 |
|
|
|
 Arsalan Iftikhar says the debate on circumcision is really about religious freedom.
July 17th, 2012
07:41 AM ET
My Take: Jews and Muslims should unite against Germany circumcision ban
By Arsalan Iftikhar, Special to CNN (CNN)–According to recent reports, a German court's ban on circumcising baby boys has provoked a rare show of unity between Jews, Muslims and Christians who see it as a threat to religious freedom, while doctors warn it could increase health risks by forcing the practice underground. This recent ruling has global media commentators on all sides of the political aisle debating whether this issue is an affront to religious freedom or a victory to protect the foreskins of young male babies around the world. Several prominent writers, including Michael Gerson of the Washington Post, rightfully challenged this recent legal decision by a local German court in Cologne, which would effectively criminalize ritual circumcision for infant males as an exercise of religious freedom for minority religious communities in the country. Gerson and others have been highlighting this most recent issue vis-à-vis Europe’s infamous history of anti-Semitism, which has long been a sociopolitical stain of xenophobia across European lands. However, it is quite interesting to note that most of these same commentators are not even adequately addressing the fact that the German case in question actually involved a Muslim family, not a Jewish one. Basically, many of these commentators are citing a legal ruling against a Muslim family in Germany to fashion entire columns devoted to prejudice vis-a-vis the Jewish community, with barely a reference to the original case involving Muslims or rising tide of Islamophobia in Europe, which exists alongside anti-Semitism on the spectrum of xenophobia and must be eradicated. CNN's Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the big stories Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel ignored the Muslim origins of this controversy when she recently told her party members that Germany risked becoming a "laughingstock" and that her country should not be "the only country in the world in which Jews cannot practice their [religious] rites". This entire meta-narrative is even more perplexing since most estimates find that Germany is home to approximately 120,000 Jews and more than 4 million Muslims. On the other side of the Germany circumcision debate, noted journalist Andrew Sullivan recently wrote about the topic and asked, "[Can] parents permanently mutilate a child's genitals to pursue their own religious goals?" Although Sullivan clearly states that he "veers on the side of permissiveness" in this case in Germany, he does anchor his position on the belief that the religious practice of infant circumcision is tantamount to male genital mutilation. "At some point, one can only hope this barbarism disappears," writes Sullivan. "And it will have nothing to do with anti-Semitism or Islamophobia; it will be about defending the religious liberty of Jewish and Muslim male [babies] to choose their religion, and not have it permanently marked as scar tissue on their [genitals]." Although I usually agree with much of his writing on most subjects, I would be curious to see if Sullivan would also consider parents who pierce the ears of their baby daughters to be committing "earlobe mutilation"? Probably not. Having said that, this is yet another instance of a "teachable moment" where Jews, Muslims and people of all faiths (or no faith) can unite to promote religious freedom for all people around the world. Since we tend to live in tribalistic circles where Muslim people tend to focus only on Islamophobia and Jewish people tend to focus only on anti-Semitism, we need to instill a new culture where Jewish people speak against Islamophobia and Muslim people speak against anti-Semitism across the globe. Similarly, as an international human rights lawyer, it would behoove me to highlight the importance for the global community to protect the legal and political rights of all religious minorities in every part of the world. In the case of the German circumcision ban, people of conscience should stand with both Muslim and Jewish communities in Germany to help ensure that anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are equally challenged, especially since we are seeing right-wing xenophobic political parties continue to rise to prominence in many part of the European Union. Similarly, we should also speak up for disenfranchised religious minorities in other parts of the world, whether it is Coptic Christians in Egypt, the Baha'i community in Iran, the Rohingya Muslims in Burma (now known as Myanmar) or the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter Even though we do not yet live in a world where many Jewish and Muslim people agree on many geopolitical matters, the concept of religious freedom should be something that people of all faiths (or no faith) should be able to agree upon wholesale. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Basically, at a time where the world seems to become even more polarized on a daily basis, this latest Germany circumcision debate should be used by Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities to stand in solidarity and unite in an essence of true Abrahamic camaraderie, regardless of whether we are circumcised or not. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Arsalan Iftikhar.
Next entry »Drafting Israel's ultra-Orthodox?
« Previous entryOrdination on the go? There’s an app for that!
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor's note: Arsalan Iftikhar is an international human rights lawyer, founder of TheMuslimGuy.com and author of the book "
Why can't the mutilators wait until the boy is 18, and let him decide for himself?
So if they suffer from chronic tonsillitis you should wait until they are old enough to decide if they want them out ..right?
Our friend Beam has failed to maintain a distinction between medically necessary and unnecessary procedures. Oops!
@Beam "So if they suffer from chronic tonsillitis you should wait until they are old enough to decide if they want them out ..right?"
Yes because cutting out tonsils to reduce incidence of infectious disease in a child and improve general health is clearly similar to cutting off a piece of the genitalia because a magic man in the sky says to do so for no other reason than subjective cosmetic appearance. The American Pediatric Society has stated that baed upon current medical data routine infant circmcision cannot be reccommended.
Tonsillectomy is not a "necessary" treatment, it can be treated as any other viral or bacterial infection.
The APS also says, "In circu[.]mstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."
To "jp", agree with you 100%
The often-cited excuse that it is a health benefit is overstated for the simple reason that there is a membrane between the foreskin and the head of the peni_s that prevents germs (bacteria) from collecting under the foreskin. This membrane is usually ruptured after first inter_course (or rough mastur_bation). So circu_mcision is not warranted for an infant, and is not worth the risk that ANY kind of surgery has – especially at such a tender age. When the child comes of age, then they can make the decision as to cut or not cut.
My mom made the choice, and I'm an Irish, Russian, Native Canadian, gentile. Let me tell you, its a lot easier to keep clean, and it doesn't look nearly as creepy as all the ones with the flaps of skin hanging over the mushroom. Yuck.
Totally true! And besides, no one likes sucking an "anteater."
First of all, not all Jews want anything to do with Muslims. Let's be clear on that.
Second, why are writers in Cologne, Germany on this matter? This is none of their business and it's up to those who are German nationals to protest or support. Another clear example of people with far too much time on their hands and a desire to stick their noses where they simply do not belong. It's not a religious freedom issue. It's a health initiative. Argue on those merits for or against.
"... It's a health initiative. Argue on those merits for or against..."
The often-cited excuse that it is a health benefit is overstated for the simple reason that there is a membrane between the foreskin and the head of the peni_s that prevents germs (bacteria) from collecting under the foreskin. This membrane is usually ruptured after first inter_course (or rough mastur_bation). So circu_mcision is not warranted for an infant, and is not worth the risk that ANY kind of surgery has – especially at such a tender age. When the child comes of age, then they can make the decision as to cut or not cut.
Guess you did not agree with me again, so you did not post what I wrote.
Bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN automatic filter:
Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters or some html tricks to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
---
ar-se.....as in ar-senic.
co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, etc.
co-on.....as in racc-oon, coc-oon, etc.
cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
cu-nt.....as in Scu-nthorpe, a city in the UK famous for having problems with filters...!
ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, drift-wood, etc.
ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, etc.
ho-oters…as in sho-oters
ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
hu-mp… as in th-ump, th-umper, th-umping
jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
nip-ple
o-rgy….as in po-rgy, zo-rgy, etc.
pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
p-orn… as in p-ornography
pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
que-er
ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
sl-ut
sm-ut…..as in transm-utation
sn-atch
sp-ank
sp-ic.....as in desp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
sp-oon
sp-ook… as in sp-ooky, sp-ooked
strip-per
ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, ent-ities, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, etc.
va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
wt-f....also!!!!!!!
There's another phrase that someone found, "wo-nderful us" (have no idea what sets that one off).
So, when will Germany ban children's hair cuts? (This from a country who won't make speed limits FFS!)
Hair can grow back. They have speed limits and speeding ticket cams.
If it's not catholic priests abusing children, it's jews and muslims. Good to know that god has all the angles covered on child abuse.
Sarah Palin made a necklace out of her foreskin collection.
Come be with me ladies. If you need a real man and not someone who had his thing chopped off I will show you the difference.
Ladies dont like burrito weiners LOL
You're just a special kind of insecure perv, aren't you?
Guess it's no surprise that these comment sections are filled with inane, juvenile humor. Women typically don't care one way or another so get over yourselves.
I like having genetalia that does not resemble a tube sock
@ Arbiter
Granted it is a very limited source, but every woman I’ve ever spoken to or seen on TV talking about this DOES care.
Robert
"I like having genetalia that does not resemble a tube sock"
Yeah... have you ever seen one of those geoduck clams?!
Arbiter im going to call you Taco weiner LOL, you and Paul should dock together! LOL
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
Yeah, and most people would admit that gen-itals in general look weird as f-uck but that doesn't stop people from getting it on. Given the fact that almost half of the males in the US (not sure about the numbers in Europe) are uncut, it obviously isn't that big an obstacle in terms of finding women who are ok with it.
From a personal standpoint, the few women I've met who claimed they had a preference did so based on ignorance (had never been with or never even seen one). From experience I have yet to meet a single woman who cared enough for it to be an issue. In fact, most of the comments I've heard pertaining to which is preferable come from guys, and honestly I don't really care what another dude thinks of my junk.
That aaron guy does a fantastic job of proving my last point.
Alright for ALL THOSE interested in the difference from my own viewpoint. The tip is obviously more sensitive. I really understand why babies who have it done cry all the time because it does hurt.
If a chick is extremely rough then it is impossible to get off without a doubt because it is painful. When you are first getting used to going inside a woman it does hurt, but stops soon after.
Good news is the tip is super sensitive so it feels 10x's better I bet just saying
Not my post, Ar. Some troll, not me.
That baby is freaking out over this!
If they are so concerned about BABIES, maybe they shoud OUTLAW ABORTION.
UNFAIR!!!! How dare you resort to logical consistency against Liberals! For shame, don't you know they are unarmed where that is concerned.
There's a difference between a fully developed baby and a mass of cells. Late term abortions shouldn't be allowed though.
If they are so concerned about IMMIGRATION maybe they should KILL ALL THE MEXICANS.
Sound liek a goood plan rite?
Abortion does not kill babies you theistic fuvktard
Mickey1313
How is it that abortion does not kill babies?
Are you going with the tired arguement that it is not a baby until birth?...tired argument and splitting hairs. it is a living human, no question.
Abortion ends a life....the life form has a complete set of human DNA and all humans went through the natural processes that the life form is undergoing, no matter when you intercede. WHen you intercede to stop the natural process, with malice aforethought, you DO commit murder, by definition.
@Rational
A baby isn't fully developed either. Nor is a teenager. Where exactly is the line and why?
@Mickey
Correct! Technically. But only due to grammatical weirdness. Abortion does not kill babies. Abortion is the killing of a baby.
But Jim, if they're dead who cares if they are circu.mcised or not?
@Veritas
Conservatives are in no position to argue over logical consistency. I say this as an independent.. not a liberal. Both Jim’s and your lack of knowledge of the science on the subject is amusing and terrifying at the same time.
@Who invited me?: "it is a living human, no question."
Argument from as-sumption. Your statement is opinion, not fact. If it was fact, you would have data and verifiable evidence that supports your claim. You have presented no supporting, verifiable evidence.
15 yard penalty, no points for you. Please try harder next time.
@Who invited me?
You're equating two different things. Human life does not equal personhood rights, and that's the true nature of the debate. When does a fetus obtain personhood rights, and where do the rights of the mother, who is having her body used, stop? Why does the fetus' rights overcome the mothers right to not want her body used in that way?
Eric G
The life form has a full set of human DNA. fact
The life form is undergoing a natural process of life. Fact
No human that has ever lived has NOT gone through this process. Fact.
Now your turn. why do you not think it is a natural stage of life (which means it is alive, and the genes say it is human)
AND by the way, you wnet through these stages of life, and would not be alive if you didn't.
hawaii
I am not saying that the life form has rights above its mother...I am posing the arguement of what is a human life...
while I know that an abortion does fit the definition of murder, I do not in any way advocate that we can adjudicate something that is of such a personal matter. It is a human life...it is not a citizen....perhaps that is a better way of stating it.
@Who invited me?
Citizenship, personhood, I think both get the thought across nicely.
@ who invited me – technically, a hangnail will have all the DNA of a human. Technically, a booger will have all the DNA of a human. Technically, there are cells in your poop and urine that have all the DNA of a human.
Technically, an acorn has the DNA of an Oak tree. Is an acorn an Oak tree?
Wonkiot
All of the things you mention have DNA within it but are not alive. They all come the process of life so prove that where they came from is alive. What is your point?
@Who invited me?: Sorry, your response is illogical. This fact does not change due to the fact that you lack the capacity to understand why your response is illogical. Your statement was that "it is a life" is fact. You now need to define life clearly. Your descriptions do not define life. For example, the hair on my head is not alive, but contains my DNA.
I would be happy to suggest some reading where you can educate yourself on logic, if you wish.
I can also suggest some wonderful biology courses you can use to better understand the subject.
Please let me know if I can be of help.
Eric G
Sure go ahead and "help" me ....you attack my argument but offer none of your own, so by all means, explain why something that is going through a natural life process is not alive.
Not my post. Wasn't home between 12:40 and just now. If you're going to post, troll, then use your own name.
Eric G
Didn't think so...coward.
Eric G, your hair is a part of your body and contains your genes. Homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. That's the scientific definition of life, and fetus meets it, your hair doesn't. It's an inconvenient truth, but to abort is to kill.
I suppose it's easier when we hide behind 'legal' definitions though. The same legal definitions that will charge someone with murder for punching a pregnant woman in the stomach, even if she'd planned to abort the baby that day.
You don't quite grasp the concept of 'choice', do you, Pol? It shows.
Enigmatic as always Tom. I don't know what choice has to do with this. Either:
A. The unborn child is a human life and terminating that life is murdering it.(Punch a pregnant woman in the stomach)
B. The unborn child is a thing that can be grown or discarded until you sign a birth certificate. In which case punching a pregnant woman in the stomach should be assault, not murder.
How is it that the law will use the unborn child as a human for some cases, and then as it's mother's property in others? And if the child is considered human in those cases, how can you then go on to say it doesn't even have a right to determine whether it's own existence can continue? Sorry that's a contradiction.
POL & Tom
While I have long held that abortion is murder, and can give specific reasons for this, I also strongly believe thatI do not have the right to legislate on someone elses body . I would not be with a woman that would consider abortion except in the case of medical necessity, and I would treat any woman that has had an abortion the same as any other murderer.
I cannot condone the use of abortion as birth control, but also cannot impose my feelings on this to another....I also would fight tooth and nail if you expect me to pay for it (government sponsered/funded abortions is the same as making me a party to murder in my view and I am fighting it currently.)
Who, assuming you are an American, or member of one of the other countries that participated in the illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, do you feel equally guilty for murdering innocents there and are you protesting that, or are you a typical religious hypocrite that picks and chooses who is worthy of your support, perhaps only if they are members of your cult?
Blah, blah, blah. You are clueless. No one who is pro-choice is pro-abortion. Those who believe the choice is up to the woman who is pregnant do not "advocate" abortion up to 8 and a half months and that you have to tell lies is quite revealing. "Murder" is a legal term, not a medical one. "Murder" is defined as "unlawful killing" and abortion is not illegal or unlawful. Even when it was, it was never considered 'murder'. The fact that you can't figure out why hitting a pregnant woman and causing the death of a fetus IS murder bespeaks stupidity on your part. Someone who kills someone else's late-term fetus is infringing on the rights of the woman to choose for herself what she will do with HER fetus. The fetus is viable outside the woman's body at that stage. Most states do not allow an abortion at that point except in very specific circ umstances, and certainly not without the permission of the person carrying said fetus.
Furthermore, you morons, no one ever said a fetus wasn't "human" or "alive". Of course it is. That isn't the issue. The issue is not when life begins but when rights are guaranteed. A woman cannot be deprived of her rights in favor of those of a fetus before it is viable outside her body. It's as simple as that. If the fetus is guaranteed rights while dependent on the body of a woman, then the rights of the woman will be abrogated as a result.
0g
No actually, the subject did not slide into the overall killing of people as a rule.
I was against the wars as well and protested them but none of my arguments are religious based. I have been an atheist my entire life, so don't assume you know jack about me. I have forgotten more about science and technology than you will ever know, and I have studied the worlds religions as a hobby since I could read. I also know that life begins at conception, but we do not know when sentience begins
Oh the irony...
I stated my assumptions openly so that you could concur or not. You chastise me and then go on to write "I have forgotten more about science and technology than you will ever know," You can't even follow your own advice – why should anyone else take it?
Apparently you're not up to snuff on law Tom. That legal definition applies to a fetus at any stage. Punch her at 1 week or 8 months, it doesn't matter, it's still murder.
I believe it varies from state to state. Not all states have such laws. In many states, I believe that the crime is considered as being a violation of HER rights, not those of the fetus.
I believe it's you, Polly, who is "not up to snuff":
http://ww w.nc sl.o rg/ is sues-resear ch/h ealth/fetal-homicide-state-law s.a sp x
Fetal homicide laws all exclude abortion, Polly. The only one who has a right to end the life of a fetus is the woman carrying it. If you don't like it that she has said right, tough.
I suspect you're male and I believe WIM is as well. When you're able to transplant a fetus into your body, you can have a say about what happens to it. Until then, the only route you have is your vote and in the decades since R v W was decided, it's stood.
Tom
You are right I am a male. I stand by a womans rights, I do not believe I have any right to impose my views on a womans body, That while this is a volitile subject, my feelings are immaterial when it comes to the privacy and inherant rights one has on ones own body.
Just so you know,some years ago, I was seeing a girl,she became pregnant and sought an abortion. I felt it was not right and wanted to raise my child, but the courts sided with her, which I can understand the viewpoint, but I did not have any rights when it came to my own progeny. I lost out on experiencing the life of my own child because of a decision that was unilaterally made against my personal beliefs. Other side of the coin ultimately was that I did not have the right to unilaterally impose my belief on the woman, and she ultimately won the case. I have pondered this at great length over the years, but cannot find a more just way of handling such a delicate and personal thing. I have always sided with the womans right to choose over my own feelings because inherent right trump feelings everytime.
Polly, you might want to examine your claim that punching a woman in the stomach would be considered murder if the fetus were killed. That varies from state to state as well. In some cases, it is murder if the person who committed the assault knew or should have reasonable known that the woman was pregnant. In some states, the death of a fetus is only considered a murder if it occurred during the commission of certain types of crimes.
Before you start spouting off about what the law says, maybe you should be certain you know what you're talking about.
WIM, you are certainly within your rights to feel as you wish. The reason the courts do not give the father of the fetus a say is because he isn't the one who bears the risks of pregnancy.
Apparently it is state-by-state according to your source. Now about rights being abrogated. That's an interesting argument to make. It's part of the reason I won't speak out against abortion when the mothers life is at stake. But, I see we're not going to agree here because, in my opinion, the right to live is paramount. I think every human life has potential and should be given the opportunity to explore it. No matter how you slice the issue, a human life was ended when an abortion occurs.
It may be her right to do what she wants with her body(like those who drink heavily or use crack). That doesn't mean it's the 'right' thing to do or that an unborn life deserves no rights of it's own.
Tom
I understand that and agree. since both parents have the same right as to the child, the deciding factor must go to the woman whos life and health a directly effected. It is often difficult to accept the dual feelings I have in this matter, but the balance tips to the woman every time.
I am opposed whole heartedly to abortion being used as a method of birth control, and I will fight when my tax dollars are being used to help fund it. That DOES cross a line I cannot abide by. I cannot remove abortion as an option for a woman and if it is going to be an option, then the safer the better, but do not expect me to pay for it.
You can argue that if you wish, but if you're not sitting on the bench of the SCOTUS, what you think is irrelevant. The courts have determined that women have a right to make decisions about their bodies and the contents thereof, within certain constraints. Your beliefs as to what is "right" or "wrong" are not important to anyone but you. What matters is the law.
If a woman were pregnant and her doctors determined that the fetus required surgery in utero, but the woman did not wish to have said surgery, what would occur if the fetus had 'equal' or 'special' rights under law? Would the woman's right to bodily integrity be abrogated in favor of the 'rights' of the fetus? If so, then the woman is being deprived of her full rights because she is pregnant.
In this country, no one can be forced to donate an organ or even so much as a drop of blood against his will–even in a case of life and death-because of our right to bodily integrity and privacy. When you figure out how to force women to continue a pregnancy they don't want without infringing on their consti tutionally guaranteed rights, do let the SCOTUS know.
In addition, Polly, you believe abortion is "immoral". I do not. Since your rights and your body are not directly affected, nor are anyone else's rights impacted by a woman's abortion, why should your beliefs hold sway? They don't; that's why we have laws.
One more little hint, Polly: 'it's' = "it is".
@Who invited me?: Sorry for the delay.
I appologize if you feel that I "attacked" your argument. I only point out the fact that your argument is not logical, and then gave the reasons why. Your perception that you feel attacked is irrelevant. The fact is that you have made illogical posts that when challenged as such, you do not correct.
I will attempt to explain it in a way that you can understand. Any claim of fact must be supported by verifiable supporting evidence. Please remember this before you make more unsubstantiated claims.
I would suggest you stay in the shallow end of the pool with the other children while the adults talk.
Eeic G
Do you have any opposing argument or have you come to attack an argument again with none of your own?
I explained what I meant, you have not answered the question I posed to you.
Why do you think that something that is going through a natural biological process is not alive?
Note I do not mean sentient...I mean alive as in demonstrating the characteristics we associate with life.
I already mentioned medical justifications. Your life is at risk if a doctor needs to cut open your stomach in order to have a child. I'm not sure what laws on organ donning have to do with it.
Protest does matter Tom, because you have to start by voicing dissent to change any law. And please don't give me that "Only the law matters" line, because the law is whatever people decided it to be. Laws have justified everything from sl av ery, to gena cide. Restating that abortion is legal doesn't make it anymore right. And Supreme Court Justices don't live forever.
As far as morality goes. Yes some people don't think every life deserves the same rights. A child soldier in Africa might have slightly different morality than a Buddhist, an astounding insight. I'll push it because the unborn child is alive, human, and deserves protection as such. Some might just considered people numbers to be calculated and discarded, with no feeling either way.
When I use the term 'it's' in regards to unborn children that's only because that's easier than saying typing he/she over and over. However gender is determined at conception. An unborn child is never actually an "it".
@Who invited me?: One more time for the uneducated.......
I AM NOT ATTACKING, NOR ARGUING YOUR POSITION!!!!!
I AM STATING THE FACT THAT YOUR POST IS ILLOGICAL BECAUSE YOU MAKE CLAIMS OF FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE!!!!!!
Is that clear now Junior?
As to your other question. Coal is undergoing a natural biological process. Is it alive? You have not defined life. Your claim that life begins at conception is an opinion, not fact. If it were fact, you could support it with evidence that could be verified. Once verified, the evidence becomes demonstrative and will prove your theory. To state that you have a background in a scientific field, and thus know what you are talking about is called the "argument from authority fallacy". Your background is irrelevant. Your opinion is irrelevant. Your claims of knowledge are irrelevant. Only evidencially supported facts are relevant.
My post is not an attack. Your post calling me a "coward" is an attack. Either you do not understand the difference between these two, which is evidence of ignorance, or you do understand the diffenence but knowingly make illogical claims anyway, which is evidence of intellectual dishonesty.
Based on the evidence shown in your posts, I am developing a theory that you are either ignorant or dishonest. I do not have enough evidence to prove one and disporove the other, but keep posting and soon, I am sure I will.
Poltergist – according to what you posted as defining life, a glioblastoma growing on your brain is alive. Is it murder to remove it?
Eic G
You want me to give you a full biology lesson in a blog.
that's funny...almost as funny as someone calling a great-grandfather junior.
If you can't see for yourself that an egg,just fertilized by a sperm is a living cell, then I will not be able to convince you in this limited space.
It is a living cell, that cell having the genetic make-up of a human, and if left to nature , will grow into a human being.(like you,you went through it as well)
At what point were you alive ( not sentient, but alive).you started as one living cell and grew from there, you would not have grown if you were not alive already. if you were inanimate, you would not be.
You want me to try to explain to you what life is, well for that you will need much more time and space than this blog
junior....that's funny
Polly, get a clue. You're not using the correct term. It is "ITS", no apostrophe. What part of that is so difficult for some of your ilk?
You don't see what donation of organs or blood have to do with anything because you do not understand the basis for the law. It is that all people have a right to privacy and bodily integrity. No one can be forced to have surgery, donate blood or sustain the life of a fetus. It is a violation of the right to do with our bodies as we wish as long as our actions do not infringe on the civil rights of others. No woman can be forced to act as an incubator against her will.
Do you get it now? Probably not, but I don't give a sh!t because you're not much of a threat inasmuch as you're dumb as a post.
It's GENOCIDE. And you are wrong as regards morals and law. Morals are subjective. You can believe abortion is morally wrong, but laws are not based on morality. They are based on ethics and the rights of individuals as guaranteed by our Const itution and Bill of Rights. That is why we use law to determine what we may or may not do, rather than morality.
You can whine all you want about what's moral, but it's nothing but your opinion and no one else is required to live by your morals or beliefs.
Justices have come and gone and R v W stands. Through conservative administrations, it has remained in place. The majority of those polled do not wish to see it overturned.
@Primewonk, a malignant tumor contains my genetic code, is direct off growth of my tissue, and will not begin walking or talking unless this is the Marvel Universe. A fetus is a separate organism from it's mother. They are only connected by an umbilical cord. The fetus' biological process and development are and genes are independent. According to the criteria established by biologist, a fetus is alive.
That's goes double for Eric G. Open up wikipedia and if you still don't understand, ask someone to explain the criteria for life to you. He doesn't have to prove anything a fetus being alive is a given. You're the one with the necro-baby theory.
@Who invited me?: No, I don't expect or want a biology lesson from someone who is obviously not qualified to provide one. I do request that you support your claims of fact with verifiable evidence.
Based on your conditions, one could argue that the cells you define as life can only survive as a parasite within a viable host. If the host were to die, so would the parasite. The example you present does not meet the specifications you have previously posted as being life.
Again, your age is irrelevant. "Junior" is a reference to your obviously challenged intellectual capacity.
Eric G
So tell me why do you think that an egg just fertilized by a sperm is NOT alive.
Lets delve into your ignorance for a while
Eric G, Brony said this about me above, based on one post: "I have forgotten more about science and technology than you will ever know,..." and I *know* I know more than you, so there's no chance you can match wits with Brony. :^))
Sorry, it was Who who made the above claim, but he does bear some resemblance to Brony...
(OT, sorry, sorry, sorry, but...)
polergiest,
Re: the it/it's deal - the ONLY time an apostrophe is used is when you mean "it is".
Also, your screen name questionable too (or does it have some hidden meaning?). The usual spelling is: poltergeist.
Polly, you didn't grasp the point about surgery in utero, either, naturally. The hypothetical situation I described doesn't require the woman to be "cut open to have a baby." Surgery in utero can be performed without incisions. That doesn't change the issue anyway. Right now, no one, not even a pregnant woman, can be forced to have a medical procedure against her will. Were a fetus to have special rights, a woman could indeed be forced to have a procedure she doesn't want. That would mean she becomes a second-class citizen.
@Who invited me?: Now, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof inherent to your claim of fact. I did not say what defines or does not define life, you did. All claims of fact carry the responsibility of their burden of proof. As you are the one making the claim, you must satisfy the burden of proof. I cannot satisfy your burden of proof for you.
On a side note, why do you keep making the as-sumption that I disagree with your position? All I have stated is that you have made claims of fact without evidence. Why are you so sensitive to the verifiaction process?
I warned you that you were not going to win this argument. What you just cannot grasp is that this is not an argument because I have not taken the other side. It has been fun rattling your cage, but seriously dude, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Thank you for the spell checking, I have some rough drafts I could email your way if you're up for the challenge.
For someone who knows so much about the law you seem to forget those gaps in history where the consti tution and Bill of Rights was not the end all be all of morality. It was morale to treat some people in the nation as second class once and the bill of rights or consti tution took centuries to simply allow basic rights for people already alive. People stood out, said it was wrong, and over time secured those rights. Well I consider an unborn child a life that deserves rights and protections as well, I will speak out for it.
States impose abortion limits on when a pregnancy can be terminated. So what are you saying? That after that arbitrary limit passes those women are now hapless incubators? That's very dramatic but a gross mis-characterization. Even you yourself mentioned that abortion advocates, "...who believe the choice is up to the woman who is pregnant do not "advocate" abortion up to 8 and a half months...". So how's that supposed to work, it's all about women's rights until you feel uncomfortable about it? No, it's an acknowledgement that, at some point, you have to consider the unborn child a human that deserves basic rights.
"Based on your conditions, one could argue that the cells you define as life can only survive as a parasite within a viable host. If the host were to die, so would the parasite."
Eric G. parasites are alive. They meet the criteria. Anymore questions.
Polly, it has nothing to do with my feeling uncomfortable or comfortable with anything. It has to do with the viability of the fetus outside the woman's body.
As for your silly comparisons with slavery, hear this: when the Consti tution was written, abortions were legal and abortion services were advertised in public. Abortion has been legal far longer than it was ever illegal. That is because the courts recognized that depriving women of their rights was not in accordance with the Consti tution, just as slavery was outlawed.
Now, run along and study that "its/it's" thing. You're not equipped to argue anything when you haven't even mastered the language, and you're certainly not qualified to dictate to others how they should live their lives.
@Polergiest: Yes, I do have questions....
What is the relevance of your statement that parasites are alive?
Are you equating a human embryo to a tapeworm?
Did "who invited me" drop his shovel?
My position, for the record: Unless it is your body, you have no right to decide. If a male child reaches legal adulthood and wants to undergo the procedure, they should be able to. They should not have it forced upon them because of the belief of others.
Almost forgot: Polly, you seem to have a great deal of difficulty with the concept that laws are not based on morals. They're not based on the Bible, either. You have failed to acknowledge this argument and simply pretended it doesn't exist. Morality is subjective. That is why we have law.
@Who invited me & Polergiest: "You STOLE Fizzy-Lifting Drinks! You BUMPED into the ceiling, which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get... NOTHING!!! You lose! GOOD DAY, SIR!"
Courtesy of Tom Tom
Okay, I laughed.
[quote] Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."[quote]
Exactly Mr.Iftikhar. The resolution grants the rights for your child to choose and practice his religion as he seems fits. Please note that you are not granted the right to make his religious decisions for him at any stage in life. Let the child choose whether he should appease his Gods by chopping off a part of his genitals or not, when he is able to make the decision.
they all look like german helmets......
I think this debate should not be about religion – it should be about causing pain and harm to children. How can anyone condone operating on a small baby or child and then to orally "clear" away the blood? How painful must this be to small children, who are helpless to protest – other than by screaming? I'm Catholic and have a son.
Your Son is going to be laughed at school..hes going to be called names bc he is uncir
@Geraldine,
"How can anyone condone .... to orally 'clear' away the blood?"
I don't think many are condoning this bizarre practice.
get your government off my bits.
It's other people's bits which we need legislation for.
Jesus on a stick people; cut it off, its ugly, tis traps bacteria, you can develope life threatening infections, more prone to disease and again, its ugly. Its like saying, leave your wisdom teeth in so they mess your whole chopper up. Or dont take that gall bladder out, it doesnt do anything but kill you. Dont cut your toe nails either. Its ugly, cut it off, forget about religion, make your boy proud and his girlfriend happy, chop chop..
If you wash, you don't need to do this. If you don't wash your baby, then mutilate him.
There is this new invention called SOAP, it keeps you clean. There is no evidence of increased risk of std or other illness. And you think it is yucky because you are brainwashed into the jewism mythos. End theism and the theistic abuse of childeren
Yes indeedy. All babies need to have elective Cholecystectomies. Where do they get these idiots ? Some people are just too stupid to live.
I have been fine my 28 years of life and probably more healthy then most of you people. This is just Jewish propaganda. Thank you Germans for fixing this problem. They are very good at solving these types of issues.
@Paul
Your personal health is irrelevant. Studies have PROVEN otherwise.
True...even the World Health Organization show its reduces the risk of getting AIDS. In the John Hopkins report it also reduces getting many other STD including herpes or passing on HVP to women.
To "Tom, Tom... "...Studies have PROVEN otherwise..."
The often-cited excuse that it is a health benefit is overstated for the simple reason that there is a membrane between the foreskin and the head of the peni_s that prevents germs (bacteria) from collecting under the foreskin. This membrane is usually ruptured after first inter_course (or rough mastur_bation). So circu_mcision is not warranted for an infant, and is not worth the risk that ANY kind of surgery has – especially at such a tender age. When the child comes of age, then they can make the decision as to cut or not cut.
Not my post above. Some lame-ass troll.
Human rights should only include that which does not harm another. People have the right to their spiritual experiences of themselves only – not rights to hurt another.
Here's the problem. A newborn baby is not a 'Jew' or a 'Muslim' or a 'Christian'. A newborn baby is a newborn baby, he has no religious beliefs. He may grow up and become a member of one of these religions, or another religion, or none at all. To make this decision for them at birth, and then mutilate them without their permission, is barbaric.
Nail on the .. um .. head (pun intended).
It's just a part of the indoctrination process .. if we cut them, they will join.
Frank, do you have children? Parents make decisions for their children all the time that they have no control over that will affect the rest of their lives. Vaccinations, food choices, school choices, friend choices, etc... Parents do what they feel is best for their kids. And sometimes there is pain involved.
Christian and Muslim are religions. Jew is both a religion and a race. A newborn baby is never Christian or Muslim, but can be Jewish in race without religion.
Parents make choices of course. But choices like this are not necesary. It can wait.
Yea so don't remove their tonsils when they get repeated tonsillitis ...or have their wisdom teeth removed that can become impacted and infected....or many other things that parents need to do for the health benefits of their children. Even The World Health Organization says doing this helps protect against AIDS. John Hopkins report shows it also help prevents them from getting other STD so easily. There ARE alot of health benefits for having this done.
To "Beam" "...There ARE alot of health benefits for having this done..."
The often-cited excuse that it is a health benefit is overstated for the simple reason that there is a membrane between the foreskin and the head of the peni_s that prevents germs (bacteria) from collecting under the foreskin. This membrane is usually ruptured after first inter_course (or rough mastur_bation). So circu_mcision is not warranted for an infant, and is not worth the risk that ANY kind of surgery has – especially at such a tender age. When the child comes of age, then they can make the decision as to cut or not cut.
Uhhhhh. I'm pretty sure an aisle has just two sides..... (so both, not "all').
"commentators on all sides of the political aisle debating"
Well aren't you the obsessive little fellow. I bet you carry hand sanitizer with you to slather on doorknobs.
Not my post. Troll, why is it you feel compelled to post under my name? Why not use your own?
We were created by God and belong to Him. If He wants us to cut off foreskins (and for good reasons) then let's just do it and stop trying to play god, thinking we know what's best. His thoughts are above ours and someday we'll all see that.
How does anyone really know what he wants...did he tell you last night when he talked to you?
which god?
If he wanted them snipped, 1) why doesn't he snip them himself? and 2) why did he design something that needed to be snipped? Sounds like an argument for Faulty Intelligence, Faulty Design, or Faulty Myth....
Ummm wow Lucy! God also wanted you to rob a bank for me. Can you just go do it now, please?
So a perfect God makes man in his image but then decides that little bit on the end of the penis he had added during creation is not working out and needs to be removed so on threat of death the Jews are commanded to start chopping... right, makes so much sense it almost hurts...
" His thoughts are above ours and someday we'll all see that."
No, they aren't and no, we won't. You will continue proclaiming that nonsense all the way to your grave but it will never happen because imaginary beings do not have thoughts of their own, only the thoughts you think for them.
Lucy, come sit on my stick you nasty lil hoe.
I agree with Lucy. If god says to take slaves, curse blacks, kill children for childish indiscretions, stone non-believers, and berate women, we should just do it without asking questions since God said it.
Please tell me you're joking and this is a sarcastic comment.
Lucy, what are you doing here? Did not our brother Paul instruct that women are to sit at their master's feet. Did he not specifically say that women are not to have authority over men, or lecture men, especially in matters of faith? Yet here you are. Lecturing men in matters of faith.
Now, why don't you be a good little religious nutter and go make us men a sammich? And then, sit down and shut up like your god commands.
Wow, your post is confounding.
It is amazing that this barbaric practice still can be allowed to go on, using the most vacuous, non-sensical justifications, like a supreme being somehow requires it...but wait, the source is the same book that does not seem to offer clarity on whether slavery is an acceptable idea or not, and on and on...
you'd think in a day and age where female genital mutilation is disgusting that male genital mutilation would fall under the same category...
As you know women are a lot more open than a man
To many nh ewish apoligests for that. Zionism must be stoped
Yes, indeed.
Human rights should only include that which does not harm another. People have the right to their spiritual experiences of themselves only – not rights to hurt another.