Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.

Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #60 - November 21, 2009, 11:20 PM

Quote from: Rubaiyat on November 21, 2009, 11:17 PM
There is. The glans lose sensitivity.

we are not talking female circumcision we can all agree such a thing has many medical issues
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #61 - November 21, 2009, 11:21 PM

Quote
we are not talking female circumcision we can all agree such a thing has many medical issues

I was talking about the male glans.

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #62 - November 21, 2009, 11:28 PM

Quote
yeah thats cool its the jerk offs here i am objecting to....

You don't object religion dictating it right?

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #63 - November 21, 2009, 11:30 PM

Quote from: doubtfool on November 21, 2009, 11:26 PM
so based on hear say you would support a ban... sounds very unbalanced. are you sure your feelings are not coloured by something akin to bigotry

Foreskin has a function in the male penis. It is protects the male glans.

It's not hearsay. But simple biology.

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #64 - November 21, 2009, 11:34 PM

Quote from: Rubaiyat on November 21, 2009, 11:28 PM
You don't object religion dictating it right?

what do you mean dictating. you mean parents chosing to do it for their children at a time when it will be a simple measure. do you object to that freedom of choice? wiping their bottoms is also a good health tip do you object to that.
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #65 - November 21, 2009, 11:36 PM

Quote
what do you mean dictating. you mean parents chosing to do it for their children at a time when it will be a simple measure. do you object to that freedom of choice? wiping their bottoms is also a good health tip do you object to that.

But you wouldn't cut their bottoms off to keep it clean and prevent infection woud you?

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
- allat
- Euphoria
- Administrator
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #66 - November 21, 2009, 11:37 PM

doubtfool, consider this your first warning, stop personally attacking other members and focus your energy on your argument on the topic in question.

"Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #67 - November 21, 2009, 11:41 PM

so you object to the freedom of choice? do you or not? 80% of you have drifted into such a dictatorial stance yet have no medical health or social or any other argument to justify calling for a ban. arent you ashamed?
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #68 - November 21, 2009, 11:45 PM

Quote from: allat on November 21, 2009, 11:37 PM
so you object to the freedom of choice?

Do babies have freedom of choice?

No.

Quote
80% of you have drifted into such a dictatorial stance yet have no medical health or social or any other argument to justify calling for a ban. arent you ashamed?

I told you male foreskin has a function. It protects the glans. It's simple biology.

Would you consider cutting childrens bottom off to keep it clean and infection free?

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #69 - November 21, 2009, 11:53 PM

do babies have a choice...wow such a simple killer statement. wins the argument i guess. Unless that is you consider nail trimming toiletry hygiene ear piercing (ie allowing to early as maybe the child didnt know his own mind) . You must see that there are many interventions parents make for their children. Dont confuse the arguments. the one in hand (accepting parents act for their children and as a society agree on balance it is a positive thing) is do you stand in the face of that moral social consensus (on the right of choice) and set yourself firmly in favour of banning the practice based on your minority sensibilities and if so what are your real motivations as they are not rational
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #70 - November 21, 2009, 11:58 PM

Quote
do babies have a choice...wow such a simple killer statement. wins the argument i guess. Unless that is you consider nail trimming toiletry hygiene ear piercing (ie allowing to early as maybe the child didnt know his own mind)

Male Glans don't grow back when it is cutt off like the nails.

Quote
. You must see that there are many interventions parents make for their children.

Cutting bits of is not one of them!

Quote
Dont confuse the arguments. the one in hand (accepting parents act for their children and as a society agree on balance it is a positive thing) is do you stand in the face of that moral social consensus (on the right of choice) and set yourself firmly in favour of banning the practice based on your minority sensibilities and if so what are your real motivations as they are not rational

Other intervention that a parent makes does not involve cutting bits for hygiene reasons!

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #71 - November 22, 2009, 12:05 AM

I'm temporarily locking this thread to clean up some of the crap.

Doubtfool: I really don't care whether you post here or not, or whether you bleat about it all over the internet. Suit yourself.

However, if you want to post here then refrain from pointless trolling and post something worth our time and bandwidth.

Your gratuitous posts will be split off and dumped in the Rant Arena.

If I see any more of them that will become the only board you will be able to post in.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #72 - November 22, 2009, 12:11 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, the non-consensual circumcision of this thread is now complete. Feel free to continue with the discussion.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #73 - November 22, 2009, 12:15 AM

Male Glans don't grow back when it is cutt off like the nails.

I presume you mean glands and seriously check your biology foreskin has no glands it is far less an organ than say the appendix!

Cutting bits of is not one of them!

Not true. cutting nails or the appendix for example!!!

Other intervention that a parent makes does not involve cutting bits for hygiene reasons! erm yes of course it does so again lest I be regarded as the obstructive one, please answer why with no good reason you think 80% on here support a ban. are we here to share and discuss or what?
- Colonel Q-Daffi
- White Trash Sand Wigga
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #74 - November 22, 2009, 12:33 AM

Do not agree. Enough things are banned by the state-- I'm not interested in banning more shit unless such ban (1) provides a tangible and compelling social benefit, (2) does not infringe on anyone's rights, and (3) imposes the least possible restrictions on people's liberties. Most of the bans now on this or that thing should be rolled back.

fuck you
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #75 - November 22, 2009, 12:35 AM

brave man
- allat
- Euphoria
- Administrator
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #76 - November 22, 2009, 01:28 AM

doubtfool, in this forum, new members are encouraged to create a new thread in the Intro section. I've moved the posts having to do with your introduction here: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=7478.0 - please try and stay on topic in each thread, or start a new thread if you want to discuss a new topic. Thanks.

"Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
- Air
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #77 - November 22, 2009, 04:36 AM

Quote from: Q-Man on November 22, 2009, 12:33 AM
Do not agree. Enough things are banned by the state-- I'm not interested in banning more shit unless such ban (1) provides a tangible and compelling social benefit, (2) does not infringe on anyone's rights, and (3) imposes the least possible restrictions on people's liberties. Most of the bans now on this or that thing should be rolled back.

Please note that I'm by no means calling for a blanket ban on circumcision. The restriction would only apply in cases where the child is too young to give consent, and when the circumcision itself is unnecessary (i.e. the child can't/won't consent, and there's nothing wrong with his foreskin). If the child consents, or the circumcision needs to happen for medical reasons, then I have no objections.

Now, to address your concerns:

1. Social benefits would include: no mental trauma caused to people like myself, no harm done via botched procedures, and more efficient usage of medical resources.

2. Non-consensual circumcisions do infringe on human rights. My own right to decide was robbed by my parents. Which right is more important? The right of parents to mutilate their children, or the right of people like me to object to such mutilation?

3. The ban I propose would do exactly that. Because the procedure is permanent, the rights of the child automatically outweigh those of the parent. If you think hard, you'll realise that it's more authoritarian to allow this to occur than it is if we acted to prevent it. It's the sort of ban that's more akin to restrictions on theft rather than something harmless like homosexuality.

Quote from: doubtfool
Jibber-jabber.

Here's why you're wrong: I wouldn't even care if circumcision granted immunity to AIDS, it's still wrong if done without consent. People must have the right to decide what is done to their bodies. It's evil to permanently alter the body of a child unnecessarily without his/her consent.

You need to read this book.
- RIBS
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #78 - November 22, 2009, 05:16 AM

DoubtFool.... Please read this article...

http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1/

...
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #79 - November 22, 2009, 10:12 AM

"Circumcision makes the achievement of orgasm more difficult, decreases its intensity" - anyone who has had one during their adult lives confirm these finding?

My Book
My Blog
- Jack Torrance
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #80 - November 22, 2009, 10:22 AM

Quote from: Rubaiyat on November 21, 2009, 11:00 PM
A condom 100%

it's so simple

Talk about circumcision reducing sensitivity. It's so simple!

Ha Ha.
- ninurta
- Ninurta the Apostate
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #81 - November 22, 2009, 11:44 AM

Quote from: IsLame on November 21, 2009, 11:13 PM
Is that 80% of the worlds population, or just 80% of countries where there are cultural or religious societal pressures? Also one question I am dying to ask, if God did not want us to have one, and he designed us perfectly, then why are we born with them?

Because God creates what he doesn't like. Look, he created Haram.

Quote from: Rubaiyat on November 21, 2009, 11:17 PM
There is. The glans lose sensitivity.

You mean it could've been more pleasurable if they didn't make me go through that as a little baby? Man.....

Quote from: doubtfool on November 21, 2009, 11:34 PM
what do you mean dictating. you mean parents chosing to do it for their children at a time when it will be a simple measure. do you object to that freedom of choice? wiping their bottoms is also a good health tip do you object to that.

I believe that freedom of choice should extend as far as does your skin and within, anything outside your body and that is alive is not subject to freedom of choice.

Quote from: doubtfool on November 21, 2009, 11:41 PM
so you object to the freedom of choice? do you or not? 80% of you have drifted into such a dictatorial stance yet have no medical health or social or any other argument to justify calling for a ban. arent you ashamed?

Aren't you the one objecting to freedom of choice? Or just to children's choice? As for a dictatorial stance, isn't that ironic, seeing that you are leaving a child's body and the way it looks to be up to the parents decision 100%.

We are the ones who are for freedom of choice. As I and others have said, if they want to be circumcised they should be able to, but the parents shouldn't be allowed to dictate that over the child because its wrong morally. It also violates the person's right to their own property (their body). The child doesn't belong to the parent as property, the child is raised and nurtured by the child, which is not property and shouldnt be treated as such.

Quote from: IsLame on November 22, 2009, 10:12 AM
"Circumcision makes the achievement of orgasm more difficult, decreases its intensity" - anyone who has had one during their adult lives confirm these finding?

My friend who converted to Judaism, I could ask him if he feels less pleasure though he'd probably think i am a freak.

It is not the way you live your life that is important, it is how well you enjoy it that matters.
- RIBS
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #82 - November 22, 2009, 12:17 PM

Ninurta and DoubtFool, I suggest you read the article I posted few posts ago and also watch this video. It may make you think differently about MGM!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx89xECfHG4

...
- ninurta
- Ninurta the Apostate
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #83 - November 22, 2009, 01:32 PM

Quote from: RIBS on November 22, 2009, 12:17 PM
Ninurta and DoubtFool, I suggest you read the article I posted few posts ago and also watch this video. It may make you think differently about MGM!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx89xECfHG4

It's changed my view all right, and it makes me glad I was not circumsized, I feel bad for all of you who were.

Also, my friend told me that it hurts around the edges if he plays with it too long, it isn't as pleasurable and is actually more easily irritated. I feel so bad.

It is not the way you live your life that is important, it is how well you enjoy it that matters.
- RIBS
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #84 - November 22, 2009, 02:00 PM

Quote from: ninurta on November 22, 2009, 01:32 PM
It's changed my view all right, and it makes me glad I was not circumsized, I feel bad for all of you who were.

Also, my friend told me that it hurts around the edges if he plays with it too long, it isn't as pleasurable and is actually more easily irritated. I feel so bad.

see? IsLame was right!

...
- ninurta
- Ninurta the Apostate
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #85 - November 22, 2009, 02:26 PM

Quote from: RIBS on November 22, 2009, 02:00 PM
see? IsLame was right!

Right about what? I was against it from the beginning, not to be graphic but its good to have skin, allows things to run smoothly.

It is not the way you live your life that is important, it is how well you enjoy it that matters.
- RIBS
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #86 - November 22, 2009, 04:31 PM

IsLame not Islam.... IsLame our good member here at COEM was right about losing sensitivity after mutilation. I thought you said your jewish friend confirmed it!

...
- ninurta
- Ninurta the Apostate
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #87 - November 23, 2009, 08:25 PM

Quote from: RIBS on November 22, 2009, 04:31 PM
IsLame not Islam.... IsLame our good member here at COEM was right about losing sensitivity after mutilation. I thought you said your jewish friend confirmed it!

Yeah my jewish friend confirmed it, I though you were saying I was for circumcision without concent of the one being circumsized, nevermind.

But yeah, he actually also hates when he plays and it gets dry easy. O the benefits of still having skin.

It is not the way you live your life that is important, it is how well you enjoy it that matters.
- Colonel Q-Daffi
- White Trash Sand Wigga
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #88 - November 23, 2009, 08:42 PM

Quote from: Godot on November 22, 2009, 04:36 AM
Please note that I'm by no means calling for a blanket ban on circumcision. The restriction would only apply in cases where the child is too young to give consent, and when the circumcision itself is unnecessary (i.e. the child can't/won't consent, and there's nothing wrong with his foreskin). If the child consents, or the circumcision needs to happen for medical reasons, then I have no objections.

Now, to address your concerns:

1. Social benefits would include: no mental trauma caused to people like myself, no harm done via botched procedures, and more efficient usage of medical resources.

2. Non-consensual circumcisions do infringe on human rights. My own right to decide was robbed by my parents. Which right is more important? The right of parents to mutilate their children, or the right of people like me to object to such mutilation?

3. The ban I propose would do exactly that. Because the procedure is permanent, the rights of the child automatically outweigh those of the parent. If you think hard, you'll realise that it's more authoritarian to allow this to occur than it is if we acted to prevent it. It's the sort of ban that's more akin to restrictions on theft rather than something harmless like homosexuality.

Points #2 and 3 are good, but I don't find #1 to be a compelling social benefit. I mean, I find it hard to believe that there are statistically significant numbers of botched procedures or psychologically traumatic procedures in the developed world. Here in the US, the vast majority of men my age who were born here are circumcised, yet you are the first person I have ever heard of who considers themselves psychologically traumatized by a standard foreskin circumcision done as an infant. Not saying it never happens, but I don't think these things happen enough for me to support a national ban on the procedure.

Quote
Here's why you're wrong: I wouldn't even care if circumcision granted immunity to AIDS, it's still wrong if done without consent. People must have the right to decide what is done to their bodies. It's evil to permanently alter the body of a child unnecessarily without his/her consent.

Slippery slope. This kind of logic could lead to the ban of many medically-necessary or desirable procedures on children unable to consent.

fuck you
- RIBS
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #89 - November 23, 2009, 09:45 PM

Quote from: Q-Man on November 23, 2009, 08:42 PM
Slippery slope. This kind of logic could lead to the ban of many medically-necessary or desirable procedures on children unable to consent.

Like what Q-man? An appendix that is severely inflamed and about to burst and kill the child? Or a big gushing wound on the head from a fall from a height? Obviously no medical condition is done on a baby because an imaginary friend said so!! Circumcision is bad and in violation of all kind of rights and not just human's! It should be banned for boys just as it is banned for girls!

The good thing is that they can wait until he is 18 and decide for him-self.

People who say that babies should be circumcised to prevent them from getting STD or AIDS are retarded and insulting my inteligence. You don't get STD until you are old enough to know how to use your dick!

...
Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »