Children's foreheads slashed in Muslim saint's name

[IslaScotts]

Originally Posted by John Scott

No, one harms the baby, the other is done for medical reasons for the benefit of the baby, like cutting the umbilical cord.

Again with rape scenarios. We aren't talking about rape. We are talking about scarification.

And let me help you on some medical stuff. If you do NOT cut the umbilical cord, the baby will die. Because that cord is connected to something called a placenta, the placenta is birthed after the baby, and ceases it's purpose. If this decaying placenta and cord is left attached, the baby's blood and skin will get infected and most certainly die. Cutting the cord is life or death.

Ok so, uncircumcised men die from an infection if they don't have their foreskin removed. Holy crap.. I better let one of my ex-boyfriends know that it is a medical emergency that he get his foreskin removed. Circumcision is convenience AND religious... ask Jewish people about that religious part... There is no medical reason for removing normal foreskin. It is just more convenient for the caretaker (parents) and for the young boy when he is learning to take care of his penis. The babies do not ask their parents to remove skin from their penises, and no doctor has told any parent that normal circumcision is necessary. I know lots of parents with boys.. and I got to be in the delivery room for a few of them. They were given no help in making that decision because they are told it is a convenience to be circumcised, nothing more.

So again... convenience for a parent to take care of their childrens penises is an ok reason to take a knife, cut their skin, and leave a scar.. but doing it in honor of a saint is not.

Again.. you have a problem with the reason. Convenience is more valid than paying homage to a saint.

[John Scott]

Dude, circumstision is exactly that, it's children's mutilation. For non-believers there's no difference between mutilating children's weeners, or this practise.

Ferre, this is a bit tiresome. We have been over this ad nauseum. You, and a few quacks, think that it is child mutilation, but I have posted links showing that it is medically sound and a benefit to the boy. If you want to carry on this conversation, do so in the circumcision thread.

Funny how Christians

I remember when you used to be an open minded person. I miss those days.

Circumcision, in this day and age, has very little to do with Christianity. Most circumcised men are not Christian. Your fanatic hatred of Christianity is absolutely spoiling your ability to debate rationally.

[Ferre]

Dude, do you really believe that all circumstision is done by doctors in a medical setting?

It's barbaric, and a religious practise. Period.

That it has become kind of a habit in *some* countries doesn't change the fact that it is a religious practise, and the links you provided claiming that it had health benefits can be easily dismissed by other research that shows it harms boys health. Ther are numerous doctors and scientist who condemn this practise.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Ferre

[/COLOR]
It's barbaric, and a religious practise. Period.

Men with an intact foreskin must take special care to move it up and down and clean inside the covered areas to avoid odours or more serious effects from a build-up of material. Thus with a circumcised penis fewer bacteria and germs will surface that can affect your sexual health as well as his.

http://www.ivillage.co.uk/relationsh...158456,00.html

Where is God mentioned?

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

http://www.ivillage.co.uk/relationsh...158456,00.html

Where is God mentioned?

All it says is that people should wash (clean, as in hygienic care) their weeners, and when they are to lazy to do that, circumstision could be of help to prevent bacteria to prosper on it.

I have 3 boys, none of them is mutilated and they have never in their lives had any infections or other crap, and I never had it, my brother never had it, my father never had any problems, and most of the population in my country didn't. Circumstision is for lazy people who don't have hygiene standards and for religious nutters.

Of course you don't agree, because it is your culture to do it, many Ghanese people don't agree with me when I say that women's circomstision is barbaric for the same reasons.

[kristeejo]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Your fanatic hatred of Christianity is absolutely spoiling your ability to debate rationally.

Favorite post of the day


would've been better had you said hatred of christianity and america, but you did good here son.

xo ferre

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by kristeejo

would've been better had you said hatred of christianity and america.

Correction, not 'hatred' at all, I don't hate Christianity or America, it's just that both disgust me by times. Disgust is not hatred.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Correction, not 'hatred' at all, I don't hate Christianity or America, it's just that both disgust me by times. Disgust is not hatred.

I'm pretty sure it's way beyond hatred.

[Ferre]

Of course "normal" is subjective. But you are the one that brought up that standard with your statement that "people who are disgusted".

I think that you wil find more than 'a few' people who are disgusted by child mutilation John. Just as you wil find more than a few people who are disgusted by torture, rape, incest or other practices that are not accepted in most cultures and which imply an enormous invasion of a person's physical privacy. Or maybe it is 'only fanatics like myself', as you put it, who are disgusted by those things but if that's the case I'm in the company of a couple of billion 'fanatics like myself' all over the planet.

[John Scott]

Dude, do you really believe that all circumstision is done by doctors in a medical setting?

Did I ever say that? Please quote the text where I said that.

[menj]

This is not an Islamic act. It is simply a bloodied act of violence, pure and simple. It is a Shia practice on the 10th of Muharram known as the matam, they beat themselves black and blue and all bloodied while at the same time crying out "Ya Ali! Ya Husayn!". This is of course a practice that has no basis in Islam and the Shi'ites only constitute less than 10% of the Muslim world.

By the way, the vast majority of Muslims (the Ahl Sunnah wal Jamaah) regard Husayn the grandson of the Prophet (P) very highly but we do not beat ourselves black and blue on the day of his death, nor do we regard him as some sort of "saint" (there is no sainthood in Islam!).

- MENJ

[IslaScotts]

Originally Posted by menj

This is not an Islamic act. It is simply a bloodied act of violence, pure and simple. It is a Shia practice on the 10th of Muharram known as the matam, they beat themselves black and blue and all bloodied while at the same time crying out "Ya Ali! Ya Husayn!". This is of course a practice that has no basis in Islam and the Shi'ites only constitute less than 10% of the Muslim world.

By the way, the vast majority of Muslims (the Ahl Sunnah wal Jamaah) regard Husayn the grandson of the Prophet (P) very highly but we do not beat ourselves black and blue on the day of his death, nor do we regard him as some sort of "saint" (there is no sainthood in Islam!).

- MENJ

We never said it was an Islamic act, nor did the article. To this particular village/community it is religious. As far as the sainthood thing.. I am just going by what the artcile said, they said it was in praise of a saint. So if you have a problem with the information given in the article I suggest you contact the writer of the article and voice your concerns over the correctness of it. I understand you are trying to teach us, but I don't think you can speak for this particular community. And I am almost certain that no one debating here is prejudice against Islam or Muslims in general. I have faith in most v7n contributers in this fact, as you might have read in this thread we haven't mentioned anything against Muslims or Islam. We are merely debating the act. But thanks for the info!

[John Scott]

many Ghanese people don't agree with me when I say that women's circomstision is barbaric for the same reasons.

Really? What is the stated medical benefit of female circumcision and how many Harvard doctors recommend it?

None?

Yeah, I thought so.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Really? What is the stated medical benefit of female circumcision and how many Harvard doctors recommend it?

None?

Yeah, I thought so.

Sure, but I can find other professors, even Nobel price laureates who are against male circumstision.

http://montagunocircpetition.org/vie...eid=248&type=2

George David Wald, 1906-1997, was a Nobel Laureate, Higgins Professor of Biology at Harvard University, and a promoter of progressive
political and social causes.

Wald wrote in 1975 a so-far unpublished essay entitled "CIRCUMCISION".
About circumcision he says, among many other things, "I'm against it."

Dr. Wald was a member of the Professional Advisory Board of the
Circumcision Resource Center at http://circumcision.org from
December 22, 1992, until his death on April 12, 1997.

Or another Nobel price laureate;
http://stopinfantcircumcision.org/crick-wald.htm

Francis H.C. Crick, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine 1962

Your arguments hold no grounds bro, even professors that are Nobel price laureates do not agree with circumstisions and fail to see any medical benefits that justify the practise of mutilating babys without their authorisation.

I don't mind if people decide for themselves to mutilate their bodies, but doing it to babies is barbaric.

There is no medical nessetity whatsoever to mutilate young boys, none.

A 'benefit' does not become a 'nessetity' or can justify the mutilation of babies when there is only a hygienic argument, and that's about the only argument that is used pro circumstision, apart from the religious one.

Again, teach your children simple basic hygiene rules and they'll never have any problems.

But you don't need to agree with me, all I want you to understand is that those religious rites like cutting forheads and penisses are both considered to be barbaric by cultures that do not practise either one of them.

[John Scott]

Just face the fact that there are people who are disgusted by both those practises, is that so hard to graps?

Very, very few people, and by no means "normal" people.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Very, very few people, and by no means "normal" people.

Dude, you are getting into the absurd statements, you seem to forget that only 10% of the world population actually performs this practise, and that if it would be perceived as 'normal' by the rest, those stats would be much higher.

'Normal' is very subjective bro. what's 'normal' in one culture, doesn't have to be considered as 'normal' in another. Statistical facts show that the huge majority in the world doesn't think it's all that 'normal' to mutilate children, for whatever reason. Statistic facts also show that the big majority of those child mutilations are done because of religious motives, not hygienical.

These are facts.

What you stated means that you believe that people who are against child abuse and mutilation are not 'normal'.

[John Scott]

Dude, you are getting into the absurd statements, you seem to forget that only 10% of the world population actually performs this practise, and that if it would be perceived as 'normal' by the rest, those stats would be much higher.

That, my dear friend, is an absurd statement. I did not say that people think it is normal. Where did I say that? I said that normal people are not disgusted by it. Only fanatics like yourself. Surely you do not consider yourself normal?

And you seem to think that if somebody thinks of something as normal, they do it. I think eating vegatables is normal, but I do not do it. I think that jogging in parks in normal, but I do not do that, either. I think that voting Democrat is normal, but I don't do it and neither do millions of others. I think voting Republican is normal, but millions of people do not do that either.

'Normal' is very subjective bro. what's 'normal' in one culture, doesn't have to be considered as 'normal' in another. Statistical facts show that the huge majority in the world doesn't think it's all that 'normal' to mutilate children, for whatever reason. Statistic facts also show that the big majority of those child mutilations are done because of religious motives, not hygienical.

Of course "normal" is subjective. But you are the one that brought up that standard with your statement that "people who are disgusted".

What you stated means that you believe that people who are against child abuse and mutilation are not 'normal'.

Put that in logical format, I'd love to see how you came to that conclusion.

[John Scott]

I think that you wil find more than 'a few' people who are disgusted by child mutilation John.

I would hope that 100% of the population is disgusted by "child mutilation".

But I thought we were talking about circumcision, which is recommended by doctors for very valid reasons.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I would hope that 100% of the population is disgusted by "child mutilation".

But I thought we were talking about circumcision, which is recommended by doctors for very valid reasons.

Only by 'few', according to world statistics, and yes, many people on this earth, like me, regard circumstision as a form of child mutilation. and those reasons you mention are not valid at all, they are just arguments, not valid reasons, Medical reasons are only valid in a very few (rare) occasions.

There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.
[Committee On Fetus And Newborn. Standards and Recommendations for Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, 5th Ed. Evanston: American Academy of Pediatrics. 1971:110.]

As I said John, I don't expect, or want you to agree with me, but I do want you to realize that millions of people on this planet feel that way, not just me.

[DharmaConsulting]

circumstition is done because it has been proven to lower chances in infections etc