Re: Cirucmcision is wrong

From: peter (peterusa_at_optonline.net)
Date: 07/04/04 

Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:26:44 GMT

HOWEVER YOU LEFTIST HAVE NO PROBLEMS KILLING MILLIONS OF BABY'S IN THE WOMB WITHOUT CONSULTING THEM. DURING THE BLACK PLAGUE THAT DEVASTATED EUROPE THE JEWS WERE HARDLY AFFECTED. THIS IS DUE TO THE PRACTICE OF CIRCUMCISION. SO ALL YOU LEFTIST WACKOS CAN GO TO LIVE IN SYRIA WITH YOUR LOVERS. 

-- 
PETER
If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.
If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.
  "answers_here" <answers1007@lycos.com> wrote in message news:860a2c8.0407031424.58a16191@posting.google.com...
  Circumcision is non-consensual body modification, i.e. mutilation.*
  If it's okay to mutilate someone against their will or without their
  consent, then it must be okay to kill someone (how about removing
  their heart?)  If you think it's okay for you to murder people, then
  you must admit that it's okay for others to murder you.
  A far better philosophy is one of unalienable rights.  All beings have
  an unalienable right to life and freedom, and that includes freedom
  from mutilation.  Unalienable rights are not owed to you by anybody,
  but they should not be violated.  The philosophy of unalienable rights
  is a closer representation of the truth than that of war or murder,
  and perhaps as you enter into all truth, you will find your rights
  truly unalienable.
  If everyone refrains from violating the person and property of others,
  the world will remain at peace.
  The line must be drawn somewhere, and we hope the state is not too
  oppressive in its restrictions.  Lest we conclude there is no guiding
  light and no philosophy, and that the state merely imposes itself on
  others with no regard.  In which case, we must conclude that it is
  okay for us to do the same to the state and that the state is as wrong
  as it claims us to be.  Then we must either choose to suffer evils
  while evils are sufferable, or engage the philosophy of "Give me
  Liberty, or give me death" and go to war to free ourselves of
  oppressive bondage.
  *People under 18, and certainly those under 12, cannot consent to
  circumcision and a whole host of other activities.
  "Paul Abeles" <abeles@bigpond.comnospam> wrote in message news:<3thyc.4028$sj4.3727@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
  > Routine circumcisions have been found to violate not only the Golden Rule,
  > but the first tenet of medical practice, First, Do No Harm. Amazingly,
  > circumcision violates all seven Principles of the A.M.A. Code of Ethics.
  > 
  > Circumcision is not surgery, by definition. Surgical procedures have been
  > defined as: repair of wounds, extirpation of diseased organs or tissue,
  > reconstructive surgery, and physiologic surgery (i.e. sympathectomy).
  > Routine circumcision does not fall into any of these categories. Therefore,
  > routine infant male circumcision is not a valid surgical procedure. Doctors'
  > licenses do not permit them to cut people unless they are performing
  > surgery, nor may they harm their patients.
  > 
  > America has the highest rate of AIDS in the industrialized world, and is the
  > only major country which circumcises a majority of its males. Is there a
  > connection? We do not know. Before a doctor performs a circumcision, must he
  > not have the answer to this question: might this baby have an increased risk
  > of AIDS - as the result of circumcision?
  > 
  > American men are now documenting the harm that has been done to them by
  > doctors who operated on them without their consent. The bizarre practice of
  > having parents tell a doctor whether and when to operate occurs nowhere else
  > in medicine. According to modern medical ethics, parents do not have the
  > right to consent to a procedure that is not in their son's best interests.
  > The removal of a healthy, normal part of the male sexual organ is not in
  > their son's best interests
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Read more on http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/end.html

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cirucmcision is wrong
    ... > If it's okay to mutilate someone against their will or without their ... > A far better philosophy is one of unalienable rights. ... > circumcision and a whole host of other activities. ... >> doctors who operated on them without their consent. ...
    (sci.med)
  • Cirucmcision is wrong
    ... Circumcision is non-consensual body modification, ... If it's okay to mutilate someone against their will or without their ... consent, then it must be okay to kill someone (how about removing ... A far better philosophy is one of unalienable rights. ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: Circumcision likened to female genital mutilation
    ... My name is not Kenny. ... > as one of the many policy measures against HIV infection. ... Most doctors do not believe it ... circumcision is almost unknown in Europe. ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: WHITE ALBUM - Stereo VS Mono ??
    ... That's why babies should have one eardrum poked out at birth. ... Doctors could offer it as a package deal along with a circumcision. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: WHITE ALBUM - Stereo VS Mono ??
    ... That's why babies should have one eardrum poked out at birth. ... Doctors could offer it as a package deal along with a circumcision. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
Quantcast