Post Reply
Page 52 of 136  •  Prev 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 ... 136 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Should Infants Be Ritually Mutilated?
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 12:55AM #511
Ibn
Posts: 4,398

Aug 10, 2012 -- 5:07AM, Ibn wrote:

That child's penis is not mutilated but circumcised.


Aug 10, 2012 -- 9:49PM, mountain_man wrote:

Mutilated is an appropriate word for the "operation."


No. Not in case of penis. The penis is made neater. It is the useless and needless foreskin that is mutilated.


He has now given his parents the right to do what they did in 1942.....


Aug 10, 2012 -- 9:49PM, mountain_man wrote:


Only to not argue with his parents.


There was never any need to argue with them. The only argument is from people who are not even involved.


Aug 10, 2012 -- 9:49PM, mountain_man wrote:


Again, a point you seem to be unable to understand is that your point here is irrelevant, illogical, irrational, and not at all dealing with the topic. Because one person is happy with their mutilated penis doesn't mean that it is something that should be done to every little boy.


Who said that it should be done to you or every little boy if it worked for me? Opposite is the case; because they are not happy with their foreskins or their husband/partner’s foreskin so they want others also to be unhappy by forcing them not be circumcised.  


Aug 10, 2012 -- 9:49PM, mountain_man wrote:

Try another line of argument. This one isn't going to work.


It is working fine even if it is denied.


Aug 10, 2012 -- 9:49PM, mountain_man wrote:

You could try it on someone more naive than I am. It might work on a 10 year old.


It will not work on a 10 year old boy. I am sure it is well understood by an intelligent person only.

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 12:59AM #512
Ibn
Posts: 4,398

Aug 10, 2012 -- 4:21PM, christine3 wrote:


My main argument is about the pain, and I believe it is a crime to perform surgery with that amount of pain without anesthesia, which is still done all over the world and in hospitals.



I am glad that you are beginning to see the light and not opposing circumcision outright but only on the grounds of pain. Well, here is the good news; boys do not feel pain with the modern methods in the West. Therefore, the opposition is barking in the wrong place.

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 9:35AM #513
Erey
Posts: 18,398

Aug 10, 2012 -- 4:24PM, christine3 wrote:


Aug 10, 2012 -- 4:21PM, Erey wrote:


It's right there and I posted the link.  I even asked you a few times in that thread if you were sure about what you were saying





Erey, if you want me to see it, just go get it.  I already spent time looking for it.  No more.





how coonvenient for you, can't see what is right there

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 9:36AM #514
mountain_man
Posts: 38,742

Aug 11, 2012 -- 12:45AM, Ibn wrote:

Not anymore particularly in the West.


Then you need to study English a bit more.


No. I am just exercising my right to freedom of speech.


Which includes not telling the truth.


Try less insulting arguments and you'll get a better reply. The arguments you're trying to use are to sophomoric for a rational response.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 9:38AM #515
Erey
Posts: 18,398

Aug 10, 2012 -- 5:56PM, christine3 wrote:


Aug 10, 2012 -- 4:58PM, farragut wrote:


Back to thinking about our subject for just a moment.


Proponents of keeping the boys natural have told us that apprpriate nettete' ought not be difficult for the boy. And I agree; it shouldn't. However:


As an example, from the age of six to 16, I and my family lived in a country residence with no bathroom, no lavatory, no running water. We did have an out-house for elimination. Personal cleanliness was a problem, and particularly so for the "natural" brother. I rejoice that I had been pruned.


Variations on such conditions are not today nearly as rare as we would like them to be in the U.S., and, as y'all well know, in some countries conditions are quite dismal. 


Now I recognize that for residents so burdened, the possibility of anesthetized pruning may be, from financial and logistical viewpoint, a bit slim, but I certainly believe that no government should be on record as prohibiting it.




We could go back to speaking about anatomy and history.  Coming from Native American background, the people of the tribes did not live far from a river or lake.  Most lived right ON the river.  There were rivers everywhere, no dams with rerouting rivers away from populations, no large towns were you have to travel by car 5-30 miles to find a river.  A short walk and dunk in the river, all clean!  I can't imagine people of the past in any culture not living close to water; therefore can't understand the reason for circumcision.  It seems more of a deterrent to sex than anything.


But we could think about the purpose for the urinary tracts for a minute also.  Urinating keeps bacteria from moving up the urinary tract to the bladder and kidneys for both females and males.  Both sexes have protection over the seed-delivery and seed-receiving parts as well as keeping dirt and bacteria out.  I couldn't image cutting the labia from the woman and exposing the clitoris.  There is so much natural protection to those areas for male and female for a reason.  That's the best defense against UTIs that I can think of.




 


Comming from a Native American background then you should know many Native Americans practised male circumcision.  The main ones being Azetecs and Mayans.  But there were also other tribes scattered throughout what we know as continental US who practised it also. 


 


I wonder why they did this seeing as they all settled near a river or what have you?  Seeing as how they could just magicaly get clean by jumping in the water?


 



 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 9:39AM #516
mountain_man
Posts: 38,742

Aug 11, 2012 -- 12:55AM, Ibn wrote:

No. Not in case of penis. The penis is made neater. It is the useless and needless foreskin that is mutilated....


See what I mean about juvenile arguments? Because YOU are enamored with a mutilated penis doesn't mean anyone has the right to force that belief on a child. The world doesn't revolve around your beliefs.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 9:45AM #517
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

My penis and I don't care.


This is a silly argument.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 9:47AM #518
christine3
Posts: 6,630

Aug 11, 2012 -- 12:59AM, Ibn wrote:


Aug 10, 2012 -- 4:21PM, christine3 wrote:


My main argument is about the pain, and I believe it is a crime to perform surgery with that amount of pain without anesthesia, which is still done all over the world and in hospitals.



I am glad that you are beginning to see the light and not opposing circumcision outright but only on the grounds of pain. Well, here is the good news; boys do not feel pain with the modern methods in the West. Therefore, the opposition is barking in the wrong place.




No, you are taking what I said wrong.  My anti-circumcision arguments focus primarily on PAIN because pain cannot be denied with any rational argument.  People recognize pain because they all feel pain.  It is as simple as that.  Secondarily, but of no less importance are my arguments against unnecessary circumcision.  Getting back to pain, though modern methods exist in the West, nowhere are they used 100% of the time in the West the way they are supposed to be used.  As I brought up before, anesthesia cream is not anesthesia.  Parents may be informed of the choices (i.e., general anesthesia, nerve block or cream), but with today's HMO's, they will not be told that cream is INadequate anesthetic because the cost of the procedure comes from the insurance companies.  They will always go for the cheapest.  Meanwhile, the baby suffers.  That's what's wrong with today's medicine in the West (America, anyway).


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 10:07AM #519
christine3
Posts: 6,630

Aug 11, 2012 -- 9:38AM, Erey wrote:


 


Comming from a Native American background then you should know many Native Americans practised male circumcision.  The main ones being Azetecs and Mayans.  But there were also other tribes scattered throughout what we know as continental US who practised it also. 


 


I wonder why they did this seeing as they all settled near a river or what have you?  Seeing as how they could just magicaly get clean by jumping in the water?


 



 




Circumcision in the Americas among indigenous tribes is entirely false.  If it happened in any small incidence in South America, it was due to conversion by Jewish Spaniards as the indigenous had become unfortunate captives.  Modern scholars have argued against circumcision being practiced among the indigenous Americas.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2012 - 4:35PM #520
christine3
Posts: 6,630

The (World) Geography Map of Genital Mutilation


www.noharmm.org/geography.htm

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 52 of 136  •  Prev 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 ... 136 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook