The crime of circumcision

#2
#2
My wife was born with a cleft lip. It would have caused her no harm had her parents chosen to let her live with it. But that kind of plastic surgery heals better, and leaves less scarring, if you perform it on an infant. She had the surgery at 3 months old, and now you have to look really close to even see her scar.

According to this judge's logic, my wife should have been left alone until she was an adult to decide if she would have her birth defect fixed.
 
#4
#4
bamawriter said:
My wife was born with a cleft lip. It would have caused her no harm had her parents chosen to let her live with it. But that kind of plastic surgery heals better, and leaves less scarring, if you perform it on an infant. She had the surgery at 3 months old, and now you have to look really close to even see her scar.

According to this judge's logic, my wife should have been left alone until she was an adult to decide if she would have her birth defect fixed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's absurd
 
#6
#6
I don't feel one way or the other about this issue. Although I will say this... my sister had her ears pierced at about 1 year old (going by memory so that may be off by a few months). Does that mean that piercing ears is a violation by parents also?
 
#7
#7
Rasputin_Vol said:
I don't feel one way or the other about this issue. Although I will say this... my sister had her ears pierced at about 1 year old (going by memory so that may be off by a few months). Does that mean that piercing ears is a violation by parents also?
Click to expand...

I was going to ask the same question. It would also be illegal according to this judge
 
#10
#10
bamawriter said:
That's where you're wrong. It's okay for the government to tell you what's best for your child, but not your faith.
Click to expand...

Yeah, forgot about that. And if vaccines were against your religion, they would force you to give your kids the shots. Makes sense to me!
 
#11
#11
bamawriter said:
That's where you're wrong. It's okay for the government to tell you what's best for your child, but not your faith.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a Simpsons episode where the town had a shortage of flu vaccine, but Flanders wasn't worried they didn't use them anyways, and it flashed to his kids shivering and sweating on blocks of ice on the couch with thumbs up lol.

And foreskin isn't a birth defect that needs to be fixed for any medical reason. In the case of a cleft lip it would be negligent to not correct it if the parents are able.

Snippin the skins like cutting off a pups tail cause that's what the breed looks like.
 
#13
#13
bamawriter said:
My wife was born with a cleft lip. It would have caused her no harm had her parents chosen to let her live with it. But that kind of plastic surgery heals better, and leaves less scarring, if you perform it on an infant. She had the surgery at 3 months old, and now you have to look really close to even see her scar.

According to this judge's logic, my wife should have been left alone until she was an adult to decide if she would have her birth defect fixed.
Click to expand...

Apples/oranges.
 
#14
#14
gasguy98 said:
Apples/oranges.
Click to expand...

It really isn't. If she'd been born with a cleft palate, or something that actually would have effected her quality of life, then you'd be right. But the decision to fix her defect was purely cosmetic.
 
#15
#15
bamawriter said:
It really isn't. If she'd been born with a cleft palate, or something that actually would have effected her quality of life, then you'd be right. But the decision to fix her defect was purely cosmetic.
Click to expand...

Foreskin on the penis is not a defect or flaw but a normal feature of the male organ. It is intentionally being "deformed" or enhanced with this ritual/procedure. In the situation you describe, a birth defect was repaired. Some will argue that the cleft would have effected quality of life but that is irrelevent, not to mention circumcision is a CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS practice, not a cosmetic one performed on a case by case basis.

So yes, your analogy is way off. A better analogy would be making any kind of physical "enhancement" (like the ones many African people do) illegal to infants or children. I don't expect you to understand.:)
 
Last edited:
#16
#16
gasguy98 said:
Foreskin on the penis is not a defect or flaw but a normal feature of the male organ. It is intentionally being "deformed" or enhanced with this ritual/procedure. In the situation you describe, a birth defect was repaired. Some will argue that the cleft would have effected quality of life but that is irrelevent, not to mention circumcision is a CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS practice, not a cosmetic one performed on a case by case basis.

So yes, your analogy is way off. A better analogy would be making any kind of physical "enhancement" (like the ones many African people do) illegal to infants or children. I don't expect you to understand.:)
Click to expand...

I don't think you read the article. The judge's ruling was made to protect "bodily integrity." Barring a pressing health concern (and for argument's sake, we'll say that circumcision has minimal health benefits), all decisions regarding one's "bodily integrity" should be left to the individual in question. A cleft lip may be a defect, while foreskin is not, but both are 100% natural, and neither adversely affects one's health*.

*some cleft deformations can be bad enough to affect the ability to chew or drink, but not all.
 
#17
#17
All I can say is thank god for circumcision. It's made my quality of life better!

Chicks dont dig that snake in a turtle neck look!!
 
#18
#18
TruthIsOutThere said:
All I can say is thank god for circumcision. It's made my quality of life better!

Chicks dont dig that snake in a turtle neck look!!
Click to expand...

I've had the same experience although they say nothing about appearance, as you mentioned, but rather the hygiene/smell of foreskin.

I don't deal with other penises so I differ to their judgement.
 
#20
#20
gasguy98 said:
Foreskin on the penis is not a defect or flaw but a normal feature of the male organ. It is intentionally being "deformed" or enhanced with this ritual/procedure. In the situation you describe, a birth defect was repaired. Some will argue that the cleft would have effected quality of life but that is irrelevent, not to mention circumcision is a CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS practice, not a cosmetic one performed on a case by case basis.

So yes, your analogy is way off. A better analogy would be making any kind of physical "enhancement" (like the ones many African people do) illegal to infants or children. I don't expect you to understand.:)
Click to expand...

I would argue that the overall health benefits of circumcision outweigh the overall health benefits of cosmetic surgery for the type of cleft lip of which Bama is referring.
 
#23
#23
Im circed but left the boy uncut. Its an outdated barbaric practice. There is no real secular reason to have it done.
 
#24
#24
burntorangeVOLffle said:
Im circed but left the boy uncut. Its an outdated barbaric practice. There is no real secular reason to have it done.
Click to expand...
Same here and we checked with a priest before we made the decision. Seems Peter and Paul worked it out for us gentiles. Also checked for any adverse health effects with 5he docs and there are none for the uncut who practice good hygiene.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top