Watermelons are not persons.
Absolutely. And humans need to knock off the absolute hubris in thinking that they know better than millions of years of evolution about what ought to be part of human bodies.
Andria
the children argument explained.
- Thread starter skoony
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Absolutely. And humans need to knock off the absolute hubris in thinking that they know better than millions of years of evolution about what ought to be part of human bodies.
Andria
On a different note, can you evaluate the risks incurred in removing those organs (including during the healing period and the long term hormonal effects) vs. the risks eliminated by not having them anymore?
I honestly think the children thing is a smoke screen, it's them trying to force our concentration in a certain direction. If they can keep our focus on the kids we're less likely to notice all the lying and manipulating going on while our backs are turned.
I'm not sure where the hubris is. Evolution is slow process of trial and error, growth, development and adaptation. Evolution has resulted in genocide to the majority of life forms. Even the human body has part that aren't needed any more, i.e. the appendix. The T-Rex had arms is couldn't use. Penguins breed in the middle of the antarctic winter. By comparison, taking a little skin off the pee pee seems like a minor alteration, not hubris. Thinking we can control nuclear weapons? That's hubris.
Just because they didn't know the purpose of the appendix, doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose.
Scientists finally discover the function of the human appendix.
A minor quibble. In the same article it says "In spite of the findings, Professor Bill Parker says that this does not mean we should cling onto our appendices at all costs. “It’s very important for people to understand that if their appendix gets inflamed, just because it has a function it does not mean they should try to keep it in,” he explained." “So it’s sort of a fun thing that we’ve found, but we don’t want it to cause any harm, we don’t want people to say, ‘oh, my appendix has a function’, so I’m not going to go to the doctor, I’m going to try to hang onto it.”
Most would consider it a vestigial organ, useful in times past but for the most part today it's expendable.
I agree; I have IBS, and when my appendix was removed, I learned that the post-op ........ I suffered was completely normal for those with IBS who undergo appendectomy, and in fact could have gone on a great deal longer -- if not for nicotine and WTA therapy, that is.
Apparently those with IBS do derive some vague benefit from the presence of the appendix, and *could* suffer all sorts of IBS-related issues once it's gone -- I'm keep my fingers crossed it doesn't affect me, with all the nicotine and WTA in my body! One of the minor alkaloids is apparently a fairly powerful anti-inflammatory.Andria
Thank you so much.
This is the most complete report I have read on the subject to this day.
What made me understand the "Children argument" once and for all was this: "THE END".
Now I finally get what those people were trying to tell me all this time:
"For the children. Because we say so, and that's [THE END] of the conversation".
prior to WWII circumcision though being promoted by the medicalThis is precisely why I forbade it for my son -- when that tradition started, there wasn't hot and cold running showers and soap as we have now, plus they lived in a desert; I imagine a grain of sand under *that* would be a very bad thing!
It's really an American thing, for the most part, I think probably going back to the "progressive" movement of the 1930s.
Andria
establishment was not very wide spread in the US especially in the rural
areas.
after WWII with renewed advocacy by heath advocates its practice
became almost universal.the supposed reason being health studies
on the troops during WWII showed that this would prevent a myriad
of very bad things from happening where one would not want them
to happen.
by the late fifties and early sixties the procedure was being performed
on the majority of the male population. most thought it was
necessary for the health and safety of the...,wait for it,wait for it,
'children'.
since then it has become known simple hygienic practices eliminate
almost all (if not all) any health related issues.
so why the almost universal use of the procedure?
put on your tinfoil hats folks.
during WWII the Nazis would line up males suspected of
Jewish ancestry and have them drop trouser.
if you had a hood,it was good.
many have speculated this is the real reason for the big
push for near universal circumcision after WWII.
to prevent this from happening again.
i would add when i was in the service in the 70's
wisdom teeth were not the only things they hounded
you to get removed when on active duty.
regards
mike
We're in 2015 though and the practice has no merits from a health perspective. On the contrary.
Yet the government doesn't want to get involved and leaves it to be at parents' discretion. Freedom and pursuit of Happiness are invoked. For the parents, since the child is not at an age where he could state his opinions.
But then the very same government wanted and got involved in matters such as alcohol, tobacco and even non nic e cigarettes.
Suddenly parents are not good enough to make decisions when it comes to these. The tables are turned and Freedom & Happiness are suddenly replaced with the Right Of Children to Life, declared to be trumping all and every other rights.
This is a double standard of such ridiculous proportions that it isn't even funny.
P.S. Plus in the first case Potential Positive Health Effects are invoked, completely ignoring the Negative ones. And in the second case the discussion starts with Potential Negative Health Effects and stays there. All in a rhetoric of "potential", imaginary issues.
P.P.S. And to get straight to the thread title, every time a discussion about Children's Right to Life starts, it should also mention their equal rights to Freedom and Hapiness. These rights work only as a triad. Every time you remove even one of them from the table, you get into genocide, slavery etc.
Yet the government doesn't want to get involved and leaves it to be at parents' discretion. Freedom and pursuit of Happiness are invoked. For the parents, since the child is not at an age where he could state his opinions.
But then the very same government wanted and got involved in matters such as alcohol, tobacco and even non nic e cigarettes.
Suddenly parents are not good enough to make decisions when it comes to these. The tables are turned and Freedom & Happiness are suddenly replaced with the Right Of Children to Life, declared to be trumping all and every other rights.
This is a double standard of such ridiculous proportions that it isn't even funny.
P.S. Plus in the first case Potential Positive Health Effects are invoked, completely ignoring the Negative ones. And in the second case the discussion starts with Potential Negative Health Effects and stays there. All in a rhetoric of "potential", imaginary issues.
P.P.S. And to get straight to the thread title, every time a discussion about Children's Right to Life starts, it should also mention their equal rights to Freedom and Hapiness. These rights work only as a triad. Every time you remove even one of them from the table, you get into genocide, slavery etc.
Last edited:
And we will get off the topic of circumcision
Please
and
Thank you
Unless you want it moved to the Health and safety section....
Please
and
Thank you
Unless you want it moved to the Health and safety section....
Well, it was not my intention to debate the practice itself. Just the principle used by the government in settling this. And the expectation that once a precedent is established, the same principle continues to be applied. It's fundamental in the justice system.
We could now as well debate whether children should be allowed to ride bicycles, if an age limit should exist, if bicycle sales to minors should be permitted, and whether it should be the parents or the government to decide on this matter.
We could now as well debate whether children should be allowed to ride bicycles, if an age limit should exist, if bicycle sales to minors should be permitted, and whether it should be the parents or the government to decide on this matter.
Or even... ROLLER SKATES!!! I hurt myself every bit as badly on those things, as I did on bikes. Heck, if we use ME as the standard, those rugrats need helmets for WALKING.
And nevermind running! It's far too dangerous for children to do! When kids suddenly needed helmets to ride bikes or scooters... my son put both of his away and never rode them again. Where's the win in that situation? I don't see one. After the bike and scooter were retired, he and his friends started walking around with big sticks and having "play fights" with them -- I'd stand and watch them from my porch, wondering which one was going to have his eye put out first. None ever did though.
Andria
Ok back on topic Caramel is hot 
no wait children something or another was the topic right?
no wait children something or another was the topic right?
Can we please clarify something? I started off thinking Caramel was female; then something was said that made me think the opposite was true; now I'm seeing things that tend to support my first assumption.... so which is it?
Andria
Andria
Ok back on topic Caramel is hot
I see I have to change my avatar.... how about a pair of black lungs taken from a cigarette pack?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
