matttherobot
Meteorite
As I Spy From Behind My Giant Robot's Eyes
Posts: 26
|
Post by matttherobot on Apr 9, 2010 22:30:07 GMT -5
What's wrong with just leaving it up to the parents' choice? Do we need to have everybody in agreement here?
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Apr 9, 2010 22:32:44 GMT -5
My religion believes that having 5 fingers on one hand is immoral so when you are a baby, we cut off your index finger from both hands. You have no choice in the matter because you are only 1 day old. Sucks to be you.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 9, 2010 22:37:22 GMT -5
Even if we don't want to take away the parents' right to choose, it's still valuable to have collected, accurate information on the issue with which people can make that decision.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 10, 2010 0:21:24 GMT -5
However when the choice is going to effect the rest of their life it should be their own choice and no one elses. That's my point. It really does not affect the outcome of your life, circumcised or not. I didn't say anything about the outcome. I just said their life. It's very well possible that a persons mental and emotional state would be the same either way as they were too young to remember what happened anyway however that doesn't mean that a change hasn't happened in their life. Physically they are different than how they were born and that's the change I was refering to. I could use a different example like say... if they were born without a thumb on their right hand. A parent could choose to have their finger broken and repositioned so that it acts as a thumb but then what if the child turns out to be left handed anyway? They would of never needed a thumb on their right hand and either way their right hand wouldn't be normal so what was the point of doing it?
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Apr 10, 2010 0:31:38 GMT -5
You're right, I probably won't need my penis for anything.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 10, 2010 0:45:14 GMT -5
And from the child's perspective, this actully goes beyond your responsibility. They are only under your responsibility untill they turn 18, after that they're legally responsible for their own actions and their own body. Circumcision is not something that you can do to a child while it's in your care that can be reversed if they don't like it as an adult therefore it shouldn't be your choice to do it. The pro side seems to only be thinking of this as a "parent's choice" like the child can never choose on their own but that's only true if you do it. If you don't do it then they have a choice to do it or not to do it. And because it's a choice they have to live with it should be their choice. Sounds crazy right. But it is a way to ensure a strong family line and make money. Marry into a rich family. Now why is that this sounds so crazy? Because you're making a choice that your child may not like, a choice that does not effect you or your child as he or she is in your care. It only effects your child after they are legal adults and capable to choose for themselfs. Re-read the first bit of my post: "People who realize they are circumcised do so at an age that would prove that they are mature enough to accept the fact that their parents are the people who made them who they are today and they should appreciate it. They would be mature enough to consider that any friends, employers or organizations who discriminate them on such terms are not worth even dealing with anyway. They are circumcised because their parents decided to, deal with it!" I understand your point but that's not the issue I'm speaking of. You're thinking of it as a parent making a choice for an infant which can't choose for his self. I'm thinking of it as a parent making a choice for a fully grown adult which is legally responsible for their own choices. The reason I think of it this way is because the choice may of been made at infantcy but it effects them as an adult. They have to live the rest of their life with that choice, you don't. If it's a choice like cutting their nails or a hair cut, that's a different story because hair and nails will allways grow back. When they turn 18 they can do what they want but for the 17 years they're under the parent's care if the parents want their son to keep his hair cut then it's perfectly OK to make that choice for him. It's going to grow back anyway so why argue over a stupid little hair cut. It's actully rather immature to argue over something that'll grow back. Foreskin don't grow back so if a child wants to they are perfectly within their rights to complain about the fact that this choice was taken away from them. Weather they would of made the choice or not, weather or not they like it, really isn't an issue. The issue is just making a choice for an adult, someone who is not in the parent's rights to make choices for.
|
|
rcn927
Meteor
Proud to be a Nerd
Posts: 57
|
Post by rcn927 on Apr 26, 2010 17:28:05 GMT -5
Until recently, doctors recommended it, so I can see why it would be done. Now, they're questioning it, so you're probably right. Circumcision is somewhat like the appendix. That skin can become infected, in which case, it should be removed, but removing it from birth makes as much sense are removing the appendix at birth.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 26, 2010 17:52:40 GMT -5
Until recently, doctors recommended it, so I can see why it would be done. Now, they're questioning it, so you're probably right. Circumcision is somewhat like the appendix. That skin can become infected, in which case, it should be removed, but removing it from birth makes as much sense are removing the appendix at birth. THIS. Tonsils are also a similar example.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 26, 2010 18:31:03 GMT -5
Until recently, doctors recommended it, so I can see why it would be done. Now, they're questioning it, so you're probably right. Circumcision is somewhat like the appendix. That skin can become infected, in which case, it should be removed, but removing it from birth makes as much sense are removing the appendix at birth. THIS. Tonsils are also a similar example. Tonsils are normally removed when a child complains about a sore throat. However right after surgery their throat is still sore anyway and they're encouraged to eat ice cream. I've found that skipping the surgery and just going straight for the ice cream works just as well.
|
|
|
Post by thejourney on May 1, 2010 23:41:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on May 2, 2010 1:52:50 GMT -5
To make this really simple to understand...
Not your body, not your choice.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on May 2, 2010 6:26:21 GMT -5
What's wrong with just leaving it up to the parents' choice? Do we need to have everybody in agreement here? Shouldn't it be the child's choice? It is painful and it is dangerous, it has gone wrong in the past leaving babies mutilated. It is a cultural thing, and if someone wants to do it that's great! But our children do not belong to us (nor do they belong to the state), they belong to themselves. We do not have the right to intentionally hurt them. If it was 100% save and it didn't hurt, then I would say there was no harm. Since it is dangerous and painful, i don't see how anyone is justifying it. It makes even less sense. People still occasionally die from burst appendixes, on the other hand I'm guessing infections down there are very easy to spot and easy to cure with antibiotics. I wish I could say that was the weirdest euphemism for sex I'd ever heard!
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on May 2, 2010 12:18:31 GMT -5
I wish I could say that was the weirdest euphemism for sex I'd ever heard! That wasn't a euphemism for sex... That was just compairing how they're both pointless surgeries because the surgery itself has been known to cause the very same thing it was ment to cure or prevent.
|
|
fletcherblack
Meteorite
I'm for whatever you're against and against whatever you're for.
Posts: 13
|
Post by fletcherblack on May 2, 2010 14:33:37 GMT -5
I don't think this is as big a deal as you're making it. I'm circumcised, but I don't think it matters, one way or another. My parents obviously had their reasons for doing it, I don't remember it. It's kind of like finding out the sex of the baby before you give birth. It's an option, but it doesn't really matter in the long run. You're making it sound like these children will lead awful pain-filled horror stories of lives, when really, it doesn't make a difference one way or another. By the way, I do find it more aesthetically pleasing than uncut people. Don't mean to offend anyone
|
|
fletcherblack
Meteorite
I'm for whatever you're against and against whatever you're for.
Posts: 13
|
Post by fletcherblack on May 2, 2010 14:35:57 GMT -5
My religion believes that having 5 fingers on one hand is immoral so when you are a baby, we cut off your index finger from both hands. You have no choice in the matter because you are only 1 day old. Sucks to be you. Yes, but cutting off extra skin on your penis has no effect on your daily life. Losing a finger would make everyday tasks much harder than they have to be. I think it's always been the parents choice, and it should remain that way. And by your argument of it not being the baby's choice, I was raised a Christian, but I had no say in that matter, it's just how it was. Is that fair? No, but good luck getting the rest of the world to believe that.
|
|
kadie
Moon
"You don't need a licence to drive a sandwhich!"
Posts: 240
|
Post by kadie on May 2, 2010 14:42:58 GMT -5
I personally think circumcision is barbaric and have found it a revolting thing to do to a child ever since I first learned what it was and I don't think any parent should have the right to do it to their child.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on May 2, 2010 14:55:01 GMT -5
I wish I could say that was the weirdest euphemism for sex I'd ever heard! That wasn't a euphemism for sex... That was just compairing how they're both pointless surgeries because the surgery itself has been known to cause the very same thing it was ment to cure or prevent. It was a joke, I guess not a funny one but I still think an obvious one. I don't think this is as big a deal as you're making it. I'm circumcised, but I don't think it matters, one way or another. My parents obviously had their reasons for doing it, I don't remember it. It's kind of like finding out the sex of the baby before you give birth. It's an option, but it doesn't really matter in the long run. You're making it sound like these children will lead awful pain-filled horror stories of lives, when really, it doesn't make a difference one way or another. By the way, I do find it more aesthetically pleasing than uncut people. Don't mean to offend anyone I guess whether or not pain inflicted on a baby who won't remember it is not at all important, and and every psychological experiment anyone has ever done has failed to bring back peoples memories of their time as babies, so all that pain is surely gone even from your subconscious so I'm sure it can't have any affect on who you are now whatsoever.. But still, is the fact that they will remember it what makes hurting a person wrong? Anyway if you google it you'll find countless sites like this: www.circumstitions.com/death.html - Quote: This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, It is a dangerous procedure, even when done by an experienced professional. Alright it's very rare for something to go wrong, but even if it was a 1 in 1 billion chance I would still wonder if it's right. Doctors against circumcision Myth vs. Reality: www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/circumcision_quiz.htm(number 10 is just opinion / silliness, in my opinion)
|
|