(March 10, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Irrational Wrote: Yes, because just saying something is irrational makes it irrational.

But you are irrational, are you not?

(March 10, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Irrational Wrote: Yes, because just saying something is irrational makes it irrational.

Is no one going to make the joke? About the screen name? Nevermind. I'm shutting up.

(March 10, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Irrational Wrote: Yes, because just saying something is irrational makes it irrational.

You'll need to demonstrate that it's abuse. Generally speaking, that means showing intent.

(March 10, 2015 at 5:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Irrational Wrote: Yes, because just saying something is irrational makes it irrational.

You'll need to demonstrate that it's abuse. Generally speaking, that means showing intent.

Parents who have a part of their child's penis cut off don't tend to do so unintentionally. There is intent involved.

But maybe what you mean is whether the intent is malicious enough to be considered abuse or not. I don't consider malicious intent to be a necessary component of abuse.

(March 10, 2015 at 1:34 pm)robvalue Wrote: OK Lek well, if you thought you were doing it for health reasons, then I respect that. Fair enough. I apologize for my incorrect assumptions.

Sion: I'm confused about what you're saying. Do you think it is a beneficial procedure to have generally as an infant regardless? Sure it's possible it may need removing later, but does that justify always doing it?

And, if it is justifiable to remove it because it may need to be removed later, why no movement to remove the appendix in infancy?

(March 10, 2015 at 3:09 pm)Sionnach Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 1:34 pm)robvalue Wrote: Sure it's possible it may need removing later, but does that justify always doing it?

Yes.

So, you going to start the movement? After all, a burst appendix will fuck a guy up much faster and worse than an infected foreskin.

(March 10, 2015 at 5:31 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: And, if it is justifiable to remove it because it may need to be removed later, why no movement to remove the appendix in infancy?

I have no qualms with the appendix being removed during infancy.

I imagine it is not done due to the fact that it is considered a major surgical procedure whereas the circumcision is not a major surgery so much as a simple snip of outer skin.

(March 10, 2015 at 3:16 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 11:55 am)Sionnach Wrote: There is nothing wrong with the parent deciding for the child what is best for him or her.

Maybe you don't think it's wrong, but many do. And it's a matter of respecting the right of the person to choose for themselves. How would you feel if earlobes were cut off as a child because that's what your parents wanted?

If someone had wrapped it in mystical belief to the point that it became a societal norm, most parents would do it "just 'cause everbody duz it!!!"

---

(March 10, 2015 at 3:22 pm)Sionnach Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 3:16 pm)Irrational Wrote: And it's a matter of respecting the right of the person to choose for themselves.

The parent can decide whether or not to have the child circumcised. I am not infringing upon that. However, likening circumcision to cutting off of earlobes is ridiculous and illogical. The analogy does not work.

The analogy works just fine. Bits of skin that serve (at least in most people's minds) little or no purpose that can be easily removed in infancy. You just don't like where the analogy leads.

(March 10, 2015 at 5:36 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 3:16 pm)Irrational Wrote: Maybe you don't think it's wrong, but many do. And it's a matter of respecting the right of the person to choose for themselves. How would you feel if earlobes were cut off as a child because that's what your parents wanted?

If someone had wrapped it in mystical belief to the point that it became a societal norm, most parents would do it "just 'cause everbody duz it!!!"

And who knows, doctors may even find some health benefits to getting rid of earlobes.

(March 10, 2015 at 5:10 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 5:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: You'll need to demonstrate that it's abuse. Generally speaking, that means showing intent.

Parents who have a part of their child's penis cut off don't tend to do so unintentionally. There is intent involved.

But maybe what you mean is whether the intent is malicious enough to be considered abuse or not. I don't consider malicious intent to be a necessary component of abuse.

No, what I mean is that the intent is to abuse the victim, rather than appease their god. I think intent informs the nature of any crime. If you hit your child with a bat because he was playing catcher and jumped out in front of the pitch, is that the same as if you hit your child with a bat because you found his performance of his chores wanting?

I grant that circumcision is awful, and indeed I support the idea of banning it.

But circumcision is not the same as a daily beating or other forms of malicious torture. If you disagree, you would have to prosecute accidents, no?

I'm against circumcision because there is no choice. A surgical procedure that removes a part of skin must be consented - Unless there's life danger, a disease or medical condition, parents have zero right to send their kids to remove foreskin. Oh, and I'm also against the ridiculous idea in my country that baby girls need to get their ears pierced because girls wear earrings.

I'm not concerned over the health effects of circumcision, it is a decision that should be made after - And if the individual considers that the benefits of having no foreskin are preferable, then it's rational - The fact it brings benefits is irrelevant and the comparison with vaccination is ridiculous to say the least.

I've never been circumcised and I don't see any reason why I should have... I work perfectly with foreskin