Total Posts:113|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sudden outbreak of common sense

vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 6:46:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

A court in Germany has ruled that circumcising young boys for religious reasons amounts to bodily harm.

In a decision that has caused outrage among Jewish and Muslim groups, the court said that a child's right to physical integrity trumps religious and parental rights.


Germany is starting to make it hard for parents to torture their babies for religious reasons. I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this but I see this as a good thing.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:01:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 6:46:37 PM, vbaculum wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

A court in Germany has ruled that circumcising young boys for religious reasons amounts to bodily harm.

In a decision that has caused outrage among Jewish and Muslim groups, the court said that a child's right to physical integrity trumps religious and parental rights.


Germany is starting to make it hard for parents to torture their babies for religious reasons. I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this but I see this as a good thing.

I think this is a good thing too. I am not sure on what moral basis one could justify chopping off a non-regrowable part of an important body part of an infant who cannot either consent or object to what is being done to his body.

Unless perhaps the baby would be in probable physical danger if he was left uncircumcised, which is hardly the case.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:04:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wow. And an hour later I find this which indicates Norway is moving in the same direction:

http://www.timesofisrael.com...
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:06:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 7:01:54 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 6/26/2012 6:46:37 PM, vbaculum wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

A court in Germany has ruled that circumcising young boys for religious reasons amounts to bodily harm.

In a decision that has caused outrage among Jewish and Muslim groups, the court said that a child's right to physical integrity trumps religious and parental rights.


Germany is starting to make it hard for parents to torture their babies for religious reasons. I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this but I see this as a good thing.

I think this is a good thing too. I am not sure on what moral basis one could justify chopping off a non-regrowable part of an important body part of an infant who cannot either consent or object to what is being done to his body.

Unless perhaps the baby would be in probable physical danger if he was left uncircumcised, which is hardly the case.


Cause it looks wierd..??

heard sex is better without it?

its immoral to let our kids have earth worm looking penis's..

)
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:07:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But yeah, i didn't circumsize my son..

$400 for that? psshh.. save my boy the pain. He can do it when he's grown if he feels so inclined! lmao
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:13:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You do realize that if such a law were passed in America or Israel the population would go into open revolt? It would be ten times worse the Prohibition; doctors would simply ignore the law. Even if a way was found to get them to follow it, people would still do it in private and then they would be unable to take their child to a doctor. Not sure how it is in Germany, but unless everyone there is an atheist/liberal, stuff like that will happen. Plus, I'm glad I don't have to worry about infections.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:32:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 7:13:15 PM, MouthWash wrote:
You do realize that if such a law were passed in America or Israel the population would go into open revolt? It would be ten times worse the Prohibition; doctors would simply ignore the law. Even if a way was found to get them to follow it, people would still do it in private and then they would be unable to take their child to a doctor. Not sure how it is in Germany, but unless everyone there is an atheist/liberal, stuff like that will happen. Plus, I'm glad I don't have to worry about infections.

+100. This is the true outbreak of common sense.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:36:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 7:13:15 PM, MouthWash wrote:
You do realize that if such a law were passed in America or Israel the population would go into open revolt?

Yes, America and the Middle East are still very religiously backwards. However, there has already been a push in the right direction in the states (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)

It would be ten times worse the Prohibition; doctors would simply ignore the law. Even if a way was found to get them to follow it, people would still do it in private and then they would be unable to take their child to a doctor. Not sure how it is in Germany, but unless everyone there is an atheist/liberal, stuff like that will happen. Plus, I'm glad I don't have to worry about infections.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:38:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 7:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/26/2012 7:13:15 PM, MouthWash wrote:
You do realize that if such a law were passed in America or Israel the population would go into open revolt?

Yes, America and the Middle East are still very religiously backwards. However, there has already been a push in the right direction in the states (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)

Yes. We are religiously backward for being health ahead.
It would be ten times worse the Prohibition; doctors would simply ignore the law. Even if a way was found to get them to follow it, people would still do it in private and then they would be unable to take their child to a doctor. Not sure how it is in Germany, but unless everyone there is an atheist/liberal, stuff like that will happen. Plus, I'm glad I don't have to worry about infections.

You still haven't explained that.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:38:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Are there inconsistencies with being pro-choice, but being against infant circumcision? I've been wondering about that lately.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:45:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 7:38:29 PM, Rusty wrote:
Are there inconsistencies with being pro-choice, but being against infant circumcision? I've been wondering about that lately.

To add on this, suppose that there was a pill available to pregnant mothers which would more or less affect the mother's body in such a way that the foreskin of the child would not develop. Would it be immoral to take this pill? I admit that I don't have very informed opinions on this subject, so I'm not trying to make a hard argument or anything, just poking around.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:51:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 7:45:35 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 6/26/2012 7:38:29 PM, Rusty wrote:
Are there inconsistencies with being pro-choice, but being against infant circumcision? I've been wondering about that lately.

To add on this, suppose that there was a pill available to pregnant mothers which would more or less affect the mother's body in such a way that the foreskin of the child would not develop. Would it be immoral to take this pill? I admit that I don't have very informed opinions on this subject, so I'm not trying to make a hard argument or anything, just poking around.

Circumcisions are performed without anesthetics when done on infants because anesthetics are dangerous to infant. So circumcision is tantamount to torture since it is not medically necessary. This is what makes it immoral and a crime.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:53:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 7:38:29 PM, Rusty wrote:
Are there inconsistencies with being pro-choice, but being against infant circumcision? I've been wondering about that lately.

If abortions cause sever pain to a fetus then yes, there would be an inconsistency between pro-choice and an anti-circumcision stance.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 7:56:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 7:53:35 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/26/2012 7:38:29 PM, Rusty wrote:
Are there inconsistencies with being pro-choice, but being against infant circumcision? I've been wondering about that lately.

If abortions cause sever pain to a fetus then yes, there would be an inconsistency between pro-choice and an anti-circumcision stance.

I don't know enough about popular pro-choice arguments to know if they typically include the lack of pain aspect, but what about the example I provided?
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 8:04:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 7:56:18 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 6/26/2012 7:53:35 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 6/26/2012 7:38:29 PM, Rusty wrote:
Are there inconsistencies with being pro-choice, but being against infant circumcision? I've been wondering about that lately.

If abortions cause sever pain to a fetus then yes, there would be an inconsistency between pro-choice and an anti-circumcision stance.

I don't know enough about popular pro-choice arguments to know if they typically include the lack of pain aspect, but what about the example I provided?

Yeah, I'm a little unclear myself. I've heard them made before but it's rare.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 10:00:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 6:51:11 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
The Germans always find a way to upset the Jews haha.

But yeah, I think it is a good thing too.

lol
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 10:03:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 7:01:54 PM, jat93 wrote:

I think this is a good thing too. I am not sure on what moral basis one could justify chopping off a non-regrowable part of an important body part of an infant who cannot either consent or object to what is being done to his body.

This guy has helped quite a few people grow back their foreskin, although it's not as sensitive, it's still a remedy.
http://tlctugger.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 10:05:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Imagine Ragnar_Rahl with a pirate picture with the caption, "Taking back mah foreskin."
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 10:06:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 7:38:29 PM, Rusty wrote:
Are there inconsistencies with being pro-choice, but being against infant circumcision? I've been wondering about that lately.

Hmmm, maybe if the pro-choice person believes one could terminate the life of a fetus with a brain/nervous system... Even then, though, there's a difference because an unborn baby is completely dependent on its mothers body for survival, and is literally inside the mother...
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 10:09:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 10:03:13 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 6/26/2012 7:01:54 PM, jat93 wrote:

I think this is a good thing too. I am not sure on what moral basis one could justify chopping off a non-regrowable part of an important body part of an infant who cannot either consent or object to what is being done to his body.

This guy has helped quite a few people grow back their foreskin, although it's not as sensitive, it's still a remedy.
http://tlctugger.com...

Very interesting... Though my position doesn't change and wouldn't even if it was totally regrow-able and you could restore the sensitivity... You can't just go painfully chopping off the body parts of a completely defenseless human being; the key for me is whether or not one consents, and obviously an infant can neither consent nor object...
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 10:14:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 10:06:09 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 6/26/2012 7:38:29 PM, Rusty wrote:
Are there inconsistencies with being pro-choice, but being against infant circumcision? I've been wondering about that lately.

Hmmm, maybe if the pro-choice person believes one could terminate the life of a fetus with a brain/nervous system... Even then, though, there's a difference because an unborn baby is completely dependent on its mothers body for survival, and is literally inside the mother...

Interesting. So then, you wouldn't have a problem if a pregnant mother decided to take a (hypothetical) pill that effected her body in some way that led to the baby never developing a foreskin?
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 10:18:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 10:14:52 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 6/26/2012 10:06:09 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 6/26/2012 7:38:29 PM, Rusty wrote:
Are there inconsistencies with being pro-choice, but being against infant circumcision? I've been wondering about that lately.

Hmmm, maybe if the pro-choice person believes one could terminate the life of a fetus with a brain/nervous system... Even then, though, there's a difference because an unborn baby is completely dependent on its mothers body for survival, and is literally inside the mother...

Interesting. So then, you wouldn't have a problem if a pregnant mother decided to take a (hypothetical) pill that effected her body in some way that led to the baby never developing a foreskin?

Impossible. The foreskin grows before the penis does and protects it's development.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 10:20:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 10:18:04 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 6/26/2012 10:14:52 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 6/26/2012 10:06:09 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 6/26/2012 7:38:29 PM, Rusty wrote:
Are there inconsistencies with being pro-choice, but being against infant circumcision? I've been wondering about that lately.

Hmmm, maybe if the pro-choice person believes one could terminate the life of a fetus with a brain/nervous system... Even then, though, there's a difference because an unborn baby is completely dependent on its mothers body for survival, and is literally inside the mother...

Interesting. So then, you wouldn't have a problem if a pregnant mother decided to take a (hypothetical) pill that effected her body in some way that led to the baby never developing a foreskin?

Impossible. The foreskin grows before the penis does and protects it's development.

There are males who are born without foreskin.