- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
Religion is no excuse for child abuse.
Correct. Good thing circumcision is no more child abuse than braces and ear piercings.
Religion is no excuse for child abuse.
Forcibly converting infidels appears to be a requirement of Islam, that doesn't mean that we let them do it.
Correct. Good thing circumcision is no more child abuse than braces and ear piercings.
You do understand the difference between a parental right to decide medical and religious issues for a child and war against other peoples, right?
Ear piercings are child abuse. But at least they are to a less sensitive part of the body, fairly easily reversible, and usually done when the child is older. So they are not nearly as bad as genital mutilation.
The comparison to braces is inane. Braces are corrective appliances, almost always installed when the child is old enough to give consent or at least know what is going on, reversible, and most importantly, done for a medical reason.
They have nothing in common with penis mutilation done to helpless infants because of archaic religious customs.
Parental rights end before abuse.
Ear piercing is child abuse? No wonder people do not take you seriously!
You honestly believe they only apply braces after a child turns 18?
The removal of an unneeded piece of skin is mutilation!
That's not a very cogent counter-argument.
No, that's why I said "or at least know what is going on". Do you not even read posts before you respond to them?
The most important difference between braces and genital mutilation, however, is that one is medically necessary and the other is not.
"Unneeded" is debatable at best. There are lots of parts of the body that aren't strictly needed, but we don't allow parents to chop them out of their newborn infants.
It matches the statement you made rather nicely.
Most people who get braces do NOT get them for medical reasons.
We both know you knew this before you made that statement, since it is as obvious as water being wet.
You still have not provided even an attempt at justifying how sticking a painful needle in the ear of an infant is not child abuse. The fact that it is culturally accepted doesn't make it any less abusive. The fact that you use childish tactics like playing to the audience doesn't either.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/5/1312.abstractConclusions. Keloids are more likely to develop when ears are pierced after age 11 than before age 11. This observation holds true for patients with a family history of keloids. Given the difficulty and cost of treating keloids, prevention remains the best approach. Patients with a family history of keloids should consider not having their ears pierced. If this is not an option, then piercing during early childhood, rather than later childhood, may be advisable.
You'll have to back up that claim. Everyone I know who has gotten orthodontic treatment for their kids has done so because of medical reasons. If done for cosmetic reasons, it is at the behest of the child, and at an age when most are capable of making rational decisions.
Additional Information
- While orthodontics are commonly fitted for cosmetic reasons, braces are necessary in some situations.
I've never heard of anyone forcing their kids to get braces because of "commands" written in a book.
In no way is this at all comparable to genital mutilation of a newborn.
Making false comments about what I believe doesn't serve to substantiate your unsubstantiated claims.
Unless you are saying the AAP supports child abuse, you have to admit your personal view and reality do not align.
Agreed, good thing circumcision is not genital mutiliation of a newborn.
I believe this practice would quickly disappear if it could only be performed on a consenting adult. Do you want the best and most sensitive part of your penis cut off? Oh sure, Doc, hack away.
Ear piercing is child abuse? No wonder people do not take you seriously!
This. For the life of me I can't understand why progressives have such an burning attachment to foreskins. Are there really men out there so self-centered that a significant concern is wishing their penises were even more sensitive?Oh come off it. It's not like it's female circumcision. The child will still be fully capable of a happy, healthy, enjoyable sex life. If you're somehow worried about pain, you can request or require that the mohel use an analgesic.
There's not much real medical need for circumcision, but that doesn't mean there's any reason to ban the practice, either.
For the life of me I can't understand why progressives have such an burning attachment to foreskins.
Yeah . . . See, I'm not buying that the side that wants to control what size soft drink one can purchase and fights the school voucher system tooth and nail is all about freedom. You guys have an emotional attachment to little boys' foreskins that borders on fetishistic.Well, I can't understand why conservatives, who claim to value freedom and self-determination, are so in favor of allowing someone to make a permanent, unnecessary modification to the genitals of another individual for no valid reason whatsoever, with no consent -- nor even anesthesia.
(Actually, that's not true. I can understand it -- most conservatives only pay lip service to the concept of freedom.)
It being less bad than FGM doesn't make it right. Your inability to understand the issue doesn't make it go away, either.
Yeah . . . See, I'm not buying that the side that wants to control what size soft drink one can purchase and fights the school voucher system tooth and nail is all about freedom.
You guys have an emotional attachment to little boys' foreskins that borders on fetishistic.
Dang, and here I was betting it was the abortion reference that would do it!Small problem here: I spoke out against the soft drink law and I favor school vouchers.
Nice try. But what we really have is the opposite juxtaposition: someone who is willing to get up in arms over the size of soda he's allowed to buy, but has no problem with innocent babies being mutilated because of religious superstitions.
I have an emotional attachment to liberty, including the right of each person not to have surgery on their private parts for no reason without their consent.
And while we're on the subject, thanks to that fetish comment, I'd have to say that you're a dick.
Yeah . . . See, I'm not buying that the side that wants to control what size soft drink one can purchase and fights the school voucher system tooth and nail is all about freedom. You guys have an emotional attachment to little boys' foreskins that borders on fetishistic.
If it makes you feel any better, you still have the freedom to tear the little boy into pieces with no consent -- nor even anesthesia -- as long as you do so before birth. So foreskins still have more protection than does life.
I'm not saying the AAP supports child abuse. They don't oppose it because it is relatively minor child abuse that is socially accepted.
Regardless, this is not about ear piercings. It is about genital mutilation.
Back to your usual word games. Not interested.
Unnecessary surgery is mutilation. If you want to do it to yourself, be my guest. You have no right to do it to anyone else.
I believe this practice would quickly disappear if it could only be performed on a consenting adult. Do you want the best and most sensitive part of your penis cut off? Oh sure, Doc, hack away.
Germans were never big fans of Jews historically, so it makes sense.