snipsnip

[thegreekdog]

Is a person's inherent right to have control over his/her own body such a foreign concept to you?

I suppose it is when it comes to children. I didn't know that children had such an inherent right. Please explain more of this concept to me and how it meshes with the idea that babies can't take care of themselves without assistance.

[Metsfanmax]

What if they decide when they are older that they wouldn't have wanted to get the circumcision? They will never be able to get their foreskins back.

What if they aren't circumcised as a baby, but decide later that they want to be? They will have to go through an incredibly painful procedure to do so.

Yes, but if they later decide they want a circumcision, they can get one. Maybe it will be painful, but pain builds character.

That's your argument? Pain builds character? If I go to your house and shoot you in the leg, are you a better person for it?

On the other hand, if they get it as a baby, and decide they don't want it after all, they're SOL and there's no way they can get their foreskin back. It's gone. Forever.

I know I would feel like crap if I had a body part of mine amputated when I was a baby without having any say in it. I would feel violated. I would feel like my basic human rights were trampled in the mud because of some ancient religious superstition.

My body part was amputated and I feel just fine. I never remember a time when I didn't have a foreskin, so why should I be upset about it?

[natty dread]

I'm confused as to why it doesn't violate freedom of religion concepts.

On that logic, you should have allowed the terrorists to attack WTC without punishment. After all, they were just expressing their religion.

On other, less drasticly exaggerated, words: freedom of religion is all fine and dandy, as long as it doesn't trample on more immediate rights, like a person's right to decide for his/her own body. A newborn baby has no capability to consent to such a procedure as a cosmetic amputation. The parents have no right to decide for a person who is too young to even comprehend what such a procedure means.

Is a person's inherent right to have control over his/her own body such a foreign concept to you?

I suppose it is when it comes to children. I didn't know that children had such an inherent right. Please explain more of this concept to me and how it meshes with the idea that babies can't take care of themselves without assistance.

So, if a parent would like to amputate his child's legs because his religion demands it, it would be ok for you? What about stunting the growth of the feet of female children to make them "look more feminine"? That's all fine too, because "children don't have a right to decide for their bodies?"

What about pedophiles? Should they be allowed to rape their own children?

My body part was amputated and I feel just fine. I never remember a time when I didn't have a foreskin, so why should I be upset about it?

Good for you. Not everyone feels the same as you do. Are you able to think outside of your own perspective?

[Haggis_McMutton]

My body part was amputated and I feel just fine. I never remember a time when I didn't have a foreskin, so why should I be upset about it?

So, if say, it was all traditional and nice to have this done, you'd still be saying the same thing, right?



This really is baffling. You are removing a person's body part without their consent or any good reason to do so.
You guys think that's ok, just because the person is a baby and can't take care of themselves?

I guess some of the Roma people practices of popping their kids knees backwards so that they'll be more successful beggars are also cool. I mean they're kids, it's not like they remember the pain, and hey, it makes more money for the parents.

[Metsfanmax]

My body part was amputated and I feel just fine. I never remember a time when I didn't have a foreskin, so why should I be upset about it?

Good for you. Not everyone feels the same as you do. Are you able to think outside of your own perspective?

Your argument is exactly the same, which is the point I was making. You said that some people are upset that a body part of theirs was removed without their consent (you haven't proven this, but that's OK), but I am rather happy I don't have a foreskin, it seems like a useless and disgusting body part to me. If we banned all circumcisions as babies, I'd have to go through a painful procedure to have mine removed now, which I don't want to do. Your argument fails to consider my perspective, just as the argument I made above does not consider the perspectives of those who don't have foreskins and do want them.

Haggis: The difference is that it causes no substantial impediment to my ability to live normally to not have a foreskin.

[thegreekdog]

A newborn baby has no capability to consent to such a procedure as a cosmetic amputation. The parents have no right to decide for a person who is too young to even comprehend what such a procedure means.

Did you know that a fetus has no capability to consent to abortions? Did you read the US Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade? Did you know that one of the arguments made by the pro-choice advocates was that babies (and fetuses) cannot survive without their mothers?

So, if a parent would like to amputate his child's legs because his religion demands it, it would be ok for you? What about stunting the growth of the feet of female children to make them "look more feminine"? That's all fine too, because "children don't have a right to decide for their bodies?"

You didn't really answer my question with these other questions (and the pedophilia question).

I guess my question is this - Who decides what people can or cannot do with their own children?

[natty dread]

Your argument is exactly the same

No, it's not the same. That's a false dichotomy.

Allow me to recap:

Yes, but if they later decide they want a circumcision, they can get one. Maybe it will be painful, but pain builds character.

On the other hand, if they get it as a baby, and decide they don't want it after all, they're SOL and there's no way they can get their foreskin back. It's gone. Forever.

That's the difference. You can always decide to get a circumcision later. But someone who had one done against his will and decides he doesn't like it CAN NOT GET IT REVERSED. Understand it now?

Did you know that a fetus has no capability to consent to abortions?

A fetus is not a person. A child is.

But let's not make this another abortion thread. We both know we disagree on the issue of abortion, and we can agree to disagree on that - for now.

You didn't really answer my question with these other questions (and the pedophilia question).

You didn't answer my questions at all. So I guess that makes us even?

I guess my question is this - Who decides what people can or cannot do with their own children?

Jesus?

JK... Well, we have things like human rights these days. Yes, these rights even apply to children. These rights are inherent to any human being and are independent from any single country's legislation. Human rights are not followed in all countries, but I think civilized countries should be setting an example by following them.

A child is not property. A parent doesn't "own" his children. A parent can choose what he teaches his children (unfortunately, in some cases) but a parent has no right to, for example, cut off fingers from his children because "god told him so".

[thegreekdog]

A fetus is not a person. A child is.

But let's not make this another abortion thread. We both know we disagree on the issue of abortion, and we can agree to disagree on that - for now.

Wait... you're pro-life? I would have thought you'd be pro-choice. We should debate this later.

For what it's worth - the US Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade arguably stated that a child is not a person either.

You didn't answer my questions at all. So I guess that makes us even?

I asked my question first, so no, that does not make us even.

Well, we have things like human rights these days. Yes, these rights even apply to children. These rights are inherent to any human being and are independent from any single country's legislation. Human rights are not followed in all countries, but I think civilized countries should be setting an example by following them.

A child is not property. A parent doesn't "own" his children. A parent can choose what he teaches his children (unfortunately, in some cases) but a parent has no right to, for example, cut off fingers from his children because "god told him so".

Okay, you've sold me. I'm supportive of this law banning circumscisions.

[Metsfanmax]

Your argument is exactly the same

No, it's not the same. That's a false dichotomy.

Allow me to recap:

Yes, but if they later decide they want a circumcision, they can get one. Maybe it will be painful, but pain builds character.

On the other hand, if they get it as a baby, and decide they don't want it after all, they're SOL and there's no way they can get their foreskin back. It's gone. Forever.

That's the difference. You can always decide to get a circumcision later. But someone who had one done against his will and decides he doesn't like it CAN NOT GET IT REVERSED. Understand it now?

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't make it a valid argument. Sure, they can never get it back. But 1) you've never demonstrated that any significant number of people would actually want it back, and 2) you haven't demonstrated that it's a major issue that they can't (and you won't be able to -- socially and practically, the foreskin is a useless body part).

[natty dread]

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't make it a valid argument. Sure, they can never get it back. But 1) you've never demonstrated that any significant number of people would actually want it back,

How is that relevant? It infringes on the individual rights of the babies. If a significant number of people didn't care their balls were cut off as a baby, would you just be ok with it too?

and 2) you haven't demonstrated that it's a major issue that they can't (and you won't be able to -- socially and practically, the foreskin is a useless body part).

It makes it hell of a lot easier to masturbate. Also, removing the foreskin reduces the sensitivity of the penis.

Wait... you're pro-life?

No. You were making a pro-life argument, therefore I assumed you were pro-life. I didn't think it was a too far-fetched assumption to make in the circumstances.

Okay, you've sold me. I'm supportive of this law banning circumscisions.

What! That's against the laws of the internets!

[thegreekdog]

No. You were making a pro-life argument, therefore I assumed you were pro-life. I didn't think it was a too far-fetched assumption to make in the circumstances.

I'm pro-life in my personal life and I think abortion is a disgusting way out of taking personal responsibility for one's actions.

However, I do not believe the government should legislate what one does with his or her body. I'm most definitely and ardently pro-choice. I thought for sure illegal immigration was going to be the next incorrect assumption you made about me. I guess I was wrong.

What! That's against the laws of the internets!

If it makes you feel any better, not only did you convince me but I don't care all that much. If someone makes arguments that make sense to me, I have no problem becoming convinced.

[natty dread]

I'm pro-life in my personal life

So... I was sort of right?

the next incorrect assumption you made about me

If you make a pro-life argument, you shouldn't be surprised that people assume you to be pro-life. But if you really want to keep tabs on assumptions (which you've made of me too, a few times) then go ahead and add this to your list. I won't hold it against you or anything.

If it makes you feel any better, not only did you convince me but I don't care all that much. If someone makes arguments that make sense to me, I have no problem becoming convinced.

Meh... I was making a joke on how people never back down on their opinions on the internet. And now you went and ruined the joke.

[thegreekdog]

If you make a pro-life argument, you shouldn't be surprised that people assume you to be pro-life. But if you really want to keep tabs on assumptions (which you've made of me too, a few times) then go ahead and add this to your list. I won't hold it against you or anything.

I honestly wasn't making a pro-life argument. I was making one of the many pro-choice arguments. Being pro-life in one's personal life is not necessarily an indication of how one wants the government to act. I don't use illegal drugs (anymore), and yet I think all drugs should be legal.

Meh... I was making a joke on how people never back down on their opinions on the internet. And now you went and ruined the joke.

I got the joke. It probably has something to do with my hatred (and love) of American politics. I think people are too easily comfortable with making their side's stock arguments and don't pay attention to the other side. I try not to fall into the former category. I think it makes me a better person, although I'm also egotistical so it could be that too.

[natty dread]

I honestly wasn't making a pro-life argument. I was making one of the many pro-choice arguments. Being pro-life in one's personal life is not necessarily an indication of how one wants the government to act. I don't use illegal drugs (anymore), and yet I think all drugs should be legal.

I think you were making, if not a pro-life argument, then an argument that used the pro-life argument as a way to make a point. Anyway, if you say you're pro-choice, you're pro-choice, who am I to dispute that. Good for you.

I have participated in an abortion once (which I don't exactly feel good about but still think was the right choice considering the circumstances) and I personally don't want to ever be in that situation again. I also think abortion absolutely must be legal.

Btw, I don't use illegal drugs either (except cannabis rarely) and I also think all drugs should be legal.

I got the joke. It probably has something to do with my hatred (and love) of American politics. I think people are too easily comfortable with making their side's stock arguments and don't pay attention to the other side. I try not to fall into the former category. I think it makes me a better person, although I'm also egotistical so it could be that too.

Or possibly both?

No, it's a good thing, really. It's admirable to be able to say "ok, you're right" rather than argue endlessly out of stubborness...

[saxitoxin]

socially and practically, the foreskin is a useless body part

This would be a difficult argument to sustain.

Socially - a majority of men are uncircumcised, an even larger majority of men in modern industrial nations are uncircumcised, the circumcision rate is falling so dramatically in the US and Australia (2 of the only 3 western countries to still widely practice it) that in some parts of the former such as California, Oregon, Washington - pretty much the whole west coast - well under half of children under age 10 are circumcised.

Objectively, it is an important body part for normal social functioning among people currently being born. The absence of this body part among people currently being born will put them at a social disadvantage among their peer group as they will appear disfigured in social situations that require genital exposure and are a normal part of growing up, such as locker rooms, overnight camping trips, gang bangs, etc.

Practically - we know now that it's a very important body part for normal sexual function but it would be better not to address this side of the equation as the argument can get more graphic than is perhaps appropriate for a mixed-ages audience. Let's keep in mind john9blue and other kids are reading these forums.

[natty dread]

Thanks Dr. Saxi. How's your foreskin doing today?

[saxitoxin]

Thanks Dr. Saxi. How's your foreskin doing today?

I lost it to an UNITA mortar barrage when I was serving in Angola back in the 70's so I have a prosthetic foreskin made out of aluminum which is okay, but it rusts easily.

[jonesthecurl]

You were swindled. Aluminium doesn't rust.
That's a fake prosthetic foreskin.

[saxitoxin]

You were swindled. Aluminium doesn't rust.
That's a fake prosthetic foreskin.

. I knew something was wrong. Five dollars Woodruff is behind it somehow.

[jonesthecurl]

You were swindled. Aluminium doesn't rust.
That's a fake prosthetic foreskin.

. I knew something was wrong. Five dollars Woodruff is behind it somehow.

Yes, he's the Moriarty of substandard ersatz genitalia.
And a Marxist, I hear.

[saxitoxin]

You are not allowed to follow Russell Crowe on Twitter if you support circumcision:

last of it, if u feel it is yr right 2 cut things off yr babies please unfollow and f**k off,I'll take attentive parenting over barbarism

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/06/r ... abies.html

[Symmetry]

You were swindled. Aluminium doesn't rust.
That's a fake prosthetic foreskin.

. I knew something was wrong. Five dollars Woodruff is behind it somehow.

If Woodruff is somehow behind your foreskin you should consider visiting a doctor.

[natty dread]

You are not allowed to follow Russell Crowe on Twitter if you support circumcision:

last of it, if u feel it is yr right 2 cut things off yr babies please unfollow and f**k off,I'll take attentive parenting over barbarism

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/06/r ... abies.html

I'm not sure who this Russell Crowe is - is he a part of Saxi's boytoy harem? I think he is - but he's got the right idea, we should all concentrate more on our own foreskins and leave the foreskins of babies alone.

[SirSebstar]

I had one when I was 10, it was bloody painful!

I do not think you can have do-overs.

[Dukasaur]

You were swindled. Aluminium doesn't rust.
That's a fake prosthetic foreskin.

Aluminum does rust. Not as quickly as ferrous metals, but it does.