<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+May 21 2004, 01:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ May 21 2004, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would also disagree with the "you're not harming your child by waiting" line. First of all, a 16-year old will feel a lot more pain and be incapacitated for a lot longer than a baby that is a few days old. Secondly, if you truly believe that something is good for your kid, will you wait "until he's old enough to decide if he wants it" or will you give it to him immediately?
It's the same argument as before, with the vaccinations, which Dread thinks are a bad analogy (they aren't, if you look closely). If your baby is in danger of getting polio, wouldn't you get him to a doctor instead of waiting around until he hits 16 years old and say to him "you want to get a polio shot?" - by then the baby could be dead, or crippled. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Vaccination and circumcision are completely different things. Circumcision is by no means mandatory and most people don't have any need for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thats OK to you? Yet you're tearing others down for their views on circumcision? ... Just doesn't seem right <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cutting/beating your child is wrong, however when your kid throws all the plates on the floor when he's 6, it's justified to give him a little punishment. Physical is not always needed but honestly, when you look at some of the people who walk around, you just know that if they would've been disciplined they wouldn't be such an a-holes. You know of whom I'm talking about.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dread+May 21 2004, 06:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ May 21 2004, 06:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Vaccination and circumcision are completely different things. Circumcision is by no means mandatory and most people don't have any need for it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have only been speaking of the Jewish views on this. People who aren't Jewish and still get their babies circumcised...well, I don't know what they're doing. I'm a Christian, and uncircumcised. However, saying that circumcision should be banned is interfering with religion. And as NemZero said once upon a time, you don't have the right to judge who is of [insert religion here] for them.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+May 20 2004, 03:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ May 20 2004, 03:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> From an anatomical standpoint, circumcision actually greatly decreases the chances of getting urinary tract infections and other such nastiness... it does more good than harm. It's not much different then getting your wisdom teeth removed before they even start causing a problem. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Anatomically, circumcision can only be compared to pulling wisdom teeth if the latter is performed via the rectum.
The hygiene argument is obsolete, since most of us have learned the art of soap and also remember to shower more than once a week (right?).
---
I find the issue of parents having their children brought up to whatever faith or moral code they have somewhat difficult, since sometimes forcing those values upon the children is actually very harmful. This happens both in spiritual and secular families.
For example, a girl I know is from a family where the parents are both very strict followers of a certain christian sect. She has had some difficulties since she feels that she wants to honestly believe in God, but is at the same time absolutely mortified by what she has been taught of him. In other words, throughout her childhood she has had to deal with parents who in a conflict situation hide behind the 'God's will' argument, and while trying to tell a child how powerful, good and omnipotent he is, actually manage to scare her out of her skin by always stressing the wrathful side. I used to be around people from this particular sect when I was younger, mainly because my best friend's mother belonged to it. I went to summer camps arranged by them with him, and I remember the two-facedness of the entire deal, where you'd first be told how great it is to have a friend like God and how nice and wonderful things he does for them, and then practically threatened with what happens if you don't take him into your heart. I'm sure an adult would have just shrugged, but a 9-year old sees things a bit differently.
After all that I guess it's time to see the other side too. I believe that a healthy home does indeed give some values to a child. I believe that with firm values, be they political, religious or moral, a person can live a much more fulfilling life than without. The parents' greatest responsibility lies in not leaning on the kid with all they've got. Instead, they must allow the child some room to breathe.
Interestingly enough looking a little farther down when searching for on google for circumcision testimonies, one can find MANY MANY sites that tout the benefits of circumcision. How sad that this seems to have become another hot topic with no real truths at all.
On discipline, spanking your child is an absolutely fine thing if they're screaming around the house breaking lamps, pictures, and screaming their face off.
What are you gonna do? Shake your finger at him and say "No honey, please don't do that it makes mommy sad." Know what THAT child will do when he's older? He'll most likely be kicking his mother.
Sorry, but a spanking is NOT abuse, and sometimes it's the only way to properly show a child what he's done CAN NOT be done again, under any circumstances. These people who are against any kind of working discipline are the same ones who pick up and comfort their child while it's throwing a hissy fit because it didn't get what it wanted. TOUGHEN UP!
When I was a child and did something wrong, rather than getting punished corporally, I had something taken away. I remember now when my entire bookshelf was taken away for throwing books, hows that for encouraging reading? I also often got locked in my room, my parents put a white circle thingy on the door knob which my budding 3 year old mind could not think clearly enough to solve (you had to put pressure on the sides). I think I turned out OK, I did get some spanking, it never hurt so the worst things where getting toys and privaledges taken away. However, I could often earn back privaledges with hard work and sincerely learning my lesson.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Testament+May 21 2004, 03:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Testament @ May 21 2004, 03:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On discipline, spanking your child is an absolutely fine thing if they're screaming around the house breaking lamps, pictures, and screaming their face off.
What are you gonna do? Shake your finger at him and say "No honey, please don't do that it makes mommy sad." Know what THAT child will do when he's older? He'll most likely be kicking his mother.
Sorry, but a spanking is NOT abuse, and sometimes it's the only way to properly show a child what he's done CAN NOT be done again, under any circumstances. These people who are against any kind of working discipline are the same ones who pick up and comfort their child while it's throwing a hissy fit because it didn't get what it wanted. TOUGHEN UP! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's still illegal, and still wrong.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited May 2004
Denmark. What's wrong with it? The amount of pain a spanking would cause doesnt bother me. What' bother me is one who loves me also beats me, I't a terrifying experience because of that and usually it only gets done because the parent needs an outlet for their agression. It can lead to emotionally problems later in life and do the opposite of "dicipline"
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+May 22 2004, 12:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ May 22 2004, 12:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What's wrong with it? The amount of pain a spanking would cause doesnt bother me. What' bother me is one who loves me also beats me, I't a terrifying experience because of that and usually it only gets done because the parent needs an outlet for their agression. It can lead to emotionally problems later in life and do the opposite of "dicipline" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You don't seem to realise the difference between Spanking and Beating. Spanking is a sharp slap, in a place where no damage is caused, like the hand on bottom, when the child has been deliberately disobeying your verbal warnings. That is justified. Beating is overdoing it using a fist or a belt. Beating is unjustified, causing real damage and possbiel emotional scarring. In the right hands, spanking is a very good, effective discipliniary tool. The problem is how you distinguish between the two. It may be illegal in some countries, but that would not stop me spanking my child if I think s/he deserves it.
Have you ever been spanked Epidemic? (I do mean spanked, not beaten.)
It is not physical harm, the pain subsides in a little while. Like I said, spanking is only used when the child is deliberately disobeying your repeated requests to stop. My father spanked me as a child, and I turned out fine. No emotional scarring whatsoever, and nothing else these "children's rights" activists claim. Ok, there are times when parents beat their children, and I agree, that should be stopped, but the way to do it is not by banning spanking. Before we know it, all physical contact will be banned. "OH NOES DON'T HUG YOUR CHILD YOU PEADOPHILE YOU". Did you know if a child falls over in a playground, a teacher is not allowed to pick them up? It's rediculous.
<!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+May 22 2004, 07:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ May 22 2004, 07:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is not physical harm, the pain subsides in a little while. Like I said, spanking is only used when the child is deliberately disobeying your repeated requests to stop. My father spanked me as a child, and I turned out fine. No emotional scarring whatsoever, and nothing else these "children's rights" activists claim. Ok, there are times when parents beat their children, and I agree, that should be stopped, but the way to do it is not by banning spanking. Before we know it, all physical contact will be banned. "OH NOES DON'T HUG YOUR CHILD YOU PEADOPHILE YOU". Did you know if a child falls over in a playground, a teacher is not allowed to pick them up? It's rediculous.
Whatever happened to Common Sense? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I do agree with you, but I guess it's illegal for example in Finland because it's hard to distunguish beating and spanking. If spanking is illegal, kids won't be harmed. If spankin is legal, some parents easily slide in to beating and it's hard to prosecute them.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+May 22 2004, 06:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ May 22 2004, 06:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is not physical harm, the pain subsides in a little while. Like I said, spanking is only used when the child is deliberately disobeying your repeated requests to stop. My father spanked me as a child, and I turned out fine. No emotional scarring whatsoever, and nothing else these "children's rights" activists claim. Ok, there are times when parents beat their children, and I agree, that should be stopped, but the way to do it is not by banning spanking. Before we know it, all physical contact will be banned. "OH NOES DON'T HUG YOUR CHILD YOU PEADOPHILE YOU". Did you know if a child falls over in a playground, a teacher is not allowed to pick them up? It's rediculous.
Whatever happened to Common Sense? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, tell me what it is? What's the difference between spanking and other stuff? And I thought you advocated serious discussion but yet "OH NOES DONT HUG YOUR CHILD YOU P.." ****.
On the topic of whether religion should be taught - it depends. A quote from some comedian would best describe my view - "They should have the right to choose their religion when they're 18 and can make their own decisions". Technicalities aside (such as some people being able to make decisions at an earlier age or whatever), that quote pretty much sums it up for me.
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+May 22 2004, 08:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ May 22 2004, 08:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Okay, tell me what it is? What's the difference between spanking and other stuff? And I thought you advocated serious discussion but yet "OH NOES DONT HUG YOUR CHILD YOU P.." ****. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He already explained what a spank is. A firm quick smack on the behind or the back of the hand (ie. the origin of the term "getting off with a smack on the wrists", which means getting a very light punishment for your wrongdoings) to discourage certain behaviour. The "pain" only lasts for a very short time and causes no real lasting effects. I personally think a spank or two, coupled with removal of certain privelages when a child is being a right pain is a good thing when administered by a loving parent...A child soon learns that they're only doing it because the parent DOES care, if not right away, then when they get older. Better to get spanked for shooting your mouth off to your parents, than not learning and thusly shooting your mouth off at the wrong person on the streets and getting a lot worse.
I list abuse as the following: o Punching o repeated slapping (like in the face) o Shaking (on very young children) o Throwing into things o Slamming into things o Using a belt/cane/etc. on a child o throwing heavy/hard things at (shoes, etc.) among others. But spanking? No.
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+May 22 2004, 09:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ May 22 2004, 09:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And I thought you advocated serious discussion but yet "OH NOES DONT HUG YOUR CHILD YOU P.." ****. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That was serious.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I meant how we differiate psychical harm from spanking <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I said, that is the problem. Luckily for me, I don;t have to worry about it. The basic difference between the two is that a spank is just 1 or 2 hits on a well padded area of the body (bottom). A beating is multiple blows. If the child had been hit more than twice, and the parent says it was justified, I would seriously think it was overboard. Also if the child is getting spanked a lot (like more that 2-3 times a day) I would consider taking further action.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sephiroth2k+May 23 2004, 07:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sephiroth2k @ May 23 2004, 07:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I agree with the decision belonging to the parent on the subject of circumcision. As an infant I was circumcised and haven't regret my parents making that choice a day in my life. I respect their decision to do so, and am glad they did. When I have children, they're going to be circumcised, there's no argument there. Is the only reason you are saying cicumsision is unnatural because it causes pain? Is that your ONLY argument, that it causes pain? Come on now. Natural is different for everyone. What about laser-corrective surgery for your eyes? Unnatural, but not necessary, are you against that also? For me, circumcision is normal, I see nothing wrong with it. But whatever =/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[edit] When reading, mentally replace all ****s with the word p-enis. Thank you. [/edit]
Laser corrective eye surgery and circumcision are a poor matchup. The former corrects problems in the eyes so one doesn't have to wear glasses. The latter is an unnecessary procedure which is beneficial only if the **** displays abnormalities, like too tight foreskin or frenulum, which cannot be detected in an infant.
Maybe the question should be why circumcise, instead of why not. While some argue that it should be preserved because it promotes good health, this point is shot down by the fact that anyone can simply wash what's inside their foreskin when in shower. A bath isn't exactly a scarce luxury these days. As for the argument for its traditional place, only muslim and jewish communities can say that, since circumcision was introduced in America only in the 19th century as a means of preventing masturbation. In fact, the US is the odd fellow in the group since it is the only country where circumcision is performed on infants in large scale for non-religious reasons.
The real problem, however, is that circumcision may end up harming the male baby's sexual organ in an unrepairable way making his future sex life somewhat, or even completely unsatisfactory. This may seem somewhat preposterous a claim, but have you considered the fact that circumcisions, like any other surgical operations do go wrong sometimes, and may end up scarring or disfiguring the infant's **** for life. Circumcision also removes sensitive nerve-endings along with the foresking resulting in less sensitivity.
There are also some academically-supported rumours of circumcision preventing sexually transmitted diseases. This is, frankly, a load of horse dung since the risk of catching an STD is much more directly related to the person's sexual behaviour and whether they use condoms or not. The social circle one is in is also a factor, since it seems that for example most HIV infections in Europe are found among the drug addicts these days, and especially in prisons where clean needle availability can be scarce, therefore promoting the unsafe and unhygienic practice of needle sharing.
It's sort of strange that male circumcision is so deeply rooted in a country where it has never been performed in the mainstream culture as a religious custom, and that this country readily identifies female infant circumcison as genital mutilation, yet somehow makes a noted difference when it comes to male genitalia. How is the other mutilation and the other not?
The question remains, why put a scalpel to a perfectly healthy organ, and perform a surgical procedure that may damage the said organ? Is there some point to this? If you are thinking 'disease prevention', then why not go for broke and perform preventive infant appendectomy as well? Hey, the appendix is practically unneccesary and may inflame and cause unbearable pain. Why not just open up the infant and take it out right at the start? Does that sound like balanced reasoning?
So, in the end my arguments are: - It is unnecessary. An uncircumcised **** works better (for example, it is less susceptible to keratinization). - It may cause complications, scarring of the ****, skin bridges, or result in genitals that look horribly disfigured. It may also cause necrotizing fasciitis. None of this happens if the baby is not put to the knife at all. - It is painful. Is there some logical reason to cause your child pain for no real reason? - It most likely reduces sexual pleasure. - The same people willing to have this procedure performed on their male children would be horrified if someone offered to do it to their female children. Why?
I really don't want to touch this thread much, but I do want to quickly discuss the act of circumcision.
Circumcision is done for non-religious reasons nowadays. Removal of the foreskin is actually a good idea for cleanliness. If one does not bath everyday, there can be a build up of a pungent smelling substance called smegma.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+May 23 2004, 09:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ May 23 2004, 09:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I really don't want to touch this thread much, but I do want to quickly discuss the act of circumcision.
Circumcision is done for non-religious reasons nowadays. Removal of the foreskin is actually a good idea for cleanliness. If one does not bath everyday, there can be a build up of a pungent smelling substance called smegma. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...Even though smegma is actually beneficial to penile function in uncircumcised males.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
Smelling substance if I dont bath a week, oh wow, better fetch the knife. While that I may as well have robotic implants that will increase my skills and health, it's just as unatural.
I agree with the decision belonging to the parent on the subject of circumcision. As an infant I was circumcised and haven't regret my parents making that choice a day in my life. I respect their decision to do so, and am glad they did. When I have children, they're going to be circumcised, there's no argument there. Is the only reason you are saying cicumsision is unnatural because it causes pain? Is that your ONLY argument, that it causes pain? Come on now. Natural is different for everyone. What about laser-corrective surgery for your eyes? Unnatural, but not necessary, are you against that also? For me, circumcision is normal, I see nothing wrong with it. But whatever =/
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
Here's a few things to ask-
First off, when were kids given rights? I've been told by several people(who I might add are NOT my parents) that say the only rights kids have are is to life, schooling, and not to child labor.
Also- its quite easy for a kid to change his/her mind once they grow up a bit. My parents are Christian- I am too. I was raised Christianly. 2 years ago, I started branching out, finding other religions, checking them out, exploring. I came back to Christianity because I could FEEL it when I looked for it.
Gotta remember, children aren't stupid. Just gullible- but that dissapears later.
Circumcision is done for religious reasons. Banning it would go against a person's right to follow whatever religion they want. You wouldn't force a Sikh to cut his hair would you?
<!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+May 24 2004, 12:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ May 24 2004, 12:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Circumcision is done for religious reasons. Banning it would go against a person's right to follow whatever religion they want. You wouldn't force a Sikh to cut his hair would you? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Laws are there to protect individuals. Illegal is still illegal, even if it's done in the name of your religion. What if a religion orders you to kill all those who believe differently? Imo you can do what you want to yourself, but you can't hurt others.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dread+May 23 2004, 06:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ May 23 2004, 06:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+May 24 2004, 12:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ May 24 2004, 12:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Circumcision is done for religious reasons. Banning it would go against a person's right to follow whatever religion they want. You wouldn't force a Sikh to cut his hair would you? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Laws are there to protect individuals. Illegal is still illegal, even if it's done in the name of your religion. What if a religion orders you to kill all those who believe differently? Imo you can do what you want to yourself, but you can't hurt others. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Said religion is not a religion but rather a cult, as with any other "religion" that is counter productive to the well being of human beings. Honestly, you might as well compare a Sikh's long hair to circumcision, I mean, he <i>might</i> get it tangled around something and strangle himself in the shower. Just because there is a one in a million chance of something going wrong doesn't devaluate a religious practice.
Circumcision is a religions practice that has worked quite well for the last 4000 years, many of your friends are likely circumcized and you would never know the difference. There are hundreds of other unnessicary surgerys that aren't banned, and many of them have FAR worse track records then circumcision, I don't see how this is as much of an issue as it is.
<!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+May 23 2004, 05:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ May 23 2004, 05:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Circumcision is done for religious reasons. Banning it would go against a person's right to follow whatever religion they want. You wouldn't force a Sikh to cut his hair would you? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Circumcision in the United States is not based on religious reasons, except for the jewish and muslim communities. However, female circumcision is also done for religious reasons. Does that make it okay?
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+May 23 2004, 09:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ May 23 2004, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Said religion is not a religion but rather a cult, as with any other "religion" that is counter productive to the well being of human beings. Honestly, you might as well compare a Sikh's long hair to circumcision, I mean, he <i>might</i> get it tangled around something and strangle himself in the shower. Just because there is a one in a million chance of something going wrong doesn't devaluate a religious practice.
There are hundreds of other unnessicary surgerys that aren't banned, and many of them have FAR worse track records then circumcision, I don't see how this is as much of an issue as it is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry for doublepost, I'm a lazy quoter.
Are you joking? You are comparing human hair with taking a scalpel to someone who can't say no. I'm sorry but that is a very non-functional analogy. "You might get your hair tangled and get strangled" is more than far fetched, comparing to the fact that even at the lowest reported complication rate, which is 0.2%, of the approximately 1,2 million infants circumcised in the united states, that still provides a severely dysfunctional or extremely unaestethical male organ (I'm not nasty enough to include pictures) for about 2400 infants. That's 2400 extremely complicative, unnecessary amputations. Some report the complication rate at 2% or even higher, which can most likely be interpreted to mean that slight disfigurement, such as skin bridges are probably not accounted for in the lowest estimate. If you can provide comprehensive statistics of sikhs strangled per year by their own hair that somehow measure up to the aforementioned, then maybe the analogy has some basis, and even then it is highly dubious, since growing hair does not involve non-consentual surgery.
Which are these hundreds of unnecessary surgeries you mention? Can I have some examples? It is true that, for example, lyposuction mortality rate numbers among the hights of all surgical procedures, but lyposuction and circumcision are not comparable, since the person undergoing the former does it of his/her own free will, pays for it, and should be aware of the risks. The infant being circumcised is not, and might never be.
Comments
It's the same argument as before, with the vaccinations, which Dread thinks are a bad analogy (they aren't, if you look closely). If your baby is in danger of getting polio, wouldn't you get him to a doctor instead of waiting around until he hits 16 years old and say to him "you want to get a polio shot?" - by then the baby could be dead, or crippled. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Vaccination and circumcision are completely different things. Circumcision is by no means mandatory and most people don't have any need for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thats OK to you? Yet you're tearing others down for their views on circumcision?
... Just doesn't seem right <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cutting/beating your child is wrong, however when your kid throws all the plates on the floor when he's 6, it's justified to give him a little punishment. Physical is not always needed but honestly, when you look at some of the people who walk around, you just know that if they would've been disciplined they wouldn't be such an a-holes. You know of whom I'm talking about.
I have only been speaking of the Jewish views on this. People who aren't Jewish and still get their babies circumcised...well, I don't know what they're doing. I'm a Christian, and uncircumcised. However, saying that circumcision should be banned is interfering with religion. And as NemZero said once upon a time, you don't have the right to judge who is of [insert religion here] for them.
Anatomically, circumcision can only be compared to pulling wisdom teeth if the latter is performed via the rectum.
See:
<a href='http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/' target='_blank'>http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/</a>
<a href='http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/mgm/facts.html' target='_blank'>http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/mgm/facts.html</a>
<a href='http://www.nocirc.org/legal/smith.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nocirc.org/legal/smith.html</a>
<a href='http://www.sexuality.org/l/activism/malecirc.html' target='_blank'>http://www.sexuality.org/l/activism/malecirc.html</a>
The hygiene argument is obsolete, since most of us have learned the art of soap and also remember to shower more than once a week (right?).
---
I find the issue of parents having their children brought up to whatever faith or moral code they have somewhat difficult, since sometimes forcing those values upon the children is actually very harmful. This happens both in spiritual and secular families.
For example, a girl I know is from a family where the parents are both very strict followers of a certain christian sect. She has had some difficulties since she feels that she wants to honestly believe in God, but is at the same time absolutely mortified by what she has been taught of him. In other words, throughout her childhood she has had to deal with parents who in a conflict situation hide behind the 'God's will' argument, and while trying to tell a child how powerful, good and omnipotent he is, actually manage to scare her out of her skin by always stressing the wrathful side. I used to be around people from this particular sect when I was younger, mainly because my best friend's mother belonged to it. I went to summer camps arranged by them with him, and I remember the two-facedness of the entire deal, where you'd first be told how great it is to have a friend like God and how nice and wonderful things he does for them, and then practically threatened with what happens if you don't take him into your heart. I'm sure an adult would have just shrugged, but a 9-year old sees things a bit differently.
After all that I guess it's time to see the other side too. I believe that a healthy home does indeed give some values to a child. I believe that with firm values, be they political, religious or moral, a person can live a much more fulfilling life than without. The parents' greatest responsibility lies in not leaning on the kid with all they've got. Instead, they must allow the child some room to breathe.
What are you gonna do? Shake your finger at him and say "No honey, please don't do that it makes mommy sad." Know what THAT child will do when he's older? He'll most likely be kicking his mother.
Sorry, but a spanking is NOT abuse, and sometimes it's the only way to properly show a child what he's done CAN NOT be done again, under any circumstances. These people who are against any kind of working discipline are the same ones who pick up and comfort their child while it's throwing a hissy fit because it didn't get what it wanted. TOUGHEN UP!
What are you gonna do? Shake your finger at him and say "No honey, please don't do that it makes mommy sad." Know what THAT child will do when he's older? He'll most likely be kicking his mother.
Sorry, but a spanking is NOT abuse, and sometimes it's the only way to properly show a child what he's done CAN NOT be done again, under any circumstances. These people who are against any kind of working discipline are the same ones who pick up and comfort their child while it's throwing a hissy fit because it didn't get what it wanted. TOUGHEN UP! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's still illegal, and still wrong.
-> Electric, what untruths? What benefits?
And what's wrong about it? I'm sorry, but I see no permanant harm or scarring from simply spanking a child.
What's wrong with it? The amount of pain a spanking would cause doesnt bother me. What' bother me is one who loves me also beats me, I't a terrifying experience because of that and usually it only gets done because the parent needs an outlet for their agression. It can lead to emotionally problems later in life and do the opposite of "dicipline"
You don't seem to realise the difference between Spanking and Beating. Spanking is a sharp slap, in a place where no damage is caused, like the hand on bottom, when the child has been deliberately disobeying your verbal warnings. That is justified. Beating is overdoing it using a fist or a belt. Beating is unjustified, causing real damage and possbiel emotional scarring. In the right hands, spanking is a very good, effective discipliniary tool. The problem is how you distinguish between the two. It may be illegal in some countries, but that would not stop me spanking my child if I think s/he deserves it.
Have you ever been spanked Epidemic? (I do mean spanked, not beaten.)
And no to that question. I've seen it many times though.
Whatever happened to Common Sense?
Whatever happened to Common Sense? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do agree with you, but I guess it's illegal for example in Finland because it's hard to distunguish beating and spanking. If spanking is illegal, kids won't be harmed. If spankin is legal, some parents easily slide in to beating and it's hard to prosecute them.
Whatever happened to Common Sense? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, tell me what it is? What's the difference between spanking and other stuff?
And I thought you advocated serious discussion but yet "OH NOES DONT HUG YOUR CHILD YOU P.." ****.
And I thought you advocated serious discussion but yet "OH NOES DONT HUG YOUR CHILD YOU P.." ****. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He already explained what a spank is. A firm quick smack on the behind or the back of the hand (ie. the origin of the term "getting off with a smack on the wrists", which means getting a very light punishment for your wrongdoings) to discourage certain behaviour. The "pain" only lasts for a very short time and causes no real lasting effects. I personally think a spank or two, coupled with removal of certain privelages when a child is being a right pain is a good thing when administered by a loving parent...A child soon learns that they're only doing it because the parent DOES care, if not right away, then when they get older. Better to get spanked for shooting your mouth off to your parents, than not learning and thusly shooting your mouth off at the wrong person on the streets and getting a lot worse.
I list abuse as the following:
o Punching
o repeated slapping (like in the face)
o Shaking (on very young children)
o Throwing into things
o Slamming into things
o Using a belt/cane/etc. on a child
o throwing heavy/hard things at (shoes, etc.)
among others. But spanking? No.
That was serious.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I meant how we differiate psychical harm from spanking <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I said, that is the problem. Luckily for me, I don;t have to worry about it. The basic difference between the two is that a spank is just 1 or 2 hits on a well padded area of the body (bottom). A beating is multiple blows. If the child had been hit more than twice, and the parent says it was justified, I would seriously think it was overboard. Also if the child is getting spanked a lot (like more that 2-3 times a day) I would consider taking further action.
[edit] When reading, mentally replace all ****s with the word p-enis. Thank you. [/edit]
Laser corrective eye surgery and circumcision are a poor matchup. The former corrects problems in the eyes so one doesn't have to wear glasses. The latter is an unnecessary procedure which is beneficial only if the **** displays abnormalities, like too tight foreskin or frenulum, which cannot be detected in an infant.
Maybe the question should be why circumcise, instead of why not. While some argue that it should be preserved because it promotes good health, this point is shot down by the fact that anyone can simply wash what's inside their foreskin when in shower. A bath isn't exactly a scarce luxury these days. As for the argument for its traditional place, only muslim and jewish communities can say that, since circumcision was introduced in America only in the 19th century as a means of preventing masturbation. In fact, the US is the odd fellow in the group since it is the only country where circumcision is performed on infants in large scale for non-religious reasons.
The real problem, however, is that circumcision may end up harming the male baby's sexual organ in an unrepairable way making his future sex life somewhat, or even completely unsatisfactory. This may seem somewhat preposterous a claim, but have you considered the fact that circumcisions, like any other surgical operations do go wrong sometimes, and may end up scarring or disfiguring the infant's **** for life. Circumcision also removes sensitive nerve-endings along with the foresking resulting in less sensitivity.
There are also some academically-supported rumours of circumcision preventing sexually transmitted diseases. This is, frankly, a load of horse dung since the risk of catching an STD is much more directly related to the person's sexual behaviour and whether they use condoms or not. The social circle one is in is also a factor, since it seems that for example most HIV infections in Europe are found among the drug addicts these days, and especially in prisons where clean needle availability can be scarce, therefore promoting the unsafe and unhygienic practice of needle sharing.
It's sort of strange that male circumcision is so deeply rooted in a country where it has never been performed in the mainstream culture as a religious custom, and that this country readily identifies female infant circumcison as genital mutilation, yet somehow makes a noted difference when it comes to male genitalia. How is the other mutilation and the other not?
The question remains, why put a scalpel to a perfectly healthy organ, and perform a surgical procedure that may damage the said organ? Is there some point to this? If you are thinking 'disease prevention', then why not go for broke and perform preventive infant appendectomy as well? Hey, the appendix is practically unneccesary and may inflame and cause unbearable pain. Why not just open up the infant and take it out right at the start? Does that sound like balanced reasoning?
So, in the end my arguments are:
- It is unnecessary. An uncircumcised **** works better (for example, it is less susceptible to keratinization).
- It may cause complications, scarring of the ****, skin bridges, or result in genitals that look horribly disfigured. It may also cause necrotizing fasciitis. None of this happens if the baby is not put to the knife at all.
- It is painful. Is there some logical reason to cause your child pain for no real reason?
- It most likely reduces sexual pleasure.
- The same people willing to have this procedure performed on their male children would be horrified if someone offered to do it to their female children. Why?
Circumcision is done for non-religious reasons nowadays. Removal of the foreskin is actually a good idea for cleanliness. If one does not bath everyday, there can be a build up of a pungent smelling substance called smegma.
Circumcision is done for non-religious reasons nowadays. Removal of the foreskin is actually a good idea for cleanliness. If one does not bath everyday, there can be a build up of a pungent smelling substance called smegma. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...Even though smegma is actually beneficial to penile function in uncircumcised males.
First off, when were kids given rights? I've been told by several people(who I might add are NOT my parents) that say the only rights kids have are is to life, schooling, and not to child labor.
Also- its quite easy for a kid to change his/her mind once they grow up a bit. My parents are Christian- I am too. I was raised Christianly. 2 years ago, I started branching out, finding other religions, checking them out, exploring. I came back to Christianity because I could FEEL it when I looked for it.
Gotta remember, children aren't stupid. Just gullible- but that dissapears later.
Laws are there to protect individuals. Illegal is still illegal, even if it's done in the name of your religion. What if a religion orders you to kill all those who believe differently? Imo you can do what you want to yourself, but you can't hurt others.
Laws are there to protect individuals. Illegal is still illegal, even if it's done in the name of your religion. What if a religion orders you to kill all those who believe differently? Imo you can do what you want to yourself, but you can't hurt others. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Said religion is not a religion but rather a cult, as with any other "religion" that is counter productive to the well being of human beings. Honestly, you might as well compare a Sikh's long hair to circumcision, I mean, he <i>might</i> get it tangled around something and strangle himself in the shower. Just because there is a one in a million chance of something going wrong doesn't devaluate a religious practice.
Circumcision is a religions practice that has worked quite well for the last 4000 years, many of your friends are likely circumcized and you would never know the difference. There are hundreds of other unnessicary surgerys that aren't banned, and many of them have FAR worse track records then circumcision, I don't see how this is as much of an issue as it is.
Circumcision in the United States is not based on religious reasons, except for the jewish and muslim communities. However, female circumcision is also done for religious reasons. Does that make it okay?
There are hundreds of other unnessicary surgerys that aren't banned, and many of them have FAR worse track records then circumcision, I don't see how this is as much of an issue as it is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry for doublepost, I'm a lazy quoter.
Are you joking? You are comparing human hair with taking a scalpel to someone who can't say no. I'm sorry but that is a very non-functional analogy. "You might get your hair tangled and get strangled" is more than far fetched, comparing to the fact that even at the lowest reported complication rate, which is 0.2%, of the approximately 1,2 million infants circumcised in the united states, that still provides a severely dysfunctional or extremely unaestethical male organ (I'm not nasty enough to include pictures) for about 2400 infants. That's 2400 extremely complicative, unnecessary amputations. Some report the complication rate at 2% or even higher, which can most likely be interpreted to mean that slight disfigurement, such as skin bridges are probably not accounted for in the lowest estimate. If you can provide comprehensive statistics of sikhs strangled per year by their own hair that somehow measure up to the aforementioned, then maybe the analogy has some basis, and even then it is highly dubious, since growing hair does not involve non-consentual surgery.
Which are these hundreds of unnecessary surgeries you mention? Can I have some examples? It is true that, for example, lyposuction mortality rate numbers among the hights of all surgical procedures, but lyposuction and circumcision are not comparable, since the person undergoing the former does it of his/her own free will, pays for it, and should be aware of the risks. The infant being circumcised is not, and might never be.