Jusma Kullailie
23-08-2005, 17:58
Now in general it is good practice to read back through a thread for the posts where the thread starter has given proof, again and again ad nauseum. I know it's both annoying for a person who's been involved in a thread to continually have to post their info again and again and I understand looking for info is annoying especially in long threads like this, and that's why I'm gonna leave it at this pointer and not do the work for the objector, except to say: JK- read the thread.
Have to accept that and read through the thread!!
Now the funny thing is the post then goes on to give a number of unsubstantiated claims (highlighted in bold for your convenience ;))
My reply to whatever was highlighted in bold...
1. It's been proven that a circumcised penis is better and more hygienic by many doctors.
Ok so better maybe an ambiguous word to be used, but the fact still is that it has been proven to be more hygienic. This in the sense that the chances of UTI, STDs, Cancer are reduced. The source for this info has been given in the previous posts.
2. Prevention is better than cure?
I don't understand what's unsubstantiated in point 2. I merely quoted a famous saying that is taught in most schools.
3. ...but the future events are worth it.
This relates to the hygiene and things you may not have to face in the future. This is some what related to your unsubstantiated matters, point 1 above.
4. Women prefer a circumcised penis.
If you read the phrase before the colon, you will see that I have myself stated it as an Urban Legend.
5. sacrifice good health.
Again, this is related to your unsubstantiated matters, points 1
All unsubstantiated claims , ergo I ask you where are these health sacrifices that you seem to think not worth risking a child's life for, or that you think the prevention is better than the cure? Where are these doctors? Where are these women? (and why should that matter - again we're talking about the individual's rights to their intact body)
Where is the proof?
Please check some of the links or other references mentioned in earlier posts.
The following is a quote from kidshealth.org...
In some instances, doctors may decide to delay the procedure or forgo it altogether. Premature babies or those who have special medical concerns may not be circumcised until they're ready to leave the hospital. And babies born with physical abnormalities of the penis that need to be corrected surgically often aren't circumcised at all because the foreskin may eventually be used as part of a reconstructive operation.
SO you see, if any parent still goes ahead with the circumcision, then there is still bound to be trouble. Hence I say that better methods and knowledge should be enforced.
ah resorting to name-calling
I guess I should stop taking your thread seriously then, but I'll give you yet another chance.
Guess I blew my top there. What would you do if some one laughs at you 900 times!!!
Anyway, more below...
What? - This does not refute what has been said??? The parents have the right to practice their religion on themselves, not others. This sentence does not address this.
Right, the parents ARE practicing their religion. A child born to parents of a religion, is also a part of that religion, unless he chooses to convert in the future. So as long as he is in a concerned religion, he has to follow the practice of the religion, ie... be circumcised. Now you may also say that it's the child's option to practice a religion, but in many cases circumcision is done at an age when the children know what a circumcision is. If you come to where I live (in reality), I can show you at least a dozen kids who can explain to you the need for circumcision, when they cannot even write their name. The wound needs to dry fast and if you don't want the kids to disturb it or be too traumatised as some one said earlier, you have to explain to them what is being done and why. And many people don't actually convert. (<--- please comment on this point)
And thus preventing the super-sensitive erogenous receptors from ever growing there - thanks mum and dad!
OK, this reply is too subjective. There are over a 100 things that man has to do and worry about in this world, and Sex is one of them (but no worries here). One of the idea behind Circumcision is to prevent the sexual sensitivity. This is so that people concentrate on other more important matters. Sex is among other things to come together and give birth to children and to increase the bonding between the couple. Too much of sex is Lust. This is a major sin in many religions. Hence once again, IMO this proposal is not only affecting civil rights, but religion as well.
But there is still good enough sensitivity in the circumcised penis to enjoy a good sex.
I'm gonna spoiler this for Forgottenlands - tis below:
Here's one example Ask the next circed male you meet if they enjoy oral sex? (most I know start going through their shopping list while it happens) They don't have the sensitivity of a foreskin to appreciate it, and their glans is too desensitised by keratinisation. Circumcision robs men of pleasure - maybe if they've had it since childbirth they don't know what they've missed, but circed men who's experienced both sides of the coin will tell you that it's like seeing in colour and then seeing in black and white. Circed men who've chosen to restore at least get the keratinisation to go away (over a period of years though)
The previous points pretty much answer this question. BTW, I know that there are rules to have SEX in some religions, but won't get too detail here.
Hmm I'll go back again and check but I'm pretty sure it is up for the nation to decide what the recommended age for a person giving their informed consent is.
No problem there. But getting your penis circumcised is not similar to drinking alcohol, or driving cars on highways, or choosing a politician.
The earlier you get yourself circumcised the less complex it is to heal. So I would suggest any time when a child can prove (maybe by explaining) that he understands what's a circumcision and that he wants to get one done (under no coercion)
Firstly this proposal does NOT ban circumcision - I mean seriously - you've been posting here a few days yet - how did that not get through?
- em what I'm pretty sure James_xenoland meant here was that males that the nation identifies as capable of making their own decisions are able to be informed on both sides of the issue before they make their decision This is because it is not banned to them, just children under that age. However informed consent is surely better than ignorant consent? Hardly a waste of money.
Ok a slip up there. But I would still stand by my statement that at a very young age, kids are not in a position to judge what's right or not. Every kid hates injections and dentists. So will you stop taking him there, if there is no consent. Please answer to this point as well.
What about my point about getting the right person to do the job?
How does MGM abuse? I would seriously like to know why the author is thinking like this.
Finally, there are many stats published proving that AIDS is hardly present among circumcised men. Due to this and other reasons, more people are voluntarily having themselves circumcised (If you want proof I'll give). Hence don't you think it's OK if parents have their kids circumcised with good concerns. Yes, whatever you say maybe right in strict sense of rules. But haven't you bent those same rules as well in many cases.
Finally, I would like to say that religion is last thing that should mix with politics. Hence the need to stay away if people are doing it for religious reasons. This proposal affects both religion and civil rights (IYourO).
I still stand by my decision. But this is my choice, I don't expect anyone else to have the same opinion.
Have to accept that and read through the thread!!
Now the funny thing is the post then goes on to give a number of unsubstantiated claims (highlighted in bold for your convenience ;))
My reply to whatever was highlighted in bold...
1. It's been proven that a circumcised penis is better and more hygienic by many doctors.
Ok so better maybe an ambiguous word to be used, but the fact still is that it has been proven to be more hygienic. This in the sense that the chances of UTI, STDs, Cancer are reduced. The source for this info has been given in the previous posts.
2. Prevention is better than cure?
I don't understand what's unsubstantiated in point 2. I merely quoted a famous saying that is taught in most schools.
3. ...but the future events are worth it.
This relates to the hygiene and things you may not have to face in the future. This is some what related to your unsubstantiated matters, point 1 above.
4. Women prefer a circumcised penis.
If you read the phrase before the colon, you will see that I have myself stated it as an Urban Legend.
5. sacrifice good health.
Again, this is related to your unsubstantiated matters, points 1
All unsubstantiated claims , ergo I ask you where are these health sacrifices that you seem to think not worth risking a child's life for, or that you think the prevention is better than the cure? Where are these doctors? Where are these women? (and why should that matter - again we're talking about the individual's rights to their intact body)
Where is the proof?
Please check some of the links or other references mentioned in earlier posts.
The following is a quote from kidshealth.org...
In some instances, doctors may decide to delay the procedure or forgo it altogether. Premature babies or those who have special medical concerns may not be circumcised until they're ready to leave the hospital. And babies born with physical abnormalities of the penis that need to be corrected surgically often aren't circumcised at all because the foreskin may eventually be used as part of a reconstructive operation.
SO you see, if any parent still goes ahead with the circumcision, then there is still bound to be trouble. Hence I say that better methods and knowledge should be enforced.
ah resorting to name-calling
I guess I should stop taking your thread seriously then, but I'll give you yet another chance.
Guess I blew my top there. What would you do if some one laughs at you 900 times!!!
Anyway, more below...
What? - This does not refute what has been said??? The parents have the right to practice their religion on themselves, not others. This sentence does not address this.
Right, the parents ARE practicing their religion. A child born to parents of a religion, is also a part of that religion, unless he chooses to convert in the future. So as long as he is in a concerned religion, he has to follow the practice of the religion, ie... be circumcised. Now you may also say that it's the child's option to practice a religion, but in many cases circumcision is done at an age when the children know what a circumcision is. If you come to where I live (in reality), I can show you at least a dozen kids who can explain to you the need for circumcision, when they cannot even write their name. The wound needs to dry fast and if you don't want the kids to disturb it or be too traumatised as some one said earlier, you have to explain to them what is being done and why. And many people don't actually convert. (<--- please comment on this point)
And thus preventing the super-sensitive erogenous receptors from ever growing there - thanks mum and dad!
OK, this reply is too subjective. There are over a 100 things that man has to do and worry about in this world, and Sex is one of them (but no worries here). One of the idea behind Circumcision is to prevent the sexual sensitivity. This is so that people concentrate on other more important matters. Sex is among other things to come together and give birth to children and to increase the bonding between the couple. Too much of sex is Lust. This is a major sin in many religions. Hence once again, IMO this proposal is not only affecting civil rights, but religion as well.
But there is still good enough sensitivity in the circumcised penis to enjoy a good sex.
I'm gonna spoiler this for Forgottenlands - tis below:
Here's one example Ask the next circed male you meet if they enjoy oral sex? (most I know start going through their shopping list while it happens) They don't have the sensitivity of a foreskin to appreciate it, and their glans is too desensitised by keratinisation. Circumcision robs men of pleasure - maybe if they've had it since childbirth they don't know what they've missed, but circed men who's experienced both sides of the coin will tell you that it's like seeing in colour and then seeing in black and white. Circed men who've chosen to restore at least get the keratinisation to go away (over a period of years though)
The previous points pretty much answer this question. BTW, I know that there are rules to have SEX in some religions, but won't get too detail here.
Hmm I'll go back again and check but I'm pretty sure it is up for the nation to decide what the recommended age for a person giving their informed consent is.
No problem there. But getting your penis circumcised is not similar to drinking alcohol, or driving cars on highways, or choosing a politician.
The earlier you get yourself circumcised the less complex it is to heal. So I would suggest any time when a child can prove (maybe by explaining) that he understands what's a circumcision and that he wants to get one done (under no coercion)
Firstly this proposal does NOT ban circumcision - I mean seriously - you've been posting here a few days yet - how did that not get through?
- em what I'm pretty sure James_xenoland meant here was that males that the nation identifies as capable of making their own decisions are able to be informed on both sides of the issue before they make their decision This is because it is not banned to them, just children under that age. However informed consent is surely better than ignorant consent? Hardly a waste of money.
Ok a slip up there. But I would still stand by my statement that at a very young age, kids are not in a position to judge what's right or not. Every kid hates injections and dentists. So will you stop taking him there, if there is no consent. Please answer to this point as well.
What about my point about getting the right person to do the job?
How does MGM abuse? I would seriously like to know why the author is thinking like this.
Finally, there are many stats published proving that AIDS is hardly present among circumcised men. Due to this and other reasons, more people are voluntarily having themselves circumcised (If you want proof I'll give). Hence don't you think it's OK if parents have their kids circumcised with good concerns. Yes, whatever you say maybe right in strict sense of rules. But haven't you bent those same rules as well in many cases.
Finally, I would like to say that religion is last thing that should mix with politics. Hence the need to stay away if people are doing it for religious reasons. This proposal affects both religion and civil rights (IYourO).
I still stand by my decision. But this is my choice, I don't expect anyone else to have the same opinion.