First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Is circumcision child abuse?
4576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / @England
Offline
Posted 6/26/12

polx wrote:


DraiKofi wrote:


polx wrote:


DraiKofi wrote:

Yes circumcision is child abuse, it's basically genital mutilation, I mean you won't cut off a baby girls clitoris for no reason... However on the other hand if necessary for health reasons it should be used as a last resort.

I wasn't aware that the foreskin gave men sexual pleasure. The clitoris is where women, so to speak, experience girl-boners. The male and female bodies are contructed differently, there is no 'equivilant' to any given body part. Like how there isn't a male equivliant for breasts. As for your second point, you woulnd't circumcise some for health reasons. They're a lot of health risks involved in circumcision. I believe in the Victorian-era, many young boys were circumcised because it was believed to prevent masturbating and increase hygiene. Then a whole bunch of them got infections down there because of the lack of hygiene and died.

@OP:
Circumcision is fine. There's a difference between circumcising a newborn and a child. A newborn will have no recollection of the pain, therefore it won't affect them later in life. Therefore, this is not child abuse. A child will remember the pain and possibly be traumatized by is, so in this case, this would be considered child abuse. There're also health risks involved with doing this to a young child, but almost none in the case of newborns. Most circumcisions are performed at birth, though.

If a family believes in a certain faith, and wish to remove the foreskin of their newborn male children, then let them. Or even because they simply feel it's better that way. Circumcision does not nessacarily have to sceam 'I'M A [insert religion here]'.


First yes, usage of the foreskin does give men pleasure especially when masturbating, some men use their foreskin instead of lube when masturbating and the foreskin itself has many nerve endings and is very sensitive, but it provides the most pleasure because of the way it slides up and down the head and penis.

Secondly I didn't say that the male foreskin and the female clitoris were equivalent, what I didn't elaborate on was that some religions cut off a newborn baby's foreskin for no reason because its their old aged "tradition" and I personally think it is wrong. You wouldn't mutilate a part of a female's genitalia for no reason so why do it to males?. Thirdly I didn't say not to circumcise for health reasons, In my opinion circumcision should only be used as a very last resort as it is taking off a part of your body and as you said their are certain risks to circumcision.

I believe you misread, I said that it's a bad idea to circumcise for health reasons. I can't think of a situation where you would need to get circumcised to improve your health. Tradition is a reason for circumcision, though not a very good one, and I don't see it as mutilation. The penis still keeps it's original function, and why it's cruel is beyond me. Many cultures will purposely contort their bodies because it is their tradition to do so, I see circumsicion the same way. In certain cultures, women will stretch their earlobes in order to insert huge discs into them. The process starts when they are children, would that also be considered 'child abuse'?


Some men have deformed foreskins where their foreskin is too tight to urinate so circumcision is a beneficial option. As you say tradition is a terrible reason for circumcision as I see it as forcing a child to follow their parents religion before they even have the intelligence to decide their own beliefs. I'm in favor for all children to grow up secular before they have the education to decide their own faith. That goes onto the point where the child grows up and no longer apart of that particular religion or faith that called for or conducted the circumcision. My point is should a child be labeled a certain faith or religion by birth.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/26/12

DraiKofi wrote:


polx wrote:


DraiKofi wrote:

Yes circumcision is child abuse, it's basically genital mutilation, I mean you won't cut off a baby girls clitoris for no reason... However on the other hand if necessary for health reasons it should be used as a last resort.

I wasn't aware that the foreskin gave men sexual pleasure. The clitoris is where women, so to speak, experience girl-boners. The male and female bodies are contructed differently, there is no 'equivilant' to any given body part. Like how there isn't a male equivliant for breasts. As for your second point, you woulnd't circumcise some for health reasons. They're a lot of health risks involved in circumcision. I believe in the Victorian-era, many young boys were circumcised because it was believed to prevent masturbating and increase hygiene. Then a whole bunch of them got infections down there because of the lack of hygiene and died.

@OP:
Circumcision is fine. There's a difference between circumcising a newborn and a child. A newborn will have no recollection of the pain, therefore it won't affect them later in life. Therefore, this is not child abuse. A child will remember the pain and possibly be traumatized by is, so in this case, this would be considered child abuse. There're also health risks involved with doing this to a young child, but almost none in the case of newborns. Most circumcisions are performed at birth, though.

If a family believes in a certain faith, and wish to remove the foreskin of their newborn male children, then let them. Or even because they simply feel it's better that way. Circumcision does not nessacarily have to sceam 'I'M A [insert religion here]'.


First yes, usage of the foreskin does give men pleasure especially when masturbating, some men use their foreskin instead of lube when masturbating and the foreskin itself has many nerve endings and is very sensitive, but it provides the most pleasure because of the way it slides up and down the head and penis.


All that's lovely bullshit, but there is still no scientific consensus on whether circumsion enhance, decrease, or even affect sexual pleasure. You can explain away why you think Circumcision would negatively impact a man's sexual pleasure, but just because you think it does, and because you have a little theory why it does, and it all may very well make sense, (I did not delve too deeply upon it) doesn't mean it is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision



Secondly I didn't say that the male foreskin and the female clitoris were equivalent, what I didn't elaborate on was that some religions cut off a newborn baby's foreskin for no reason because its their old aged "tradition" and I personally think it is wrong. You wouldn't mutilate a part of a female's genitalia for no reason so why do it to males?. Thirdly I didn't say not to circumcise for health reasons, In my opinion circumcision should only be used as a very last resort as it is taking off a part of your body and as you said their are certain risks to circumcision.


Two, the parent of the Child is entrusted to make decisions for the child if they think it is for their benefit, for children are not usually all that great in making good decisions for themselves. That is called parenting.
734 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/26/12

DraiKofi

Some men have deformed foreskins where their foreskin is too tight to urinate so circumcision is a beneficial option. As you say tradition is a terrible reason for circumcision as I see it as forcing a child to follow their parents religion before they even have the intelligence to decide their own beliefs. I'm in favor for all children to grow up secular before they have the education to decide their own faith. That goes onto the point where the child grows up and no longer apart of that particular religion or faith that called for or conducted the circumcision. My point is should a child be labeled a certain faith or religion by birth.


Traditionally, a child is labeled a certian faith or religion by birth. And circumcision does not nessacarily label you a certain faith. Many non-religious men have circumcised penises. Religion goes deeper than anything physical. If you truly do not agree with the religion you were born into, then your physical brands are meaningless. I myself was baptised when I was a baby, but I'm strongly against the Christian faith, so it means nothing.
4576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / @England
Offline
Posted 6/26/12 , edited 6/26/12

polx wrote:

Traditionally, a child is labeled a certian faith or religion by birth. And circumcision does not nessacarily label you a certain faith. Many non-religious men have circumcised penises. Religion goes deeper than anything physical. If you truly do not agree with the religion you were born into, then your physical brands are meaningless. I myself was baptised when I was a baby, but I'm strongly against the Christian faith, so it means nothing.


Yes I agree that not solely being circumcised labels you a particular faith. However what I'm saying is I am against children being branded a religion. I mean you get these religious people who have only been indoctrinated by one religion, and has not even bothered to learn about other faiths which I think is single-mindedness. Do you not believe children should be educated secular before discovering their own faith??

Back to the original question "Is circumcision child abuse?" Yes I think it is, what is done to your own body should be your own decision.
4576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / @England
Offline
Posted 6/26/12



Two, the parent of the Child is entrusted to make decisions for the child if they think it is for their benefit, for children are not usually all that great in making good decisions for themselves. That is called parenting.


Do you really think circumcision is for a child's benefit if the child has no medical problem with their foreskin?
734 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/26/12

DraiKofi wrote:


polx wrote:

Traditionally, a child is labeled a certian faith or religion by birth. And circumcision does not nessacarily label you a certain faith. Many non-religious men have circumcised penises. Religion goes deeper than anything physical. If you truly do not agree with the religion you were born into, then your physical brands are meaningless. I myself was baptised when I was a baby, but I'm strongly against the Christian faith, so it means nothing.


Yes I agree that not solely being circumcised labels you a particular faith. However what I'm saying is I am against children being branded a religion. I mean you get these religious people who have only been indoctrinated by one religion, and has not even bothered to learn about other faiths which I think is single-mindedness. Do you not believe children should be educated secular before discovering their own faith??

Back to the original question "Is circumcision child abuse?" Yes I think it is, what is done to your own body should be your own decision.


How is this different from baptism? You have no say in what is being done to your body then, you are being branded all the same. Would you call baptism child abuse? I agree that people who only think about their religion are rather narrow-minded, but we don't have many of these people today. In an age where we can freely debate about topics like this one, I think you'll find very few of said people. Even if a child has had a certain religion drummed into him, is he does not care enough to take the initiative to learn about other religions by himself, he is just as responsible as the people who did the drumming.
4576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / @England
Offline
Posted 6/26/12


How is this different from baptism? You have no say in what is being done to your body then, you are being branded all the same. Would you call baptism child abuse? I agree that people who only think about their religion are rather narrow-minded, but we don't have many of these people today. In an age where we can freely debate about topics like this one, I think you'll find very few of said people. Even if a child has had a certain religion drummed into him, is he does not care enough to take the initiative to learn about other religions by himself, he is just as responsible as the people who did the drumming.


Baptism and Circumcision are completely different. Baptism is a ceremonious ritual where you are immersed in water in the name of the Trinity for repentance; no physical part of your body is taken from you. On the other hand circumcision is genital mutilation as it is damaging and rupturing a large chunk of tissue, which leaves scars and may also change the child’s future sexual experience to that of a normal person with a foreskin for no apparent reason than medieval "tradition".

Circumcision is needless, unethical and risky. I understand parents who choose to circumcise their sons don't do it with the purpose of hurting their child. However I see the act itself as abuse to the child as the foreskin is healthy, functioning part of the body and should not be tampered with. The choice of a person to alter their genitals should be their own decision. Medical attention is a different case.


2273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/26/12 , edited 6/26/12


Health Matters (UK - 11 references in the original)
June, 2012
Medics urged to ban circumcision as baby boy bleeds to death

The British Medical Association will be urged to debate the banning of Unnecessary Male Circumcision at its annual meeting next week after a baby bled to death in Queens Park, London.

The tragic case of 28 day old Angelo Ofori-Mintah is the latest in string of deaths and injuries that have prompted some doctors to call for laws that protect girls from unnecessary genital cutting to be extended to protect boys.

The news of Angelo’s death came in the same week that The British Association for Community Child Health reported in it’s quarterly newsletter that a baby boy’s skull was fractured during a ritual circumcision performed on a kitchen table in Bristol.

Now Dr Antony Lempert, GP and Director of the Secular Medical Forum, will be calling on the BMA to debate the banning of Non Therapeutic Circumcision in the UK at the start of its annual meeting.

Other cases that have helped push the issue up the agenda include the case of a Salford midwife who will be tried for manslaughter later this year after a boy she circumcised bled to death, and a report in The Journal of Public Health that found that nearly 1 in 2 Muslim boys circumcised in an Islamic school in Oxford ended up with medical complications.

There is currently a growing demand across Northern Europe to outlaw the practice with the junior party in Norway’s coalition government calling for a ban (7) earlier this month and medical associations in Sweden and The Netherlands also opposing the practice. Britain’s leading anti-circumcision charity, NORM UK, is heading for Rotterdam next week for an international conference on the Doctor And The Foreskin (subtitled Circumcision: forbid, deter or encourage?)

The Campaign To End Unnecessary Male Circumcision estimates that more than half a million boys living in the UK will be subjected to medically unnecessary circumcision before their 16th birthday.

And the anti-circumcision movement is growing in the UK with campaigners from the group Men Do Complain planning to protest outside the British Medical Association’s Annual Representatives Meeting in Bournemouth next week.

The campaign founder, Richard Dunkcer, says they will be protesting because “cutting the genitals of healthy boys who cannot consent is profoundly unethical”.

Another group, Genital Autonomy, is planning a mini-conference in at Keele University in July to bring together leading experts and practioners to debate “How Can We Prevent unnecessary Male Circumcision”.








New York Times (Subscription required)
June 25, 2012
Circumcision gives Orange County baby herpes: officials

By Thomas Zambito

An Orange County infant has been hospitalized after contracting a deadly strain of herpes from an Orthodox circumcision ritual that has claimed the lives of two babies in New York City in the past decade, health officials told Newsday on Monday.

The month-old infant was admitted to NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center in Manhattan last week after the ultra-Orthodox...




AllAfrica (and many others)
June 22, 2012
Zimbabwe: MP's Undergo Public HIV Testing and Circumcision

[This story is not particularly newsworthy, yet it has been broadcast more widely than almost any other concerning circumcision or HIV/AIDS.]

By Lance Guma

Dozens of MP's on Friday underwent voluntary counselling and public testing for HIV in an effort to encourage other citizens to follow suit.

Blessing Chebundo, chairman of the Zimbabwe Parliamentarians Against Aids, told SW Radio Africa that "181 people went through the doors for testing and 23 males went through the male circumcision." On Thursday more than 47 legislators, 22 outsiders, as well as 60 parliamentary staff went through the same exercise.

[The actual number of MPs getting circumcised has been reported to be as high as 68 and as low as 10.]

Chebundo could not provide the number of MP's who took part in the exercise on Friday telling us: "We are still trying to separate the figures because when the MP's went for the test, we had a huge crowd of people who had come to witness the occasion and they flocked behind the MP's and were also tested."

Among those who took part were Deputy Prime Minister Thokozani Khupe, Speaker of Parliament Lovemore Moyo and David Mutambara, the current board chairperson of the National Aids Council. Mutambara went for the public HIV test and was among the 23 who took part in the male circumcision.

"We are proud of them for setting the pace." Chebundo said. He explained that although the testing was public, when it came to the results, "that is the individuals decision to disclose. I am told there were some members who disclosed to the media. We did not want to follow that because it is an individual's decision."

Motivating the exercise is research by the World Health Organization showing that male circumcision can reduce a man's risk of getting HIV by up to 60 per cent. In the late 1990's Zimbabwe had one of the world's highest HIV infection rates but that figure is estimated to have more than halved by 2009.

[In Zimbabwe in 2005, USAID found 14.2% of non-circumcised men had HIV compared to 16.6% of circumcised men. (Similar differences apply in 10 of 18 countries for which it has figures.) Shouldn't this at least be explained before blundering on with mass circumcision programmes? The "up to 60% reduction" figure amounts to a total of 73 circumcised men who did not get HIV less than two years after 5,400 men were circumcised, while 64 did (and 327 dropped out, their HIV status unknown). Circumcision does nothing to directly protect women, who are at greater risk, and may even INcrease the risk to them. It will make it harder for women to insist that men use condoms. It is a recipe for disaster.]

Chebundo was keen to stress that male circumcision alone would not prevent people from contracting the HIV virus which causes AIDS. "We don't preach that when you are male circumcised you should go for unprotected sex. ["Should"? No, that would be madness. But plenty of people are concluding that you may.] Its just one of those measures, you have to have a combination of measures."

Blessing Chebundo the chairman of the Zimbabwe Parliamentarians Against Aids will be our next guest on Question Time.

[Will he be asked any hard questions? We're not holding our breath.

Zimbabwe has horrendous health problems. The money and resources being spent cutting men's genitals could be used much more effectively on measures that would, for example, ensure children live to adulthood.]








Boys circumcised for religious reasons are victims of assault, says German court
By
Barry Duke
– June 26, 2012

NON-THERAPEUTIC circumcisions constitute a “serious and irreversible interference” with the human body, a Cologne district court ruled yesterday.

This groundbreaking ruling effectively criminalises ritual mutilations performed by Jews and Muslims. Foreskin removal should be considered a crime of bodily harm, the court said.

The Cologne decision came after a Muslim doctor performed a circumcision on a four-year-old boy. Two days later the mother brought the child to the emergency room because he was bleeding.

The prosecutor’s office learned of the situation and filed charges against the doctor. The doctor was found not guilty in the first instance, but the prosecutor appealed.

According to this report,

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120626-43383.html

thousands of very young boys are circumcised in Germany each year, mainly for religious reasons.

Holm Putzke of the University of Passau said that German doctors performing non-therapeutic circumcisions have until now operated in a legal grey area.

The ruling is enormously important above all for doctors because it’s the first time that they have a legal certainty.

Putzke has been calling for prohibition for years.

He added:

The court has, in contrast to many politicians, not allowed itself to be scared by the fear of being criticised as anti-Semitic or opposed to religion.
This decision could not only affect future legal rulings but in the best case it could lead to a change of consciousness among the affected religions when it comes to respecting the basic rights of children.

Jewish and Muslim groups have fought for years against a criminalisation of circumcision. They did not have any immediate comment on yesterday’s ruling, saying they needed to review it first.

The court ruling is likely to be highly controversial – experts expect the matter will end up being decided by the Federal Constitutional Court.

Glen Poole, who runs the End Unnecessary Male Circumcision in the UK blog, said:

The news is a huge victory for ‘intactavists’ worldwide and the article [in the German Finanicial Times] acknowledges that a “massive resistance” to the practice is taking shape.




734 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/26/12

DraiKofi
Baptism and Circumcision are completely different. Baptism is a ceremonious ritual where you are immersed in water in the name of the Trinity for repentance; no physical part of your body is taken from you. On the other hand circumcision is genital mutilation as it is damaging and rupturing a large chunk of tissue, which leaves scars and may also change the child’s future sexual experience to that of a normal person with a foreskin for no apparent reason than medieval "tradition".

Circumcision is needless, unethical and risky. I understand parents who choose to circumcise their sons don't do it with the purpose of hurting their child. However I see the act itself as abuse to the child as the foreskin is healthy, functioning part of the body and should not be tampered with. The choice of a person to alter their genitals should be their own decision. Medical attention is a different case.




There is no solid proof that removal of the foreskin affects sexual pleasure. For the most part, there is little damage done to the genitals. I don't understand why this is considered child abuse, as the child is not traumatized by circumcision. In in case of baptism and circumcision, both are a physical way or pronoucing religion, which is hardly child abuse.


On a completely unrelated note, I got one hell of a fever after my baptism.
4576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / @England
Offline
Posted 6/26/12

polx wrote:


DraiKofi
Baptism and Circumcision are completely different. Baptism is a ceremonious ritual where you are immersed in water in the name of the Trinity for repentance; no physical part of your body is taken from you. On the other hand circumcision is genital mutilation as it is damaging and rupturing a large chunk of tissue, which leaves scars and may also change the child’s future sexual experience to that of a normal person with a foreskin for no apparent reason than medieval "tradition".

Circumcision is needless, unethical and risky. I understand parents who choose to circumcise their sons don't do it with the purpose of hurting their child. However I see the act itself as abuse to the child as the foreskin is healthy, functioning part of the body and should not be tampered with. The choice of a person to alter their genitals should be their own decision. Medical attention is a different case.




There is no solid proof that removal of the foreskin affects sexual pleasure. For the most part, there is little damage done to the genitals. I don't understand why this is considered child abuse, as the child is not traumatized by circumcision. In in case of baptism and circumcision, both are a physical way or pronoucing religion, which is hardly child abuse.


On a completely unrelated note, I got one hell of a fever after my baptism.


Come on now, say a normal healthy adult were forced into a circumcision against his will is that not abuse? How is it any different for a innocent defenseless child. If anything it is even worse. Because of, again "tradition" circumcision of a child in my opinion has become unintentional child abuse.

734 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/26/12

DraiKofi wrote:


polx wrote:


DraiKofi
Baptism and Circumcision are completely different. Baptism is a ceremonious ritual where you are immersed in water in the name of the Trinity for repentance; no physical part of your body is taken from you. On the other hand circumcision is genital mutilation as it is damaging and rupturing a large chunk of tissue, which leaves scars and may also change the child’s future sexual experience to that of a normal person with a foreskin for no apparent reason than medieval "tradition".

Circumcision is needless, unethical and risky. I understand parents who choose to circumcise their sons don't do it with the purpose of hurting their child. However I see the act itself as abuse to the child as the foreskin is healthy, functioning part of the body and should not be tampered with. The choice of a person to alter their genitals should be their own decision. Medical attention is a different case.




There is no solid proof that removal of the foreskin affects sexual pleasure. For the most part, there is little damage done to the genitals. I don't understand why this is considered child abuse, as the child is not traumatized by circumcision. In in case of baptism and circumcision, both are a physical way or pronoucing religion, which is hardly child abuse.


On a completely unrelated note, I got one hell of a fever after my baptism.


Come on now, say a normal healthy adult were forced into a circumcision against his will is that not abuse? How is it any different for a innocent defenseless child. If anything it is even worse. Because of, again "tradition" circumcision of a child in my opinion has become unintentional child abuse.



A grown man is not a child, so it's not child abuse. For a child, I would imagine that they wouldn't feel much of a loss, it goes with the 'you never miss what you've never had logic'. If anything, I feel it's much worse for a young adult to be circumcised, as opposed to a young child.

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/26/12

DraiKofi wrote:




Two, the parent of the Child is entrusted to make decisions for the child if they think it is for their benefit, for children are not usually all that great in making good decisions for themselves. That is called parenting.


Do you really think circumcision is for a child's benefit if the child has no medical problem with their foreskin?


Yes, it is a legitimate choice for the parents to make for their children, much the same way as a parent would choose what they think would be the best school for their child, or the best possible area for their child to live. Circumcision have been shown to 1- Decrease the risk of HIV so conclusively that the WHO includes it in their plan to stop HIV 2- decrease the chances of several penile diseases 3- ensure the cleansiness of the penis. If the child does not have small pox, or some other disease, parents would still go out and vaccinate them, despite the risk that may occur, simply because they think that is the best choice for the child. Thirdly, Childrens are not trusted with making their own decisions, because they do not know what is best for them, while the parents, on the other hand, is given that authority. It is the natural right of the parents to do as they will to their child as they think is best for them, so long as it does not adversely affect their health in the aggregate (circumcision has not been shown to do that), thus, how this minor and relatively unimportant piece of skin should be disposed is best left to the parents to decide. To go against this would be to go against the natural laws between that of a parent and a child, laws which our most ancient, and, by the by, wisest philosophers deduced: that the child should pay reverence and obidience to they that brought them into this world, and the parents should, in return, love and raise as they think is best for the child!
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/26/12

DraiKofi wrote:


polx wrote:


DraiKofi
Baptism and Circumcision are completely different. Baptism is a ceremonious ritual where you are immersed in water in the name of the Trinity for repentance; no physical part of your body is taken from you. On the other hand circumcision is genital mutilation as it is damaging and rupturing a large chunk of tissue, which leaves scars and may also change the child’s future sexual experience to that of a normal person with a foreskin for no apparent reason than medieval "tradition".

Circumcision is needless, unethical and risky. I understand parents who choose to circumcise their sons don't do it with the purpose of hurting their child. However I see the act itself as abuse to the child as the foreskin is healthy, functioning part of the body and should not be tampered with. The choice of a person to alter their genitals should be their own decision. Medical attention is a different case.




There is no solid proof that removal of the foreskin affects sexual pleasure. For the most part, there is little damage done to the genitals. I don't understand why this is considered child abuse, as the child is not traumatized by circumcision. In in case of baptism and circumcision, both are a physical way or pronoucing religion, which is hardly child abuse.


On a completely unrelated note, I got one hell of a fever after my baptism.


Come on now, say a normal healthy adult were forced into a circumcision against his will is that not abuse? How is it any different for a innocent defenseless child. If anything it is even worse. Because of, again "tradition" circumcision of a child in my opinion has become unintentional child abuse.



THe word 'will' is inapplicable to a child simply because a child has no 'will'. A person with a 'will' has the power to deliberately choose what he wants, and to go against that would be to 'be against his will'. This is applicable to a grown man, because a Grown man is able to rationally deduce and choose what he wants, whereas the infant child does not have rationality, nor can he make any deliberations, for he is entirely an agent of instincts, his mind, being a blank slate, unable to choose or make any deliberate choices to his goal of what he wants. When he is hungry, he does not deliberately cry out- it is his instincts that drives him to cry, when he feels uncomfortable, it is his instinct, rather than any deliberation on his part that causes him to blindly alert his parents to care for him. Now, having said this, to 'abuse a child' would be to cause harm to said child, however, what has not been shown is how circumcision harms a child, ahd should also somehow justify the abridgment of the parent's liberty with respect to their own child.
4576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / @England
Offline
Posted 6/26/12


THe word 'will' is inapplicable to a child simply because a child has no 'will'. A person with a 'will' has the power to deliberately choose what he wants, and to go against that would be to 'be against his will'. This is applicable to a grown man, because a Grown man is able to rationally deduce and choose what he wants, whereas the infant child does not have rationality, nor can he make any deliberations, for he is entirely an agent of instincts, his mind, being a blank slate, unable to choose or make any deliberate choices to his goal of what he wants. When he is hungry, he does not deliberately cry out- it is his instincts that drives him to cry, when he feels uncomfortable, it is his instinct, rather than any deliberation on his part that causes him to blindly alert his parents to care for him. Now, having said this, to 'abuse a child' would be to cause harm to said child, however, what has not been shown is how circumcision harms a child, ahd should also somehow justify the abridgment of the parent's liberty with respect to their own child.


Exactly, a child is defenseless, innocent and does not have the maturity to make his own decisions at that young age, which is all the more reason for the child to grow and be educated first before he should decide for himself what to do with his own private body parts.

Well isn't the foreskin amongst one the most sensitive parts of the body? In a new born baby it is attached to head of the penis, exactly the same way a nail is joined to a fingernail. At birth, apparently the splitting process of the foreskin from the head has just begun so the new-borns penis is, of course, not yet fully developed. Plus it’s going to hurt. You’re prob going to argue that a baby won’t remember to pain etc. Hypothetically say a baby would have his finger nails ripped off because it's "tradition", he isn't going to remember a thing is he? but it doesn't make it right. I don't know if I'm getting my point out properly but hope you understand what I mean :D.
4576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / @England
Offline
Posted 6/26/12



A grown man is not a child, so it's not child abuse. For a child, I would imagine that they wouldn't feel much of a loss, it goes with the 'you never miss what you've never had logic'. If anything, I feel it's much worse for a young adult to be circumcised, as opposed to a young child.



In my hypothetical explanation I said "if a normal healthy adult were forced into a circumcision against his will is that not abuse?"I didn't say child abuse. As for the 'you'll never miss what you've never had logic' supposedly, to you what if say, a child who gets on of his little fingers chopped off for no apparent reason after birth is that not child abuse as well? (Sorry if my hypothetical examples are rubbish =P) And what is your logic that you feel it is worse for a young adult to be circumcised than a child?

P.S Btw thanks for accepting my friend request Yay lets be friends!!


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.