A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ree: Why do parents keep doing this?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 27th 04, 03:53 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ree: Why do parents keep doing this?

(karen hill) wrote in message . com...
"Jamie Clark" wrote in message ...
"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message
...

"firedancer623" ) writes:
I am all for
free choice and fully support any parent's decision, which ever it may
be. I
chose not to circ my kids because I felt it was in their best interest.
Others may disagree and that is fine. Do I care what they think? Nope.

Well, if parents decide to circumcise a child without asking
the child's permission (e.g. a baby), then it isn't
"free choice" for the child, nor for the adult the child
later becomes.

Trying to get the terminology straight here.
--
Cathy


She was referring to the freedom of choice of the parents.

It's ridiculous to say that we need to ask our children's permission. There
are thousands of parenting decisions that we have to make without consulting
our children, or asking their permission. There is no freedom of choice for
babies or children -- there may be the illusion of choice -- do you want to
wear the blue pants or the red pants, do you want broccoli or carrots for
dinner, but there is not a lot of real choice, and certainly not about
important matters.


I agree with you there.

We are the parents, and we have to do what we think is
best until they are the age of majority. It's that simple. And different
people are going to have different views on what they feel is best for their child. Parents make decisions regarding immunizations, circ, ear piercing, medical treatments, foods they eat or don't eat, clothes they wear, etc. Parenting is not a democracy.


You do have choices about how you raise your children, within the
limits of the law. You certainly couldn't remove your daughter's
clitoral hood without going to prison. I think the anti-circ crowd is
trying to make that point circumcision is barbaric and that it is
equal to removing a females clitoral hood, most often without any pain
relief. Male circumcision is not against the law, but according the
the anti-circ people it should be. That is where the argument is
really centered.

And the anti-circ people say just as a grown woman can choose to have
her clitoral hood pierced, a grown man could get a prince albert or a
circumcision because an adult can choose to mutilate themselves.
Giving a newborn a prince albert is not the same as an adult choosing
a prince albert.

The choices a parent makes are the ones that ultimately have to be
done. For example, a child must go to school, and must eat, so making
them eat broccoli is not the same as having them circumcised because a
child does not have to be circumcised, where as, forcing the child to
eat nutritious foods is essential to their well being.

The anti-circ crowd is really more forward looking, similar to the
people who were against slaverly, who hid Jews in Nazi germany, and
were for equal rights in the 1960's. Just because everyone says the
earth is flat does not make it so. The anti-circ crowd is trying to
point out the flaws in the circumcision arguments, just as others
stated the earth was round. Eventually, in order for society to
progress, it may be found that the anti-circ crowd was right. Those
on the wrong side of the fence will face the challenges of explaining
their actions, similar to the civil rights violators, and history will
not look kindly on them.


Bull DRECK! You're simply another unwanted voice from the idiot's
parade of anti-circ wack packers. Their sole purpose is to use
so-called children's rights as a pretense for the real reasons behind
their cause: to sexualize & facilitate a useless scab of skin. Shame
on you for comparing the Holocaust & the Civil Rights movement with
these despicable people. Unlike the righteous MLK Jr., these NUDNIKS
are fighting a fruitless cause that will only result in further
cementing their ongoing insanity. They (scab scavengers) have been
studied in detail by the medical profession, and the overwhelming
majority of them are comprised of homosexual foreskin fetishists,
mental defectives, and anti-Semites. You give them enough rope (see
Angela) and they eventually hang themselves!
As a candid Jew & anti-racist activist, I can unequivocally tell you
that when we common sensers (aka pro-circers) label you and your ilk
as deeply disturbed individuals, it more than rings true! Denying
"what is" also does not make it so! In my 7 years on the net, I have
come into contact with hundreds of these wackos. If they aren't
salivating over foreskin, they are dwelling in anti-Semitic rhetoric!
Child's rights is a million miles away from the safest & most common
cut in all of medicine - circumcision! Why not dedicate your time to
child rights issues that have merit: AIDS, SIDS, homelessness,
education, hunger, child abuse, etc!? -D, NYC "Envy of Jewish talents
& brains has moved the Gentiles to behave like wild beasts toward a
people in some respects their superior" - MARK TWAIN
  #3  
Old August 27th 04, 08:57 PM
Jake Waskett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dan wrote:

On the contrary, it is the wiser pro-intact folks who study the
insanity of medical profession in detail.


But Dan, didn't you recently argue that your position was that of the major
medical organisations? How can you turn around and say the opposite?
  #4  
Old August 27th 04, 10:31 PM
karen hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

) wrote in message om...
(karen hill) wrote in message . com...
"Jamie Clark" wrote in message ...
"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message
...

"firedancer623" ) writes:
I am all for
free choice and fully support any parent's decision, which ever it may
be. I
chose not to circ my kids because I felt it was in their best interest.
Others may disagree and that is fine. Do I care what they think? Nope.

Well, if parents decide to circumcise a child without asking
the child's permission (e.g. a baby), then it isn't
"free choice" for the child, nor for the adult the child
later becomes.

Trying to get the terminology straight here.
--
Cathy

She was referring to the freedom of choice of the parents.

It's ridiculous to say that we need to ask our children's permission. There
are thousands of parenting decisions that we have to make without consulting
our children, or asking their permission. There is no freedom of choice for
babies or children -- there may be the illusion of choice -- do you want to
wear the blue pants or the red pants, do you want broccoli or carrots for
dinner, but there is not a lot of real choice, and certainly not about
important matters.


I agree with you there.

We are the parents, and we have to do what we think is
best until they are the age of majority. It's that simple. And different
people are going to have different views on what they feel is best for their child. Parents make decisions regarding immunizations, circ, ear piercing, medical treatments, foods they eat or don't eat, clothes they wear, etc. Parenting is not a democracy.


You do have choices about how you raise your children, within the
limits of the law. You certainly couldn't remove your daughter's
clitoral hood without going to prison. I think the anti-circ crowd is
trying to make that point circumcision is barbaric and that it is
equal to removing a females clitoral hood, most often without any pain
relief. Male circumcision is not against the law, but according the
the anti-circ people it should be. That is where the argument is
really centered.

And the anti-circ people say just as a grown woman can choose to have
her clitoral hood pierced, a grown man could get a prince albert or a
circumcision because an adult can choose to mutilate themselves.
Giving a newborn a prince albert is not the same as an adult choosing
a prince albert.

The choices a parent makes are the ones that ultimately have to be
done. For example, a child must go to school, and must eat, so making
them eat broccoli is not the same as having them circumcised because a
child does not have to be circumcised, where as, forcing the child to
eat nutritious foods is essential to their well being.

The anti-circ crowd is really more forward looking, similar to the
people who were against slaverly, who hid Jews in Nazi germany, and
were for equal rights in the 1960's. Just because everyone says the
earth is flat does not make it so. The anti-circ crowd is trying to
point out the flaws in the circumcision arguments, just as others
stated the earth was round. Eventually, in order for society to
progress, it may be found that the anti-circ crowd was right. Those
on the wrong side of the fence will face the challenges of explaining
their actions, similar to the civil rights violators, and history will
not look kindly on them.


Bull DRECK! You're simply another unwanted voice from the idiot's
parade of anti-circ wack packers. Their sole purpose is to use
so-called children's rights as a pretense for the real reasons behind
their cause: to sexualize & facilitate a useless scab of skin.


No. From what I understand, it is to protect children from
unnecessary surgery. In an adult male, it seems obvious that the
foreskin is sexualized because it is on a sexual organ, in the same
way a clitoral hood is.

As for the foreskin being useless, I'm not a doctor or male so I
cannot comment on its usefullness. But I do know that medical doctors
have changed their minds on certain principles in the circumcison
debate. For example, they said that babies cannot feel pain, but now
the AAP says they feel incredible pain. There were studies done that
said men who were circumcised practiced a wider variety of sex acts,
including anal sex. I doubt many women want anal sex.

Then there is the issue of sensitivity. You cannot remove tissue
without losing sensitivity. The foreskin has sensation because it is
skin, and I wouldn't want to lose my clitoral hood, after all isn't it
just a piece of useless skin?

Wouldn't it be wiser just not allow this surgery as a parents choice
unless there was a pre-existing condition that made it necessary?
Parents cannot choose any other unnecessary surgery for their child,
so why should circumcision be any different?

Shame
on you for comparing the Holocaust & the Civil Rights movement with
these despicable people. Unlike the righteous MLK Jr., these NUDNIKS
are fighting a fruitless cause that will only result in further
cementing their ongoing insanity.


They are similar but not equal of course. A life and rights are more
important than a foreskin. But that doesn't make the issue of
unnecessary routine circumcison an unimportant one.

They (scab scavengers) have been
studied in detail by the medical profession, and the overwhelming
majority of them are comprised of homosexual foreskin fetishists,
mental defectives, and anti-Semites.


Of course you are making that up. Please cite where this study can be
found?

You give them enough rope (see
Angela) and they eventually hang themselves!


Just because someone cannot explain an issue properly does not make
the true issue go away.

As a candid Jew & anti-racist activist, I can unequivocally tell you
that when we common sensers (aka pro-circers) label you and your ilk
as deeply disturbed individuals, it more than rings true! Denying
"what is" also does not make it so! In my 7 years on the net, I have
come into contact with hundreds of these wackos. If they aren't
salivating over foreskin, they are dwelling in anti-Semitic rhetoric!


I have to agree with you there darrin. Anit-Semitic rhetoric is
completely pointless and shows that there are a lot of fools. People
of the Jewish faith comprise a tiny fraction of the popluation. It is
completely seperate from medical circumcision because as I understand,
people of the Jewish faith don't even circumcise in a hospital but
rather in their home!


Child's rights is a million miles away from the safest & most common
cut in all of medicine - circumcision! Why not dedicate your time to
child rights issues that have merit: AIDS, SIDS, homelessness,
education, hunger, child abuse, etc!? -D, NYC "Envy of Jewish talents
& brains has moved the Gentiles to behave like wild beasts toward a
people in some respects their superior" - MARK TWAIN


Some people are dedicating their time to AIDS and other to SIDS. Some
are to a lesser cause like circumcision. That's all. Not everyone
can be involved in every cause so they pick one that they feel they
can help with the most. I'm not in the anti-circ movement, but since
the issue comes up quite often for some reason in the misc. group, I
felt I had to respond.
  #5  
Old August 27th 04, 11:25 PM
Tori M.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Wouldn't it be wiser just not allow this surgery as a parents choice
unless there was a pre-existing condition that made it necessary?
Parents cannot choose any other unnecessary surgery for their child,
so why should circumcision be any different?


Of coarse you can. I have the option of having my daughters accessory thumb
removed and that would be totaly unnecessary. The extra thumb does not
effect her hand control or anything. if nothing else I guess you could make
the arguement that the extra nail on her hand makes it more likely that she
could scratch herself.

I WOULD have had this removed if we could have done it before she turned 1.
As time went on every dr suggested a later and later age and by the time she
can have it done I would rather just let her make up her own mind about this
one. She is now 2 1/2 and would hate to do anything to make her hand
unusable for any amount of time..


Tori


  #6  
Old August 27th 04, 11:52 PM
Jake Waskett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

karen hill wrote:

No. From what I understand, it is to protect children from
unnecessary surgery. In an adult male, it seems obvious that the
foreskin is sexualized because it is on a sexual organ, in the same
way a clitoral hood is.


Far from it. I'm a gay man, and I can tell you that, while I've *heard* of
the foreskin being sexually responsive, I've never seen it in real life.

As for the foreskin being useless, I'm not a doctor or male so I
cannot comment on its usefullness. But I do know that medical doctors
have changed their minds on certain principles in the circumcison
debate. For example, they said that babies cannot feel pain, but now
the AAP says they feel incredible pain. There were studies done that
said men who were circumcised practiced a wider variety of sex acts,
including anal sex. I doubt many women want anal sex.


Oh, my dear, I think you ought to talk to some women of the younger
generation - or perhaps give it a try! :-)

Then there is the issue of sensitivity. You cannot remove tissue
without losing sensitivity. The foreskin has sensation because it is
skin, and I wouldn't want to lose my clitoral hood, after all isn't it
just a piece of useless skin?


It's true that what sensitivity there is - despite not being particularly
erogenous - is lost, but what is gained is access to - and improved
stimulation of - the far more erogenous glans.
  #7  
Old August 28th 04, 04:40 AM
karen hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tori M." wrote in message ...
Wouldn't it be wiser just not allow this surgery as a parents choice
unless there was a pre-existing condition that made it necessary?
Parents cannot choose any other unnecessary surgery for their child,
so why should circumcision be any different?


Of coarse you can. I have the option of having my daughters accessory thumb
removed and that would be totaly unnecessary. The extra thumb does not
effect her hand control or anything. if nothing else I guess you could make
the arguement that the extra nail on her hand makes it more likely that she
could scratch herself.


Please don't be stupid. An extra thumb is not normal. A foreskin is
normal. See the difference? I never said abnormalaties like cleft
palate or hypospadias should not be fixed.

I WOULD have had this removed if we could have done it before she turned 1.
As time went on every dr suggested a later and later age and by the time she
can have it done I would rather just let her make up her own mind about this
one. She is now 2 1/2 and would hate to do anything to make her hand
unusable for any amount of time..


Of course you did the right thing. A foreskin is normal, an extra
thumb, a cleft palate or any other medical condition should be
treated. A healthy foreskin should not be removed.

Tori

  #8  
Old August 28th 04, 06:33 AM
Briar Rabbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

karen hill wrote:

"Tori M." wrote in message ...

Wouldn't it be wiser just not allow this surgery as a parents choice
unless there was a pre-existing condition that made it necessary?
Parents cannot choose any other unnecessary surgery for their child,
so why should circumcision be any different?


Of coarse you can. I have the option of having my daughters accessory thumb
removed and that would be totaly unnecessary. The extra thumb does not
effect her hand control or anything. if nothing else I guess you could make
the arguement that the extra nail on her hand makes it more likely that she
could scratch herself.



Please don't be stupid. An extra thumb is not normal. A foreskin is
normal. See the difference? I never said abnormalaties like cleft
palate or hypospadias should not be fixed.


I WOULD have had this removed if we could have done it before she turned 1.
As time went on every dr suggested a later and later age and by the time she
can have it done I would rather just let her make up her own mind about this
one. She is now 2 1/2 and would hate to do anything to make her hand
unusable for any amount of time..



Of course you did the right thing. A foreskin is normal, an extra
thumb, a cleft palate or any other medical condition should be
treated. A healthy foreskin should not be removed.


Tori



Yes and why bother with shots? After all there is no current medical
requirement at the time of the shots.
  #9  
Old August 28th 04, 07:23 AM
Briar Rabbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jake Waskett wrote:

Dan wrote:


On the contrary, it is the wiser pro-intact folks who study the
insanity of medical profession in detail.



But Dan, didn't you recently argue that your position was that of the major
medical organisations? How can you turn around and say the opposite?



Well is it not another example of the skin freaks ability to, say
anything, do anything, use anything in order to serve their dubious cause?

Dan is no different. A sad pathetic individual who hangs weights from
his dick. Have pity.
  #10  
Old August 28th 04, 07:25 AM
Briar Rabbit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jake Waskett wrote:

Dan wrote:


On the contrary, it is the wiser pro-intact folks who study the
insanity of medical profession in detail.



But Dan, didn't you recently argue that your position was that of the

major
medical organisations? How can you turn around and say the opposite?



Well is it not another example of the skin freaks ability to, say
anything, do anything, use anything in order to serve their dubious cause?

Dan is no different. A sad pathetic individual who hangs weights from
his dick. Have pity.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Basic Rights of Foster Parents [email protected] Foster Parents 5 December 20th 03 03:37 PM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Spanking 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.