Learn to parse quotes correctly. No, you did NOT have that right. Millions of people were killed in the Holocaust too. What's your point? Evil does not cease to be evil just because it's committed on a large scale.
It's called age of informed consent. No fallacy there. It's a statement of fact, actually. The World Health Organization recognizes the benefits of circumcision. So has just about everyone else, save for people with bizarre penis issues. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...cide-boys-are-better-off-circumcised-than-not Tell that to the foreskin fetishist that suggested removing testacles, to prevent possible future cancer concerns. I merely took an absurd comment to an even more absurd conclusion. Let me guess...you have no children.
I'll take that bet. Lets put Jewish women and our families up against whatever demographic you're from and compare wealth, education and success. I'll guarantee you WE WIN!!!
So until then we should just cut off their balls because clearly we can do whatever they want to them, they are our kids after all right? BTW I was talking about myself. My circumcision was not my choice. I wasn't given one, I was snipped before I could form a coherent thought. I have no idea how anyone can support this. Apparently how someones penis looks is more important than their rights to their own body to you, which is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing disgusting.
It's called bullsh!t. No. When person 1 says "provide examples of x", and person 2 provides examples of x, and then person 1 says "aha, I knew you couldn't provide examples of x!", then that's an epic motherf***ing reading comprehension fail. "Has benefits" is not mutually exclusive with "has negatives", and therefore "has benefits" is not synonymous with "is good". Furthermore, the source that you cited is about the American Academy of Pediatrics, not WHO. Removal of testicles is not life-threatening, so the comment was not absurd. I'm from the Transhumanist demographic. We win. Says any remotely coherent understanding of what "rights" are.
Every nation in the world recognizes that children should defer to adults in most cases like this. Except that was not the case. So much for your epic mf reading comprehension fail. Actually, you should learn what a benefit is. Yes. I did state specifically "so has just about everyone else" after discussing the WHO's approval of circumcision. Oh, did I mention the American Academy of Pediatrics has come out fully behind circumcision? Really? That's your measuring stick for what isn't absurd? That could apply to many things then...like a foreskin, for instance. Well good luck with that.
There is no benefit in cutting off one's balls. There is a health benefit, which the American Academy of Pediatrics has recognized, in circumcision. Case closed. I don't consider a useless bit of skin to be essential to my body. Far from it and overwhelmingly people agree. Have some skin reattached to your dinky if that spins your pinwheel around.
The male foreskin is hardly a 'useless bit of skin' and it is sad that the pro-circumcision propaganda has most people in the US believing so. The male foreskin has a purpose, most importantly it protects and keeps the glans moist. It also has thousands of tiny nerve endings in it, I don't know why anyone would take a knife to an infant's most sensitive and personal part of their body. How can you justify this? Not only are you performing an irreversible procedure on them you are taking away a choice they should be able to make for themselves when they are old enough to do so.
Cutting off your balls prevents testicular cancer in the same way removing the foreskin prevents it from developing cancer. Just because there is some benefit isn't reason to do it. You'll never injure your arm if you cut it off. It's a benefit, but it's certainly not worth it. You don't consider it to be essential, and that's fine, you can remove it by your choice. The issue is when it is removed without the person who it is being removed from making that decision. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand. It's basic human rights.
. "Frequent urination in no longer a problem, thanks to my maintaining an erection lasting four weeks or more, and Friar Randy's cowl is the best money can buy. ... ... Damned, Big Pharma and Big Bio are making a difference where it counts big time!" .
Really? One of those? Might as well call yourself a Trekkie. You don't have a demographic, families or breed, so we win=) It basically explains why you would think children have the ability to make decisions at birth. Since this issue negatively effects NO ONE, except people like you who wish to ^%$*$*#$ about it. Have a good day. Go write a sci-fi novel.
I am pissed off my mom didn't give me a choice between Huggies and Pampers when I was a kid. Who can I sue?
There was a time when every nation in the world recognized slavery as okay. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. How many more of those would you like to go through? Au contraire, that's exactly what happened. I can provide the verbatim quotes if you'd like. I already know what a benefit is. Maybe you should learn what logic is. WHO was never mentioned in the article that you linked... as I already said. I never said anything about a measuring stick. Ooh look, strawman fallacy. You're up to 3 so far. Keep going! Actually, there are several benefits. In addition to the aforementioned prevention of balls cancer, it slows down the aging process, dramatically reduces acne, and gives you the ability to be kicked hard in the groin without feeling any pain. The case was closed in our favor as of post #29 by BringDownMugabe. Says who? Wrong on both counts. This issue negatively affects everyone who is mutilated against his or her will - a group that does NOT include me, fortunately.
Sounds like you'll have to sue your mom for that one. In all seriousness though circumcision can be very dangerous and damaging to a child's penis. A physician does not know how large the child will become when he gets older so if they cut off too much it can cause a serious issue with tightness of the skin when becoming erect. They will experience painful erections and sex just won't be very enjoyable. It is an absolutely unnecessary procedure and if for some reason they find out they need to have their foreskin removed as an adult, or simply want to for whatever reason then they should have that choice later in life instead of having it taken from them by their parents. There is little to no medical benefit from keeping your child intact and there is more chance that you will ruin their sexual health forever. There is just no way to justify mutilating your child's genitals in this day and age. http://www.intactamerica.org/learnmore
Go find some Jews who think they were mutilated and I'll give you a cookie. YOUR perception is NOT reality. Also, do you have kids, because you seem to have a distorted view on their ability to make decisions.
You might want to rephrase that, as it's not in the spirit of the rest of your post. In this case, it absolutely is. I raised a couple of younger brothers. They have successfully reached the ages of 18 and 16 without developing any urinary tract infections or AIDS or anything like that, and are grateful that they were allowed to decide for themselves. Next retarded question?
There are plenty of Jews against circumcision who view it as mutilation and feel mutilated afterwards, most especially if they have had difficulties in their daily life (urinating issues) or sexual issue because of it. http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/ So, do I get the whole cookie jar now?
There is like a 999/1000 chance that you will be less likely to catch an STD due to being circumcised and that's it. So when I say little, I mean it. I don't believe that miniscule chance is enough to justify slicing a large piece of skin off an infant's penis and putting them at immediate risk of infection, hemorrhage and other serious complications. If the kid wants to reduce his risk of STDs by that tiny amount when he becomes sexually active then it should be his choice to do so, or even better just teach him to wear a condom and prevent STDs at a much higher rate. Until then though nobody has the right to amputate a part of his body for non-life saving reasons.
Actually no. I've heard of them...you get a VERY tiny insignificant cookie since that's who they actually represent=)
And not do an irreversible genitally mutilating medical procedure on someone else who has not given his consent. Sorry, just because you are the parent does not mean you should be allowed to make any decision for your child. Particularly when the consequences of that decision will last well beyond the point that your child becomes an adult and is no longer living with you.
Raising siblings isn't having your own children and understand how they think, unless your siblings are 20 yrs younger than you. Doubt it. And the vast, VAST majority who get snipped have zero negative consequences either. You want to change laws to help an extreme minority? Next ignorant observation please. Besides, why the need to ban something that has NO IMPACT on YOUR life. Why the need to control other's choices? Do you want to ban smoking, sugar, soda, pot and alcohol too because you don't agree with their uses? What about parents who let their kids watch TV. Do you want to control how much TV your neighbor's kids can watch? Heck, according to your logic, kids should be able to choose what to eat, wear, watch, and do without any parental consent.
Even if there was some "medical benefit" (which I do not believe there actually is adequate evidence of), that is still absolutely no justification for irreparably removing a part of your little child's genitals. Your child is going to have to deal with the consequences of this decision for the rest of his life. What if he really doesn't want to be circumcised? Ever think about that? At least if you if you didn't cut off his foreskin, he still has that decision available to him if he ever decides he really does want to be circumcised. Though 99.9% of 16 year olds who have their foreskin would never want to have it cut off. It's time for the cycle of abuse to end. Just because YOU got yours chopped off as a child, doesn't mean you need to perpetuate that on to the next generation.
Do you not see the irony in what you're saying here? By allowing parents to have their sons circumcised you are taking away the son's choice to make that decision for himself. Why the need to control an infant boy's very personal choice over what happens to an extremely sensitive and private part of his body? What is so wrong with leaving him intact? We're not talking about trivial things such as how much TV kids watch, we are talking about a major, permanent and irreversible surgical procedure that has far more risk of severely damaging the child in the future than ever helping him.
