Won every spelling bee I ever heerd hum...
Reminds me:
In a terrible automobile accident, two men and a woman are killed. Their next conscious moment, they find themselves before the proverbial Nacreous Portal.
St. Petey calls the first guy up, and explains:
The Big Guy says i let people in too easily, so i'm supposed to adminster a test, but don't worry, it's eady.
Oh no, i'm terrible at tests, i always choke . . .
Hey, don't worry, i'm not making it difficult . . . spell God . . .
You're puttin' me on . . .
No, really, spell God . . .
OK . . . G-O-D
'K, have a seat over there.
He calls the next man up, and explains the new cirucmstances . . .
Hey, no sweat, i'm good at tests, fire away . . .
Spell God . . .
You're kiddin' me . . .
No, spell God . . .
G-O-D . . .
Thanks, have a seat over there.
Then he calls the woman up, and explains the new rules to here, and she just explodes:
What . . . i'm so sick of this, all my life i've had to prove myself, and now i get here, and it's the same old swindle all over again, why i oughta . . .
Hey, hey ! ! ! It's nothing big, both of those guys took the test, right guys?
They assure her that this is the case, so she relents:
Alright, so what's your stupid little test?
Spell Czechoslovakia . . .
extra medium wrote:All else being equal, I've heard that females can potentially gain more physical pleasure from the circumsized.
Hey, now there's a concept... how about the ethics of modifying an infants penis so it will have a better chance of "pleasing" a woman in 17 years.
Way back when I was expecting my baby, one afternoon I went to browse the parenting books at a Barnes & Noble. I was in my 8th month or so, and quite obviously pregnant. An man in his 60's (I think) started talking to me about the various parenting books; it all seemed innocent enough. Then he asked me about whether, if I had a boy, I was going to have my child circumcized!
I abruptly ended the conversation. I knew from the ultrasound that I was carrying a girl (it was really clear), so it wasn't an issue. Nevertheless, I was deeply offended by this apparent 'fanatic'.
That is a rather personal question to ask a total stranger.
smt wrote:Ok, so how about the ethical argument. Here you have a procedure where there are some risks and some benefits. Weighing those, no major medical organization in the world says that the benefits outweigh the risks. Shouldn't the weight of evidence for circumcising be on the shoulders of the medical community? By circumcising an infant, you are making an irreversible decision without medical cause.
We are not talking about a tattoo or piercing the ears here... you are talking about taking a knife to an infants genitals and removing a large chuck of sensitive skin. You are changing the way the male sex organ was designed to function. You are removing the "gliding action" of the shaft skin/foreskin and you are leaving the glans exposed to the elements.
Doctors are supposed to live by a code of ethics: First do no harm. A doctor's first level of responsibility is to the needs of the patient (child) and THEN to the desires of the parent. Don't you think that a child has an inherent right to be genitally intact unless there is overwhelming evidence showing otherwise?
This is rather confusing. There are actually a lot of issues being introduced here, so let me see if I can simplify matters. Below is a checklist. Indicate your agreement or disagreement by marking the appropriate space.
1. Infant circumcision is unethical because it involves an unnecessary medical procedure.
Agree [ ] Disagree [ ]
2. Infant circumcision is unethical because it is irreversible.
Agree [ ] Disagree [ ]
3. Infant circumcision is unethical because the infant cannot consent.
Agree [ ] Disagree [ ]
4. Infant circumcision is unethical because it is a painful procedure.
Agree [ ] Disagree [ ]
5. Infant circumcision is unethical because the risks outweigh the benefits.
Agree [ ] Disagree [ ]
6. Infant circumcision is unethical specifically because it affects the genitalia.
Agree [ ] Disagree [ ]
7. Infant circumcision is unethical because it alters the basic function of a body part.
Agree [ ] Disagree [ ]
8. Infant circumcision is unethical because it just grosses me out.
Agree [ ] Disagree [ ]
You talking to smt there, joe, or all of us?
Right. Simple answer, FU(K NO!!
9. Infant circumcision is unethical because it is in exactly the same category as forced female circumcision at puberty.
Agree[ ] Disagree[ ]
For you people who are so stridently opposed to circumcision I ask would you be for or against legislation to make it illegal?
I am against circumcision of infants but would also be against making it illegal (except if given solid proof that there are real risks connected with it).
1. Infant circumcision is unethical because it involves an unnecessary medical procedure.
Agree [X] Disagree [ ] "unnecessary" because the benefits do not outweigh the risks.
2. Infant circumcision is unethical because it is irreversible.
Agree [ ] Disagree [X] Specifically because a procedure is irreversible does not make it unethical. If the medical benefits outweighed the risks then an irreversible procedure may not be unethical. In this case, #2 is relevant because circumcision is irreversible and teh benefits do not outweigh the risks.
3. Infant circumcision is unethical because the infant cannot consent.
Agree [X] Disagree [ ] Sure, I would argue that the parent's legal right of consent is unethical in the approval of a medical procedure that has no medical indication.
4. Infant circumcision is unethical because it is a painful procedure.
Agree [ ] Disagree [X] I never stated that.
5. Infant circumcision is unethical because the risks outweigh the benefits.
Agree [ ] Disagree [X] I never said the risks outweigh the benefits. Although I could give you an example where a major medical organization does say that the risks outweigh the benefits.
6. Infant circumcision is unethical specifically because it affects the genitalia.
Agree [ ] Disagree [X] Not "specifically" the genitalia. It just happens that circumcision applies to the genitalia and it is valid to discuss how the genitals are affected by circumcision when doing a "benefits/risks" assessment.
7. Infant circumcision is unethical because it alters the basic function of a body part.
Agree [X] Disagree [ ] In this case, yes. When taken in the context of the lack of medical benefits and the severity of the change in function.
8. Infant circumcision is unethical because it just grosses me out.
Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Since I didn't state this, I'm not sure if you are referring to me or you. FWIW, circumcision does not "gross me out".
agreeing with all the above, i would add the following (assuming it has not already been mentioned):
The foreskin serves the purpose of protecting the sensitivity of the head of the penis; this sensitivity is lost when the foreskin is removed, reducing the
depth of feeling during intercourse.
The practice was initiated by religious elders, the motive for such being open to speculation.
Old men, preoccupied with minimizing any enjoyment to be had from sexual activities, especially by those more likely to be in a position to 'have' sexual activities!
Fill in the blanks.............
Rayvatrap wrote:ok, I can't help it anymore - what is Cubbies?
What do you mean by it?
Cubbies?
The world-famous, Chicago Cubs, who'll be playing in the World Series this coming Fall!
au1929 wrote:It is performed on an 8 day old infant. Which is very much different than an adult. I believe the Moslems do it when the child has reached the age of 12 or 13.[ Not sure]
True. Also, the baby is frequently given a very small dose of wine/alcohol.
BoGoWo wrote:agreeing with all the above, i would add the following (assuming it has not already been mentioned):
The foreskin serves the purpose of protecting the sensitivity of the head of the penis; this sensitivity is lost when the foreskin is removed, reducing the
depth of feeling during intercourse.
The practice was initiated by religious elders, the motive for such being open to speculation.
Old men, preoccupied with minimizing any enjoyment to be had from sexual activities, especially by those more likely to be in a position to 'have' sexual activities!
Fill in the blanks.............
Not according to the Biblical account of Abraham, who incidentally performed his own circumscion.
au1929 wrote:For you people who are so stridently opposed to circumcision I ask would you be for or against legislation to make it illegal?
How could it be made illegal, when it's part of a religious ceremony? Would baptism also be made illegal, because of possible micro-organisms in the nonsterile baptismal water?
Miller
I did not ask if it can be made be made illegal. I was asking whether you would wish to see it made illegal. As for can it or can it not be legislated. With the creep of government interference into our lives it is not inconceivable. One never knows the politically correct do gooders may get involved.
