Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

It's About Time. Germany Rules Religious Circumcision on Boys is Assault

page: 27
54
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT3

That's the danger of defending what shouldn't need defending, i.e. the right for a child to grow up with all his limbs intact!


That's why I don't take your position seriously.

And that's why I said it is a bias position.

You said "grow up with all his limbs intact", circumcision does not remove one's limbs. It doesn't remove their genitals either. It's a piece of skin...

So the fact that you exaggerated, took out of context, blew outta proportion, and hyped your opinion to an over-reaction shows me that I cannot take your position very seriously.

Forgive me for being reasonable.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


i was giving a comment on religous rights as a hole, how people can get away with things because of religous reasons when the rest of us cant



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
What I think this really boils down to is that some people believe other kids are their jurisdiction, and they have the authority to tell you what religious traditions you can and cannot follow.

They want to break up the family, saying that parents do not have full jurisdiction and responsibility for their children, and attempt to present a paradigm where the general public has full jurisdiction and responsibility for everyone's children.

This means parenting isn't a right, it's a privilege that we are allowed to conduct until they decide to rescind it.

That is why I am afraid I have no recourse but to resist and denounce any calls for the legislation and control over if people circumcise their children or not. It's far too totalitarian and authoritarian for me.

I can't help but go by historical precedent and posit that such gross abuses of political power over random families to eliminate a religious practice that one faction doesn't agree with.
Communist China, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, the USSR, etc.
They all wanted to "force" others to do as they said, or else.
And look at how big a pile of skeletons that created....



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by Crakeur
 


i was giving a comment on religous rights as a hole, how people can get away with things because of religous reasons when the rest of us cant


Like what exactly?

Name a few examples please, I am curious to know about these things.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


it was on the last page


Originally posted by DaveNorris

i completely agree with this, its a shame other countries dont follow their lead. female circumsition (the removal of the labia and the clitorous) has been made illegal in most countries and it is a religous practice in many places in africa......

i think religous rights are riduculous anyway.
why should someone get away with mutilating a child on religous grounds, if i got my 2 year old a nose job id be put in prison.
why should someone be able to hide their identity (under a burka) because of thier of religion, if i go into my local shoping centre wearing a hoody i get followed by security, but a women hiding all but her eyes is ok.
why would a doctor have to refuse a child a blood transfusion that could save their life simply because its against the parents religion (jahovahs witness').

religous rights have no place in a civilised world



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by RogerT3

That's the danger of defending what shouldn't need defending, i.e. the right for a child to grow up with all his limbs intact!


That's why I don't take your position seriously.

And that's why I said it is a bias position.

You said "grow up with all his limbs intact", circumcision does not remove one's limbs. It doesn't remove their genitals either. It's a piece of skin...

So the fact that you exaggerated, took out of context, blew outta proportion, and hyped your opinion to an over-reaction shows me that I cannot take your position very seriously.

Forgive me for being reasonable.


OK, so a penis isn't a limb, I made an error in language. Shall we say then that we should allow children to grow to adulthood with all their organs intact?

The fact you choose to perpetuate the myth that 'it's just a piece of skin' indicates you haven't done much homework, and I'm the one without cred cos I used the word limb instead of organ?!

You say reasonable, I say pedantic and misinformed.

But if you'd like to read the facts I posted about what is actually removed by circumcision, and then explain how I am exaggerating, hyping, out of context and proportion, I'm all ears ...



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DaveNorris
 


Religious rights have no place in a "civilized world"?

Right, because we should all agree with your personal beliefs, (your personal religion) and make that the ultimate religion and we should follow all of your demands?

Do you not realize that every single person on Earth is religious? Whatever you believe/think is indeed your beliefs/thoughts. If you think using the toilet is better than going in your pants, that is entirely a religious idea because technically going in your pants is fine as all it takes is a little cleaning to fix.

In Star Trek, the Vulcans are all "logical and rational" but yet, that is their religion. They follow "Logic" as their guide/god.

These examples are meant to show that everything is at it's core, a religious belief based off of assumptions, tradition, habit, etc.

It's subjective rather than objective. It's taking personal bias and presenting it as if it were concrete fact that everyone else has to agree with...

Your religion is anti-religion. Please realize that you are repeating the exact thought methods that those religious people you despise exhibit.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
What I think this really boils down to is that some people believe other kids are their jurisdiction, and they have the authority to tell you what religious traditions you can and cannot follow.

They want to break up the family, saying that parents do not have full jurisdiction and responsibility for their children, and attempt to present a paradigm where the general public has full jurisdiction and responsibility for everyone's children.

This means parenting isn't a right, it's a privilege that we are allowed to conduct until they decide to rescind it.

That is why I am afraid I have no recourse but to resist and denounce any calls for the legislation and control over if people circumcise their children or not. It's far too totalitarian and authoritarian for me.

I can't help but go by historical precedent and posit that such gross abuses of political power over random families to eliminate a religious practice that one faction doesn't agree with.
Communist China, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, the USSR, etc.
They all wanted to "force" others to do as they said, or else.
And look at how big a pile of skeletons that created....


and if circumcision was as you say, just removing a useless bit of skin, then I'd agree,

but it isn't.

I'll keep shouting for the end to cutting babies penises, I consider that a humanitarian call.

You can hide the perversion and abuse behind a fear of the state telling you what you can and can't do with your kids, but that won't sit right in my conscience. Whilst I agree in 99.9% of cases, this isn't one of them.

I'd make the obvious analogy of asking where you stand on parents cutting other bits off their babies they feel don't look quite right, but unless you agree that a foreskin is a fully functional and useful part of the body that has no health or safety reason to arbitrarily remove, the analogy will be inappropriate and we're gonna risk getting the 'hangnail' rebuttal again
.
edit on 29-6-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-6-2012 by RogerT3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


It's not really on topic and a straw man to boot, but I rather think he was referring to motorcycle helmets vs turbans etc. (from reading his previous post)

It's not that difficult an extrapolation - why so pedantic, are you an English language teacher?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by RogerT3

That's the danger of defending what shouldn't need defending, i.e. the right for a child to grow up with all his limbs intact!


That's why I don't take your position seriously.

And that's why I said it is a bias position.

You said "grow up with all his limbs intact", circumcision does not remove one's limbs. It doesn't remove their genitals either. It's a piece of skin...

So the fact that you exaggerated, took out of context, blew outta proportion, and hyped your opinion to an over-reaction shows me that I cannot take your position very seriously.

Forgive me for being reasonable.


oh wow.. another person with "piece of skin", im not gonna repeat again and again for people who are conditioned to their brain core...

There is a degree to everything... but sadly if its common practise then its OKAY!

Difference between Female Circum Male Circum? why is one okay?

What if in certain cultures, its okay to break hymen of 12 yr old girls? if someone tells those people what they do is wrong, would they say "we been doing this for a while, my parents did it, so i don think anything is wrong with it"?

Its about a degree... there is no medical reason for this...there are doing it for the tradition BUT since they are doing to so long.. Its okay.

There are more reason to leave it on there cutting it off.

If someone already lost it or removed their kid's, its normal for their mind to defend what they did(what parent would so something bad to a child) so they justify by bashing what nature gave them.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

your kinda right, i am anti-religion, but i dont class that as a religion in itself and anyway, religion and religous rights arnt exactly the same thing are they?
we should all be treated the same no matter what religion, race, gender or sexuality, so why should some people be exempt from certain things just because of their religion.

whats stopping someone from making their own religion? if they get enough people to put it as their religion in the general census then it gets recognised as a religion. and what if that new religion advocates the ritualistic beating of children? would you let them beat their kids and call it a religous right???



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RogerT3
 


I reviewed the Wiki fairly closely: Circumcision

There are all sorts of pro's and con's.

Often times, most of the "con's" are subjective and impossible to actually determine. Mostly opinions, rather than dangerous warning signs.

If you wanted to be taken seriously on the matter, why don't you discuss the statistics debated on in the article such as:


There is strong evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men in populations that are at high risk.[73][74] Evidence among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa shows a decreased risk of between 38 percent and 66 percent over two years[15] and in this population studies rate it cost effective.[75]


It's sourced from seemingly well defined sources:

Siegfried N, Muller M, Deeks JJ, Volmink J (2009). Siegfried, Nandi. ed. "Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online) (2): CD003362.


Uthman, OA; Popoola, TA, Uthman, MM, Aremu, O (2010-03-10). Van Baal, Pieter H. M.. ed. "Economic Evaluations of Adult Male Circumcision for Prevention of Heterosexual Acquisition of HIV in Men in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review". PLoS ONE 5 (3): e9628.


Just sitting there telling us every reason why in your opinion, the practices that others conduct is not according to your liking, does not equate to a reasonable and well balanced opinion.

You have to tell me the good sides of something as well as the bad, if you want me to judge the entire story and come to a reasonable conclusion. Instead you want to downplay the positives, and hype up the negatives.

To hear the way you put it, it's like a travesty and a nightmare. But in reality, circumcised men rarely even notice anything to complain about.

Almost all of these complaints are based upon
1) Personal taste / belief
2) Exaggerations or bias
3) Failure to consider alternative or counter views.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

your kinda right, i am anti-religion, but i dont class that as a religion in itself and anyway, religion and religous rights arnt exactly the same thing are they?
we should all be treated the same no matter what religion, race, gender or sexuality, so why should some people be exempt from certain things just because of their religion.

whats stopping someone from making their own religion? if they get enough people to put it as their religion in the general census then it gets recognised as a religion. and what if that new religion advocates the ritualistic beating of children? would you let them beat their kids and call it a religous right???


Last I checked, it's illegal to beat up people no matter what excuse you come up with.
Except self defense, and even that doesn't work half the time.

Point is, you cannot make hypothetical impossibilities as examples to reveal the seriousness of a far less serious issue.

We shouldn't play with toothpicks because if I stab myself with a sword I might die? See they don't really correlate so well as leading into each other, due to the fact they are two extremes of a very large grey zone.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


ok then, lets take my earlier examples

jahovahs witness' can refuse their child a blood transfusion that would save their life simply because its against their religion.

a muslim woman can hide her identity under a burka on religous grounds but youths get a band from some shopping centres for wearing hoodies.

why should someone get away with mutilating a child on religous grounds, if i got my 2 year old a nose job id be put in prison.

shurely any unnecasary surgery should be left until the child is old enough to make their own desicions



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream

If someone already lost it or removed their kid's, its normal for their mind to defend what they did(what parent would so something bad to a child) so they justify by bashing what nature gave them.


Right, because you have NEVER cut your hair?

And you don't criticize people who cut their hair? Or shave?

That stuff is pretty natural, but we all cut it off without even giving it a second thought.

Is it unethical to cut the hair of a small child around age 6months?
I realize it's somewhat dangerous unless the kid is calm or sleeping but is it unethical if done properly and skillfully?

And comparing cutting skin off (which doesn't prevent orgasm), to practices that can indeed prevent orgasm in women, is also out of bounds, it's no better than me comparing circumcision to a hair cut.

The point of this post is to reveal that comparisons can be made all of the time, and when you look at one individual comparison, it can appear way out of context and make something look worse or better than it may actually be in reality.

The point here is to find reasons why each comparison is inaccurate or fails to convey the true full story.
Rather than to use our inaccurate comparisons as basis for a belief that we should go around and force people to do as we think they should.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





Religious rights have no place in a "civilized world"?


They dont. Nobody should be allowed an exception just because it is a religious matter. There should be no "religious" rights, only rights. Thats not to say circumcision should be banned, but if it is allowed, then it should be done on secular grounds.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaveNorris

why should someone get away with mutilating a child on religous grounds, if i got my 2 year old a nose job id be put in prison.


That's not true though, at least not to my knowledge where I live.

USA Today = Cosmetic Surgery and Kids


According to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 160,283 children 18 and under had cosmetic interventions in 2008. The figure was even higher in 2007, tallying 205,119, but industry experts say a slowing economy probably forced the numbers down in 2008. In 2000, the number was just 145,094


I don't see anything about them going to jail.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Would you agree with parents having a right to permanently tatoo their child without restrictions? Would you agree with parents having the right to cut off a female clitorial hood (an analogoue of male circumcision)?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


really, ill be damned. they should go to jail
cosmetic surgery on kids? whats this world coming to?

might seem a lil of topic but i assure you it does hold some relivance...

what is your veiw on the recently genetically altered babies?
edit on 29/6/2012 by DaveNorris because: added text



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by luciddream

If someone already lost it or removed their kid's, its normal for their mind to defend what they did(what parent would so something bad to a child) so they justify by bashing what nature gave them.


Right, because you have NEVER cut your hair?

And you don't criticize people who cut their hair? Or shave?

That stuff is pretty natural, but we all cut it off without even giving it a second thought.

Is it unethical to cut the hair of a small child around age 6months?
I realize it's somewhat dangerous unless the kid is calm or sleeping but is it unethical if done properly and skillfully?

And comparing cutting skin off (which doesn't prevent orgasm), to practices that can indeed prevent orgasm in women, is also out of bounds, it's no better than me comparing circumcision to a hair cut.

The point of this post is to reveal that comparisons can be made all of the time, and when you look at one individual comparison, it can appear way out of context and make something look worse or better than it may actually be in reality.

The point here is to find reasons why each comparison is inaccurate or fails to convey the true full story.
Rather than to use our inaccurate comparisons as basis for a belief that we should go around and force people to do as we think they should.


Cutting hair to cutting skin with multiple nerves cells..? i guess foreskin grows back where you live.


It does lower mans sensitivity to an extent, due to uncovered penis rubbing onto cloths and over time, they don't even find it bothering because they are not sensitive like they used to be.

An Uncircumcised man can see both sides, Uncircumcised man go from Uncircum to "Circum" under 1 sec.

All the medical reason are "possible" that means they are never proven to be absolute fact, again if you read the thread, there was discussion about Finland and other countries who doesn't do circumcision and there is no different in ratio of HIV and STD compared to USA.
edit on 6/29/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join