| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
 Posted - 07/27/2007 : 12:56:57
|
Hmmm, I looked the word up in the dictionary, and it does apply to the way I think of the procedure.
mutilate
3. "To make imperfect by excising or altering parts."
The way I see it, a boy is born with his dick the way it is, and I might as well call it "perfect". So when someone "excises or alters parts" through circumcision then it becomes less than perfect. The dictionary supplies the word "mutilate" for this. So it is the word I'd use and the way I think of it, it sums up the procedure exactly. Naturally this is subjective and you won't agree, and I don't have a problem with you not agreeing, i.e., I'm not insulted by your difference of opinion.
But I don't make a habit of arguing about the way I use words (or the way others use words), so I've substituted the word "mutilate" with "alter" without changing the meaning or the way I think of the procedure, after all I've made it clear the way I think of it. No skin off my nose.  |
 |
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 14:52:13
|
Didn't Christopher Columbo circumscise the globe with a large clipper. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 14:53:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Naturally this is subjective and you won't agree, and I don't have a problem with you not agreeing, i.e., I'm not insulted by your difference of opinion.
That's nice, but you've chosen a word that you know is going to be interpreted as highly critical of what many people consider a religious duty, which shows a great deal of insensitivity. It's nice that you followed it up by saying you're willing to "substitute" a different word, but preceding that with a lengthy explanation of why you think it's proper to call it "mutilation" is unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 14:55:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I could be wrong about this, but I don't think any government in the modern world enforce traditional circumcision laws.
Well, there certainly isn't a law of manditory circumcision here in Israel. I don't know about Muslim countries, however.
Yeah, well he DID qualify it as "the MODERN world." |
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 14:56:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Naturally this is subjective and you won't agree, and I don't have a problem with you not agreeing, i.e., I'm not insulted by your difference of opinion.
Same here.
At the time that my son was born, circumcision of infant boys was still somewhat routine. While pregnant, I read up on it and decided that it would be a nice gift to my son to just let him be. (I also homeschooled at a time when it was still considered to be anti-establishment. Now it is commonplace here.)
When I visited with the physician who was to be my son's pediatrician, before my son was born, that doctor told me he was pleased with my decision to let my boy remain intact. He said that on the occasions that he had observed circumcisions, he was saddened by the distress that it caused to the babies.
It is difficult for me to relate to acceptance of cultural/religious traditions of the nature of circumcision without questioning them. However, I've always been an 'outsider.' If I'd had the benefits of feeling like I was part of a great tradition or faith or people, perhaps I too would have been proud to participate in the traditions of the group.
I have been pleased to read here, however, posts such as BB's, that explain that circumcision rarely has lifelong complications of any kind for men or their lovemaking partners.
I think there is no denying that infant circumcision has aspects that are cruel and cause pain and sometimes cause suffering. However, it does appear that the pain is forgotten. I wouldn't want to do that to a baby myself. But if it must be done by some parents, I am relieved to know that the pain isn't remembered and that complications are rare.
I think we're all intelligent enough here that I don't have to place a note to state the obvious, "I offer this purely for the sake of discussion and I respect other opinions, people and faiths and traditions, etc. etc. and I have no interest in trying to force/persuade anyone to believe that my opinions are the correct ones."
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 14:59:06
|
| I can honestly say that I would be really disappointed with my parents if they hadn't taken care of that when I was an infant. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 17:48:35
|
I'm not a creationist type, but... surely if the infinite wisdom of God didn't want us to have this bit of skin then why did he design us with it? Who are we mere mortals to modify God's perfect design?
Alternatively, for the Darwinians... we've evolved to this point with this bit of skin and, unlike other seemingly useless body parts (I've heard that appendixes are slowly evolving their way out), foreskins keep coming back with every new generation.
At any rate, this strikes me as something the amputee-to-be should probably have a word in the decision over. If they're not old enough to decide yet, then you should probably wait until they are. I don't even see how this can be defended in the name of religeous beliefs- how do you know the child has/ will grow up to have the same beliefs as you? What would happen if they later on decided their belief was in some religeon which required a foreskin? You'd have just removed their choice in this very important decision  |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 23:37:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Naturally this is subjective and you won't agree, and I don't have a problem with you not agreeing, i.e., I'm not insulted by your difference of opinion.
That's nice, but you've chosen a word that you know is going to be interpreted as highly critical of what many people consider a religious duty, which shows a great deal of insensitivity.
It's not "insensitive". I was aware that some might not like my choice of words. I was simply being honest with my opinion on it. I don't see any value in being dishonest with one's opinion.
I'm an Anglo-Celtic religion-hating atheist and have been for every second of my life. Numerous aspects of many religions have caused me to rip my hair out (well, not literally) over the years. Circumcision is pretty much at the bottom of the seriousness scale though as it's never going to affect me in any way. (But I do know people who use much stronger language than the word I used when discussing circumcision). Obviously matters such as attempts to remove science from schools that conflicts with scripture, barbaric female genital mutilation, training kids that it's their religious duty to strap explosives to their waist and kill people, and any time that someone justifies their selfish and/or aggressive behaviour with their self-proclaimed divine righteousness are much more of a problem for our species and planet. But I'll repeat; next to those issues circumcision is a non-issue.
Good thread though. Now I know what everyone else thinks of "the ol' snip". Just what I've always wanted to know.   |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 23:40:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I can honestly say that I would be really disappointed with my parents if they hadn't taken care of that when I was an infant.
A friend of mine who is circumcised had kids a few years ago. He told me there was no way was he going to have his son snipped. Not that he'd had any problems with his own circumcised state, but he saw no point in it at all and so was determined to leave his son in his natural state, so he did. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 01:52:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Seeing as none of this was covered in any of the holy books, and being devoid of any kind of religous sentiment myself, how am I supposed to know whether this act is right or wrong (that's GOOD or EVIL to you religous types I guess)?
I hate to point this out, BiggerBoat, but your 100% wrong. Genesis chapter 17 deals explicitly with the commandment to perform circumcisions. To summarize:
After the birth of his first son, Ishmael, through his wife's maid, God speaks to Abram promising him that he will father two great nations: one through Ishamel and the other through another child that will be born from his wife, Sarai, who, until that point, could not bare children. God also promises that the descendants of this unborn child (later named Isaac) will inherit what will later be known as the biblical "Land of Israel" (not to be confused with the modern "State of Israel"). God then commands Abram to circumcise himself and all of his descendants forever as a sign of this covenent. God then changes Abram's name to Abraham and Sarai's name to Sarah.
Whether the above makes sense, is impossible, or is historical truth or not is irrelevent here because most anti-circumcision activists aren't interested in debunking the entire Bible. The fact is that circumcision is more than just a tradition or custom for practicing Jews and Muslims; it is a commandment from God that is followed with love and pride.
On the other hand, the Bible does not command people who aren't Abraham's descendants (or identify themselves as one) to circumcise their males. Therefore, the majority of uncircumcised males in Britain, Australia, etc. can sleep soundly knowing they aren't breaking any biblical laws by not being circumcised. Not all the commandments in the Torah apply to everyone universally (in fact, very few do). |
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 03:51:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
Therefore, the majority of uncircumcised males in Britain, Australia, etc. can sleep soundly
Lorena Bobbitt |
|
|
|
TitanPa 
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 04:19:19
|
So you anti-Circumcisonists must also be agaist...
Tattoos
Earrings
Nose Rings
Nipple Rings
Belly Rings
Face Lifts
Boob Jobs
Sex Changes
Lip Injections
Hair Transplants
Mole Removals
Skin Bleaching
Hair Coloring
Never alter how God made you. Right?
|
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 04:21:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
Therefore, the majority of uncircumcised males in Britain, Australia, etc. can sleep soundly
Lorena Bobbitt
I'm awake NOW! |
|
|
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 04:59:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
So you anti-Circumcisonists must also be agaist...
Tattoos
Earrings
Nose Rings
Nipple Rings
Belly Rings
Face Lifts
Boob Jobs
Sex Changes
Lip Injections
Hair Transplants
Mole Removals
Skin Bleaching
Hair Coloring
Never alter how God made you. Right?
I haven't done any of them.  |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 05:24:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
So you anti-Circumcisonists must also be agaist...
Tattoos
Earrings
Nose Rings
Nipple Rings
Belly Rings
Face Lifts
Boob Jobs
Sex Changes
Lip Injections
Hair Transplants
Mole Removals
Skin Bleaching
Hair Coloring
Never alter how God made you. Right?
I had a mole removed as it might have been cancerous (it wasn't), but I've done none of the others. Not that that matters, as I'd happily do any of them to myself that I felt like doing. The point is that I'd never do ANY of them to a baby without asking him first. And as he couldn't answer I'd take his answer as "No". |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
circumcision controversies
