Circumcision Ban

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

So you’re asking this beyond the boundries of this thread?

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Do you think the government has the right to infringe on a person’s religious freedom’s in the case of faith healing? [/quote]

Ideal government or American government? (Not trying to be a douchbag, I’m asking if you want my opinion of how it should be, or how I see things currently.)

To give an answer, it is kind of convoluted and complicated.

If we are talking about the privacy of one’s home, or specific patient doctor privlidge. No. The government has no place to mandate anyone to take someone to the hospital or bring in a doctor, nor do they have the right to force someone to agree to a proceedure a doctor recommends. Now I feel like it is a dumbass thing to do, sit back and watch someone suffer, hoping prayer alone will fix the problem. But it is the individual’s responsibily to care for themselves and those they love best way they see fit. If the best way they see if sucks, then someone dies.

In the wake of this, however, the state could certainly look into charges of neglect if they saw fit to do so.

Now if the situation is in public, it changes things slightly. Say a kid get mauled by an ape at the zoo. Poor little kid is dying on the pavement. If EMS or police are there, they have the duty to bring the kid to the hospital. Not the right, but the duty to protect and serve. Once you bring your problems into the public, things tend to change.

Now if the parent wants to litigate based on the police officer going agaisnt his wishes, I unfortunatly, believe he should have the option to.

[quote]I ask at what point is the government allowed to infringe on religious freedoms?

[/quote]

when the intent of the action is to harm another.

Now before I get 682 replies of “you intended to mutilate your son you heartless, under developed monster, fuck you scum bagggggg, my organasims are like 282 times better” or “haha, you contradasted u self”, note the view point that many of us horrid horrid cutters have. There is no intent to harm with cutting, it isn’t viewed as a harm, by those that do.

“But the defenition of the word mutilate”… Even though your opinion of the action may be X, doesn’t mean the action cannot be Y to others.

Please pardon the spelling errors I didn’t make on purpose.

162

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I will agree circumcision serves no purpose in today’s society other than tradition.

Doing something only for the sake of tradition is never a good reason. [/quote]

Really? Why do traditions do it? [/quote]

Better question would be, what purpose does circumcision serve?
[/quote]

Tradition.

163

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Circumcision was mainly done for hygienic purposes. It’s not relevant today.[/quote]

I didn’t know God was thinking about hygiene when he gave the Hebrews the sign of the covenant.

164

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

So tell me, who are YOU to feel entitled to chop the skin at the tip of your son’s penis off?[/quote]

Because, like millions of other people, it hasn’t ruined my life, and it didn’t ruin my fathers, or my father’s father, or his father’s father, etc.

So, I guess you can say it is a “rite of passage”. It is what we do, and will continue to do. I really don’t care what you call it. You can call it all the horrible names you want and use emotive language to describe it too, it isn’t going to change anything.

I respect your conviction and reasoning, and I would imagine your kids will carry on your tradition as well. I’m in no position to either judge or tell you what to do with your kids.

But, who am I to decide? His father. I don’t raise anyone else’s kids and no one else raises mine.[/quote]

Serious question. If your son had a complication would you still do it with your next?

[/quote]

Statistically, yes.

165

I am not going to offer any scientific bullshit, any religious rant, or any ethical chest thumping because I think parents will choose what they feel is best for their boys…

But I will offer something…porn…

The 2012 AVN Male Performer of the Year was not circumcized.

166

My take on this topic :
if it has no health benefit, it should not be considered a medical act.
Which doesn’t mean it should be banned.
Only that regular laws about elective surgery should apply. Whatever they may be.

In other words : if you want to strenghten your laws about elective surgery done on children (to avoid some issues with divorced parents, or to clarify the condition of parental consent, for example), then go for it, and change them all at once, but i don’t think it’s a good idea to make a special case and specific laws about circumcision.

That said, a question for the people who think that circumcision shouldn’t be banned because it’s a tradition : where do you draw the line, and why ?

Let’s say i’m an australian aboriginal who want to subject his son to the millenia old tradition of penile subincision.*
Is it ok or not ?

*if you don’t know what it is, use google image at your own risk. You’ve been warned.

167

[quote]kamui wrote:
My take on this topic :
if it has no health benefit, it should not be considered a medical act.
Which doesn’t mean it should be banned.
Only that regular laws about elective surgery should apply. Whatever they may be.

In other words : if you want to strenghten your laws about elective surgery done on children (to avoid some issues with divorced parents, or to clarify the condition of parental consent, for example), then go for it, and change them all at once, but i don’t think it’s a good idea to make a special case and specific laws about circumcision.

That said, a question for the people who think that circumcision shouldn’t be banned because it’s a tradition : where do you draw the line, and why ?

Let’s say i’m an australian aboriginal who want to subject his son to the millenia old tradition of penile subincision.*
Is it ok or not ?

*if you don’t know what it is, use google image at your own risk. You’ve been warned. [/quote]

Why?

Oh why?

168

Well, I’ve gotta go offshore again tomorrow, so I’ll be gone for a few weeks. Until the next circumcision thread, gentlemen!

Sorry about the quote clusterfuck up there - I tried to edit it, but I just don’t see where I fucked the quotes up. It’s beyond my meager skillz to fix. My bad.

169

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
My take on this topic :
if it has no health benefit, it should not be considered a medical act.
Which doesn’t mean it should be banned.
Only that regular laws about elective surgery should apply. Whatever they may be.

In other words : if you want to strenghten your laws about elective surgery done on children (to avoid some issues with divorced parents, or to clarify the condition of parental consent, for example), then go for it, and change them all at once, but i don’t think it’s a good idea to make a special case and specific laws about circumcision.

That said, a question for the people who think that circumcision shouldn’t be banned because it’s a tradition : where do you draw the line, and why ?

Let’s say i’m an australian aboriginal who want to subject his son to the millenia old tradition of penile subincision.*
Is it ok or not ?

*if you don’t know what it is, use google image at your own risk. You’ve been warned. [/quote]

Why?

Oh why?[/quote]

We humans are a sorry lot indeed.

Having seen that I not only change my position on circumcision but I say we take it a step further and completely remove the penises of our newborns. Clearly, we as a species cannot handle the responsibility of not mutilating our dicks. Might as well take away the option all together.

170

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Circumcision was mainly done for hygienic purposes. It’s not relevant today.[/quote]

I didn’t know God was thinking about hygiene when he gave the Hebrews the sign of the covenant. [/quote]

I don’t think God was thinking period when he came up with that nonsense.

171

[quote]kamui wrote:

That said, a question for the people who think that circumcision shouldn’t be banned because it’s a tradition : where do you draw the line, and why ?

Let’s say i’m an australian aboriginal who want to subject his son to the millenia old tradition of penile subincision.*
Is it ok or not ?

[/quote]

Who are you ro I to tell them they are wrong?

There is nothing, not a single thing I could ever say that would appease those who hold a different view point as I do… Which makes this conversation about as productive as the TBT v Split debate…

172

[quote]kamui wrote:
My take on this topic :
if it has no health benefit, it should not be considered a medical act.
Which doesn’t mean it should be banned.
Only that regular laws about elective surgery should apply. Whatever they may be.

In other words : if you want to strenghten your laws about elective surgery done on children (to avoid some issues with divorced parents, or to clarify the condition of parental consent, for example), then go for it, and change them all at once, but i don’t think it’s a good idea to make a special case and specific laws about circumcision.

That said, a question for the people who think that circumcision shouldn’t be banned because it’s a tradition : where do you draw the line, and why ?

Let’s say i’m an australian aboriginal who want to subject his son to the millenia old tradition of penile subincision.*
Is it ok or not ?

*if you don’t know what it is, use google image at your own risk. You’ve been warned. [/quote]

Why did I have be stupid and google that? I will never be the same.

173

[quote]kamui wrote:

*if you don’t know what it is, use google image at your own risk. You’ve been warned. [/quote]

[quote]orion wrote:

Why?

Oh why?[/quote]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

We humans are a sorry lot indeed.
[/quote]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

Why did I have be stupid and google that? I will never be the same.
[/quote]

Okay, either I’ve spent too much time on the internet or you guys need to spend more time on the internet.

That is pretty tame compared to the twisted shit some people do and film doing.

Protip: google and watch “glass ass”

174

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Okay, either I’ve spent too much time on the internet or you guys need to spend more time on the internet.

That is pretty tame compared to the twisted shit some people do and film doing.

Protip: google and watch “glass ass”[/quote]

I spend a lot of my time on the internet at work so I don’t get to look up all the fucked up stuff some of you get to (as of a few weeks ago we can’t even use google stuff like gmail from work computers anymore). I just happened to be working from home today much to my dismay.

175

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

That said, a question for the people who think that circumcision shouldn’t be banned because it’s a tradition : where do you draw the line, and why ?

Let’s say i’m an australian aboriginal who want to subject his son to the millenia old tradition of penile subincision.*
Is it ok or not ?

[/quote]

Who are you ro I to tell them they are wrong?

There is nothing, not a single thing I could ever say that would appease those who hold a different view point as I do… Which makes this conversation about as productive as the TBT v Split debate…

[/quote]

Split.

177

[quote]Chushin wrote:
The African nation of Kenya is attempting to get more than 1 million men between the ages of 15 and 49 circumcised by the end of 2013. If successful, this could be a groundbreaking effort in the fight to curb the spread of HIV.

[/quote]

so, no reason to wear condoms?

178

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
The African nation of Kenya is attempting to get more than 1 million men between the ages of 15 and 49 circumcised by the end of 2013. If successful, this could be a groundbreaking effort in the fight to curb the spread of HIV.

[/quote]

so, no reason to wear condoms?[/quote]

I know right! Like circumcision can somehow replace condoms.

179

What does the frequently cited 60% relative reduction in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%.

Take into account the fact that those who had the surgery most likely got educated on safer sex practices, and the use of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use, would there be a difference?

Also, in Zimbabwe the ministry of health is deceiving people by announcing to them that once they are circumcised, they become immune to HIV/AIDS effectively encouraging them to engage in promiscuity. Instead of reducing the risk, circumcision has been tested through behaviour change to actually be a protagonist of HIV transmission, critics state. One recent randomized controlled trial carried out in South Africa into male-to-female transmission actually demonstrated a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised.

180

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
The African nation of Kenya is attempting to get more than 1 million men between the ages of 15 and 49 circumcised by the end of 2013. If successful, this could be a groundbreaking effort in the fight to curb the spread of HIV.

[/quote]

so, no reason to wear condoms?[/quote]

I know right! Like circumcision can somehow replace condoms.
[/quote]

From the article:

‘At the clinic, counselors explain to the boys that circumcision isn’t a magic shield and that they should also use condoms to protect against HIV.’

I thought you were concerned about people’s health and that’s why you want circumcision outlawed raj?