Political Crossfire Forums

eXploiTeD · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 8084

LostSoul3412 wrote: eXploiTeD wrote: Law isn't based on emotional appeals - you said it yourself.

Exactly, which is why there isn't a law requiring circumcision.

Okay, good rebuttal, but you failed to explain why you are appealing to emotion in order to argue your point. In terms of worth to this conversation, saying that "God wants us to get circumsized" is pretty... well... worthless. It has nothing to do with anything, and certainly nothing to do with debate.

Like I said, I might as well say I want homosexuals to be stoned to death, since it fulfills God's Law.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

Abner Doon wrote:
Prove the infant does want it. How can a boy that by your words "cannot process pain" (although that is false), possibly want for something other than breastmilk?

instinct.

now prove the infant wants it.

Timmytour · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 6863

Abner Doon wrote:

No skin off your nose obviously. Skin off your sons penis because of your decision to scar him to 'unify him with a deity.'

Keep it civil and factual please. I have not had my son circumcised and nor have I any religious inclination that would lead me to arrange for it to be done :-|

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

Abner Doon wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Abner Doon wrote: Why must the boy be forced to have an operation he doesn't want?

Prove the infant doesn't want it.

Prove the infant does want it.

:tsk:

I'm not making any claim, you are. You have the burden of proof.

eXploiTeD · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 8084

I'd have to say, both sides of this argument are being completely dishonest and inaccurate. Weakest debate ever.

CIRCUMCISION CAUSES PAIN. That is why you need to use an anesthetic - to mask that pain. Instead of just suggesting a painkiller, you're both going on reality-denial sprees, claiming that newborns can't feel pain and that "babies don't want breastmilk because you can't prove it."

:roll:

Abner Doon · Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Posts: 294

The Comrade wrote: Abner Doon wrote:
Prove the infant does want it. How can a boy that by your words "cannot process pain" (although that is false), possibly want for something other than breastmilk?

instinct.

now prove the infant wants it.

Prove that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream? You can't prove it, but an infant doesn't want to experience unnessesary pain, so most likely, the infant does not want the circumcision.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

eXploiTeD wrote: In terms of worth to this conversation, saying that "God wants us to get circumsized" is pretty... well... worthless. It has nothing to do with anything, and certainly nothing to do with debate.

The purpose of that argument is to counter the claim that the purpose of circumcision is to "harm" the baby.

eXploiTeD wrote: Like I said, I might as well say I want homosexuals to be stoned to death, since it fulfills God's Law.

Murder?

You don't need to stone homosexuals to be a part of God's promise.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

Abner Doon wrote:

Prove that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream? You can't prove it, but an infant doesn't want to experience unnessesary pain, so most likely, the infant does not want the circumcision.

you just compared opinion in the form of cognitive thought to circumcision with a being that lacks proper cognitive thought.

and as exploited has pointed out, they use anesthesia, so prove to me that the infant doesn't want it(since you're the one claiming it doesn't)

Abner Doon · Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Posts: 294

The purpose of this argument is actually to answer Should the parent be able to circumcise their baby and inflict their will and pain onto the infant.

Timmytour · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 6863

Abner Doon wrote: The Comrade wrote: Abner Doon wrote:
Prove the infant does want it. How can a boy that by your words "cannot process pain" (although that is false), possibly want for something other than breastmilk?

instinct.

now prove the infant wants it.

Prove that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream? You can't prove it, but an infant doesn't want to experience unnessesary pain, so most likely, the infant does not want the circumcision.

Babies get injected against various ailments which must casue them pain. I assume you wouldn´t be against this as you would view it beneficial to the baby´s future wellbeing.

If a parent believes that circumcision is beneficial to its baby´s future wellbeing, who are you or who is anyone to argue against them?

Abner Doon · Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Posts: 294

If the infant wanted it, he wouldn't have to be strapped down in order to have the operation.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

Abner Doon wrote: The purpose of this argument is actually to answer Should the parent be able to circumcise their baby and inflict their will and pain onto the infant.

parents are inflicting their own pain on an infant?

you've just stated that parents circumcise their young because of some sadomasochistic reason.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

Abner Doon wrote: If the infant wanted it, he wouldn't have to be strapped down in order to have the operation.

some people need to be strapped down to sleep. does that mean they don't want to sleep?

try again please.

poweRob · Joined: 14 Jul 2004 Posts: 22713

Moved to Society.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

Abner Doon wrote: Should the parent be able to... inflict their will and pain onto the infant.

You're right.

You're absolutely right.

Parent's have no right to inflict pain, or their will upon an infant.

Because of that, we should outlaw child birth.

eXploiTeD · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 8084

LostSoul3412 wrote: eXploiTeD wrote: In terms of worth to this conversation, saying that "God wants us to get circumsized" is pretty... well... worthless. It has nothing to do with anything, and certainly nothing to do with debate.

The purpose of that argument is to counter the claim that the purpose of circumcision is to "harm" the baby.

Then counter the argument using honesty rather than irrelevancy.

People get their kids circumsized for a variety of reasons, most of which are not borne from medical necessity. They do it for aesthetic reasons, personal reasons and religious reasons. All of these reasons are valid because it is their decision to make. That's all you have to say.

Quote: Murder?

You don't need to stone homosexuals to be a part of God's promise.

Leviticus 20:13 wrote: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Okay, maybe not stoning, but certainly murder.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

eXploiTeD wrote: Okay, maybe not stoning, but certainly murder.

If this were a theocracy, you'd be right.

mODULAR mAN · Joined: 13 Oct 2006 Posts: 852 Location: censored

Comrade Dave wrote: Staying as mature as I possibly can on the matter, it's been proven that there are some hygene problems associated with keeping your foreskin. This isn't to say that foreskin equals disease, infection, or the like but most people have their children circumcised for cleanliness issues.

I think this is true, but it's based on faulty data. There really isn't much disease associated with uncirc's. It's primarily a religious reason that has found reasons for it after the fact. (As if a god would need you to have your foreskin cut! :roll: )

eXploiTeD · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 8084

LostSoul3412 wrote: eXploiTeD wrote: Okay, maybe not stoning, but certainly murder.

If this were a theocracy, you'd be right.

The point is, your arguments are being made for all the wrong reasons, and in fact have nothing to do with the actual merits or disadvantages of circumcision.

I take fault with how you've chosen to make your points, in other words.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Bonobo wrote: No and here's why...

Would I be allowed to tatoo a symbol on my child at birth if it were a religous culture of mine? I sincerely hope not. Speaking as someone with an orthodox Christian father who wanted me circumcised and a catholic mother who convinced him to let me do it if I wanted to when I was older, I'm wholly against forceably labelling your child for life as something he may not want to be.

Of course you'd be able to tattoo a symbol on your child at birth, at least legally. I'm not sure you'd get a tattoist to agree to do it for you, though.