Is circumcision ethical?

[TheLastSuperman]

My favorite two rules on forums prior to this thread were no posting regarding:
- Politics
- Religion

For those with forums based on such I COMMEND you brave souls, WE SALUTE YOU! THIS IS SPARRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTAAAAAA and such! Do I say this to dare say its silly? Not at all - My reasoning? I've seen those two topics turn long standing community members into bitter enemies over opposing views related to such ohh that's the only reason not a big one . Edit: To clarify no not happened yet, don't think it will here ya'll are polite as a firecracker and imposing a sense of composure.

My new third addition from hence forth shall be:
- No discussion of circumcision.

I'm silly and that is all, laughter is appreciated, donations accepted I'm a charity case in itself folks hardy har har .

[shimei]

Hi Mark,

With respect to the mods post (acknowledging TheLastSuperman), I will not continue the discussion with regard to politics, religion, or circumcision. I will, however, address your responses:

Originally Posted by MarkFL

That makes no sense. Your rejection of the principle of evolution makes it no less an indisputable fact. If fact goes against faith, which is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking, then it is faith that must be discarded.

Please clarify, because your argument seemingly equates to a teacher standing in front of a class saying Simeon says.

and so the opinions of medical experts is what interests me here. They have done the science....

I care what climatologists, who are the experts in the field, have to say.

Mark, you have provided a definition of faith as: "purposeful suspension of critical thinking", and then suggested "it is faith that must be discarded".

Are you suggesting that critical thinking is not suspended by your faith in scientist?

Note: I am not disputing micro-evolution. Darwinian and Macro-evolution is not science, but rather an assumption. That is, unless you can provide proof "observational data (who was there to witness these events?) and replication (repeat the theory of evolution to verify the facts) to support "their" narration?

Before turning to the fossil record, I am willing to dispute the narration of stick figures, and I will suggest that a person's worldview has a great impact and influence on objectivity of the facts.

In conclusion, I respectively suggest redefining faith as: an action based on belief sustained by confidence. Another words, your responses (action) are based on scientists (belief) and of other men (confidence) performing proper scientific method.

Shim

[MarkFL]

This thread is about circumcision (about which I have already stated my opinion), so again, let's just let this thread get back on topic.

[ForceHSS]

Originally Posted by MarkFL

This thread is about circumcision (about which I have already stated my opinion), so again, let's just let this thread get back on topic.

If you want to talk about circumcision you can't leave God out of it as it was his commandment for his people to be circumcised so you can't have one without the other this is all I have to say about this as I find posts like this always start a fight. If this was a born again site this post would of been deleted a long time ago

[TheLastSuperman]

Originally Posted by shimei

Hi Mark,

With respect to the mods post (acknowledging TheLastSuperman), I will not continue the discussion with regard to politics, religion, or circumcision.

Shim you took that the wrong way no worries but to explain: I was being silly and there is no rule saying you can't discuss these things here so please feel free.

Sometimes the language barrier for those who speak ESL makes it hard for my comedic nature to come across as-intended that is all (lol) .

[shimei]

Originally Posted by LostInCyberLand

I have to say the more I read about the horror stories of what can go wrong with circumcision the more I find myself agreeing that circumcision of men and women is completely immoral and unethical.

When I read that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is fast tracking male circumcision in Africa, as a false promise to stop AIDS, I can't help but wonder about the ethics of all this when everyone knows that circumcision doesn't stop AIDS, only a condom does. So why not use a condom and put the money spent on unnecessary and costly circumcisions to better use?

A quick read through of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and I came across this passage which says how they are using a barbaric device the PrePex/ Shang Ring to facilitate this surgery in countries with a shortage of trained health professionals, with the WHO justifying the use of this device because it is "easy to use". To my mind it is a stone age device that has no place in the modern world.

I have a few questions, and comments, anybody feel free to answer or respond.

1) From where do morals and ethics originate? Who sets the standards of morality (e.g., society, God etc).

2) Are you standing firm LostinCyberland that only a condom prevents AIDS? Are you against educating people on the subject of morality, e.g., monogamous relationships, and b) are you for/or against enforcing any standard of morality upon those that disagree? Note: I am not suggesting only monogamous relationships are moral at this point.

3) Is a stone age device limited only to your example, or would "rubber" qualify when using it to promote immoral behavior? To put it bluntly, do you consider it both unethical or immoral to have sexual relations with a close evolutionary relative (monkey), or is it "right" by the use of a "modern" device such as a condom? Or using Mark's standard of consent, if only the monkey consents through certain gesturing, will the modern condom prove ethical and moral?

What interests me is your view on circumcision. From a religious perspective, the sign of a covenant (circumcision) had no saving power in itself, as though any such superficial identification could, but rather it was the inward reality to which it aligned and corresponded to.

Shim

[BirdOPrey5]

I say let the parents circumcise if they want to, I'm glad my parents chose to have me circumcised.

I also say if you have a problem with the way someone spends their foundation's money, then you start your own foundation and do what you want to do.

[MarkFL]

Originally Posted by BirdOPrey5

...I'm glad my parents chose to have me circumcised...

I'm sure many, if not most men, feel the same way, Joe. And while I do not resent my parents at all for making the same decision when I was an infant (as it was just something the vast majority did here in the U.S. at that time), I would rather have been allowed to make the choice for myself. But, something like that cannot be (satisfactorily) undone, and so life goes on.

[LostInCyberLand]

Why does God have to be involved? I am talking about the rights and safety of children here.

God doesn't have any place in anything now, it's a personal belief that is not to be pushed onto others. When you have your autonomous humanoid robot walking around doing house chores one day will you honestly look at it and still believe God is of any relevance? The truth is we humans are the gods. Recently RMIT was able to simulate the human memory in microchips, do you honestly believe AI is not proof we are the Gods around here? Instead of processing in binary computers of the future will now be able to process in analog the way humans do. https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-new...g-term-memory/

I understand how religion is a comforting influence for many people, even I feel it's comfort in a way through traditions such as Christmas, and I have no problem with people having their beliefs, as long as they don't push things like MC onto people because of those beliefs, why can't you just live and let live. If the boy wants to get circumcised let him make the choice when he is able to consent, why force it on him when it could harm him.

I think climate change is a bad example to use, it has as much junk science used to justify it as MC. The weather forecasters can't even accurately predict the weather from day to day and expect us to believe their doom and gloom predictions. I am sceptical about scientists in as much as I have realized they are very manipulative in the way they interpret and talk about their data. Remember it is also doctors and scientists, supposedly logical people, who are championing MC. I am doing Engineering at University at the moment, and all I can say is having a University degree means nothing. I know that because I am not the smartest person around, and am not particularly good at maths, in fact I am horrible at it, yet I qualified to get into Engineering, mainly due to determination and silly idea that somehow doing Engineering would open up many doors for me. Truth is it doesn't, go into finance or business if you want to make money, not Engineering.

Some of the brightest students are the most illogical people I have ever known, intelligence doesn't give you a monopoly on rationality. It's dangerous just to follow what anyone says just because they have a degree. Universities these days have become businesses, and people working in them have so many competing interests that nothing they do is without a political or religious stance sadly. Universities have become corrupted. The alarmist climate change message is a symptom of this corruption.

I am not saying I am a climate skeptic, I think we need to transition to a green economy, but I think we should do so over a 100-200 year period, when the technology becomes more viable than today, and not get all alarmist about things, as that doesn't help anyone.

I don't understand how someone typing away on a computer or phone can honestly say God has a place here. If we let the people who believe in their Gods rule the world that we would have either killed or thrown Turing in jail much sooner for being a homosexual and he never would have invented the computer. To me like MC the whole anti-homosexual argument is again about taking away sexual pleasure, as any logical person would question why God put the male g spot where he did. You can't stifle nature's honestly lol.

Honestly seeing junk science used by influential governments and the international community to justify MC is actually quite scary to me. It makes me open my eyes and see all the deception out there.

All I ask any religious person who thinks God has a place in this argument to do, is consider for a moment how they would feel if their son, or grandson, underwent MC and ended up botched and having to pee out of a catheter for the rest of his life.

--------------- Added [DATE]1435910388[/DATE] at [TIME]1435910388[/TIME] ---------------

Originally Posted by shimei

I have a few questions, and comments, anybody feel free to answer or respond.

1) From where do morals and ethics originate? Who sets the standards of morality (e.g., society, God etc).

2) Are you standing firm LostinCyberland that only a condom prevents AIDS? Are you against educating people on the subject of morality, e.g., monogamous relationships, and b) are you for/or against enforcing any standard of morality upon those that disagree? Note: I am not suggesting only monogamous relationships are moral at this point.

3) Is a stone age device limited only to your example, or would "rubber" qualify when using it to promote immoral behavior? To put it bluntly, do you consider it both unethical or immoral to have sexual relations with a close evolutionary relative (monkey), or is it "right" by the use of a "modern" device such as a condom? Or using Mark's standard of consent, if only the monkey consents through certain gesturing, will the modern condom prove ethical and moral?

What interests me is your view on circumcision. From a religious perspective, the sign of a covenant (circumcision) had no saving power in itself, as though any such superficial identification could, but rather it was the inward reality to which it aligned and corresponded to.

Shim

I rambled on without reading all the posts. Will try my best to answer your questions. I don't mean to bring up these types of esoteric topics. Won't do so in future. Sorry.

1) I think the state religions originally set the ethics and morals society followed at a time when people did not know how the world worked religion provided an answer. But now science provides that answer and so has more substance as a platform to base our ethical decision making on. But then again society is made up of people, so in a way it really is people who set these morals and ethics and create these religions. I think now we have democratic governance around the world it is people who are setting ethics and morals. We thought a lobotomy was ethical not so long ago, and now we would never consider it ethical.

Democratic governance, self determination, a comfortable lifestyle, is what people value now. I would say science could be what sets ethics and morals, but science is not always for me a good thing to use to define what we should and shouldn't do, as after all science also supported the use of the lobotomy as a cure once.

I think the innate philosophy of live and let live, and try and not cause harm to other people, is what sets morals and ethics these days.

2) I am standing firm that a condom is more effective at preventing AIDS than MC. I think educating people from a first person perspective is the way to go, I don't see how educating from any type of relationship perspective has anything to do with AIDS, other than promoting a religious idealization of what a relationship is like. To me a lot of AIDS charity these days is all just about promoting religion and making money, so sad.

I am not for forcing my standard of morals onto anyone. But when I see people being harmed by something I will bring attention to the issue by stating facts and my point of view. People can make their own decision if they want to take away anything from what I have said or not.

3)Uh I don't get this point at all. What has the implementation by a non surgically trained nurse of the PrePex and Shang Ring in cutting off circulation to a mans penis to remove his foreskin and leaving him open to all sorts of possible dangers in any way related to someone having intercourse with a monkey?!

My view on circumcision is that it was always only ever about control. Control through religious guilt perpetuated by the harsh desert religions of the middle east. Our modern day society then tried to justify MC through science, and that failed, because the science was junk science and not taking into account all the facts. Now they are still trying to justify it because it is a very lucrative 1 billion dollar a year industry. It's capitalism at it's saddest.

Look at China, a civilization that has been around for thousands of years. In China they do not practice circumcision or MC. And guess what, you never hear about reports coming out of men in China having any problems with their penises than men from anywhere else. If not being circumcised is so detrimental to mens health, why is it people in China have had no problems going natural for all these thousands of years? This evidence alone should settle the whole MC argument once and for all.

The irony is that China manufactures a lot of these MC devices.

I can see that in 50 years time we will look back on MC in the same way as we do a lobotomy today.

[ForceHSS]

Originally Posted by LostInCyberLand

Why does God have to be involved? I am talking about the rights and safety of children here.

God doesn't have any place in anything now

God will always be, even if you think he is not. The Lord is my savior so please don't put him down remember on judgement day all sinners will be judged