Circumcision, hip or lame? (4 Viewers)

[Salvo]

ur born with it, keep it.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Dinsdale]

Bah, that's a whole new poll. Anyway, if this is your stance then no wonder.

Well then how do you explain it being immoral? I assume that for you, not getting circumsized symbolizes personal freedom, but I'm sure that in most religious or ethnic groups circumcision symbolizes certain positive values too. So cultural reference isn't really convincing.

 

[Martin]

Well then how do you explain it being immoral? I assume that for you, not getting circumsized symbolizes personal freedom, but I'm sure that in most religious or ethnic groups circumcision symbolizes certain positive values too. So cultural reference isn't really convincing.

Personal freedom trumps tradition and culture. Always. That's what freedom means. These traditions, mostly religious based, all tell you that you shouldn't have sex before marriage, right? So why can't they let people decide to get circumcised (or not, as the case may be) on their wedding day? Oh I know, because it's a lot harder to control people when they're not infants.

If we held you down and drew doodles on your face with a marker, would you mind? After all, it's important to some of our cultural values. I mean surely you can take this one for the team, right?

 

[JCK]

Hygienic? Maybe if you live in the desert, but we have showers and soap and if you go into one of those health stores they have dozens of hygiene products for "sensitive areas".

I don't like getting dirt under my nails either, but I'm not gonna pull off my nails just for that.

That's a lame analogy because as far as I'm concerned I do clip my nails to avoid getting dirt under them.

 

[Seven]

But there is absolutely no need for the foreskin, don't you think? I still have it but i find it useless.
Yes, you can find other parts of the body that might be just as useless and you can say the same thing about the small toe as you said about the nails, but i see more advantages in not having the foreskin than to have it.

Yes there is. It prevents the head from getting irritated from external sensations and it supposedly has a role in sexual pleasure as well. Masturbating is apparently a lot easier if you still have the foreskin.

I don't have it by the way and I think it looks better without, but it does have a function.

 

[Martin]

That's a lame analogy because as far as I'm concerned I do clip my nails to avoid getting dirt under them.

But if you pulled them off you'd never have to clip them. So it's the same argument, remove it once so you get the permanent benefit.

 

[Seven]

No, Martin, that would be like stripping off all the skin of your penis.

I am against that.

 

[JCK]

But if you pulled them off you'd never have to clip them. So it's the same argument, remove it once so you get the permanent benefit.

Same can be said about removing your facial hair by laser so your beard won't grow again.

Removing the entire nail is like removing the entire skin around the penis not just the upper part.

I think you are just against it because you are against religion, your arguments are not convincing at all.

 

[Ahmed]

Same can be said about removing your facial hair by laser so your beard won't grow again.

Removing the entire nail is like removing the entire skin around the penis not just the upper part.

I think you are just against it because you are against religion, your arguments are not convincing at all.

and that's the bottom line

 

[Martin]

Same can be said about removing your facial hair by laser so your beard won't grow again.

Removing the entire nail is like removing the entire skin around the penis not just the upper part.

I think you are just against it because you are against religion, your arguments are not convincing at all.

I'm against a lot of religious practices, yeah. This being one of them. But that doesn't mean I would favor it if it were secular (or that I favor it in cases where secular people do it). So hit and miss.

 

[Seven]

and that's the bottom line

Well to be perfectly honest religion really loses here. Circumcision is unnecessary in most cases and circumcision for religious reasons is infamous for not being done right.

So I don't know where you're going with this one, Ahmed.

 

[Seven]

I'm against a lot of religious practices, yeah. This being one of them. But that doesn't mean I would favor it if it were secular (or that I favor it in cases where secular people do it). So hit and miss.

You would, because secular in this case means medical. For example if the foreskin irritates.

 

[Martin]

and that's the bottom line

What is? Me being opposed to religion? Wow, you really got me there. I mean who would have known if you hadn't blown my cover like that. I specifically posted this in the religion forum so noone would know.

 

[Ahmed]

Well to be perfectly honest religion really loses here. Circumcision is unnecessary in most cases and circumcision for religious reasons is infamous for not being done right.

So I don't know where you're going with this one, Ahmed.

Mart was the one who saw it as a religious issue, see his post on the 1st page

 

[Dinsdale]

Personal freedom trumps tradition and culture. Always. That's what freedom means. These traditions, mostly religious based, all tell you that you shouldn't have sex before marriage, right? So why can't they let people decide to get circumcised (or not, as the case may be) on their wedding day? Oh I know, because it's a lot harder to control people when they're not infants.

So you're one step further than I thought: you don't see circumcision as a symbol for violation of personal freedom; you see it as an absolute violation of personal freedom. I disagree with this because circumcision is a minor alteration of the appearance, which has no consequences at any point later in life. I mean, why don't you rebel against the way the gynaecologist tied your navel? Aren't we free to choose how our own belly button looks like? When you're a child, it's normal that superiors (in nature parents) take some decision for you, because you can't live independently. And as long as these decision don't have any negative effects, I don't see anything wrong with it.

If we held you down and drew doodles on your face with a marker, would you mind? After all, it's important to some of our cultural values. I mean surely you can take this one for the team, right?

If you did that, I would mind because
a) I'm not a child that you're taking care of,
b) It would cause social isolation, hence negative consequences

On the other hand, if my parents drew doodles on my face when I was a kid, and it wouldn't have any negative effects at any point later in my life, then I wouldn't mind. Just like I don't mind being baptized.

 

[Martin]

You would, because secular in this case means medical. For example if the foreskin irritates.

No, I mean I would opposite it just the same if secular people did it for "tradition" rather than religion. It's just as absurd.

Medical justification is the only kind I would accept, but we covered that already. We don't do preemptive operations on people on the outside chance that they might get sick some day. Much less without their consent.

 

[Seven]

Mart was the one who saw it as a religious issue, see his post on the 1st page

Yes, but it IS a religious issue in most cases and I very much disagree with circumcision strictly for religious reasons. No matter how small the risk is there, so if not necessary, why go through with it?

I also don't know why Islam and Judaism saw it as such an important practice. It would make sense if a lot of people had problems with their foreskin and they saw it as pragmatic (they both detest pork, because it made people sick if not prepared and stored well).

 

[Seven]

No, I mean I would opposite it just the same if secular people did it for "tradition" rather than religion. It's just as absurd.

Medical justification is the only kind I would accept, but we covered that already. We don't do preemptive operations on people on the outside chance that they might get sick some day. Much less without their consent.

That depends to be honest. In some cases there is absolute certainty that the foreskin will annoy people in the future. Why wait till they're old enough to make the call? I mean, it IS just foreskin.

 

[Martin]

So you're one step further than I thought: you don't see circumcision as a symbol for violation of personal freedom; you see it as an absolute violation of personal freedom. I disagree with this because circumcision is a minor alteration of the appearance, which has no consequences at any point later in life. I mean, why don't you rebel against the way the gynaecologist tied your navel? Aren't we free to choose how our own belly button looks like? When you're a child, it's normal that superiors (in nature parents) take some decision for you, because you can't live independently. And as long as these decision don't have any negative effects, I don't see anything wrong with it.

False analogy. The belly button thing is not optional, something has to be done there. Circumcision is a completely unnecessary and invasive procedure performed for no other reason than to maintain the cultural/spiritual beliefs of the parents. It's unacceptable.

If you did that, I would mind because
a) I'm not a child that you're taking care of,
b) It would cause social isolation, hence negative consequences

On the other hand, if my parents drew doodles on my face when I was a kid, and it wouldn't have any negative effects at any point later in my life, then I wouldn't mind. Just like I don't mind being baptized.

Being a caretaker does not entitle you to ownership of the kid in your care.

Baptism is just meaningless drivel to people who don't believe in it, it's completely harmless. Although if you want to get technical about it, I don't find that moral either. But it's not a physical procedure on your body.

 

[Seven]

Actually baptism isn't meaningless drivel. You're going down as a christian in the registers.