Circumcision is wrong, yes. I dont know why would you even think otherwise.

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 53
Topic's author
#31
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,621
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@hey-yo
Why are we assuming they are the same thing?
I didnt say that circumcision is same as murder, theft and rape.

I said that circumcision is murder, theft and rape.

It is murder. Deaths are caused intentionally by those who perform circumcision, since they know circumcision can result in death.

It is rape. Rape is penetration of sexual organs with no consent.

It is theft. The foreskin is baby's property.

Topic's author
#32
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,621
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
It is theft. Penis gets damaged sometimes. Damaging other people's property when they didnt ask you to is very bad behavior.
#33
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Best.Korea
I didnt say that circumcision is same as murder, theft and rape.

I said that circumcision is murder, theft and rape.
Same difference. How are these things the same? Thanks for addressing the question. 

1. It is murder. Deaths are caused intentionally by those who perform circumcision, since they know circumcision can result in death.

2. It is rape. Rape is penetration of sexual organs with no consent.

3. It is theft. The foreskin is baby's property

I think this is helpful in general. No point to make. 

1. Murder refers to legality in a person's intent to kill another. If someone dies from medical procedure and negligence is  on the doctor, then the law uses different terms like manslaughter to identify a specific action or event. 

Why are we ignoring legalities and how a term is used to apply murder to an incident (where someone dies) not evidenced to include intent? 

There are many procedures like abortion, c-section, heart surgery, etc. that carry risk to death. Some procedures have a higher risk than others. 

2. Is that how rape is defined? Mouth, anus is not a sex organ but very much involved if a person is raped. 

How can we reconcile other genetial related surgeries for/on children as not being rape where surgergical instraments may perform tasks inside the body? 

3. Theft 
Again, theft like the word murder refers to criminal actions. If a thing is legal, then it should not be included with illegal acts. Theft is an unlawful action. Circumcision is lawful. 

We can compare and advocate that there is similarities or call for a move to make something illegal, but lets be honest in how we use words. 

The foreskin is taken with out consent like when an item is stolen from you without consent. 

Ok so lets consider what is taken. Money, tv, kidney. These things can be stolen? 
Sure. 

Can a kidney be stolen if there is a medical reason to remove that kidney despite the kid's opposition or inability to consent ?
Topic's author
#34
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,621
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@hey-yo
Murder refers to legality in a person's intent to kill another.
No. The thou shall not murder is one of God's commands. It has nothing to do with countries legalizing murder, since murder is still illegal by God's law.


If someone dies from medical procedure
Circumcision in most cases is not necessary to save life.

not evidenced to include intent
Intent is when:
1) You know circumcisions will result in death
2) You know circumcisions will not save life 

Since you know these 2, then choosing to do mass circumcision is murder.


Is that how rape is defined?
No. Thats what the rape includes. Hence the difference between "same" and "is (included into)".


Can a kidney be stolen if there is a medical reason to remove that kidney
Sorry, I thought we were talking about circumcision. Circumcision in most cases does not save lives and countries that do mass circumcision arent any better in health than countries who dont.


How can we reconcile other genetial related surgeries
Simple. If they save life, then they are good.


If a thing is legal, then it should not be included with illegal acts. Theft is an unlawful action. Circumcision is lawful.
Again you talk about laws of corrupt countries.
However, its very simple.

Who owns my foreskin?
If it is me, then circumcision without my consent is theft. If I dont own my foreskin, then I dont see why rape would be wrong when people dont own their bodies.
#35
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea

Actually, women's preferences generally favor the circumcised penis for sexual activity, hygiene, and lower risk of infection.
Topic's author
#36
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,621
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
Nobody should care about what a woman thinks.

Example of woman's stupidity:

"Women think that they should be equally paid as men, despite working less.".

"When a man rapes a woman, she calls him an abuser. When he doesnt rape her, she calls him an incel.".

"Woman is a creature of emotions. When she thinks about what she should do, she doesnt ask herself "What is a right thing to do?". She asks herself "What would my friends do?". Therefore, admitting she doesnt have a brain of her own."
#37
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea

    OMG, you are a Trump!
#38
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Best.Korea
1. Not sure if anyones said this. Who's law are you talking about? 
Sounds like you mentioned commandment, "thou shall not murder." 

A few follow up questions. 

A) if we are following Abraham's God, circumcision is allowed but not spiritually necessary because it was commanded and then replaced. 

B.) The word "murder" is english. Some translations do not have "murder" in the bible when translating to english. The word may not be represented or accurately used in translation. 

C) even as christians navigate away from circumcision as a physical representation of a spiritual belonging, jewish people are still recognized as God's people. How do you reconcile this? 

2. Circimcision in most cases does not cause death either. 
However, it is done to prevent harm from developing in the future like removing a mole or skin tag to prevent damage to these parts or if they could develop into a  cancer. 

There is not a gaurantee to this but if it can be prevented, then that is necessary measure. If you do not think so, that is fine. Circumcission is considered cosmetic or preventive care depending on who we talk to. So you do not need to like it. If you want to call it something it is not, however, it meeds to be backed up. Right now that is not the case. 

3. Intent is when:
1) You know circumcisions will result in death
2) You know circumcisions will not save life 

Since you know these 2, then choosing to do mass circumcision is murder. 
You know very well intent is when a person desires a given outcome. Otherwise you just call all medical procedures (including cosmetics) murder if the doctor knows there is a risk for death and the patient dies. This includes doctors operating on hearts and brains. 

4.  No.

Thats what the rape includes. Hence the difference between "same" and "is (included into)".

Great. Glad you concede to agree that rape is not defined as you presented. 

Once more you provide a generic definition that can apply to any surgical procedure. What you are missing is sexual application. 

Male Infants can require surgery on their genitalia to prevent serious harm. You said your self they are ok because they can save lives. But in this given definition, operating on them is rape. 

5. 
Sorry, I thought we were talking about circumcision. Circumcision in most cases does not save lives and countries that do mass circumcision arent any better in health than countries who dont 

Comparing and contrasting your ideals to identify contradictions. So you are okay for circumcision to occur in the not most case to save life? Why not prevent individuals from experiencing that all together? 

As for country reference, its hard to say because the countries that would benefit have various underlined diseases not related to male genitalia. If there is an issue, may be too hard to tell because something else has greater death rate or impact. 

6. Again you talk about laws of corrupt countries. 
Can you prove they are corrupt? 
Can you prove that even a corrupt country is impossible to develop or have a legal system that is accurate? Usually corruption meas people are breaking the laws that were put into place. Which means law would be accurate and moral but violated because corruption violates the law. 

7. Rape is not morally wrong because of who owns what. If that were the case then anyone can develop the means to own another person and provide their own consent.  Now rape is legal. Instead, rape violates what it means to be human and a person.  

However, anyone can argue God owns the body and consents circumcision where as He does not consent rape. 




Topic's author
#39
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,621
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@hey-yo
You know very well intent is when a person desires a given outcome.
Wrong. It is when you know the outcome.

Bible clearly says that circumcision is wrong.


Otherwise you just call all medical procedures (including cosmetics) murder
No. Some of them actually save lives.


Great. Glad you concede to agree that rape is not defined as you presented.
I dont know what kind of drugs are you using, but "is included into" means its included into definition.


Once more you provide a generic definition that can apply to any surgical procedure. What you are missing is sexual application.
What is sexual application? And yes, cutting baby's penises is rape by the given definition of rape, since it is penetration of genitals without consent.


Rape is not morally wrong because of who owns what. If that were the case then anyone can develop the means to own another person and provide their own consent.  Now rape is legal. Instead, rape violates what it means to be human and a person.
Sorry I dont follow your circular meaningless logic. "What it means to be human" is a retarded premise, since that premise is a question. Please try to make more sense next time.
#40
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Best.Korea
intent
1 of 2noun
in·tent in-ˈtent 

1
: a usually clearly formulated or planned intention : AIM
the director's intent


2
a
: the act or fact of intending : PURPOSE
especially : the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act
admitted wounding him with intent

b
: the state of mind with which an act is done : VOLITION


intent

2 of 2
1
: directed with strained or eager attention : CONCENTRATED

2
: having the mind, attention, or will concentrated on something or some end or purpose 



Please provide any source that supports what you suggest. Everyone uses "intent" to express that a person had a desired plan for a desired outcome. 

2. Where does bible say circumcision is morally wrong and a law by God that expresses thou shall not do?

3.  Some of them (surgeries/medical procedures) have the intent to save lives but have a mortality rate. 

Seems to be an omission that some surgeries do not save lives. We include the surgeries that are for cosmetics and failed operations where patients may pass away from or during surgery. Like open heart surgery. 

4. I dont know what kind of drugs are you using, but "is included into" means its included into definition. 
You clearly gave information that contradicted your original definition.  But since you are so sincere that something is included with a definition, may you please provide evidence for it? There must be a dictionary that lists circumcision among possible examples. A neutral article that expresses the same concern. 



By definition rape involves unlawful sexual activity. The sexual application is the intent in a given action that is sexual. Although some people find cutting to be sexual, performing any kind of surgery on penis or vagina does not constitute rape if consent is not present.  

Consider two links above. Both medical situations where treatment involves surgery on an infant's genitals. Infants can not provide consent so both would be, under your presented logic, automatically identified as rape. How or why? 

7. Sorry I dont follow your circular meaningless logic. "What it means to be human" is a retarded premise, since that premise is a question. Please try to make more sense next time. 

If you do not follow the logic then do not make a claim on what the logic is. There are no premises that are questions. If you do not know what it means and have to ask, that's ok.  Do not be shy about it or hide it. 

The word "retard" is also outdated and discriminatory. Please refrain from use, it only displays your ignorance and lack of credibility. 

I see no objection to the last paragraph?
However, anyone can argue God owns the body and consents circumcision where as He does not consent rape. 


Topic's author
#41
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,621
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@hey-yo
Everyone uses "intent" to express that a person had a desired plan for a desired outcome.
Knowledge of the outcome + doing the action = it is a desired outcome and a desired action

Of course, I use Bible's laws and regulations, and not the witchcraft that you are using. Thats why the Bible defines intent as having knowledge of the action's results and still desiring to do it. Thats why a person cannot say "he didnt have an intent to kill them. He just wanted to point a gun at them and shoot." Yeah said the worst lawyer ever.

Where does bible say circumcision is morally wrong and a law by God that expresses thou shall not do?
It clearly says "Circumcision is nothing. If you enter Christianity, dont get circumcised." in the New Testament. So yeah, I dont see which one of those sentences tells you that circumcision is good.


By definition rape involves unlawful sexual activity.
Okay, this is the stupidity at its finest. I already gave you the definition, and I dont plan to change it any time soon. Plus, touching a baby's penis for your pleasure is a sexual activity. Cutting it for your pleasure is rape that has no benefits for the baby.

Now tell us, to who does baby's foreskin belong to?


You clearly gave information that contradicted your original definition.
Listen retard, if you are going to use these blatant lies, why do you expect not to get insulted? Do you even know what "contradicted" means? Is your brain so small that you dont understand what "included into definition" means?

Ok, now show us which information that I gave contradicted my "original definition".


If you do not follow the logic then do not make a claim on what the logic is. There are no premises that are questions. If you do not know what it means and have to ask, that's ok.  Do not be shy about it or hide it.
I am sorry, captain retard, but "what it means to be human and a person" is a question. Do you get it, retard?
Topic's author
#42
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,621
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@hey-yo
The word "retard" is also outdated and discriminatory. Please refrain from use, it only displays your ignorance and lack of credibility.
Oh no. Did I hurt your feelings? 🥺👀

Is the little baby gonna cry? 😭👀

I sure as hell care about the feelings of a retard like you. 
You are going around cutting baby's dicks, but yes lets  pretend that your feelings matter.
#43
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Best.Korea
Oh no. Did I hurt your feelings?
Like I said. It only displays your ignorance and lack of credibility. 
If you want to look bad, thats on you. 

Of course, I use Bible's laws and regulations, and not the witchcraft that you are using. Thats why the Bible defines intent as having knowledge of the action's results and still desiring to do it. Thats why a person cannot say "he didnt have an intent to kill them. He just wanted to point a gun at them and shoot." Yeah said the worst lawyer ever
Proof please? Where in bible does it define intent? I am in disbelief. 

Otherwise. Yes. Some incidences have been proven to occur by accident or without intent. 
If a person is unable comprehend reality, they would have capability to point a gun, shoot, and do not have intent to kill. 

However, surgery is not a loaded gun nor is circumcision. Again I see no acknowledgment for the delima presented. A doctor is performing cosmetic surgery on a patient. This does not "save a life," but there is still risks involved. How is that doctor possess intent to kill if the goal is to alter the skin and preserve a patient's life? 

2. You are paraphrasing and possibly putting your own position into the story. Christianity is fullfilment of Judiasm. However God still recognizes the chosen people who have not followed Jesus. Please provide adequate evidence that suggests God did not command the Jewish people to circumcise and/or determined a moral wrong in being circumcised. 

 3.  I already gave you the definition, and I dont plan to change it any time soon. Plus, touching a baby's penis for your pleasure is a sexual activity. Cutting it for your pleasure is rape that has no benefits for the baby.
Lol. Where is the pleasure? Who is having pleasure? The doctor or the parent, and then please prove your position that a doctor is obtaining pleasure. 

You really just shot yourself in the foot here.  Was that intent? 
Also I responded to the foreskin question, "who owns it." If I do not believe we "own" our body parts/organs just as no one "own" our body parts/organs, then I will not be able to say anyone "owns" foreskin. Rape or bodily harm is not morally wrong because someone "owns" their body. 

 4. Happily. Scratch my back and I scratch yours (figure of speech) . Some questions I asked earlier were skipped over. (Not figure of speech,). What are your answer(s)? 

what it means to be human and a person" is a question.
Lol. More name calling expresses incapability to address issues presented. Now is that a question? No. 
You have grammar wrong. 
In question form, that sentence would look like this:::
What does it mean to be a himan and a person? 
See difference? 
Yiu are also missing the entire quote. Which would reflect the use of what same as this sentence::'

 “We must prioritize and clearly identify what these top infrastructure issues are and make a meaningful decision about where we spend the money as it relates to infrastructure.”


#44
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
I sure as hell care about the feelings of a retard like you. 
You are going around cutting baby's dicks, but yes lets  pretend that your feelings matter.
Are we to pretend these sentences do not contradict each other? Its ok. Typo maybe. 
Topic's author
#45
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,621
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@hey-yo
Some incidences have been proven to occur by accident or without intent. 
Without intent? Thats called when you dont have the knowledge of consequences. Irrelevant to doctor having intent to perform circumcision which he knows will result in death. Therefore, desiring death.


However, surgery is not a loaded gun nor is circumcision
Except that loaded gun kills people and circumcision kills people.


Proof please? Where in bible does it define intent? I am in disbelief.
Well, if you read further from 10 Commandments, you would have found the explanation.

Leviticus 5:17 says that you are guilty in some cases even if you dont have the knowledge of an action.

Leviticus 4:27 relates unintentional to not being aware of.


Lol. Where is the pleasure? Who is having pleasure? The doctor or the parent, and then please prove your position that a doctor is obtaining pleasure
Well, its not for the health of the baby, so you either do it for money or for pleasure. Which is it? And parents are obviously not doing it for money, so for pleasure.

Since you basically said that people dont own their bodies, that is just proof of how far you are willing to go in defending circumcision.


See difference?
No. I dont. Also explain to us what does it mean to be human and person. Go ahead. We are waiting. If you cannot explain it, it will be really awkward for you.
Topic's author
#46
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,621
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@hey-yo
Oh no. Did I hurt your feelings?
Like I said. It only displays your ignorance and lack of credibility. 
If you want to look bad, thats on you. 
Oh no. The little circumciser baby called me ignorant.
Topic's author
#47
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,621
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@hey-yo
Since you said no one owns the foreskin, then no one has a right to cut it.

If you do have a right to cut that which you dont own, then why is me cutting off your ear wrong?
#48
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
The possible medical benefits of circumcision include:

#49
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Luke 2:21

New King James Version

Circumcision of Jesus
21 And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.

(I don't think Satan was circumcised.)

9 days later

#50
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Best.Korea
Oi. 
1. Again. Intent is desire to commit an action because of its results. Intent is not used in the way you suggest.  

Except that loaded gun kills people and circumcision kills people.

People die after receiving many medical treatments and surgeries. You have not provided a reason to separate circumcision from the rest. 

2. You are providing a reason someone may be considered guilty of sin. This has nothing to do with intent. Nor have we concluded circumcision should be considered a sin. 

As said before, Jewish people were directed to perform circumcision and this is viewable in the bible. Moving away from this was necessary because there is a new method to acknowledge God's people. We see this in everything as we switch from o.t. to n.t. 
From physical to spiritual. 

But where is the call out for circumcision being a sin now? 

3. 
Well, its not for the health of the baby

For you, its not for the health of the baby. That is your position. Doesn't have to he mine nor anyone elses. 


Since you basically said that people dont own their bodies, that is just proof of how far you are willing to go in defending circumcision.
No. Personal belief. I don't own my body. 

4.  

If you cannot explain it, it will be really awkward for you.

No. Not at all. Many people are able to see or believe in something they can not explain or articulate. 

Ownership is something that can change hand. For one reason or another. If I own my body then I can loose ownership. Maybe because I do not have mental capabilities to consent or navigate life. 

Regardless, I am responsible for my body just as I am responsible for my actions, my wife, my child, my friendships, etc. I am responsible for many things and these things do not rely on ownership. My choices influence them and affect them. Therefore there are limitations to what I or anyone else should do. 

5. 
If you do have a right to cut that which you dont own, then why is me cutting off your ear wrong?
I never said anything about a right. We are performing a medical or surgical procedure that provides a benefit. Although that benefit may increase or decrease depending on where you live, there is still a benefit. 

As a parent I make choices for my children to benefit them. This is not a right but an responsibility for parenthood. I associate it with maintaining health and wellbeing. 

Cutting off an ear is not explicitly wrong .  A doctor can cut off my ear. If there is a personal benefit or medical reason, then we do not consider it wrong. If you are a prick just cutting off a person's ear, then there are no benefits. Not much of a challenge in comparison. 


Topic's author
#51
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,621
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@hey-yo
Again. Intent is desire to commit an action because of its results.
Wrong. 

Intent = knowing the results of actions and still desiring to do it.


You are providing a reason someone may be considered guilty of sin. This has nothing to do with intent.
Wrong. Bible defines intent as having knowledge of the action and having knowledge that it is a sin and still doing it.


For you, its not for the health of the baby. That is your position. Doesn't have to he mine nor anyone elses.
It has to be the position of anyone who compares countries with lots of circumcision to countries with little to no circumcision. No health benefits.


We are performing a medical or surgical procedure that provides a benefit.
Wrong. See previous line of text.
#52
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Best.Korea
Well this is just circular reasoning now. You say x but pertain no substantial evidence. What is provided is suported by opinion. Well done then. 
Topic's author
#53
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,621
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@hey-yo
Bible clearly tells us not to get circumcised. So if you disobey logic, at least obey God.