Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
d-usa wrote: "We should let parents cut their penis because some girls will like to feth them more once they grow up" may be one of the weirder arguments I've seen.
You can denigrate any argument by finding the most outrageous defenders of it and placing their argument as a standard position.
Or, you could see a strange argument, point out that it is a strange argument, without pretending it is the standard position.
One reason I would not like to see this outlawed is because it would drive practitioners underground. Underground circumcision, without the sterile OR or trained professionals, is far more likely to end with tragedies. I would have no problem banning the procedure from happening anywhere outside of a hospital or professionally overseen and prepared surgical center, to avoid tragedies like the one Ouze posted (and others that seem to plague the orthodox Jewish communities). People are going to perform the procedure anyway, so it is society's interest to make it as safe as possible while encouraging participants to educate themselves on medically relevant issues.
chromedog wrote: I'd ban it for religious reasons (pretty much the definition of "no reason at all") but reserve the need for surgical procedures (and by this, I mean a sterile OR with doctors and specialists in residence. Not just any mook with a scalpel.)
Generally rabbis are trained for this. We let minor surgeries happen (piercings, tattoos), even childbirth, happen without a MD. I agree that there should be training and certification for all of the above, however.
John Prins wrote: Yes, let's jump straight to hyperbole. Society permits the termination of a fetus, but snipping off a bit of skin is abusive? Or let's not.
One is preventing a collection of cells from growing further inside another independent living being. One is intentional damage directly to an independent living being. In the first, the independent living being is giving consent. In the second, the independent living being is not.
It's still a false equivalency. Circumcision isn't a cosmetic procedure - it's not even strictly a religious procedure, for the last century it's been considered a hygienic procedure, and to this day doctors consider it 'unnecessary' but more or less a convenience. The closest parallel would be microchipping your infant.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/19 22:52:05
John Prins wrote: The closest parallel would be microchipping your infant.
Well, I guess so, since they both leave no obvious marks and are trivially reversible. Sure. When you put it that way I don't feel so horrified about EITHER idea.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: One reason I would not like to see this outlawed is because it would drive practitioners underground. Underground circumcision, without the sterile OR or trained professionals, is far more likely to end with tragedies. I would have no problem banning the procedure from happening anywhere outside of a hospital or professionally overseen and prepared surgical center, to avoid tragedies like the one Ouze posted (and others that seem to plague the orthodox Jewish communities). People are going to perform the procedure anyway, so it is society's interest to make it as safe as possible while encouraging participants to educate themselves on medically relevant issues.
They are not done in a sterile OR right now. It’s “take them to a clean room, strap them on this board, put on some sterile gloves, let the baby lick some sugar water, wipe down the penis, do the cut or apply the bell, finished”.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: One reason I would not like to see this outlawed is because it would drive practitioners underground. Underground circumcision, without the sterile OR or trained professionals, is far more likely to end with tragedies. I would have no problem banning the procedure from happening anywhere outside of a hospital or professionally overseen and prepared surgical center, to avoid tragedies like the one Ouze posted (and others that seem to plague the orthodox Jewish communities). People are going to perform the procedure anyway, so it is society's interest to make it as safe as possible while encouraging participants to educate themselves on medically relevant issues.
They are not done in a sterile OR right now. It’s “take them to a clean room, strap them on this board, put on some sterile gloves, let the baby lick some sugar water, wipe down the penis, do the cut or apply the bell, finished”.
So perhaps we should work to change that.
Just to clarify, are you saying this is how circumcisions are done in hospitals? Or is this just a reference to a Brit Milah as some perform it?
I would urge caution, or at least thought, regarding a blatant disregard for religious and cultural practices. Assuming that your point of view is superior rather than different is dangerous territory.
"You" or I may not care what someone else's magical being in the sky commands them to do, but they certainly consider it important enough to continue practicing. Depending on the nature of their beliefs, it seems possible they'd believe their very relationship or connection with their deity would be jeopardized if they were prevented from practicing their rituals.
Obviously, not all cultures share the same values. What one considers disgusting mutilation is sacred to another. What one considers the denial of autonomy, another considers sacred duty. There are many shades of grey to the discussion.
I'd rather no one circumcise their sons, but it isn't my choice. It shouldn't be my choice. Making a legal prohibition is not going to prevent the practice among the faithful, it's going to continue under super shady circumstances at worst, or drive that population out of the country at best. Both of those seem like terrible outcomes to me. The former transforms the issue into an actual public health problem, and the latter a de facto expulsion of those that believe they must practice circumcision.
The long-term solution of helping cultures assimilate and changing their values and beliefs over time by challenging their ideas with rhetoric seems like the right way to do things. A good first step would be actually discussing the issue with people who believe that they must circumcise their sons and trying to understand their rationale. Assuming they're monstrous barbarians is not a good starting point.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/19 23:36:26
Hey guys, remember that time we all talked about our dicks on Dakka?
i too am circumcised
That's a bingo card win somewhere!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
John Prins wrote: The closest parallel would be microchipping your infant.
Well, I guess so, since they both leave no obvious marks and are trivially reversible. Sure. When you put it that way I don't feel so horrified about EITHER idea.
Both involve no consent on the part of the child and carry the risk of infection, for dubious benefit. Also, microchips can migrate in the body and cause other health problems (rejections, cancers). They're not as innocuous as you might think.
If it is to prevent others from imposing their will on those that cannot speak for themselves? Absolutely. Freedom of religion goes both ways; you're (generic "you") not allowed to impose your religion on others.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
If it is to prevent others from imposing their will on those that cannot speak for themselves? Absolutely. Freedom of religion goes both ways; you're (generic "you") not allowed to impose your religion on others.
It's an interesting argument. By the same rationale, should baptism of infants and religious indoctrination of children be prohibited as well? I realize circumcision is perhaps viewed differently than pouring magical water on a baby's forehead, but they're a part of the same spectrum.
Godardc, as someone who is nominally on the same side as you in this issue, there is so much wrong with that last post that I do not know where to start.
As for baptism, I'd argue the same applies. I'm baptised, but I chose to be. My life, my choice.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 00:17:58
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
I was circumcised as a child for medical reasons. Is not a big deal. Of course no old priest did anything with his mouth to my little penis. It was done in a proper medical facility. And it was just the tip. But I kind of agree. I don't feel parents have the right to do this kind of "permanent" things to his children body. Yeah, how you are educated is also in some way permanent, but as an adult you have a choice about all of that. Not about this.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 00:27:11
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
If it is to prevent others from imposing their will on those that cannot speak for themselves? Absolutely. Freedom of religion goes both ways; you're (generic "you") not allowed to impose your religion on others.
It's an interesting argument. By the same rationale, should baptism of infants and religious indoctrination of children be prohibited as well? I realize circumcision is perhaps viewed differently than pouring magical water on a baby's forehead, but they're a part of the same spectrum.
Maybe if the baptism can cause whiplash and a TBI...
BobtheInquisitor wrote: One reason I would not like to see this outlawed is because it would drive practitioners underground. Underground circumcision, without the sterile OR or trained professionals, is far more likely to end with tragedies. I would have no problem banning the procedure from happening anywhere outside of a hospital or professionally overseen and prepared surgical center, to avoid tragedies like the one Ouze posted (and others that seem to plague the orthodox Jewish communities). People are going to perform the procedure anyway, so it is society's interest to make it as safe as possible while encouraging participants to educate themselves on medically relevant issues.
With this I can totally agree. If you just ban it, things are gonna get worse for the children.
Past me feel the same way about baptism, that it was something wrong to do to a baby. But at the same time is just to wet the baby's forehead with a little water. At least in the catholic christian ceremony, I don't know about other types of baptism.
If it is to prevent others from imposing their will on those that cannot speak for themselves? Absolutely. Freedom of religion goes both ways; you're (generic "you") not allowed to impose your religion on others.
It's an interesting argument. By the same rationale, should baptism of infants and religious indoctrination of children be prohibited as well? I realize circumcision is perhaps viewed differently than pouring magical water on a baby's forehead, but they're a part of the same spectrum.
Maybe if the baptism can cause whiplash and a TBI...
What religion is that? Thats a little radical way to baptism a baby.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 00:36:38
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
I joined this forum to talk about my penis, but never found the appropriate thread, nor had the courage to start a thread wherein peens could be discussed. At long last, its here. Thanks OT!
Team Circumcision all the way baby!
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
I can feel the threadlock coming on this one, but I can also say that my parents went for my circumcision for health rather than religious reasons.
The health benefits are generally stated as follows:
A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Yeah, that's the list alright. One of these days I'm going to look into the research those claims are based on and see whether or not they really hold water.
Throwing my proverbial hat in the ring and say I'm not circumcised, I've never had any difficulty keeping my dong clean and remaining disease/infection free for life.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 02:38:46
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Considering circumcision to be child abuse is not some universal truth, as evidenced by the fact that many people on Earth disagree with that notion.
Many people disagree about a lot of ethical things. For example, many people consider it morally acceptable (and even morally required) to kill rape victims, often in horribly painful ways. Are we supposed to refrain from calling that murder just because some people disagree with it? Of course not. Circumcision is child abuse, no matter how many abusers wish to defend it or inflict it upon others.
The idea of a new religion popping up in the modern day is not the same as one that has been practicing similar things for over a thousand years.
No, it is exactly the same. None of those questions you ask in any way address the issue of whether or not it is ok to cut parts off of someone who is not able to consent to it. Either it is or isn't ok to do this, you don't get special privileges just because you've been doing it for a long time. Nor does it matter how much "significance" you apply to the act, you are still cutting parts off of someone who is unable to consent, purely for your own satisfaction.
I don't believe it's my place to tell an entire culture how to practice their religion.
Why not? If a culture's desired means of practicing their religion includes "inflicting it upon people who have not chosen to be part of the religion, in a way that has permanent consequences" then I don't see why it isn't your place to tell them to stop. Tolerance is fine when you're talking about people willingly participating in a religion, and in that case they should be free to do pretty much whatever they want. But the right to practice a religion ends when it includes forcing others to participate in it along with you. If adults wish to voluntarily undergo circumcision for religious reasons they are free to do so. They are not allowed to force anyone else to do the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: It's an interesting argument. By the same rationale, should baptism of infants and religious indoctrination of children be prohibited as well? I realize circumcision is perhaps viewed differently than pouring magical water on a baby's forehead, but they're a part of the same spectrum.
That isn't the same at all. A person who is baptized as a child suffers no permanent consequences of the act, if they become an adult and decide they do not wish to be part of the religion the fact that someone sprinkled some water on them decades ago has no impact on their life. It's technically done against their will, but it's a minor thing that they probably don't even remember. A victim of involuntary circumcision is never getting that part of their body back, even if they decide that no, they don't want to be part of that religion or follow its beliefs. Religious indoctrination falls into a gray area between the two. It doesn't leave permanent physical consequences, but it can certainly be abusive for its psychological consequences. The determining factor would be whether indoctrination means "teaching them about your religion, but leaving them free to make their own choices" or "coercing them into following your religion and crushing any attempt to make their own choices".
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/02/20 07:17:01
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.200 
3.000