Circumcision, hip or lame? (5 Viewers)

[Martin]

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).

It's about control, it's obvious. Religions are obsessed with sex, haven't you noticed? They want to control every aspect of it.

Why genital mutilation out of all the other possible body modifications? It's just a big coincidence, right?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

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

Hey man, I belong to two churches if you check the records. The Norwegian State Church, where everyone has membership by default, and the Catholic church where I did all the sacraments until I was 15. I bet they still have me on file. And I bet they get some kind of government funding based on how many members they have (actually the Catholic church in Norway is self funded, so maybe not).

But these two organizations are completely benign. They have never called me or mailed me stuff, asking for involvement or money. Sending a resignation is frankly more trouble than it's worth. I don't think religion is a good thing, but I'm not fighting it like the greatest evil either.

And there are some practices that are worse than others. Baptism is pretty much the most harmless of them.

 

[Dinsdale]

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.

It's not false as I'm talking about the way they make your belly button look like. Imagine that it was standard to leave a large piece of the umbilical cord attached to the baby's stomach. Now if certain parents decided to cut that piece of cord off and make their child a belly button, you would find that immoral?

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

That article talks about a decision a parent took which negatively influenced the child, which is obviously immoral. I clearly stated I was talking about decisions with no negative future effects.

 

[Martin]

It's not false as I'm talking about the way they make your belly button look like. Imagine that it was standard to leave a large piece of the umbilical cord attached to the baby's stomach. Now if certain parents decided to cut that piece of cord off and make their child a belly button, you would find that immoral?

Fine, have it your way. So if it's purely an aesthetic thing I can think of a lot of other ways to "accessorize". How about picking the skin color you want on your kid? How about picking if you want him with hair or hairless (bald for life)? How about you decide if you want him with or without nails?

These are all aesthetic choices you could hypothetically make, and many others if we had the knowhow. Birth becomes an ice cream parlor, pick your flavor!

 

[Dinsdale]

It's about control, it's obvious. Religions are obsessed with sex, haven't you noticed? They want to control every aspect of it.

Why genital mutilation out of all the other possible body modifications? It's just a big coincidence, right?

You could very possibly be right about there being some perverted motives behind circumcision. But I don't think circumcision has any negative connotations in our society. If it would have, then I would find it immoral too.

BTW, I think you're the only one who sees male circumcision as genital mutiliation.

 

[Dinsdale]

Fine, have it your way. So if it's purely an aesthetic thing I can think of a lot of other ways to "accessorize". How about picking the skin color you want on your kid? How about picking if you want him with hair or hairless (bald for life)? How about you decide if you want him with or without nails?

These are all aesthetic choices you could hypothetically make, and many others if we had the knowhow. Birth becomes an ice cream parlor, pick your flavor!

Yeah well most of those decision would be immoral. e.g. making your child bald makes him less attractive to possible mating partners in the future. Do you get where I'm going at?


I don't know if it's an aestethic thing. It's rather absurd and it doesn't make sense. But immoral: I think not.

 

[Martin]

Yeah well most of those decision would be immoral. e.g. making your child bald makes him less attractive to possible mating partners in the future. Do you get where I'm going at?


I don't know if it's an aestethic thing. It's rather absurd and it doesn't make sense. But immoral: I think not.

The underlying argument here is that you're saying parents should have the right to do whatever they want to the kid's body as long as it doesn't actively harm the kid. Potentially, there's a lot of stuff parents could do if they really felt at liberty to do it. And in each case you could say it's debatable whether it's harmful or not. I'm surprised that you don't see any ethical ramifications in that.

Or heck, why stop at the body? If you as a parent could say implant a belief in the mind of your kid, your argument would of course be that you're doing this for his own good, would you do it?

 

[swag]

My thoughts? Only guys could spend several pages talking about their penises.

 

[Seven]

If we were talking about femal circumcision I think girls could spend quite a few pages talking about vaginas .

 

[Martin]

My thoughts? Only guys could spend several pages talking about their penises.

It looks like we settled female circumcision pretty quick, even Ahmed is on board. From there on..

 

[BarkuZ-yes i am an ass]

I don't know why did you open it in this section but I am with circumcision from a hygienic point of view. Other than that I am totally indifferent.

Well,If you're a retard and you don't know how to clean your cock...... amputation is more suitable then....

 

[blondu]

It's about control, it's obvious. Religions are obsessed with sex, haven't you noticed? They want to control every aspect of it.

Why genital mutilation out of all the other possible body modifications? It's just a big coincidence, right?

you're right here...btw i'm against circumcision

 

[Dinsdale]

The underlying argument here is that you're saying parents should have the right to do whatever they want to the kid's body as long as it doesn't actively harm the kid.

Yep. But it probably needs a little bit more nuance by adding an extra condition (see below).

Potentially, there's a lot of stuff parents could do if they really felt at liberty to do it. And in each case you could say it's debatable whether it's harmful or not. I'm surprised that you don't see any ethical ramifications in that.

Or heck, why stop at the body? If you as a parent could say implant a belief in the mind of your kid, your argument would of course be that you're doing this for his own good, would you do it?

Isn't parenting all about passing on certain beliefs and behaviors to your child? Of course there is a line that should be drawn (e.g. not implementing a behavior chip into your child's brain). I guess a good condition would be that parents are only entitled to influence their child, not redefine it. We're getting into the ethical twilight zone here, but I think this zone is far removed from circumcision.

 

[swag]

It looks like we settled female circumcision pretty quick, even Ahmed is on board. From there on..

My point more being that is it any wonder why Comedy Central TV here is largely subsidized by penis enlargement ads. There's something mentally dysfunctional about men in general, given that so many think that their world revolves around their crank -- and that all women think the same.

It's like one of Freud's psychosexual stages of development that many adult men never seem to progress beyond.

 

[Dinsdale]

My point more being that is it any wonder why Comedy Central TV here is largely subsidized by penis enlargement ads. There's something mentally dysfunctional about men in general, given that so many think that their world revolves around their crank -- and that all women think the same.

It's like one of Freud's psychosexual stages of development that many adult men never seem to progress beyond.

Funny thing is you're probably the first guy that mentioned the word penis.

 

[Martin]

My point more being that is it any wonder why Comedy Central TV here is largely subsidized by penis enlargement ads. There's something mentally dysfunctional about men in general, given that so many think that their world revolves around their crank -- and that all women think the same.

It's like one of Freud's psychosexual stages of development that many adult men never seem to progress beyond.

Dude, it's the first penis related thread I've ever started in my life. As for others around here, there are some who can't stand to post three posts in a row without bringing it up.

 

[Nenz]

The circumcised are spared from dick cheese. Only real positive.

Circumcision among non jewish men, seems to be a generational thing. I've spoken to doctors and midwifes who have worked for decades and they say that its fluctuant trend among hospitals. The 70's in particular they were circumcising everyone unless it were asked by the parents that the foreskin was left intact.

Little bit of useless info for you there

P.s... Female circumcision LAME LAME LAME

 

[Dinsdale]

Dude, it's the first penis related thread I've ever started in my life. As for others around here, there are some who can't stand to post three posts in a row without bringing it up.

I assume he was joking since we're obviously talking about ethics here.

 

[JCK]

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.

And my arguments are not stemming at all from a religious point of view.

 

[Martin]

Yep. But it probably needs a little bit more nuance by adding an extra condition (see below).

Isn't parenting all about passing on certain beliefs and behaviors to your child? Of course there is a line that should be drawn (e.g. not implementing a behavior chip into your child's brain). I guess a good condition would be that parents are only entitled to influence their child, not redefine it. We're getting into the ethical twilight zone here, but I think this zone is far removed from circumcision.

No it isn't, it's still about personal freedom. If you can inject people with thoughts and behaviors that are not harmful to them, just because you want to, then according to your original rationale, there's nothing wrong with this. I disagree, I think this kind of control is immoral, and performing surgery on their body without their consent (except in medical emergency) is just as wrong.

Oh, and brainwashing your kid, without surgery, also wrong.