| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| First it was Happy Meals, now it's circumcision.; What's a kid to do? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 11 2010, 06:10 PM (625 Views) | |
| ivorythumper | Nov 12 2010, 12:04 AM Post #26 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Ax was just being .... provocative.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jgoo | Nov 12 2010, 12:19 AM Post #27 |
|
Administrator
|
I can agree with the no permanent tattoo thing, most definitely. Body piercings should be 13 though (with parental consent). Piercings aren't permanent. They heal if left out, and 13 seems an acceptable age for someone to make a conscious decide to try it, and just take it out and let it heal if they have a change of heart. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Nov 12 2010, 12:38 AM Post #28 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Yes, circumcision is mostly "safe" (as in fairly "low risk" as far as surgical procedures go) -- but also mostly "unnecessary" and "irreversible." That's why you want to reserve the right to make that decision to the person when he's attained adulthood, and not let his parents/legal guardians take that decision away from him prematurely. What's the difference with permanent tattoo and body piercing? Ask a kid whether he wants this tattoo or that piercing, a good number will say yes, if they are not already asking for some specific tattoos and/or piercings. Ask a kid whether he wants this little piece of skin snipped off, virtually all will say no. Informed or not, there's a big "consent" issue right there. Put on a ballot that says "no parent should have his child's body pierced or permanently tattooed against the child's will," and I would not hesitate to support it -- and I bet most parents (and people, in general) would, as well. As it is, we don't have a problem in American where parents force permanent tattoos or body piercings onto their kids, but we do have parents forcing circumcisions onto their male children. That's why a law protecting the children from such force is a good thing to have. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Nov 12 2010, 12:42 AM Post #29 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Yes, that's a sensible way to approach this. Not all piercings are equal; some do heal after a while. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Nov 12 2010, 12:54 AM Post #30 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I got it. You are willing to subject yourself to what the majority of people, or the general will of the collective, decide is how you should raise your children. The actual matter -- circumcision, tattoos, food, discipline, TV consumption, etc -- is beside the point. I am not willing to do so. I think there are better ways to discourage circumcision (and other poor practices) without legislation or criminal penalty. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Nov 12 2010, 04:53 AM Post #31 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Interesting. Not a single person here has spoken in favor of allowing a major religion to continue a 5,000 year old practice that is statistically quite safe (despite the occasional error that can occur), and which has a cost benefit tradeoff that is not all cost and no benefit. Well, perhaps that's not quite fair. IT is at least somewhat troubled by the thought of a government intruding here and ordering the change. Some have used the word mutilation, which is getting pretty close to analogizing with female 'circumcision.' Frankly, I find that comparison stupid beyond words. IT is quite correct in noting that parents will make many choices that are far more consequential for their children than the removal of this bit of skin. The practice is falling by the wayside already among the non-Jewish population because the medical rationale that made it more desirable in a less clean society is less compelling. The practice is also losing the cachet that comes from 'being in the group' as fewer boys are seen as 'strange' because they are NOT circumcised like everybody else. |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Nov 12 2010, 06:33 AM Post #32 |
|
Cheers
|
Tell that to the 1B muslims in the world. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Nov 12 2010, 06:36 AM Post #33 |
|
Finally
|
Boy. Kenny is back. A circumcision thread. Life is good. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Nov 12 2010, 07:05 AM Post #34 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
For that reason alone I am all for outlawing the practice for non Jews. Anything to offend, enrage and bring about an end to *the religion peace*; after all for them it's not a covenant or even a doctrinal requirement. No for them it's just a bad habit they picked up from their Jewish neighbours. |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Nov 12 2010, 07:21 AM Post #35 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
. . . |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Nov 12 2010, 07:24 AM Post #36 |
|
Cheers
|
Well if you really want to bring an end to it, we could require that they cut a little further down. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 12 2010, 07:43 AM Post #37 |
|
MAMIL
|
So, not only is this damnable government trying to undermine McDonalds wonderful hamburgers, now they're also trying to restrict one of their primary sources of ingredients! |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Nov 12 2010, 07:47 AM Post #38 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
MD uses cows' lips, D'Oh, cows' lips. Got it. |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Nov 12 2010, 07:48 AM Post #39 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
A little testes this morning, are we? |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Nov 12 2010, 08:08 AM Post #40 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Foreskins make great wallets. Then, if you suddenly have to pack for an overnight trip, rub it a little, and it turns into a suitcase.
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Nov 12 2010, 08:44 AM Post #41 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Give jon credit; it was a eunuch idea- and not without precedent in Islam- to emasculate the spread of a global problem. |
![]() |
|
| 1hp | Nov 12 2010, 08:49 AM Post #42 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Yes, this is an issue. However I think this is slowly coming under attack, largely brought on by all the of Shiah law stuff, now in the news. At some point the Supreme Court is going to start ruling on what are acceptable religious practices, and what aren't and there is a good chance that some smart lawyers are going to fight to include body mutilation of kids in this. |
| There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................ | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Nov 16 2010, 03:55 AM Post #43 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
What benefit? If it's not medically necessary, then there is no benefit. |
![]() |
|
| George K | Nov 16 2010, 04:10 AM Post #44 |
|
Finally
|
Most urologists will say that there is a definite (though small) medical benefit to circumcision. And, before you pull out the "tonsil yanked" and "foot rustler" meme, they are not the ones doing the procedure 99.99% of the time. It's usually done by the OB. Furthermore, if you want to talk about "medical benefit", why is Viagra covered in the new "health" care bill? Edited by George K, Nov 16 2010, 04:11 AM.
|
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Nov 16 2010, 04:20 AM Post #45 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Don't know ... I don't think it should. |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Nov 16 2010, 04:32 AM Post #46 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Ax, it's rather silly to claim that 'medical necessity' = 'benefit.' And without 'necessity' there is no 'benefit.' ![]() Define 'necessary' in an intellectually consistent way? Do you mean "won't die with 100% probability within ten days." One person's necessity is another's want. Benefit simply means reduced problems in some measurable way. If removing the foreskin reduces the likelihood of disease for some people then there is a 'benefit.' If there is any risk of complication from the procedure, then there is a 'cost.' Weighing the importance of those two is often an individual decision. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 16 2010, 04:55 AM Post #47 |
|
MAMIL
|
If we remove the genitals altogether, there would likely be three distinct benefits: 1. Reduction in over-population. 2. Reduction in the spread of venereal disease. 3. Some really great choral works. OK, who wants to go first? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Nov 16 2010, 05:03 AM Post #48 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
After you! As you know, uncircumcised boys can still go on to become castrati.
|
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Nov 16 2010, 07:21 AM Post #49 |
|
Cheers
|
Because the bill was written by a bunch of old men? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 16 2010, 07:28 AM Post #50 |
|
MAMIL
|
Muslims typically circumcise as well as Jews. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |



)







12:51 AM Jul 11