It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by vkey08
by presenting this as something else, they are masking their true intentions.
I didn't quote wikipedia, I quoted norm.co.uk
Originally posted by muzzleflash
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
There is strong evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men in populations that are at high risk. Evidence among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa shows a decreased risk of between 38 percent and 66 percent over two years and in this population studies rate it cost effective.
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.
Last I checked, it's illegal to beat up people no matter what excuse you come up with.
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.
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
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.
If you wanted to be taken seriously on the matter, why don't you discuss the statistics debated on in the article such as:
Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady
Holy Moley! You weren't kidding in your first post. I thought it was a joke!
Originally posted by kabfighter
reply to post by ColoradoJens
My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I'm pretty sure that if I did that now a few shoulders would be dislocated.
Michael Jackson got a lot of heat for holding a kid over a balcony. I'm sure this would make the news and have people up in arms if it happened in the United States.
Originally posted by natters
i played that video for max 5 seconds. The boys face says it all....ughhh....