Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Circumcision - its effects
#11
I think most people would agree that it is a cruel thing to do. And yet, they seem to have no problem doing the same thing to an infant because "he won't remember it." Does that mean it's OK to commit cruel acts on people as long as they don't remember it? Or is it that infants are not considered people? Or are we to believe that a baby doesn't feel the same pain and terror that this man describes just because they can't say so in words?
Reply
#12
no_escape, I *do* have to play devils advocate here a bit.  There were times, from (basically) pre-history to as late as the early part of the last century where people were quite often logistically incapable of keeping a standard of cleanliness that we now take for granted (unless you live in the middle of nowhere, like I do!) I think even those who are intactivists educate parents to the need for personal hygiene.  Disease, to include genital disease ran rampant among people even just 200 years ago. (Witness the flu epidemic of 1918 that killed approximately 10% of American and no, I'm not blaming that epidemic on the presence of circumcision) Circumcision as a prophylactic measure was immeasurably better than the alternatives.
To turn the table on you, is it better that a child be circumcised or to experience Balanitis, HIV or cancer - all of which occur at a higher rate among the uncircumcised that the circumcised male.
What I found most horrific about the incident you describe is not the circumcision itself but that the child was so unprepared for it in any means.  With few exceptions circumcision is a requirement to take part in the community of Islam.
Answering you questions:
No, it's not 'okay' to commit a cruel act on another (whether they can remember it or not). In many societies (some even today), because of child death, children were not regarded as people until they had reached 3 - 5 years.
Expanding on that, however, beyond the moral issues you bring to the table are also the religious issues, if one believes firmly that circumcision (as much as baptism) is a requirement for salvation are you and I the people to tell them they're wrong?
We live by each other and for each other. Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much.
-- Helen Keller
Reply
#13
(06-29-2013, 08:49 PM)Dragon link Wrote: no_escape, I *do* have to play devils advocate here a bit.  There were times, from (basically) pre-history to as late as the early part of the last century where people were quite often logistically incapable of keeping a standard of cleanliness that we now take for granted (unless you live in the middle of nowhere, like I do!) I think even those who are intactivists educate parents to the need for personal hygiene.  Disease, to include genital disease ran rampant among people even just 200 years ago. (Witness the flu epidemic of 1918 that killed approximately 10% of American and no, I'm not blaming that epidemic on the presence of circumcision) Circumcision as a prophylactic measure was immeasurably better than the alternatives.

To turn the table on you, is it better that a child be circumcised or to experience Balanitis, HIV or cancer - all of which occur at a higher rate among the uncircumcised that the circumcised male.
What I found most horrific about the incident you describe is not the circumcision itself but that the child was so unprepared for it in any means.  With few exceptions circumcision is a requirement to take part in the community of Islam.

The so called medical benefits of circumcision are not supported by the data. An Oxford grad student tackles the medical aspect very thoroughly in this article:

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/201...-medicine/

There's also a short video from a Canadian doctor addressing those claims of reduced chance of disease:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi6A7wP7dKw


Quote:Answering you questions:
No, it's not 'okay' to commit a cruel act on another (whether they can remember it or not). In many societies (some even today), because of child death, children were not regarded as people until they had reached 3 - 5 years.
Expanding on that, however, beyond the moral issues you bring to the table are also the religious issues, if one believes firmly that circumcision (as much as baptism) is a requirement for salvation are you and I the people to tell them they're wrong?

I don't believe religious tolerance should extend to allowing people to violate children's bodies. In the West, we have no qualms about calling female circumcision mutilation, and making it an illegal practice. These people who insist that male genitals must be cut due to religion are free to cut their own when they are of age. Until that time, religion is not a free pass to do irreversible, non medical surgery on a healthy child.
Reply
#14
For everything you can pull up off the web, I could find a counter argument ... just as you can for anything I post.

Do I agree with you in major part, yes I do.  But when someone keeps coming at me with "I'm right, you're wrong" in all cases,  then I don't see a lot of sense in continuing the discussion because it isn't one any more.

By the way, my comment regarding current issues with disease among males came from the CDC, not a grad student.
We live by each other and for each other. Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much.
-- Helen Keller
Reply
#15
After a bit of thought and more discussion I realize that I owe no_escape an apology for the way I responded.

I called him down for expressing an opinion that he believes very strongly in - and I completely disregarded his feelings in the issue.

To add insult to injury, I exercised a "one ups man ship" that I would not have accepted from anyone.  Possibly the frosting on the cake.

You have my sincere and heartfelt apology for that - I never mean to hurt anyone here, intentionally or otherwise.  //al

We live by each other and for each other. Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much.
-- Helen Keller
Reply
#16
I accept the apology and I apologize as well for escalating into a fight on one who doesn't deserve it. This is an issue where before I even open my mouth I already feel persecuted and belittled, so from the start I am on the defensive. I hate the silence that surrounds it, yet if this is how I react, is it not wise to be silent about it around me? There are better people than I am fighting to end it, and I should leave the fight to my betters instead of making enemies for no reason. At the time of the exchange I genuinely hated you, but that speaks more about me than you. I apologize for the undeserved hatred.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  effects of internet support groups snuggles 3 1,466 09-03-2009, 11:58 PM
Last Post: Fos-K

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)