Stop the madness, why is this allowed to continue?

[none]

From today's news (Mar 4th 2013):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21658858

"He told the New York Daily News the baby boy would be circumcised and
buried with his parents."

This goes so far beyond all applicable human rights and ethical
concerns that I don't even know where to start.

First of all, posthumous circumcision? What could it possibly benefit?

For the sake of religion, to mutilate the infants body? Of all the
stupid and superstitious beliefs, this has to be on par with
scientology.

You cannot argue there are any health benefits for the boy.

You cannot argue that anybody would have a right to do it. Only
possible people (his parents, who died before him) cannot give any
concent.

This is wrong. Let the poor kid rest in peace and intact.

[Casaman]

Post by none
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21658858
"He told the New York Daily News the baby boy would be circumcised and
buried with his parents."
This goes so far beyond all applicable human rights and ethical
concerns that I don't even know where to start.
First of all, posthumous circumcision? What could it possibly benefit?
For the sake of religion, to mutilate the infants body? Of all the
stupid and superstitious beliefs, this has to be on par with
scientology.
You cannot argue there are any health benefits for the boy.
You cannot argue that anybody would have a right to do it. Only
possible people (his parents, who died before him) cannot give any
concent.
This is wrong. Let the poor kid rest in peace and intact.

My friend, there are a lot of big problems in the world. There's is a war in Syria with 70,000 dead and 1 million refugees, Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb, Pakistan is imploding with hundreds of nuclear weapons likely to disappear in the confusion, a third of the world is living on less than a dollar a day, China is consuming world resources like a giant locust, and so on.

But you are worried about a single posthumous circumcision and want this "madness" stopped. What do you want, a law against it?

I don't know what religion this kid was but I'm assuming his religion required it. Some religions would want his body and foreskin burned, some would want them left out for vultures to eat. So what? It's just dead putrefying flesh whether it's attached or not.

I wish i could understand this foreskin obsession. Why get your knickers in a twist over the supposed outrage of a circumcision on a dead person who's not in a position to care he he has a foreskin or not. I just don't get it.

[none]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:36:07 -0700 (PDT), Casaman

Post by Casaman

Post by none
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21658858
"He told the New York Daily News the baby boy would be circumcised and
buried with his parents."
This goes so far beyond all applicable human rights and ethical
concerns that I don't even know where to start.
First of all, posthumous circumcision? What could it possibly benefit?
For the sake of religion, to mutilate the infants body? Of all the
stupid and superstitious beliefs, this has to be on par with
scientology.
You cannot argue there are any health benefits for the boy.
You cannot argue that anybody would have a right to do it. Only
possible people (his parents, who died before him) cannot give any
concent.
This is wrong. Let the poor kid rest in peace and intact.

My friend, there are a lot of big problems in the world. There's is a war in Syria with 70,000 dead and 1 million refugees, Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb, Pakistan is imploding with hundreds of nuclear weapons likely to disappear in the confusion, a third of the world is living on less than a dollar a day, China is consuming world resources like a giant locust, and so on.
But you are worried about a single posthumous circumcision and want this "madness" stopped. What do you want, a law against it?
I don't know what religion this kid was but I'm assuming his religion required it. Some religions would want his body and foreskin burned, some would want them left out for vultures to eat. So what? It's just dead putrefying flesh whether it's attached or not.
I wish i could understand this foreskin obsession. Why get your knickers in a twist over the supposed outrage of a circumcision on a dead person who's not in a position to care he he has a foreskin or not. I just don't get it.

Wow, your credible retort is just making my mind reel into the abyss
of nirvana. Global famine, wars and nuclear threat. That just
dismisses one single person and his rights down to the ground.

A valid argument? Not even close.

[Jordanian]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:36:07 -0700 (PDT), Casaman wrote: >On Monday, March 4, 2013 6:25:44 PM UTC-5, none wrote: >> From today's news (Mar 4th 2013): >> > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21658858 > >> "He told the New York Daily News the baby boy would be circumcised and >> buried with his parents." >> > >> This goes so far beyond all applicable human rights and ethical >> concerns that I don't even know where to start. >> First of all, posthumous circumcision? What could it possibly benefit? >> For the sake of religion, to mutilate the infants body? Of all the >> stupid and superstitious beliefs, this has to be on par with >> scientology. >> You cannot argue there are any health benefits for the boy. >> You cannot argue that anybody would have a right to do it. Only >> possible people (his parents, who died before him) cannot give any >> concent. >> This is wrong. Let the poor kid rest in peace and intact. > > >My friend, there are a lot of big problems in the world. There's is a war in Syria with 70,000 dead and 1 million refugees, Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb, Pakistan is imploding with hundreds of nuclear weapons likely to disappear in the confusion, a third of the world is living on less than a dollar a day, China is consuming world resources like a giant locust, and so on. > >But you are worried about a single posthumous circumcision and want this "madness" stopped. What do you want, a law against it? > >I don't know what religion this kid was but I'm assuming his religion required it. Some religions would want his body and foreskin burned, some would want them left out for vultures to eat. So what? It's just dead putrefying flesh whether it's attached or not. > >I wish i could understand this foreskin obsession. Why get your knickers in a twist over the supposed outrage of a circumcision on a dead person who's not in a position to care he he has a foreskin or not. I just don't get it.
Wow, your credible retort is just making my mind reel into the abyss of nirvana. Global famine, wars and nuclear threat. That just dismisses one single person and his rights down to the ground. A valid argument? Not even close.

Mr None the only madness here is in your head.

[none]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:55:13 -0700 (PDT), Jordanian

Post by Jordanian
Mr None the only madness here is in your head.

Yet one more to killfile for wasting the valuable hard drive space.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Casaman

Post by none
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21658858
"He told the New York Daily News the baby boy would be circumcised and
buried with his parents."
This goes so far beyond all applicable human rights and ethical
concerns that I don't even know where to start.
First of all, posthumous circumcision? What could it possibly benefit?
For the sake of religion, to mutilate the infants body? Of all the
stupid and superstitious beliefs, this has to be on par with
scientology.
You cannot argue there are any health benefits for the boy.
You cannot argue that anybody would have a right to do it. Only
possible people (his parents, who died before him) cannot give any
concent.
This is wrong. Let the poor kid rest in peace and intact.

My friend, there are a lot of big problems in the world. There's is a war in Syria with 70,000 dead and 1 million refugees, Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb, Pakistan is imploding with hundreds of nuclear weapons likely to disappear in the confusion, a third of the world is living on less than a dollar a day, China is consuming world resources like a giant locust, and so on.
But you are worried about a single posthumous circumcision and want this "madness" stopped. What do you want, a law against it?
I don't know what religion this kid was but I'm assuming his religion required it. Some religions would want his body and foreskin burned, some would want them left out for vultures to eat. So what? It's just dead putrefying flesh whether it's attached or not.
I wish i could understand this foreskin obsession. Why get your knickers in a twist over the supposed outrage of a circumcision on a dead person who's not in a position to care he he has a foreskin or not. I just don't get it.

You're only supposed to care about monumental tragedies involving thousands of people.