likely to contract AIDS? Would you then turn around and defend female circumcision?
Probably not. I could be wrong, but he's probably a chivalrous male who feels like it's his Kantian duty to protect those gentle, delicate flowers known as "women" while turning a blind eye to baby boys being butchered, the 14th Amendment be damned.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:40 AM September 8th, 2005 EST (#119)
|
|
|
|
|
As to female circumcision: well that is a totally different ball game. I have not come across any scientific news for its case, and as to religious view: I hold it is more on tradition than religion. I personally am totally against it.
How admirably chivalrous of you:
To hold the female body sacrosanct,
but hold the infant male in circumstraint!
Impress upon the man he will become:
his genitals are up for grabs; take aim
and forefold cut away his sexu'l self!
To further depredation thus inured
in sacrifice to your chivalrous god!
Skin for[e] skin!
All that a man has
he will give for his life.
But put forth thy hand now, and
touch his bone and his flesh
and he will curse thee to thy face.
[Job 2:4-5]
Mars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 06:51 AM September 8th, 2005 EST (#121)
|
|
|
|
|
Very funny on the chivalry comments: so funny that my foreskin split and dropped off! See any humour in that?
I replied here and then here
These nesting threads can get a bit messy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:01 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#83)
|
|
|
|
|
Castrate Circumcising is the blog of an intactivist who wants to see the end of this involuntary surgery.
Metropolitan Area Restoring Support has a message board with opinion pieces about the ethics of involuntary penile reduction.
A cost-effectiveness study by physician Robert S. Van Howe, MD, MS, FAAP, Department of Pediatrics, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, estimates that 1 in 1000 men will restore. Many more are unhappy about their circumcision status. From the study: "Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. The only ones to gain from this unnecessary and harmful surgery are the attending physicians and hospitals."
Most men who find out that their penises were made substantially smaller by this operation are not happy about it. There are many restoring men who find that they gain 1/2", 1" and even in a few cases 2" of length, once they grow enough skin to accomodate their erections. A 1" increase in girth is not uncommon. The movable skin, instead of a dowel rod, is also appreciated by the partners of restoring men. The circumcised penis tends to pump out the lubrication of the female; anatomically complete men do not have this problem.
Decircumcision, or restoring, has been practiced for thousands of years. Recently, with the advent of the internet, techniques have improved. Details on this ancient procedure are available on the Wikipedia.
The ad hominem remarks of the gentleman below are incorrect. It is not a fetish. I too believed that foreskin restoration was ludicrous when I first heard about it. Unlike the medical miracles that appear in spam email, foreskin restoration works, and is based on the medical princple of tissue expansion.
I share the belief with the anonymous poster that all persons have an inalienable right to uninterrupted sexual development.
The poster who advocates involuntary prophylactic circumcision for HIV prevention is probably unaware that the same (methodologically flawed) studies which show a correlation between infection resistance and circumcision also show this for circumcised females! Also, the arguments would justify mandatory mastectomies at birth, since that would result in a near 100% reduction in the incidence of breast cancer for involuntarily treated female children, as the incident rate of breast cancer is several orders of magnitude higher than for penile cancer.
It is tragic to see men's rights activists vehemently defending the right to mutilate baby boys, and to reduce their reproductive fitness.
Mars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 05:01 PM September 7th, 2005 EST (#114)
|
|
|
|
|
“Some circumcision studies were in fact carried out in Pune, India. They had severe methodological flaws. In India, Muslim men are circumcised, but Hindu men are not circumcised. The two groups studied came from different religions and cultures.”
Like I said before; the best study would involve getting rid of condoms. One of the links I gave you was new; not done in India but by a French agency in South Africa; and the other was in a lab using petri dishes (2000).
As to the comparison of Aids in Europe and America and its correlation with circumcision; what about Russia? Or why doesn’t George compare it to Africa? The fact is sexual practices between Europeans and America differ; it is an unscientific statement.
“Genital Terrorist”: Don’t say that. That is offensive because you are not only insulting me but my lineage. Right now it is still an open debate of whether there are any benefits to it or not.
Most of the circumcised World does not seem to have an issue with it. It is the spoiled developed world; where I think more men & women become emotionally unbalanced. The fact is the majority of circumcised men do not complain about lack of foreskin. It's not an issue. I think to those who want to restore their foreskin; it only became an issue to them when they began reading about it in negative sites. I bet when they were kids they thought of themselves as normal. Having no clue to what a foreskin is. Like myself: when I was a kid I never new what the heck circumcision was: my little pee-pee was always my little pee-pee: it was never an issue and still isn’t. And I am sure and pray that it will be the case also for the boys of the Lady who had them circumcised though I am sorry to have read it was in such unethical manner.
As to the point of female circumcision; I think this is one area where males have the advantage of government health research spending. There aren’t many studies on the matter; as it is not really an issue in the developed world. And I would not be surprised that most studies on it are against female circumcision; because it would be coming from a Western point of view.
Also the female circumcision is not as simple as the males. The practices involved vary greatly; from a little snip of the clitoris to almost total removal of the labia and clitoris. Also it is sometimes accompanied by the practice of stitching the vagina almost shut; only allowing space for liquid to pass through. Can you see any medical advantage to that? One doesn’t need a study to realise that the extreme case is actually pretty evil thing to do. As to the minor snip: personally I am still against it.
“Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.”
Duh! What a clever boy! Let me just add one more thing Men are Men and Women are Women. We are different and our bodies are different. Male Circumcision is not the same as female circumcision though amazingly we are both from Earth. So do not compare the two different procedures as equals because they aren’t.
I have no issue with somebody else’s daughter getting circumcised; I just would not do it to my own “daughters”; in my early post when I said I’m against it I meant personally. I do not think it should be banned unless there is conclusive medical evidence against it. If it falls within a countries law it should be regulated like male circumcision and other medical operations.
“It is tragic to see men's rights activists vehemently defending the right to mutilate baby boys, and to reduce their reproductive fitness.”
I have been circumcised not mutilated; and little circumcised boys would not like to be vilified and physiological damaged by being told they are mutilated. People (MEN) do not have to agree on everything when fighting for something as vast as men’s right. A ban to male circumcision is one thing many Religious men and women and American’s are against: it would be a shame to lose a vast majority of men’s-activism due to this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:38 PM September 7th, 2005 EST (#115)
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the circumcised World does not seem to have an issue with it. It is the spoiled developed world; where I think more men & women become emotionally unbalanced
Read the statement of the moral rules. Involuntary circumcision violates virtually all of them. All persons have a right to develop without interruption, like it or not. This ad hominem attack it fails to come to grips with the notion that persons own their own bodies. How can the anti-abortion crowd insist that the babies they want to save don't own their own bodies? They are utterly inconsistent. So is the pro-abortion crowd if they believe that a person owns their own body after birth. The evidence is that the foreskin is necessary for sexual activity; it's absence impedes it and impairs bonding between sexual partners.
You blame feminism for getting between men and women. I submit that is only part of the reason: you have to allow that the prevalence of genital mutilation has corrupted the natural sexual interactions between the sexes, and has contributed to the destabilization of relations between men and women. Doesn't it ever occur to you that you might be missing something? Doesn't it occur to you that your penis is smaller and shorter than it should be, because it's missing half or more of its skin system, with its irreplacable tissues, nerves, muscles and specialized structures? Don't you deserve better? Don't millions of American men deserve better, than to have their sexual development stunted, at a time when they are most vulnerable? Do you like having your glans rubbing against your underware? I never did.
Denial is a powerful defense mechanism. Keep rationalizing this butchery to yourself if you must. But keep your goddammed knives away from the genitals of others. You cannot stand to leave others alone, since you need them to have stunted, wizened penises like yours. That's the psychology.
You think you're fine: but, unfortunately, a spectrum of sensations that would have given you fine control over your sexual response has been removed, to your detriment, and more importantly, to the detriment of your sexual partners.
The reason why men don't talk about this is because they are duped into believing that everything is fine. And they want to believe that everything is fine. This is denial. I did. I was in denial. I respectfully suggest that you may be in denial.
But then I learned. That's what men's activism is about: how many issues of men's rights were obvoius to you before the advent of the internet? Did you know that cops were themselves the target of the same domestic violence policies they are required to implement, before the internet? Did you know as much as you did about men's rights, before the internet? Did you believe that you were really better off as a man than you now believe, thanks to what you've learned here? Now you've changed.
Does that mean that because you live in the "spoiled developed world" where "more men & women become emotionally unbalanced" that instead of learning something new, and joining the ranks of MRAs, you became "emotionally unbalanced" by what you read, or did you learn something: something that on some gut level you might have always felt was wrong, but never articulated?
You've learned something about what it means to be a man today, thanks to sites like this. And now I'm telling you about a form of oppression that you might not have considered previously, a form just as insidious as all the other forms you've learned about here, through your association with men's rights activists, and perhaps more insidious: because what cirucmcision does strikes directly at your sexual identity as a man. Think about that.
A little experience restoring would be an eye-opener for you. It was for me. But you'll need to hear this about five or six times, from different sources, before the message gets through. I have to say that corresponding with you and others has hardened my resolve to continure restoring. I simply ejaculated, before I started restoring. But after restoring, I had whole body ogasms: something completely unexpected. I experienced the natural rolling action of the foreskin. I missed that my entire life.
Does cultural blindness prevents us from making the most conservative medical judgment: if circumcision really does have a prophylctic effect, then the surgery should be offered to sexually active persons. Why do it to someone who decides to be celibate? Why not honor the right of the patient to refuse treatment? Doctors consider paternalism in medicine to be an unethical practice. What you fail to understand is that the leap from scientific findings, even if they weren't so shaky, to universal involuntary circumcision is unfounded. It doesn't follow. If you have findings, you recommend them to the patient, and the patient decides. But that's in the case of a pre-existing condition.
Now I ask you to consider the lost list, to find out what you are missing.
Peace
Mars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 09:49 PM September 7th, 2005 EST (#118)
|
|
|
|
|
*disclaimer*
This is an animal example, not intended to mean anything other than I watched it in animals. I in no way intend that men's penises are like tails, or that circ is like docking, etc.
I watch dogs with tails, and dogs without tails. Now tails are docked at 3-4 weeks old at the vets-a vet, with no anesthesia, takes a heavy pair of scissors and clips off the tails of the puppies. It is sad indeed to see the bowl of puppy tails lying there, and the crying puppies in their box.
But anyways.
These puppies grow up to be what most would consider healthy, happy pups. They cannot know what it would be like to have a tail-they have in effect never had one. The same goes for docking ears.
But there are serious reprecussions to not having a tail or natural ears. Dogs communicate with their tails and ears.They can read one another and tell, before getting too close, if the dog is fearful, agressive, dominant, etc. Some dogs are so stiff that it is hard to read their body language. Others simply have a very upright stance. People rely on tails because they are usually too blind to see the other signals. SO the dog with no tail tells people he is dominant and unfriendly. People do not see this, because there is no tail to stand up like a warning flag. So the dog must go one step further to show it, by growling, snapping, whatever. This dog is labled a problem, when if it had a tail there may not be one. Or the dog is friendly, and trying to show it, but people assume because it is a dobe or a rott that it must be mean. Both cases happen with these dogs. The dog is doing wagging or holding it's tail high, it does not know that it's effectiveness has been lessened through surgery. It does not know it's tail should be longer, and more expressive. It still works, the stump will wag, but it is not the same. But to the dog, it is the way it is.
My point for all of this. The dogs cannot know what they are missing, they would not think to miss those tails and ears, because it is all they have known. Would you think to complain about having 5 fingers, if at birth childen had a sixth one cut off? No, you would assume that is the way you were born, and by the time you found out you would have accepted it. You would have adapted to having 5 fingers and thought nothing of it. But imagine what is possible with 6? What if you then saw a 6 fingered concert pianist play? Or a brain surgeon, or a programmer? Then you would start to wonder what you were missing, and why your fingers had been chopped off.
The penis is a way more complicated and serious example. It is designed to work with a foreskin. There are major changes which occur when the foreskin is removed. This is a provable fact. That the men who have never effectually had one don't miss it is irrelevant, and as I illustrated above near impossible without outside imput.
Your assertation that men don't miss it is not valid as a pro circ arguement. What is valid are the effects circumcision has on men, and are there compelling benifits to those men which warrent the procedure. So far I have heard no valid concerns about the benifits of the procedure. I have seen shoddy research and religious justification. Neither of which hold water as far as i am concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 06:47 AM September 8th, 2005 EST (#120)
|
|
|
|
|
“You blame feminism for getting between men and women.”
How did you come to the conclusion that I solely blame feminism for getting in between men and women: I wish it was that simple! I do however blame radical feminism for elevating certain issues. I carefully inserted the word radical on early occasions trying to emphasise the difference between feminism and radicalism. I do not think they are the same.
So my senses have been damaged? Is that based on your emotions or scientific facts? Are there any major scientific studies that a man’s sensual pleasures are heightened by the foreskin? On the internet you can find any view you want. Look and you can find any varying views on men who had been circumcised as adults.
One also needs to ask is there a difference in being circumcised as an adult and just after birth? I know there is evidence for penile cancer; that the advantages are more apparent for circumcision soon after birth. It is not a straight forward issue.
“The evidence is that the foreskin is necessary for sexual activity; it's absence
impedes it and impairs bonding between sexual partners.”
There is no such conclusive evidence. If there was it would be on the 10 O’clock news followed closely by Horizon.
“Doesn't it occur to you that your penis is smaller and shorter than it should be, because it's missing half or more of its skin system, with its irreplacable tissues, nerves, muscles and specialized structures?”
Size is not an issue and if it is it shouldn’t be. Some men are naturally born with a small uncircumcised penis; does it make him a less of a man? I for one think not!
Also when the penis becomes erect the head is exposed, therefore the foreskin would not make any difference in length but only in girth.
“But then I learned. That's what men's activism is about: how many issues of men's rights were obvoius to you before the advent of the internet?...Now you've changed.”
Not quite true. I learned about it by living through my own society and observed the changes as I grew older. Simply put it I did not like the way society was heading. Then I learned about other issues not from the internet as such, but from my own diligence: I sought the knowledge. I didn’t open the browser or book and expect to be spoon fed. I have my own intellect and moral standards that may not be agreeable to you; but then again one would be rather naive to expect everyone to have the same views.
“The reason why men don't talk about this is because they are duped into believing that everything is fine. And they want to believe that everything is fine. This is denial. I did. I was in denial. I respectfully suggest that you may be in denial.”
I am not in denial: I have an issue of people trying to force their will on others when there is in my opinion no substance to it: like the banning of circumcision. I am totally against the banning unless there is conclusive evidence that it will damage a boy’s health. You can rant and persuade as many people as you want: but making it law without foundation; that would be an issue. I urge you to accept others who will rant their views that will go against your own ranting. You may not agree with them but that’s life.
“Does that mean that because you live in the "spoiled developed world" where… , but never articulated?”
I mean in rich societies when people are spoiled they begin to nitpick and make issues in places where issues should not exist. You will find groups that enlarge problems and make themselves as though they are the saviour of mankind and others who disagree are just plain wrong. These groups and individuals within them are unbalanced in that respect. And other people due this over analysing become weak and incomplete because they choose to be weak and incomplete. Sorry but I am unable to articulate my views clearly. In a way they become selective “hypochondriacs” except in some cases they actually create a mental disease for themselves.
Let me give you an example (maybe a bad example): Anorexia is a mental illness; it is a disease that you create for yourself. You start over analysing yourself to the point where you begin to dislike the way you look. A major factor in this disease is input from the outside world. You can’t just accept what you are when you are bombard with these ideals(?) Do think this disease would exist if you lived in a society where daily food is a treat? Even if the society is getting bombard with images of the ideal bodies; I doubt anorexia would exist. The girl/boy was fine and dandy until they over analysed themselves to the point their view became distorted and they began harming themselves; the overanalyses began with negative external input.
I mean men who say I am incomplete because I have no foreskin; what about the men that have circumcision as adults and have no issue with it? Are they incomplete or maybe they are more emotionally well balanced and more comfortable with what they are; that they do not need to nitpick on such an issue as the foreskin. Likewise men who start to overanalyse the size of their penis. Come on! It shouldn’t matter and if a women doesn’t want you because “your to small”; well then you are better off without the likes of her. You are more than just a blank cheque & a sex tool for her gratification.
“ What is valid are the effects circumcision has on men, and are there compelling benifits to those men which warrent the procedure. So far I have heard no valid concerns about the benifits of the procedure.”
And most likely you never will. It is your view. Some people choose just to believe in God. Others see certain scientific backing to it, which you may not agree with. To most is just not an issue. UNAIDS is currently doing three trials on it; when they finish maybe we will have more to say on it. One of the trials done by the French Agency is complete and the results are pro-circumcision. The others two are still on going.
But is that proof? Many in the anti-circumcision movement would say no: though in my view they have no really heavy weight scientific studies to fall upon that state male-circumcision is bad. I think even if the other two UN trials end up being pro-circumcision it will still not shut the anti-circumcision movement because their first step was based on emotion and not science.
FIO: UN is against female circumcision yet open to male circumcision.
Restoration: It is not the same as having a foreskin; and whatever pleasures you might be getting I believe it is not the same as the pleasures of having an actual foreskin with all it nerves and natural lubricants. It maybe that your pleasures are more than that of those with actual fully working foreskin; maybe it is the new sensation that makes it seem more pleasurable; maybe its all in your mind as you choose to make your circumcised penis an issue thus negating some of your pleasures; who knows? Just out of morbid curiosity do you produce smegma.. if not how does it lubricate itself?
Now about the comments on labelling it as mutilation: the reason I am against this is because boys can be cruel; if a boy picks this word up he may start labelling other circumcised boys as being freaks or disabled or something like that. No young circumcised boy would like having that label. Likewise I am sure no young religious (Jewish/Muslim) uncircumcised boy would like being labelled as covenant breaker; or as a bad boy because you do not believe follow God; Or worse having insults thrown towards his parents and him.
Anyway I would like to thank you, Mars; you words in your last post seem to be quite sincere and I am touched though I do not agree with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:53 PM September 9th, 2005 EST (#122)
|
|
|
|
|
Size is not an issue and if it is it shouldn’t be. Some men are naturally born with a small uncircumcised penis; does it make him a less of a man? I for one think not!
Also when the penis becomes erect the head is exposed, therefore the foreskin would not make any difference in length but only in girth.
This is absolutely false, and is contradicted by the experience of thousdands of restoring men, and men who were circumcised in adulthood. Circumcision reduces the skin available for an erection, and compresses the corpus cavernosa into the body. It makes it shorter.
Doesn't a man have an interest in his own sexual development? It's his body. It was MY BODY.
Warren Farrel called men the disposable sex. Circumcision teaches men, in no uncertain terms, that their bodies are disposable. Their sex isn't their own. Then they'll learn that their lives aren't their own, and their wallets aren't their own. All part of a pattern.
And it is chivalrous of you to protect infant females, but not infant males. So that's something we teach our kids through involuntary circumcision.
Men's activists who give in so easily to this unnecessary mutilation (I will not stop calling it what it is), are giving up their rights.
Mars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 07:49 AM September 10th, 2005 EST (#123)
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said before the foreskin does not alter the length. A bad circumcision however can cause problems as you mentioned. Statistics wise most circumcised men/boys don’t have any issues. It seems you had problems with your circumcision and I’m sorry but, you need to put it into perspective, you are in the minority.
"And it is chivalrous of you to protect infant females, but not infant males. So that's something we teach our kids through involuntary circumcision."
Why do you keep bringing that up? The two operations are different and the bodies are different and should be dealt differently; it is nothing to do with chivalry. It is to do with science. Any arguments for the Pros & Cons for female circumcision can not be applied to male and vice-verse; they should not be dealt as one. We are not the same: don't believe the feminist BS that women and men are the same and are equal cause we aren't. Men are physically superior; and I also believe intellectually we can achieve higher thanks to our ability to become single-minded and focused; also too much emotion hampers intellect and we know which of the genders excels in that department. Don’t equate yourself to females; you’re a male. Likewise I don’t believe females should equate themselves to males. And same goes for men’s issues. If any of the statements above (or below) are political incorrect well to hell with PC; it has gone to an absurd level. Oh we are not better than them and they certainly aren’t better than us: as they say nature has thrown us roles/rules/limitations.
And for your info female circumcision does not occur at infant age. And to hammer it again they are totally different from men; so treat them differently like any medical establishment worth a grain of salt. There is no medical reason for circumcision in young girls; and that is a universal agreement in the medical establishment. Not so is the case for male circumcision; that debate is open.
“Circumcision teaches men, in no uncertain terms, that their bodies are disposable. Their sex isn't their own. Then they'll learn that their lives aren't their own, and their wallets aren't their own. All part of a pattern.”
What a load of BS. Do not believe everything you read. Don’t be a feminist; use your mind not your emotions. This approach is similar to the way feminist hammered in that the acts of homemaking (housewife) implies that she is nothing more than a slave; and many foolish women believed in it. It is an obvious lie but many women ascribed to it because it rang to their weakness and emotions: they (women) made it a reality for themselves (in their minds only). These women helped destroy the ideal family to the detriment of their children & selves: which end do you think they were thinking out of? Now many children are growing up without a strong (biological) father; and sad to say now many grown men do not know how to be a strong father thanks partly to their selfish & foolish mothers.
Look at the Orthodox Jewish or Muslim Societies; How do they treat this operation? It is a day of celebration. It’s is the day the boy is showered with gifts and his father is honoured by guests; most likely for the mother and her female sisters it is a time for preparing a banquet in honour for this male child. For some Muslim countries the circumcision is done later in life around 7+; they have ritual for it and the boy is proud to be part of it. It is his ceremony into manhood; “rite of passage”, as they say. These are societies where the men are men and the women are women; it is very much a patriarchal society. Every father & mother wants a son because they are the only ones that can carry on the family name.
If some feminist and philosophical men want to equate circumcision with men being disposable; who gives a shit. They (radical feminists) will always have an excuse against men because they are pathetic, damaged women. They are brainwashed fools. It is a fight they can never win. They say that their main enemy is patriarchy; it is a structure they can never win against. Their establishments are funded by the patriarchal structure, by men. And while these men want them, they will keep them. Radical feminist are nothing more than whores doing men’s bidding; they might be all proud of themselves but their accomplishments is nothing more than the destruction of the fabric of society. They are lost and I fear to this radical feminism we are going starting to see strong radical men’s movement; talk about throwing oil on the fire
Back to circumcision: if you want to say that circumcision is wrong because it is done (sometimes) without the boys consent or it is harmful then just say that; but don’t go into that drivel about incomplete/disposable men etc. It just BS! The approach seems similar to what feminist espouse to: if scientific approach is not (totally) on their side they try to get to your emotions based on hollow words and psychobabble. Circumcision was born in a patriarchal order; and the societies that currently have this act are societies lead by men: Amish, Muslim, Jewish and some Christians etc.
“Men's activists who give in so easily to this unnecessary mutilation (I will not stop calling it what it is), are giving up their rights.”
Many feminist would agree with you for their own agenda. They see circumcision as part of patriarchy. And anything part of patriarchy they would like to kill off.
What makes you sure I gave up my rights. My scientific and religious beliefs are my right, my wife is my right and I am hers, and my children (especially) are my right. I am not one for governments becoming nannies; they have done enough damage as it is; yet they still continue spewing out negative laws. In my view parents rights are undercut nowadays.
If parents choose to circumcise their boy it is their right. If they choose not to give MMR jabs to their kids it is their right. If they choose to refuse TeenScreen for their kids it is their right. If they choose to homeschool it is their right. They are the ones that slave over them, that have to live with any issues that arise in any decision they make towards their families future. As to the children: they are just that, CHILDREN! The child rights are laid upon his parents, for he/she knows nothing. In other words the welfare of the child falls onto the parent. They (children) latch onto their parents with strong bonds of trust and that is the way it should be. And it is up to the parents to live up to that trust and keep it protected. Sometimes the parents might make a mistake but in most cases if not all it is never lasting. And if the boy is brought up in a loving, caring and ethical environment he would grow into a man that will honour his father and mother. He will grow to be a great asset to society and it does not matter if society recognises it or not, he would know it and his parents would know it. Same goes for daughters. And I do not think the boy would make an issue of his circumcision; holding his parent into account. On the contrary, if he saw it part of his beliefs then he would be grateful and would want the same for his boys. If it is not in his belief maybe he will see it within science.
Mutilation: So men who got circumcised as adults due to medical reason are mutilated? Boys in Africa with lack of hygiene facilities are mutilated? Is that labelling Political Correct? I am sure it is because it falls within the feminist domain. I have to say it is very trendy label. Who can go against this propaganda when you have such label! Maybe they should add the word freedom in there? No wonder there are a few healthy circumcised men start regretting being circumcised: they just read biased propaganda that debase circumcised men as incomplete, amputated, mutilated, sexually inferior etc. You cannot help but accept that some will become emotionally damaged reading this stuff. If only they had read more balanced articles.
Maybe you should read about circumcision from sites other than anti-circumcision sites; from balanced medical sites that have no bias or preference just information. And even maybe site containing positive feedback from men who got circumcised as adults for non-medical reasons. The pros and cons of circumcision are not as you like to see it. I do not think it is a simple scientific issue and maybe the deciding factor is your own faith. Personally I see scientific issue outweigh the cons. And science seems to currently be moving towards circumcision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:15 AM September 10th, 2005 EST (#124)
|
|
|
|
|
If parents choose to circumcise their boy it is their right.
You do not have the right to violate moral rules.
It is often maintained that parents must not be blamed for authorizing routine infant circumcision; instead the blame must be fobbed off on the medical establishment. This post critiques that view.
If we presume that parents are responsible adults, responsible for their actions, then there is no escaping the responsibility they have in authorizing a routine, involuntary circumcision, by requesting and authorizing it. Where were they at the time? They cannot have it both ways: they cannot be both "in charge" and "not responsible."
One reaction to this line of reasoning has been, "what do you want to gain from this?" What I want to gain is the clarity one achieves from thinking the matter through. You authorize something as a responsible adult, you are responsible. If you authorize something damaging, something morally wrong, common morality demands that there be consequences. Understandably no one wants to face those consequences--whatever they are. I haven't said what they are--yet. Some seem to maintain, or, I should say, defensively react, that the protective instincts of parents must not be disturbed by the impartial application of moral rules to all persons, especially parents. They should get a special dispensation.
Now, what should those consequences be? For lack of gender impartial legal protection, I suggest that this is a matter between each victim of genital terrorism and his (or her) parents. I believe that there is no universal "one-size-fits all" answer to the question of consequences. What circumcision does, morally, is create a situation in which each person who authorizes it on behalf of some other non-consenting person must await the judgment of the person upon whom the procedure was committed. And those judgments could be all over the map. If circumcision is a matter each parent must decide for their son, then how to handle the question of the moral consequences is between each son and his parents (and the genital terrorists who mutilated him). Each case is different. So there are as many answers to the question of consequences as their are victims.
There is no universal excuse that will magically absolve parents of the responsibility. There may be various considerations (some of which are excuses) that might work in each case, such as, "it was the thing to do at the time," "I didn't give it much thought," "I was under a lot of pressure," and "I only took the advice of precisely one physician."
What's the point of this? Although the medical profession does give parents an inappropriate choice, if they give you that choice, you are unfortunately on the spot. You have to make the right one. You must recognize that this is an inappropriate choice. You aren't given a free pass to make either choice, simply because someone else gave you the opportunity. I find it somewhat amazing that this obvious point has to be spelled out, but the effort to excuse parents for because the medical establishment gives them an inappriopriate choice speaks to the capacity of human beings to think highly of themselves in the face of evidence to the contrary. It speaks to a flaw in human psychology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:23 AM September 10th, 2005 EST (#125)
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you keep bringing that up? The two operations are different and the bodies are different and should be dealt differently; it is nothing to do with chivalry.
It has everything to do with which gender we believe is the more appropriate target of violence. The genitals differentiate from the same cells in the womb. You repeatedly fail to address
1. the moral rules
2. the scientific study of Tayor (and others) which gives the complex structure of the organ you feel you have a right to mutilate.
3. You refuse to accept responsibility as an adult for mutilating your children.
What you must understand is that if you violate a persons rights, the right to uninterrupted sexual development, there must be consequences. It is highly feminist of you to believe you can violate someone sexually, and get away with it, to not accept responsibility and accountability for your actions. There MUST be consequences for violations of the moral rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:02 PM September 10th, 2005 EST (#126)
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I see scientific issue outweigh the cons. And science seems to currently be moving towards circumcision.
This is self-serving and mistaken.
No medical organization in the world recommends circumcision, and many actively oppose it on medical and moral grounds.
I don't believe you are qualified to read and understand the scientific literature. I am.
What's your doctorate in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 06:03 PM September 11th, 2005 EST (#127)
|
|
|
|
|
“You do not have the right to violate moral rules.”
“1. the moral rules
2. the scientific study of Tayor…”
Violate moral rules? Give me a break: there is no such thing as universal moral rules; Most of the time it is objective and not subjective as you seem to think. My morals do not match yours and that is life.
“but the effort to excuse parents for because the medical establishment gives them an inappriopriate choice speaks to the capacity of human beings to think highly of themselves in the face of evidence to the contrary”
Evidence to the contrary? What are you talking about: the most studies show many advantages in circumcision! And governmental findings see the advantages and disadvantages balance out. It is just you choose to dismiss them as they do not agree with your views.
“No medical organization in the world recommends circumcision, and many actively oppose it on medical and moral grounds.”
I agree, there are not medical organisations that recommend it. My aversion is only to those want to ban or ban parents doing it to their children. What I said, is studies show positive feedback to circumcision. As to the act itself they should leave it up to the parents and that is the way it should be unless there is conclusive evidence otherwise! You can rant about Dr this or that.. but latest major findings show major advantages to circumcision! It is up to the parent to weigh the advantage based on unbiased information then take whatever path they choose.
For every doctor that is anti-circumcision I am sure it is easier to find many that are pro. It solves nothing; the whole argument should be based on science and not moral view; as “moral view” to many it is objective in this matter.
Is there any medical organisation that is anti-male-circumcision? Medical organisation and not anti-circumcision activists!
“ This is self-serving and mistaken.
….
I don't believe you are qualified to read and understand the scientific literature. I am.
What's your doctorate in?”
And you are qualified to make all the decisions on my childrens behalf, hmm? Well let us look at the NHS (UK)? Let looks at BMA (UK)? What are their views; LORD AND BEHOLD! They do not have a preference; they recommend both parents should decide after explaining what it involves; an operation that cannot commence unless there is an agreement between both parents. I think I would rather trust these scientific British medical establishments views and findings rather than Doctor X or Doctor Y and definitely over an anonymous user who claims he understands medical literature (and maybe you do). What is the view for Canada, USA medical bodies? Is it anti-circumcision or does it leave the decisions to the parents?
Maybe you should get your views from impartial medical bodies that just list advantages and disadvantages. Maybe you should search USAIDS.gov or USAID.gov . Is science only correct when it agrees with your “moral values” or your “scientific inclinations”. Should parents only take your views?
If scientific evidence had solid foundation against circumcision it would be banned in a second in Europe because lets face it most Europeans don’t get circumcised. It should not be banned unless there is conclusive scientific merit to it; there isn’t. Currently in the UK it is allowed on children because there are health advantages.
If the other two UN experiments show the major advantages of circumcision against Aids then I expect it will spread like wildfire in Africa; and it would (should) be by choice. I do not believe it should be forced (the Childs welfare falls onto the parents).
This is my last post on the matter: My views simply it should be left up to the parents after it is explained in an impartial matter. I am pro-circumcision for my kids only; and as to other parents they should seek impartial medical explanation before they make any decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:54 PM September 11th, 2005 EST (#128)
|
|
|
|
|
By authorizing the amputation of your children's normal, healthy genitals, you undertook an aggressive, as opposed to conservative prophylactic procedure, for no reason: there is no medical evidence that circumcision prevents AIDS. All that it prevents is normal sexual interactions between the sexes, and the development of the affected individual's genitals.
You had no right to do this to your children. You may rationalize your violence against them in any way you like, and it is true that I am a third party to the damage you inflicted upon them. But when they come to realize what you did, depending on how they feel about their own bodies, you may have to answer to them. And judging how you answered me, you will have nothing in your defense, other than blind obedience to authority and custom.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
