It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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!
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
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
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.
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....
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.
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]
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.
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???
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.
Religious rights have no place in a "civilized world"?
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.
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
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.