Jump to content

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The REAL reason Jewish men get circumcised is because Jewish women love anything that got 33% off.

It’s f***ing sick, mutilating babies simply because they believe an imaginary friend told them to. No different to FGM in my opinion.unless medically needed then leave the kids dicks alone!!!!

As you know I'm more of a medical necessity kind of person as opposed based purely on tradition. This case is one of many and highlights the dangers of such practice, and isn't exactly rare in that co

9 minutes ago, mattyg said:

No different to FGM in my opinion.unless medically needed then leave the kids dicks alone!!!!

Assuming standards are professional do you really think men that have been circumcised suffer in anyway at all, never mind similarly to women who have had FGM?

I'd agree that the justification is no stronger but I think it's a bit sensationalist to say the actual effect of both are in anyway similar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The lasting effects are different but the reason behind both practices are the same....medieval minded idiots!

Why inflict pain on a baby when there is no need? Religion can’t be used to justify hurting a kid (although it often is)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mattyg said:

The lasting effects are different but the reason behind both practices are the same....medieval minded idiots!

Why inflict pain on a baby when there is no need? Religion can’t be used to justify hurting a kid (although it often is)

Some folks would argue that smacking your child is needless and outdated and should be banned. Some folks would argue that many non physical forms of punishment are needless and harmful. I mean do we just defer all of our parental liberty to what the establishment deem is right? I think this ain't black and white and personally so long as the harm is not that significant I think it's probably best my opinion remains a personal one.

Religion seems to be the focus of condemnation these days in a rather fundamentalist way. "It's religious therefore it's nonsense" being the view, which I find a bit troubling seeing as religious or not it's still just a personal belief. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be done when the boy is of age to decide for himself not the religious beliefs of there parents. It's his body and has to live with it. 

Different if it needs done for medical reasons then the onus is on the parents. 

A lot bang on about rights etc.well the kid should have the same right

And if he does decide he wants it he can get it done professionally and his church can pay for it 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume of course there is a big vocal movement of victims that have suffered from this? I mean we should remember the main folks that are defending it are also victims, they just don't feel they are. I just think it's funny how it seems that most the folks that should be upset about this (folks that were done) support it while most the folks that are against it were never effected anyway.

There's bound to be a group of genuine aggrieved victims, I just think it's interesting to see which side those affected tend to support.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scothunter said:

They support it think you mean just accepted it . Way to young to be able to claim they supported it. 

No, I mean as adults. What's their opinion as adults on what happened to them as children. Surely if it was such a terrible thing to do to a child the victims would be vocal in their opposition, or at least broadly unanimous? Fact is that majority of proponents are as much 'victims' as anyone. I also see that the majority of folks against are not victims themselves, just against it in principle.

I might be wrong and I'm sure there will be a group of affected people who genuinely consider themselves victims too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2018 at 04:11, MickC said:

Poorly enforced

I meant to say Iceland banned it in 2005. I honestly don't know what their FGM figures are but they must have been significant enough to rule on it.

On 2/21/2018 at 05:05, Born Hunter said:

I think this ain't black and white and personally so long as the harm is not that significant I think it's probably best my opinion remains a personal one.

While I tend to concur I believe that unnecessary surgery should be between consenting adults. I will respect religious freedoms but if it's that important the child can make the decision as an adult. Afterall baptism doesn't involve an amputation. Purely MHO though...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...