Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aklyon]

Honestly, I think Female Genital Mutilation is probably the more appropriate terminology.  It's not really like circumcision at all.

So the phrase "female circumcision" will hereby be taken out of the Bay12 dictionary.

*rip* Done.

[SalmonGod]

Diaper rashes are an ordinary, non-dangerous thing that happens whether or not your circumcise kids, and are hardly a reason to do it.

And?  Colds are an ordinary, non-dangerous thing that happens to everyone.  But if you could have an operation done on your child at birth with almost no risk that would cut down the amount of common colds they'd have throughout their life, would you have it done?

That's exactly what we are discussing about.
You didn't have the choice, so you simply had to deal with it.

Except there's no "dealing with it" associated.  It just is.  Being circumcised has no more impact on my life than my hair color.  In fact it has even less, since hair color is a part of my outward appearance, thus having subtle effects on my social life.  Being circumcised doesn't even come close to that kind of impact.  It might as well be a freckle on my toe.  It's that unimportant.

As for not having a choice, did anybody ask me if I wanted to be born?  Did anybody ask me if I wanted them to leave a little extra umbilical cord when they cut it, so I could have an outie instead of an innie?  I fail to see why people make such a big deal out of it, except most simply didn't have it done and they imagine what it would be like if it was done to them as they are today.  Of course that's going to generate an emotional reaction, but there are plenty of other things done with kids that would generate different reactions in an adult that are commonly accepted anyway.

[Footkerchief]

Honestly, I think Female Genital Mutilation is probably the more appropriate terminology.  It's not really like circumcision at all.

Some types are directly related (the clitoral hood is homologous to the foreskin), but yeah, as a blanket term it's slightly misleading.

[Urist is dead tome]

Circumcision as depicted with Legos.

http://www.bricktestament.com/joshua/second_circumcision/jos05_06a.html

I'll probably be booed out of town by rabid atheists but whatever.

[Footkerchief]

If you think atheists will hate that, you don't get the Brick Testament.

[Urist is dead tome]

If you think atheists will hate that, you don't get the Brick Testament.

Meaning that they will use it as easy proof of cruelty that the Bible commands? I'm probably way off.

[Leafsnail]

I'd say it probably makes quite a lot of sense hygeine wise in the desert, actually.

There is a flaw in that part, but we'd have to switch threads to go into it.

[Urist is dead tome]

I'd say it probably makes quite a lot of sense hygeine wise in the desert, actually.

There is a flaw in that part, but we'd have to switch threads to go into it.

Precisely! I believe that G-d told the Israelite's to be circumcised for health reasons. They had no other practical reason to be circumcised otherwise. (Thousands of years before the discovery of bacteria.) But to talk further I too would have to switch threads.

[ChairmanPoo]

As I mentioned in...hell, I don't even remember what topic but I don't think it was this one...if you fought in World War I, my god you were thankful if your parents had you circumcized.  Trench warfare was damp and unsanity for long periods of time.  The phrase "rotted off" comes to mind.  It didn't happen to everybody, but it could have happened to you.

Bollocks, I say. Show to me that genitalia infections were a frequent cause of morbility or mortality in the trenches, and that it hit uncircumcised men significatively more often than circumcised ones, and you have a case of sorts... for circumcision in a trench warfare setting.

[ChairmanPoo]

Diaper rashes are an ordinary, non-dangerous thing that happens whether or not your circumcise kids, and are hardly a reason to do it.

And?  Colds are an ordinary, non-dangerous thing that happens to everyone.  But if you could have an operation done on your child at birth with almost no risk that would cut down the amount of common colds they'd have throughout their life, would you have it done?

Bolded for emphasis.

And yes, I'd hesitate to do such a thing, even if I was proficient that it would reduce common colds in some measurable way.

[Footkerchief]

If you think atheists will hate that, you don't get the Brick Testament.

Meaning that they will use it as easy proof of cruelty that the Bible commands? I'm probably way off.

Pretty much, and moreover that was obviously what the BT's creator had in mind.

[Urist is dead tome]

http://www.bricktestament.com/faq/index.html

Not from the looks of it.

Oh crap! Never mind!

[SalmonGod]

Diaper rashes are an ordinary, non-dangerous thing that happens whether or not your circumcise kids, and are hardly a reason to do it.

Bolded for emphasis.

I'm not disputing this.  Yes, they still happen.  However, as an oldest of 4 kids and a parent of two with around 5 years of diaper-changing under my belt, I have seen plenty of rashes.  I know they can get quite painful.  I understand how they happen.  I can say with absolute certainty that my kids would have had more rashes had they not been circumcised.  I'm also fairly certain that the pain from those rashes, happening further from birth as the experience of being in the world becomes less overwhelming, attention spans and memory increase, and pain actually begins impairing activity, would have had more impact than did the circumcision operation at birth.  I can also say from personal experience that they're almost definitely not going to care that it was done to them.  It will never have any effect on their ability to live their lives however they please.

The outrage over this issue is just bizarre to me, and seems incredibly disproportionate to the actual weight of the issue... which isn't much.  The whole discussion seems emotionally reactionary, and puts decisions that I've made as a parent on trial.

[Urist is dead tome]

The Salmon is right. Nobody would care that they were circumcised. And if they did. 1. That would show immaturity. 2. Simply whining about something that can't be fixed is stupid. And besides. He's got a lot of experience with parenting.

[Footkerchief]

I can also say from personal experience that they're almost definitely not going to care that it was done to them.  It will never have any effect on their ability to live their lives however they please.

I am right here as a circumsized dude, telling you I wish my parents had chosen not to cut off a piece of my only begotten dingus.  It's incredibly arrogant to assume that other people, including your children, will make that judgment the same way you did.  Obviously parenthood forces that arrogance upon you in many cases, but don't fall into the trap of viewing your decisions as infallible.

It's really strange how people can believe that the human body was hand-designed by God, and simultaneously believe that surgery will make their bodies more attractive to God.