Seizure1990 Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 We already have a topic for discussing this, but I specifically wanted to investigate a particular point. So here it is. If you're a girl, you're uncircumcised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackdoom Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 You may want to fix the thread's title. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lels Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Never mind.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen Smith Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 If you're a girl, you're uncircumcised. Thanks for the clarification. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimkraz Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 You are aware that females can be circumcised too though it is thought of as mutilation by most of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen Smith Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 You are aware that females can be circumcised too though it is though of as mutilating by most of us. Yes, but that's not exactly the same thing.. sort of like the difference between a little snip and a big chop if you get my meaning, never mind the whole mutilation thing. Besides, it's pretty obvious what he was referring to, my previous was just meant as a little quip, not trying to start a lesson.. That said, if I were a guy, I sure wouldn't want anybody coming at my dangly bits with anything sharp. I hear it's a pretty sensitive area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Flash Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 You are aware that females can be circumcised too though it is thought of as mutilation by most of us. The sole purpose of female circumcision ties in to the notion that women are considered sexual deviants and shouldn't be able to find pleasure in sex. Male and female circumcision aren't alike in the least bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seizure1990 Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 You are aware that females can be circumcised too though it is thought of as mutilation by most of us. It's not really referred to as "circumcision" by anybody who is just talking about it casually. The only times I have heard it said like that is when someone is against male circumcision, and they're trying to imply the two are just as bad as each other. Otherwise, yea, I think it's generally just called genital mutilation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 IF it ain't broke, don't fix it... That being said, religious nuts ( no offense...) SHOULD be against it as "my body is the temple of christ" bla bla bla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seizure1990 Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 You may want to fix the thread's title. :) Thanks IF it ain't broke, don't fix it... That being said, religious nuts ( no offense...) SHOULD be against it as "my body is the temple of christ" bla bla bla Obnoxious, ignorant, close-minded dummies shouldn't talk about things they don't understand (no offense...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimkraz Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 If you're a girl, you're uncircumcised. The message was for the original poster, but if it made yours eyes water so be it, it so happens it arrived after your post Jen, neither circumcision is fun to go through, I am half Jewish, fortunately the top half is the Jewish part. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Thanks Obnoxious, ignorant, close-minded dummies shouldn't talk about things they don't understand (no offense...) Heh it so easy :) But you do know what i'm saying is 100% true, my body is the temple of christ :) Ergo I shall treat it like such... You also do realize that by NOT being a religious person makes me NOT close-minded, but that's a whole different cup of tea... On topic... Female circumcision is just torture IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miuku. Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Obnoxious, ignorant, close-minded dummies shouldn't talk about things they don't understand (no offense...) You live your entire life based on a book which has been changed countless number of times with sections added and removed as the clergy has seen fit and you dare to condemn others, calling them ignorant? Irony, hast thou come flesh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrian Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 If you're a girl, you're uncircumcised. Actually, that's not necessarily true; there are still parts of the world where female circumcision is practiced... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylcard Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Heh it so easy :) But you do know what i'm saying is 100% true, my body is the temple of christ :) Ergo I shall treat it like such... You also do realize that by NOT being a religious person makes me NOT close-minded, but that's a whole different cup of tea... On topic... Femala circumcision is just torture IMO. No, actually, being secular doesn't magically/automatically make you an open-minded person. See the countless examples of my buddies here who are so anti-Religious that it's sickening to see them put so much effort into hating it when they should be not caring. And it's not entirely on-topic, the poll is about the recent proposal/peition to ban male circumcision for infants, so it's strictly about male circumcision, he's just asking the opinions of everyone. Actually, that's not necessarily true; there are still parts of the world where female circumcision is practiced... That's not what he meant. What he meant is that for the purpose of this poll, if you're a female, choose the Uncircumcised for/against ban option. You live your entire life based on a book which has been changed countless number of times with sections added and removed as the clergy has seen fit and you dare to condemn others, calling them ignorant? Irony, hast thou come flesh? Mind staying on topic ? In case it flew right by you, he used the previous poster's "no offence" dig right back at him. You see, religious people don't like to be called religious nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 You live your entire life based on a book which has been changed countless number of times with sections added and removed as the clergy has seen fit and you dare to condemn others, calling them ignorant? Irony, hast thou come flesh? Preach brother PREACH! Oh wait... :shifty: No, actually, being secular doesn't magically/automatically make you an open-minded person. See the countless examples of my buddies here who are so anti-Religious that it's sickening to see them put so much effort into hating it when they should be not caring. And it's not entirely on-topic, the poll is about the recent proposal/peition to ban male circumcision for infants, so it's strictly about male circumcision, he's just asking the opinions of everyone. I actually agree I really don't care... I was simply implying that since the country (like most every other country) has deep seeded religious roots (hence why it is on topic), they SHOULD vote against circumcision. (well for the exception of religions that do enforce, but those are a minority in most cases) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelticWhisper Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 My opinion has always been that the only ethical course is to leave it up to the person who would be the subject of the circumcision. If someone's body is going to be permanently modified, then it must be that person's choice. Circumcision of infants is unethical because an infant cannot consent or refuse. In the rare event that it is required as a lifesaving procedure, only then would I consider it ethical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethec Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 My opinion has always been that the only ethical course is to leave it up to the person who would be the subject of the circumcision. If someone's body is going to be permanently modified, then it must be that person's choice. Circumcision of infants is unethical because an infant cannot consent or refuse. In the rare event that it is required as a lifesaving procedure, only then would I consider it ethical. QFT. There's nothing else to be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylcard Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 But that would be against the Freedom of Religion thing, no ? Bear with me on this comparison, but it's like banning baptism. Sure, it doesn't hurt and doesn't leave a permanent mark, but the religious significance is very high up there, don't you agree ? Or you know what, how about banning vasectomy ? It's painful, has no health benefits and is pretty much no religious importance, when I think about it, wouldn't religious people be upset about it in the first time ? Hah.. That'd be hilarious to watch, a petition by a group of hardcore religious folks to ban vasectomy. The only other aspect is the consent, which 99% of the guys give, the other 1% do it because the wifey commanded :p (Kidding). Basically, the only issue here is the consent of the baby, and I think I argued for it enough in the big ass thread over there.. My opinion has always been that the only ethical course is to leave it up to the person who would be the subject of the circumcision. If someone's body is going to be permanently modified, then it must be that person's choice. Circumcision of infants is unethical because an infant cannot consent or refuse. In the rare event that it is required as a lifesaving procedure, only then would I consider it ethical. So do you consider vaccines unethical ? They are NOT required and are NOT lifesaving procedures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen Smith Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 But that would be against the Freedom of Religion thing, no ? Thats the stickler. Personally yea, I think it's wrong for infants (barring an actual medical necessity), especially considering the "age of consent" mentioned above which is a great point. But these aren't exactly some fringe minority religions you're talking about either. Ban it, and you'll not only be making a joke of the Constitution, but also pretty much telling a very large number of people that their religions don't matter. Not going to end well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelticWhisper Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 So do you consider vaccines unethical ? They are NOT required and are NOT lifesaving procedures. That's a good question. On the one hand, they actually are potential lifesaving procedures. They can prevent infection by diseases that can be fatal. On the other, it's not guaranteed that those diseases will infect the infant if s/he is not vaccinated. In the case of well-established, non-experimental vaccines that protect against known-deadly diseases, I would say that vaccination is ethical because there are no permanent bodily modifications (unless you want to argue immune augmentation, which is a fair case to make, but I'm talking more along the lines of structural modifications such as the removal of the foreskin) and it serves a clear health-related purpose. Circumcision does not. In the case of experimental vaccines, no way in hell would I consider it ethical to subject an infant to them unless it's explicitly for a disease the infant already has and is the only remaining avenue of treatment (i.e. literally nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajua Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I think it is up to the parents. That age of consent talk is somehow ridiculous from the point of view that the parents have the right and freedom to treat their children according to their religious beliefs and family traditions as long as they follow common sense and don't break the law. I'm circumcised because my parents followed a family tradition. They are catholic, but they didn't enforce anything on me or my brothers. I really don't care about religion but I would get a son circumcised just because of what I think is best for him, ignoring all the health or religious talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylcard Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 So you're against circumcision because of its bodily modification - or hell - however you want to word it out, right ? In that case you're also against circumcision for grown men ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen Smith Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 So you're against circumcision because of its bodily modification - or hell - however you want to word it out, right ? In that case you're also against circumcision for grown men ? For me anyway, it's just infants unless there's a genuine medical need. "Sorry kid, you won't be needing that later" doesn't quite sound right. Adults? Eh if you want to chop bits off personally go nuts. (No pun intended.) Its your body and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Veteran Posted May 1, 2011 Veteran Share Posted May 1, 2011 Just like it's wrong to tattoo a newly born baby without its consent, it's wrong to cut off a part of its body without its consent. I'm uncircumcised; for the banning of forced circumcision of those who do not consent, but I don't believe it should be banned for those 18 or over who are not forced into it and who do consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts