Should circumcision be banned?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:41:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should circumcision be banned?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Poll
Question: .
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 73

Author Topic: Should circumcision be banned?  (Read 11962 times)
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: June 15, 2011, 10:51:54 AM »

Its a local level issue, but I personally think it shouldnt, though I dont get the Jewish ritual of doing a few days after birth.
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: June 17, 2011, 01:30:12 AM »

Unsure, though I disagree with the procedure.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: June 17, 2011, 02:41:25 AM »

First Amendment does not allow every religious act.  I can't commit a ritualistic bull sacrifice in my hypothetical back yard.

You can, however, commit ritualistic bull sacrifice elsewhere.

You can't commit ritualistic bull sacrifice if it violates animal abuse laws, so...doesn't that kind of defeat your point?  Assuming you had one?  Tongue

I didn't, so it doesn't.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,218
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: June 17, 2011, 01:24:13 PM »

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: June 17, 2011, 03:04:03 PM »

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.

Doesn't that imply that it's not something that should be done?  I mean, if no one (and that's a bit of an exaggeration: adult circumcision has existed in several places) would be willing to do it if consent is an issue, doesn't that imply that they find having their genitals mutilated an inherently problematic practice?
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,218
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: June 17, 2011, 03:38:36 PM »

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.

Doesn't that imply that it's not something that should be done?  I mean, if no one (and that's a bit of an exaggeration: adult circumcision has existed in several places) would be willing to do it if consent is an issue, doesn't that imply that they find having their genitals mutilated an inherently problematic practice?

Well, if this were a new procedure, I'd agree with you, but it has been a well-established procedure for literally thousands of years and has been shown (arguably, I know) to have benefits.  Also, I never see men who were circumsized as infants complaining about it as adults.  It's just a no-big-deal kind of issue.

Also, calling infant male circumcision "mutilation" seems to make light of the real horrors of female genital mutilation in other countries.  Not even close to comparable there.
Logged
CitizenX
Rookie
**
Posts: 186
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: June 17, 2011, 07:43:14 PM »

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.

Doesn't that imply that it's not something that should be done?  I mean, if no one (and that's a bit of an exaggeration: adult circumcision has existed in several places) would be willing to do it if consent is an issue, doesn't that imply that they find having their genitals mutilated an inherently problematic practice?

Well, if this were a new procedure, I'd agree with you, but it has been a well-established procedure for literally thousands of years and has been shown (arguably, I know) to have benefits.  Also, I never see men who were circumsized as infants complaining about it as adults.  It's just a no-big-deal kind of issue.

Also, calling infant male circumcision "mutilation" seems to make light of the real horrors of female genital mutilation in other countries.  Not even close to comparable there.

As someone with a penis I can and do compare the two.

And yes there are most certainly men who were circumcised against their will as children who complain about it.  You just choose not to listen.  Ever heard of a guy call Howard Stern?

And yes, once again there are alternatives such as vaccines which are far cheaper for our already bankrupt health system.  Vaccines are economical, have fewer side effects, and are infinitely more human and civilized.
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,030
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: June 17, 2011, 08:04:51 PM »

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.

Doesn't that imply that it's not something that should be done?  I mean, if no one (and that's a bit of an exaggeration: adult circumcision has existed in several places) would be willing to do it if consent is an issue, doesn't that imply that they find having their genitals mutilated an inherently problematic practice?

Well, if this were a new procedure, I'd agree with you, but it has been a well-established procedure for literally thousands of years and has been shown (arguably, I know) to have benefits.  Also, I never see men who were circumsized as infants complaining about it as adults.  It's just a no-big-deal kind of issue.

Also, calling infant male circumcision "mutilation" seems to make light of the real horrors of female genital mutilation in other countries.  Not even close to comparable there.

As someone with a penis I can and do compare the two.

And yes there are most certainly men who were circumcised against their will as children who complain about it.  You just choose not to listen.  Ever heard of a guy call Howard Stern?

And yes, once again there are alternatives such as vaccines which are far cheaper for our already bankrupt health system.  Vaccines are economical, have fewer side effects, and are infinitely more human and civilized.

Vaccines were never intended as a replacement or "alternative" to circumcision.
Logged
CitizenX
Rookie
**
Posts: 186
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: June 17, 2011, 08:11:37 PM »

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.

Doesn't that imply that it's not something that should be done?  I mean, if no one (and that's a bit of an exaggeration: adult circumcision has existed in several places) would be willing to do it if consent is an issue, doesn't that imply that they find having their genitals mutilated an inherently problematic practice?

Well, if this were a new procedure, I'd agree with you, but it has been a well-established procedure for literally thousands of years and has been shown (arguably, I know) to have benefits.  Also, I never see men who were circumsized as infants complaining about it as adults.  It's just a no-big-deal kind of issue.

Also, calling infant male circumcision "mutilation" seems to make light of the real horrors of female genital mutilation in other countries.  Not even close to comparable there.

As someone with a penis I can and do compare the two.

And yes there are most certainly men who were circumcised against their will as children who complain about it.  You just choose not to listen.  Ever heard of a guy call Howard Stern?

And yes, once again there are alternatives such as vaccines which are far cheaper for our already bankrupt health system.  Vaccines are economical, have fewer side effects, and are infinitely more human and civilized.

Vaccines were never intended as a replacement or "alternative" to circumcision.

Yes but they ARE a safe, cost effective, humane way to avoid genital mutilation... for the few deluded people that hang their hat on the dreaded penile cancer argument.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: June 21, 2011, 12:54:22 PM »

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.

This is demonstrably false considering it actually happens.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: June 21, 2011, 02:25:59 PM »

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.

This is demonstrably false considering it actually happens.

Of course, it can have some undesired side-effects, just ask Shechem if you don't believe me.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: June 22, 2011, 05:49:16 PM »

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.

Doesn't that imply that it's not something that should be done?  I mean, if no one (and that's a bit of an exaggeration: adult circumcision has existed in several places) would be willing to do it if consent is an issue, doesn't that imply that they find having their genitals mutilated an inherently problematic practice?

I'd disagree with that. There are a lot of things that people wouldn't agree to in the moment that they might still consider good in the long term. Time inconsistency makes liberalism a sad panda bear.
Logged
Earth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,548


Political Matrix
E: -9.61, S: -9.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: June 25, 2011, 12:35:39 PM »

I would be perfectly fine with circumcision being banned for infants. It's a ridiculous procedure.
Logged
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: June 25, 2011, 12:37:33 PM »

I would be perfectly fine with circumcision being banned for infants. It's a ridiculous procedure.

Citizen X is the voice of reason on this thread. Think about that for a moment.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: June 25, 2011, 05:04:37 PM »

Lately I've been going through the Bible and jotting down my thoughts on various passages for my own reflection, and I got to the story of Tsiporah at the inn. (Exodus 4:24-26)  That caused me to think of a question I hadn't before, and which a quick search was unable to answer. What is done with what is removed?  I doubt the example of Tsiporah is followed, at least I hope not.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: June 25, 2011, 08:52:27 PM »

Lately I've been going through the Bible and jotting down my thoughts on various passages for my own reflection, and I got to the story of Tsiporah at the inn. (Exodus 4:24-26)  That caused me to think of a question I hadn't before, and which a quick search was unable to answer. What is done with what is removed?  I doubt the example of Tsiporah is followed, at least I hope not.

You mean throwing the foreskin at her husband and calling him a "bloody husband?"  No, that's not a part of the traditional practice.

Also, what translation calls Zipporah "Tsiporah?"
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: June 26, 2011, 09:40:34 AM »


You mean throwing the foreskin at her husband and calling him a "bloody husband?"  No, that's not a part of the traditional practice.

I didn't think so, but that what isn't done doesn't tell me what is done.

Also, what translation calls Zipporah "Tsiporah?"

Mine. Wink More seriously, since I consult more than one translation while doing this, rather than follow any single translation's decision on how to Romanize the Hebrew, I follow my own, and I chose to Romanize the tsade "צ" consistently as "ts".  It's not the most common choice of how to Romanize the name.  In my notes, "z" always represents a zayin "ז"
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 13 queries.