45 replies to this topic

[Rlyeh]

Hasina, on 12 October 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

http://www.nytimes.c...-says.html?_r=0

Awesome. The benefits of having sex with HIV positive partners.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Rlyeh, on 13 October 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

Awesome. The benefits of having sex with HIV positive partners.

You realize that there are couples out there with HIV positive partners whom they love and care for right? Because that statement seemed to have meant there is something wrong with that.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Zaphod222, on 13 October 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

...and if you wanted to cut his hand or foot off, that would be "your business too"?

Yes, parents have rights over their children, but they should not extend to mutilation. If the kids wants to cut things off his body, let him become 18 and make the decision for himself. It is not yours.

ha ha ha the old cut off a foot gag...  love it! Its so extreme it makes it hilarious.
Waiting until age 18 comes with added unnecessary risks that can be avoided by doing the procedure shortly after birth.

[FLOMBIE]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 13 October 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

You realize that there are couples out there with HIV positive partners whom they love and care for right? Because that statement seemed to have meant there is something wrong with that.

And those couples have unprotected sex? That doesn't seem like a lot of caring! Circumcised or not, the risk remains.

[Rlyeh]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 13 October 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

You realize that there are couples out there with HIV positive partners whom they love and care for right? Because that statement seemed to have meant there is something wrong with that.

Getting circumcised so one can have unprotected sex with their HIV positive partner doesn't seem that beneficial, there is still quite a large chance of catching the virus. Condoms are more effective by far.

Edited by Rlyeh, 13 October 2012 - 05:09 PM.

[questionmark]

FLOMBIE, on 13 October 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

And those couples have unprotected sex? That doesn't seem like a lot of caring! Circumcised or not, the risk remains.

Rlyeh, on 13 October 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

Getting circumcised so one can have unprotected sex with their HIV positive partner doesn't seem that beneficial, there is still quite a large chance of catching the virus. Condoms are more effective by far.

Where the study this assertion is being based on hardly can show a general relevance as it compares the US (generally circumcised) with South Africa and parts of South America (uncircumcised) where HIV infections are much higher due to sexual promiscuity anyway. If the comparison would be made with Europe I tend to believe that the results would hardly be so evident.

[FLOMBIE]

And interestingly, health benefits have not been a part of the ungoing discussion here in Germany. I still see that as a pityful excuse to mutilate your kids, just as religious reasons are.

[Neognosis]

Quote

...and if you wanted to cut his hand or foot off, that would be "your business too"?

Yes, because it's EXACTLY THE SAME.

That's DRIPPING sarcasm.

Quote

Yes, parents have rights over their children, but they should not extend to mutilation. If the kids wants to cut things off his body, let him become 18 and make the decision for himself. It is not yours.

Actually, yes it is, when it comes to circumcision. Check the laws here in the US.

The culture is already changing here, and circumcisions are down every year. I don't believe in it, but I also don't believe in outlawing a religious and cultural practice that is literally thousands of years old, and cannot be shown to have a lasting negative effect on men. There are medical arguments for and against. I don't recall any medical arguments for cutting off a hand or foot.

Edited by Neognosis, 13 October 2012 - 07:24 PM.

[smurf0852]

Some people just seem to be wired up wrong .is slapping a child because you feel like it ok? Kicking him ? How about dangling a newborn out of a window naked in the middle of winter? I'm assuming you would consider causing harm to a child like this is disgusting. Yet people consider removing a body part  because you want to is ok get a fing grip of yourselves .

[Neognosis]

Circumcision is not the same as slapping or kicking a child. I'm sorry that you are wired to think it is.

Again, we chose not to circumcise our child, and I believe that a cultural shift is happening that is resulting in fewer circumcisions, but to compare it to child abuse is to disregard the entire history of circumcision, as well as what medical professionals say on both sides of the discussion.


To compare circumcision to dangling a naked child out of a window in winter is really pretty off base. Those of you who think that circumcision performed by a professional in a hospital is the same as beating a child or exposing them to the elements need to "get a fing grip of yourselves."

Now, I've seen video of a few circumcisions, and they make me very glad we didn't put our son through that, and I do think it is barbaric, but I would not support a law against a religous tradition as old as human history. And the cultural shift is already happening. I'm sure you folks watch internet porn, look at how many american porn stars aren't circumcised....

Edited by Neognosis, 13 October 2012 - 10:51 PM.

[Wickian]

Neognosis, on 13 October 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

Actually, yes it is, when it comes to circumcision. Check the laws here in the US.

The culture is already changing here, and circumcisions are down every year. I don't believe in it, but I also don't believe in outlawing a religious and cultural practice that is literally thousands of years old, and cannot be shown to have a lasting negative effect on men. There are medical arguments for and against. I don't recall any medical arguments for cutting off a hand or foot.

I also don't agree with circumcision.  I cannot understand how parents are given legal rights to permanently cut off parts of their children's body.  A law should be made to prevent that from happening until the child is old enough to choose for permanent bodily alterations for himself.

[Mnemonix]

Wickian, on 16 October 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

I also don't agree with circumcision.  I cannot understand how parents are given legal rights to permanently cut off parts of their children's body.  A law should be made to prevent that from happening until the child is old enough to choose for permanent bodily alterations for himself.

I wasn't circumcised as a baby, but at a much later age. Had to be done for religious purposes.

Not exactly my choice

Edited by Mnemonix, 17 October 2012 - 12:16 AM.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Mnemonix, on 17 October 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

I wasn't circumcised as a baby, but at a much later age. Had to be done for religious purposes.

Not exactly my choice

What age? Would you prefer it to be done when you were a baby or not at all?

[Mnemonix]

Professor Buzzkill, on 17 October 2012 - 12:34 AM, said:

What age? Would you prefer it to be done when you were a baby or not at all?

14 years.

I wasn't exactly looking forward to getting it done, at the time.

I just knew it had to be done, so no complaining there

[Zaphod222]

and then, on 12 October 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

Since MILLIONS of these procedures have been performed over the centuries, some in very primitive circumstances, if there were long term health problems would they not be known?  So the question becomes  - whose right is it to suddenly deny anyone their heritage and traditions?  Why is it suddenly so important?

Justifying mutilation with "heritage" is a cheap excuse. Millions of Chinese girls have had their feet bound and crippled, before the practise was made illegal. Millions of muslim girls have been "circumcised" (e.g. the clitoris cut out). Millions of people have died from mediaval torture. Go take your "heritage" and put it in a museum.
If you want to mutilate children, give us a sound medical reason. "Heritage" is not it.