That natural part of the body carrys potential health hazards. There are only positives gained from removing it, and NO negatives that havent all ready been discredited. This is a case of making a mountain of a molehill, and i feel people have alterior motives than that of "protecting the child" line. Its been demonstrated in the last couple of pages some peoples motives being that of against religion in what ever means.
With all 'due' respect. Nothing has been proven over the last couple of pages other than statistical likelihoods. There are no 'facts' being demonstrated here at all. As for only positives? Again, there are a whole host of negatives associated with it beginning from removing the childs choice and following up with inflicting an entirely un-needed invasive medical procedure on a child at their most vulnerable. The only reason they are perceived by you as not being negatives is because you have blinkers on and only see 'your' positives. (ironically displaying a bigoted attitude)
Do you even know what bigoted means? Raising your child into a paticular faith is NOT bigoted lol, i guess my earlier statement of you mud slinging seems correct. i would go as far as saying you are the one being bigoted, by not allowing me the free will to practice my religion and raise my child into my religion.
I'm not stopping you from bringing the child up in a religion, however you are pushing your prejudices and beliefs on that child physically absent of reason. I won't even get into the religion side of things and the intolerance that comes along with it. Raising a child into a religion at the exclusion of information and education is exactly that because by the very nature of most religions, it is bigoted.
I would suggest an apology is warranted
as clearly you dont kow what a bigotry is, and have falsely labled me one.
I owe you no apology - I have very reasonably applied the definition.
And so do i, just that we differ in our methodology. i respect your opinion, all i ask is you do the same for me and not try to force your anti religion agenda unto others. By dressing your "boy" as a "boy" you are infact permanently damaging him if he was to decide he wants to be a girl later on in life and will suffer with physiological issues. Maybe dress him as a girl one day and a boy the other, and let him choose which he prefers overtime? Why not raise him gay, as its against the norm and if if when he gets older he can choose for himself if he wants to be straight. That includes little things like you say to cute kids "youlle be getting all the girls" instead say "you'lle be getting all the guys/partners" etc If thats your way of parenting and giving the child choice, you can keep it as far as im concerned
Not at all. You can hold your opinion also, even if it is not based on reasonably consideration, but I do not support your right to physically inflict that opinion on a child. You, through your action and that of the doctor/surgeon, remove that childs right for choice even before they are able to develop an informed opinion of their own.
Dressing a boy as a boy is not 'damaging', it is applying a social norm. There is a vast difference. In Samoa it is a social norm that if a family wanted a girl but have had nothing but boys then the youngest boy is raised as a girl, known as a Fafafini. This is a social norm. It is not damaging to the child to be bough up in this way because he is not subject to social ostracization because of difference. Your analogy is equally as flawed as you saying that by my parents not cutting off my foreskin they are 'mutilating' me. It's incorrect by definition and a clearly ill conceived analogy.
I also feel a child is infact a child, and are not capable of making such decision and the parents SHOULD pose thier will on said child within reason. Raising your chld into religion does not
"negatively impacting others and/or self destructive." as you seem to suggest, that is bigotry
Oh I agree, and I was bought up as a Catholic and later decided that it was not for me. Religion is something that I would not consider introducing my children to until later in life. I would never say to them, this is the way it is, I would give them as much information as possible and allow them to make informed decisions. If it's Catholicism or Buddhism or becoming a Hari Krishna, then as long as they have gone into it in an informed and free way, then that is their decision. Telling them that if they do bad they will go to hell, or if they are gay then they will go to hell etc etc, that is exactly what bigotry is. Yes you should impose your will, that is indeed your right at a parent, but only in as far as it does not harm the child.
What you dont get its a bloody foreskin!! its not like its removing a childs right arm is it? you are making a mountain of a molehill. As shown by the study in Africa HIV transmistions were reduced by 66%, that is not a very low possibility. And thats just HIV, not to mention the countless other benifits. What you dont get is YOU dont feel these are worthy, OTHERS DO - deal with it, your opinion is yours and you do what you feel is best for YOUR child.
Sooo, is your child going to Africa to be promiscuous with the lower socio-economic groups that are predominantly at risk of HIV infection? What do you think the infection rate might be if all these people were properly educated with the use of contraception and sexual health? Cutting of the foreskin as an anti HIV measure is a ridiculous reason. It's idiocy and the numbers are incomparable.
Did i suggest otherwise? Maybe they are a little less protected than others, like the 44% in africa?
Yes because they are all living in a first world country where the church has told them in no uncertain terms that contraception is bad and that abstinence is the answer to everything. Really? You're going to stick with such a spurious statistic?
The global circumcision rate is around 37.4%, hardly a "mutilating" statistic, if it was im sure that number would be lower.
Just because it has a large representation, does not redefine it.
Mutilation: To disfigure by damaging irreparably, To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.
What so because its unatural its wrong? theres plenty of things unnatural that we do every single day and they are great. Some say homosexuality is unnatural?
No because it's unnatural, it is unnatural. Because it's done bereft of the childs input and choice makes it wrong. Because it has little scientific advantage other than percentages of very small percentages and yet this is still presented as reasoning makes it wrong.
There is no choice, since your are either doing it for medical, cosmetiic or hygenic reason, which are ALL VALID. Its only irrational until it actualy affects you? Tell that do sufferers of said medical conditions
Or you are doing it for religious reasons, your child is born into the that particular faith as far as im concerned so he is of that particular faith where circumcision is required.
Like i said the future King is circumcised, do you propose we arrest the queen as she "mutilated" a child?
How are they Valid? For example - Statistically 99% of males have a perfectly retractable foreskin by the time they are 17. Your argument is then based around 37% of 1% of the population that could potentially suffer difficulties due to Phimosis. This makes no sense to me because even if there are issues, often it is entirely treatable by non invasive techniques. So you are carrying a preventative flame for such a small segment of society and yet you believe that all should be circumcised? Taking this in perspective. 97% of babies are born normally presenting their heads first. 3% are breech or some other complication. By your reasoning, all children should be born c-section, strictly as preventative you understand...
Future King? I'm not suggesting that anyone be arrested. I'm suggesting that you be realistic about why you're getting it done. Medical reasons are as much as smoke and mirrors. They are not valid at all.
As for religion being a reason for doing anything? That is not even remotely close to being a valid reason for cutting part of a childs penis off. Just as much as it's not a reason for stoning an adulterer to death, or for protesting against gay marriage or for that matter for presenting women as less than men or a whole host of idiotic fallacies that are instilled by the church and religion.
