Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Recent Posts


Dhimmitude in Spain: Spai...
Today at 10:50 PM

Dawahman banned for homop...
Today at 10:48 PM

❀ What do you believe?
Today at 10:41 PM

Scientific Miracles in th...
Today at 10:03 PM

Peer faces formal complai...
Today at 09:33 PM

Funny/Cool/Interesting me...
Today at 09:07 PM

Greetings
Today at 08:48 PM

Cosmology in Islam
by orko
Today at 08:40 PM

Beware of the seals.
Today at 08:24 PM

Daisy Chain
Today at 07:36 PM

Discussion about "My Orde...
Today at 07:11 PM

undeniable scientific err...
by orko
Today at 07:00 PM

Donations

Kitty is lost

Theme Changer

 Topic: Let Boys Decide at 16

 (Read 948 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Let Boys Decide at 16
     OP - July 19, 2012, 04:43 PM

    Quote
    All human beings should be able to make their own decisions about whether their genitals are to be injured. All the more so if such a procedure is irreversible and not medically necessary.

    In countries where daily personal hygiene is possible and routine, there are no, or at least only highly doubtful, verifiable medical advantages of circumcising a child. Even if the removal of the foreskin could minimize the man’s risk of contracting H.I.V. or reduce his female partners’ risk of developing cervical cancer, this does not justify the circumcision of children. Whatever risks might exist for an uncircumcised man and his partners, they would not become relevant until the man is sexually active. For young boys, there are no medical benefits. On the contrary, circumcision carries all the risks inherent in any surgery.

    Aside from these practical and medical considerations, ethical arguments alone would strongly suggest that medically unnecessary operations should be delayed until a patient is capable of deciding whether to have a part of his genitals cut off. This is the bedrock principle of informed consent, and lawmakers or judges would need to decide the age at which a boy is capable of this decision. Perhaps 16 is a logical age. It would be a straightforward law: “Circumcisions not based on a medical indication are unlawful without prior informed consent. Such consent is valid only after completion of the 16th year of a person’s life.”



    SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/10/an-age-of-consent-for-circumcision/let-boys-decide-at-16-whether-to-be-circumcised

  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #1 - July 19, 2012, 05:21 PM

    Why do people focus on circumcision so much?  It's done when you're a child and most of us don't even remember any pain.  It doesn't affect us sexually in any way. 

    I'm not saying there aren't isolated cases where a circumcision went wrong... but that's the case with anything.  I'm sure there a children whose ears get infected when they get a piercing.

    The other thing is that it is safer to get a circumcision when the child is young.  It is a more complicated procedure and the recovery is much longer when you are an adult.  By delaying the age to 16, you are denying the child the right to be circumcised as an infant and not go through the trauma of having genital surgery as a young adult.

    Circumcision is simply not like cutting off an arm or mutilation.  Parents make a billion and one choices for their children.  I really don't see whats so horrible about circumcision that people make such a big deal about it.  Parents make many choices that are permanent and more impacting than circumcision.    I question a lot of things my parents did right/wrong
    - Did they enroll me in sports to make me nimble and fit?
    - Did they expose me to enough extended family to develop my community social skills.
    - Did they give me enough exposure to music to develop my musical talent?
    - Were they too restrictive in my upbringing?
    ...

    If you had parents that didn't expose you to spicy food... so you grew up with the taste buds to appreciate spicy food.... awww... well... too bad.  There's no need for a law like that.   


    The more you learn about human development, the more you will realize just how important childhood is.  It is why things like ECE are so important to experts these days.  Our minds are not as malleable as you would like to think.  Things like how a parent treats their child has such a greater more permanent impact on a child than if they were circumcised.

    The parent child relationship is complicated and children don't have full adult rights... they are a free-thinking adult in progress.  It is just a fact that whoever raises the child WILL be making choices for them.   Of those choices, circumcision is simply not one of much consequence that I think people should worry about.


  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #2 - July 19, 2012, 06:53 PM

    it's not about something going wrong that stands out, its more about the loss you suffer that you don't even notice.

    Your penis was far more sensitive once and now it's not.  You can't know the difference so don't know what you missed out on, but you did miss out on something.

    Something that a person should have a choice in with full knowledge of what they might be giving up.


    "I came into the world imbued with the will to find a meaning in things, my spirit filled with the desire to attain to the source of the world, and then I found that I was an object in the midst of other objects" - Fanon
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #3 - July 19, 2012, 07:10 PM

    it's not about something going wrong that stands out, its more about the loss you suffer that you don't even notice.

    Your penis was far more sensitive once and now it's not.  You can't know the difference so don't know what you missed out on, but you did miss out on something.

    Something that a person should have a choice in with full knowledge of what they might be giving up.


    I go back to my example.  If a child has parents who don't eat spicy foods... and because of that their taste buds don't develop to appreciate spicy food, these parents are denying their child a future to enjoy spicy foods. 

    It's a decision parents make among billions of them.  If it doesn't have much consequence... let families be.
    Could I possibly be missing out on some kind of sexual experience?  Possibly.  But I have a good enough sexual experience.  Just like a child not exposed to spicy food has a good enough eating experience.

    In the end, billions of people over thousands of years go through their life circumcised and it doesn't make a lick of difference in their life as a whole.  So why do people focus on it so much?



  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #4 - July 19, 2012, 07:24 PM


    umm.. I have some question, does circumcision, or early one, makes your penis short, stunted growth ? it goes down cause not much room to stretch, or maybe because too much foreskin being cut, if this is true how does it effect early circumcision or a late one

    a question from a friend of my friend, thank you
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #5 - July 19, 2012, 07:26 PM

    In the end, billions of people over thousands of years go through their life circumcised and it doesn't make a lick of difference in their life as a whole.  So why do people focus on it so much?


    Exactly. It's much like the outdated cultural practice of ripping off babies' fingernails after birth in order to prevent them scratching themselves. Usually the nail bed would be destroyed so that they would never grow fingernails. Since it's done when they are an infant, they don't remember the pain. And it really makes no difference in their lives whether they have fingernails or not, and it's a lot more practical to just do it at birth and then not have to worry about it again, so I'm not sure why people made such a big deal out of it and stopped doing it.

    Seriously, it's ridiculous to get so worked up over things like circumcision and nail bed destruction, since it has so little impact in the long run. And it's the parent's choice anyway how to care for their child, so we should just let families be.

    "Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." Rosa Luxemburg

    Everything in life
    is a good experience
    or a good story.
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #6 - July 19, 2012, 07:39 PM

    Quote
    The sensitivity issue. Perhaps the most fear-inducing argument the anti-circumcision people employ is the idea that a circumcised penis is not as sexually sensitive as its circumcised counterpart. Yet no study has conclusively proven that to be true. The American Academy of Pediatricians reports that in a self-reporting study, circumcised men enjoyed “more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction” than their uncircumcised brothers. And the APA calls reports of loss of sensitivity in circumcised men merely “anecdotal.”

    Meanwhile a real study has shown the idea to be a myth. The LA Times reports:

        “A recent controlled study published in the January issue of BJU International, the British Journal of Urology, looked at nearly 4,500 Ugandan men, ages 15 to 49, who were all sexually experienced. Researchers randomly selected half to undergo circumcision, and half to have a circumcision in 24 months. They compared the two groups at six, 12 and 24 months to measure sexual satisfaction and performance.

        The circumcised group’s rate of sexual satisfaction remained constant, with 98.5% reporting sexual satisfaction before circumcision, and 98.4% reporting so two years after the procedure.”


    Men who are circumcised later in life do sometimes say that it takes more friction to get things going, but find their orgasms equally or sometimes even more intense. And if you can keep the great orgasms while also lasting longer and pleasing your woman, isn’t that a good thing? I doubt a lot of women are wishing their men were more sensitive than they already are.

    Anti-circumcision advocates also say that sex is less pleasurable for the women because the foreskin provides natural lubrication. But again, such a theory is based on anecdotal evidence. For every story you can find online of women preferring sex with an uncircumcised penis, you can find ones which favor the alternative. (Warning! This link contains graphic language and pictures). Many women prefer the feeling of an circumcised penis; women have said that having sex with a uncircumcised man feels as though he is having sex inside his own foreskin instead of inside of her.

    ArtOfManliness.com
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #7 - July 19, 2012, 07:56 PM

    I should add that I don't agree with the entire article in the website, but the studies it mentions are quite telling. They show that the whole "loss of nerves equates to loss of pleasure" argument is really an oversimplification. It doesn't resonate with men's experiences.
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #8 - July 19, 2012, 08:19 PM

    Why do people focus on circumcision so much?



    Because bodily integrity is a human right.

    As for weighing up the pros and cons of mutilating a penis; weigh up the pros and cons for mutilating YOUR OWN penis. Leave everybody else's alone.
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #9 - July 19, 2012, 08:31 PM

    I'm not weighing the pros and cons. I wouldn't circumcise my son if I had one. But facts are facts.
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #10 - July 21, 2012, 06:57 AM

    It's not a question of organ sensitivity, but of human rights. The "well, it still seems to work fine" argument doesn't work if someone is using it to try to condone the coerced genital mutilation of children and babies.
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #11 - July 21, 2012, 07:49 AM

    Again, I'm not arguing for infant circumcision.
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #12 - July 21, 2012, 08:02 AM

    Why do people focus on circumcision so much?

    Probably because people like you continue to contrive so many colourful, creative, overlong, faux-intellectual and sometimes outright moronic ways to justify chopping off bits of babies. And because people chop off bits of babies.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #13 - July 21, 2012, 11:11 AM

    Why do people focus on circumcision so much?

    Lack of consent maybe?
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #14 - July 21, 2012, 03:04 PM

    Before I reply your post I want to thank you for your endeavor in replying my thread, I appreciate it Smiley

    Why do people focus on circumcision so much?  It's done when you're a child and most of us don't even remember any pain.  It doesn't affect us sexually in any way.   


    People focus on circumcision first of all because it is a useless thing to do if not necessary, especially when you are obliged to do it regardless if u need it or don't need it.

    It is disputable if it affects us sexually or not, first of all I have talked to my friend's father he is a specialist doctor, he said that circumcised penises don't get to grow to their full potential, many circumcisions are not done properly and u end up with a crooked dick pointing either to the sky, taking a U shape, pointing to the left and so on.

    I'm not saying there aren't isolated cases where a circumcision went wrong... but that's the case with anything.  I'm sure there a children whose ears get infected when they get a piercing.   


    How does this justify circumcising infants without their consent or even piercing their ears, if piercing ears was prone to serious consequences such as circumcision where in many cases death has followed than even ear piercing should be forbidden and it should be up to the girl if she wants to wear earring or not when she grows up.

    All this stuff are primitive barbaric middle age nonsense.

    The other thing is that it is safer to get a circumcision when the child is young.  It is a more complicated procedure and the recovery is much longer when you are an adult.  By delaying the age to 16, you are denying the child the right to be circumcised as an infant and not go through the trauma of having genital surgery as a young adult. 


    It is not safer, I don't think it is safer, maybe it was safer 1000 years ago not now, now they perform brain surgeries and heart transplants on 50 years old people with minimal risks u are talking about removing some lame skin from the tip of the penis.

    I think even 16 is too early the kid should decide if he wants to get circumcised when he is 18 and adult, what if the kid doesn't believe in this lame kind of practice Huh?? what if they circumcise him and when he turns an adult he realizes he wouldn't have done it if he was in their parents place.

    Circumcision is simply not like cutting off an arm or mutilation.  Parents make a billion and one choices for their children.  I really don't see whats so horrible about circumcision that people make such a big deal about it.  Parents make many choices that are permanent and more impacting than circumcision.    I question a lot of things my parents did right/wrong
    - Did they enroll me in sports to make me nimble and fit?
    - Did they expose me to enough extended family to develop my community social skills.
    - Did they give me enough exposure to music to develop my musical talent?
    - Were they too restrictive in my upbringing?   


    In many cases it is, in many cases people will get some kind of infection that will disable them sexually, this is something that can be avoided and unnecessary that is why it is better not to be done when the kid is an infant.

    Of course parents make billions of wrong choices, some of those wrong choices are inevitable some of them come as the result of the parents ignorance and many of those choices can't be controlled by the state or sanctioned by law cuz  it is impossible.

    - Parents shouldn't enroll u by force in sports, they should only educate u and explain the positive implications of a sport also the negative implications of a sport, then it will up to u if u want to enroll a certain sport discipline or not, it is wrong to force ur kid to do something he doesn't wanna do.

    - That is something that can't be controlled by the state or sanctioned by law and the state or the law can't force ignorant parents to teach their kids what they don't know, this is simple rule, if ur parents didn't educate u well or didn't expose u to enough extended family to develop ur skills that is because they were dumbfucks and didn't know better and the state can't do nothing about that, u can't ask a guy on a wheelchair to teach u kickboxing and u can't ask dumb parents or backwards parents to expose their kids to something they can't do, your parents are supposed to educate u with the best they can do then it is up to you and luck what u gonna become in life.

    - If they were restrictive to the level where they abused u and stripped u from ur freedoms such as not sending u to school which is required by law or not letting u go out and keeping u locked in the basement which is also restricted and sanctioned by law is wrong, or even beating u is wrong and sanctioned by law.

    It depends what u define by Strict.

    If you had parents that didn't expose you to spicy food... so you grew up with the taste buds to appreciate spicy food.... awww... well... too bad.  There's no need for a law like that.   


    This argument is problematic in so many levels, first of all the consequences of this can't be compared to the permanent consequences that a circumcision can have, secondly maybe ur parents didn't like spicy food, maybe they didn't prefer any spicy food and all they cooked at home was non-spicy food, now how would ur parents know that one day when u grow up u would have appreciated spicy food, there is no way for them to know that, secondly if u asked for spicy food when u were a kid and it was denied to u that would be a non ethical act by ur parents but if u never asked about any spicy food while u were a kid and u had no idea there is such a thing then there is no problem here because u can enjoy it later in life when u grow up, thirdly it is wrong for the government to force parents to do something they don't wanna do, fourthly how will this even be possible/? how will the government bring a law that says u should give kids spicy food, how would the government know the kid prefers spicy food in the first place Huh?

    If they had some kind of mechanism that would predict that the kid madly prefers spicy food then the government could do something about it and tell their parents to feed their child some spicy food and sanction them or punish them if they refuse to do so even though this is a terrible analogy I am still considering to give it a serious reply.


    The more you learn about human development, the more you will realize just how important childhood is.  It is why things like ECE are so important to experts these days.  Our minds are not as malleable as you would like to think.  Things like how a parent treats their child has such a greater more permanent impact on a child than if they were circumcised. 


    Yes the more we learn about human development the more we know what to do and what not to do and the more we bring laws that will curb certain deleterious behaviors.

    Things such as how parents raise their children do certainly have huge impact on who we are that is why there are laws that prohibit u from beating ur kids, mentally abusing them, denying them the rights to educate themselves, keeping them locked in a room against their will and forcing them into something that will affect them negatively.

    Circumcision is one of them, it can have permanent bad consequences on a kid and it can be sanctioned, it is not like there is no way for u to know if this thing happens or not, the government can do something to sanction this practice even though I highly doubt they will stop it from happening 100% and I think it is impossible to stop it 100%.

    The parent child relationship is complicated and children don't have full adult rights... they are a free-thinking adult in progress.  It is just a fact that whoever raises the child WILL be making choices for them.   Of those choices, circumcision is simply not one of much consequence that I think people should worry about.   


    Yeah we know it is complicated but just because kids don't have full adult right that doesn't mean u can rape them in the ass or treat them in such a way that is known will bring 100% negative consequences, things such as raping him, beating him, locking him up and mentally abusing him, there are laws that try to prevent these kind of actions as much as possible and circumcision is one of them, even though in most cases it has no negative effects, it sometimes has some fatal consequences and it is worth sanctioning it when it comes to circumcising kids who can't accede to it and are not able to give assent.

    Of course who ever raises them will be making choices for them, this is inevitable but at least we should try to stop parents from making bad choices for them, of those choices circumcision is a choice that can have serious implications on kids health and sexuality.

  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #15 - July 22, 2012, 01:11 PM

    If this is all about the right of the child over the rights of parents...I am sorry to go off topic...but shouldn't children have the right/decide to be bought up in gay marriage/partnership.

    I am my own worst enemy and best friend, itsa bit of a squeeze in a three-quarter bed, tho. Unhinged!? If I was a dog I would be having kittens, that is unhinged. Footloose n fancy free, forced to fit, fated to fly. One or 2 words, 3 and 3/thirds, looking comely but lonely, till I made them homely.D
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #16 - July 22, 2012, 01:31 PM

    I think Manomides is quite clear and it is generally accepted in communities that do this that male genital mutilation does make men "quieter" and more docile.

    If you want that fine.

    I would also not allow sixteen year olds to decide - I cannot see how it would be possibly be a free decision.

    Quote
    Part III, Chapter 33

    To the totality of purposes of the perfect Law there belong the abandonment, depreciation, and restraint of desires in so far as possible. You know already that most of the lusts and licentiousness of the multitude consist in an appetite for eating, drinking and sexual intercourse.

    To the totality of intentions of the Law there belong gentleness and docility; man should not be hard and rough, but responsive, obedient, acquiescent, and docile. You know already His commandment... "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. Be silent, and hearken, O Israel. If ye be willing and obedient."

    Part III, Chapter 49

    Page 609:

    Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision.

    None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.



    http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    ― A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #17 - July 22, 2012, 01:38 PM

    Is it OK to cut off one's lips?

    Quote
    Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis and Circumcision, A Dangerous Collective Madness

    Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux Salem-News.com
    The extreme seriousness of this syndrome comes from the fact that it is perpetrated upon the child.



    (PARIS, France) - A recent advance in psychiatric criminology is interested in the perpetrators of sexual mutilation. It diagnoses a transgenerational and collective Münchhausen syndrome by proxy[1],[2]. Strongly united by ethnic complicity, the criminals acquire honour, illusory glory, power, empathy of the group and ethnic superiority.

    This not only from the mutilation inflicted upon their victims but also from that they themselves endured from their own parents. Indeed, they consider it beneficial. This gives this syndrome an exceptional strength, a particularly fierce compulsion of repetition, backed by a massive denial of the reality of the endured loss and reinforced by the collective character of the aggression.

    Normally a simple distinguishing feature, mutilation is magnified as a sign of collective identity that is impossible to question without provoking an outcry. The extreme seriousness of this syndrome comes from the fact that it is perpetrated upon the child.

    In the common Münchhausen syndrome, abusers conceal their crime. But as soon as the syndrome becomes collective, criminal concealment reverses into public display of the received and inflicted mutilation. The latter is negated as such; the abusers boast and it becomes a symbol of their collective identity that discriminates them from foreigners.

    Similarly, the compulsion to consult the doctor, banal in the ordinary Münchhausen, does not exist in ritual sexual mutilation. Here, religion and tradition take the place of medical authority. The traditional values of respect for human nature are totally inverted in the name of a hastily baptized cultural fanaticism. Sexual mutilation then becomes second nature: an obscene, abhorrent and inhuman "normality". We are in the presence of a collective madness.

    The great criticism of this seductive psychiatric description is that, unlike psychoanalysis, it sees things from outside. It reports and exposes an exacerbated narcissism without seeing its deep cause. For it passes off the essence of the phenomenon: compulsion of domination over the individual and other groups, characterized by a mutilating torture that puts the minor under terror, for life.

    For the psychoanalyst, the matter is reversal into the contrary of the forbidden sexual pleasure (autosexuality). The right to the latter is only acquired through a monstrous sacrifice, and lessened (men) or transformed into pain (women). All this is necessary to merit love and esteem of the parents, society and the divinity. Sexual mutilation directly hits the decreed guilty organ. This for the greatest satisfaction of the neurotic, made guilty and making guilty perpetrators.

    The most extraordinary symptom of sexual mutilation

    Psychoanalysis brings to light a peculiar symptom of sexual mutilation. It allows to decipher a particularity of Biblical Hebrew. Indeed, a same term (שפה) designates the lips and the tongue, as if the latter were part of the lips and vice-versa, as if the tongue did not have two functions: taste and elocution, that the lips do not have. Besides, the envelope of the tongue is not the lips but the whole mouth. On the other hand, it is true that man's major erogenous zone is continuous from the glans to the outer foreskin.

    We are in the presence of the most formidable symptom of the history of psychoanalysis: a flaw, an astonishing lack in the Hebraic language. That the latter should not distinguish two as different in their form and function organs results from a pathologic, typically Freudian emotiono-mental displacement. That shift is operated through a metaphor that testifies, in the oral zone, of the reality slaughtered by circumcision in the sexual parts.

    "Circumcision is unconsciously equated with castration." ~Sigmund Freud
    The implicit comparison between on the one hand, the lips and the tongue, on the other hand, the glans and the foreskin, shows that this symptom results from the engraving within the mind of the trauma endured at the end of the penis. The collective symptom denounces the crime against humanity. That metaphor is doubled by a metonymy; the content: the tongue, is likened to the container: the lips. That weird metonymy is utterly denunciatory.

    Modern Hebrew gets round the problem in a telling way; it preserves the root but puts it into the feminine for the lips and the masculine for the tongue. But since what is true for the glans is not so for the tongue, it did not suppress the symptom but made it a neurotic one. However, for a hyperactive and catching minority, psychosis is still there.

    That a monstrous mass criminality against children should end in such a disorder is not astonishing. If "the word is the murder of the thing" (Lacan), the reverse is confirmed in that example.

    The madness of ritual mutilation and the trauma that it generates have provoked a gap in the language, and the alleged superiority an obvious weakness. The absence in Hebrew of what Lacan would call a "significant" constitutes a removing of a term that lacks in the language of a whole people.

    This is an extraordinary symptom of collective psychosis; the repressed or removed from the real of the sex comes back into the real of the language. So, we have established the psychotic nature of the collective trauma provoked by circumcision at birth. The latter is dangerous, it may drive one mad, collectively mad (cf. the first genocide in history: Jericho), which we stressed through establishing the strong existing correlation between violence and circumcision: http://circabolition.multiply.com/journal/item/344/Genocides_wars_the_death_penalty_excision_rape_and_circumcision



    http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march242011/sexual-mutilation_mhn.php

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    ― A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #18 - July 22, 2012, 06:44 PM

    can somebody who thinks it is ok to circumcise a child without an existing medical reason, please explain what other body parts they consider optional?

    If, as I suspect, you believe that bodily integrity is a human right, except in the case of the foreskin, can please explain why the foreskin is so special to you that it, and it alone, justifies non medical surgery on a (by definition non consenting) child.

    good luck
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #19 - July 22, 2012, 11:22 PM

    can somebody who thinks it is ok to circumcise a child without an existing medical reason, please explain what other body parts they consider optional?


    ear lobes, hair, male nipples...

    If we had a culture in the world that chopped off baby earlobes, it wouldn't be the end of the world as far as I'm concerned.  As long as they did it in a way that minimized pain for the baby.

    It's not a matter of whether you think it is a good idea or not, but if you think the government should intervene and make things illegal and lock people up.  To cross that line in the parent-child relationship, I think you have to show substantial harm to the child. 

    Like you might not agree with physical punishment for a child, but I certainly wouldn't want parents sent to jail for giving their child a few smacks on the bum.  But I would want them sent to jail for consistently beating their child over years and leaving bruises...

    Launch education programs... get parents to change their mind... don't do it to your own kids...
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #20 - July 23, 2012, 05:59 AM

    you honestly think a parent has the right to cut off their child's ear lobes?


    people who surgically modifiy their children's bodies have already crossed the line. Yes it should be illegal, and I believe that one day it will be. Circumcisers are on the losing team.
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #21 - July 23, 2012, 06:09 AM

    " It diagnoses a transgenerational and collective Münchhausen syndrome by proxy"

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    ― A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #22 - July 23, 2012, 08:19 AM

    If this is all about the right of the child over the rights of parents...I am sorry to go off topic...but shouldn't children have the right/decide to be bought up in gay marriage/partnership.


    WTF? Huh?
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #23 - July 23, 2012, 08:49 AM

    If this is all about the right of the child over the rights of parents...I am sorry to go off topic...but shouldn't children have the right/decide to be bought up in gay marriage/partnership.

    If we had a culture in the world that chopped off baby earlobes, it wouldn't be the end of the world as far as I'm concerned.  As long as they did it in a way that minimized pain for the baby.


    Is it Idiot Day today or something?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #24 - July 23, 2012, 09:21 AM

    ^ I think so.

    As someone who got circumsized after converting, I agree with the proposal.

    Why even take the risk of a botched operation on a child? It's unecessary surgery, nothing more nothing less.

    And like it or not the sensation is different from being uncircumsized - being open I'm looking to strech the skin back.

    I was an adult and made a deeply regretted choice, but I'm grateful that I was able to make a choice as adult.
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #25 - July 24, 2012, 03:11 AM

    Is it Idiot Day today or something?


     Cheesy

    At least scamper's analogy showed some consistency, da's on the other hand...  wacko
  • Re: Let Boys Decide at 16
     Reply #26 - July 24, 2012, 06:42 AM

    Is it Idiot Day today or something?


     Cheesy Cheesy



    The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
                                   Thomas Paine

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored !- Aldous Huxley
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »