I see what you mean, but terminating an embryo (Not a concious foetus) is a different thing to chopping a bit off a baby.
Consequences of a choice to determine whether or not such choice is socially correct indeed matter, but I would disagree with the ideology in the abortion vs. circumcision comparison. At this point in time the parents are both allowed to choose yes or no in both cases, and I would generally be against that. So yeah, it's just a matter of ideologies I guess. You would have to debate human rights and then continue to debate what constitutes a human, and that never goes well. Plus that's already spread across several threads.
You can say the same on rising a kid to a religion.
I truely belive that anyone here who is against Circ' dosent mean to say it, but as i said in the beggining, you kind of say "Dont make him be a jew for life. Let him choose first. Just stop being jews and join us already".
The problme is not with the prcess nor the health of the baby. Its about being diffrunte. think about what i said, and look deep into the thoughts you have on the subject.
The difference is that both sides already agree that a physically independent baby counts as a human.
Constitution of humanity in the abortion side. Even then, how does a baby decide? Would it be better for circumcisions to be done and away with until the child reaches a certain age? How would you make it equal for both parties to decide?
I truely belive that anyone here who is against Circ' dosent mean to say it, but as i said in the beggining, you kind of say "Dont make him be a jew for life. Let him choose first. Just stop being jews and join us already".
1) Circumcision is not just a Jewish thing anymore. There are various reasons why it would be performed.
2) I would absolutely agree that indoctrinating a child into an ideology is bad.
The problme is not with the prcess nor the health of the baby. Its about being diffrunte.
No, the problem in this case is pretty simple. You're permanently modifying a part of someone's body, which will affect them, without their consent or ability to do so.
As for the rest, I agree with EmperorPalpatine. The only exceptions would be if there was a medical reason for it.
This is something I wrote up a while back which should cover my views on the matter.
There were three studies done in Africa all not taken to their completion claiming due to overwhelming indication of circumcision reducing chances of contracting HIV by up to 60%. The way this is claimed to work is that the foreskin contains cells that are directly targeted by the virus and that the softer moister area that the foreskin produces creates an environment where the virus can more easily enter through micro fractures in the skin that could be more common in uncircumcised men. The second big argument is that the foreskin allows for the harboring of bacteria which can cause infection in the female partner.
First off the study conducted, as said, was not taking to completion, due to believing that the data they had received was good enough. The second problem here is that on top of being circumcised the males who were circumcised also received safe sex education, which the uncircumcised group did not. Even if the claim of 60% reduction were true this could easily be accounted for by the education the group received. This reduction report is also in question and may have been closer to 29%.
With both issues it would seem simply wearing a condom could work just as well if not better. The reduction report of HIV through condom use is around 80%. So even if the 60% reduction is accurate and circumcision is really that effective, condom use is still 20% more effective.
As for the issue of bacteria it would seem simply washing the area before hand could eliminate this issue. The right to choose is of course the biggest issue here. Non of the benefits would be beneficial to a young child, let alone a baby. The argument presented for doing it shortly after birth is that it reduced the risk involved to the patient. So it comes down to risk reduction for an otherwise unnecessary surgery vs personal choice.
In short I see not point in taking things to the level of removing part of your body for what appear to be either easily remedied problems and likely skewed claims that either way could be handled in less evasive ways. And I don't see how even a risk reduction can justify taking someone's choice to have it done or not away.
While it may be true that many females don't care either way, from conversations I've had I have gleaned the following: those females that *do* care would much prefer circumcised dingles.
No, Moe. Just no. Let me demonstrate. Scenario 1:
Guy: "I am circumcised." Girl: "... EWWWWWW!!!"
Scenario 2: Guy: "I am not circumcised." Girl: "... good for you? Also... EWWWWWWW!!!"
My point is made.
Infants aren't capable of making such a decision, and one of such a personal nature should be taken by the person
This statement I stand by. Circumcision is an extremely painful procedure, and for a child, traumatic. The fact the child has no say makes it unacceptable. People can perform painful procedures on themselves if they choose - it is the fact that it was that individuals choice that made the decision right. It being done for someone without their consent makes it wrong.
You can say the same on rising a kid to a religion
You can. But you'd be bringing to light more problems.
how does a baby decide?
A baby can't make a decision in the literal sense. But this is the same with a child who can make a decision (in a non literal sense), they are not given the authority to make decisions that impact their life - for religious or parenting reasons. This, of course, isn't always true because variables make it impossible.
Would it be better for circumcisions to be done and away with until the child reaches a certain age?
It would. It's a decision that needs to be decided by the individual himself because the decision has a consequence - this consequence being that it is painful and a frightening thought to many males.
No lie. it's true according to my doctor.
So, just because a doctor said it makes the statement true?
Wow. Here is a demonstration of how science is inadequately taught in schools. A 1% increase in testosterone won't vastly improve your life.
