"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
Ok now here are the facts so far right. Mushrooms have the benefit of preventing cancer. They even have antibacterial properties. The may prevent breast cancer as well plus other types like penile cancer. They prevent aids right and hiv. They donít grow fungus either since they are a fungus. That is the biggest evidence of all. I have a few links as proof if you need it debate over. You boil them mash them and put them in stews too.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/forum-...rum-rules.html (Forum Rules)
Thanks for your cooperation.
Originally Posted by Jerry
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states : Sec. 15 (1) "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right of equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, age, or mental and physical ability".
Section 28: Notwithstanding anything in the Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to males and females.
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states: "No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."
Criminal laws designed to protect one sex only, in Canada and the USA, are clearly against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the American Constitution. If female circumcision is specifically identified as a criminal offense in Canada and in the USA, then clearly such laws must be applied equally to males. The Supreme Courts of either country could hardly rule otherwise. If they did, the Charter of Rights and the American Constitution would not be worth the paper on which they are written. If one law can be made which is discriminatory against sex, then how many other laws can likewise be enacted?
If we have freedom to mutilate boys for religious or social reasons - then what about a similar right to mutilate girls? A law has been enacted both in Canada and the USA stating that any form of female circumcision, regardless of severity, and unless medically necessary, would constitute a criminal offence. The American law outlawing female circumcision states that religious beliefs and customs are not acceptable reasons to permit it under the law. Is this the American definition of religious freedom? If laws cannot be permitted to outlaw religious practices or cultural requirements, then why the criminalization of female circumcision?
The Committee responsible for hearing the Canadian Court Challenges ruled that males are already protected under the Criminal Code of Canada in the same manner as females. (This was in response to a court challenge request for funding by the Association for Genital Integrity in Canada.) Therefore there was no need to specifically include male circumcision in the Criminal Code of Canada. According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all laws must apply equally to males and females, regardless of sex or age. If so, circumcision for non-medically indicated reasons on non-consenting individuals is clearly a criminal offense, and as such, males in Canada are free to take legal action any time in their lives. Circumcisers beware.
QUESTION 1: Where under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or under the American Constitution do we have any provisions to discriminate against males?
QUESTION 2: What laws under the Criminal Code permit doctors to amputate normal, healthy and vital body parts of unconsenting individuals for non-medical reasons or permit parents to make such a request? (The unlawful amputation of body parts or harm to them is clearly forbidden by law and constitutes mayhem - assault and battery.)
QUESTION 3: Under the law, doctors can provide (and parents may only request) medically necessary treatment to minors. Where under any medical code of ethics are doctors permitted to amputate normal, healthy and vital body parts of children merely at the request of parents - and for which there is no medical necessity?
QUESTION 4: The purpose of surgery is to repair body parts or amputate body parts which become diseased and threaten the life of the patients. Where under any medical code of ethics are doctors permitted to amputate body parts for cultural or religious reasons?
QUESTION 5: Where under any medical code of ethics are doctors permitted to amputate normal body parts of children in order that they resemble their parents or their peers?
QUESTION 6: The Hippocratic Oath states that in any medical treatment the physician has the primary obligation to "First Do No Harm". Since circumcision destroys important erogenous tissue and a vital protective covering of the penis - how can doctors performing circumcisions claim that they are working in accordance with the Medical Code of Ethics? The American Academy of Pediatrics acknowledged that the foreskin is important and is required for life. Medical organizations around the world also agree with this fact.
Would any female in Canada or the USA undergo circumcision for any one of the reasons currently used to promote male circumcision even if it could be proven that there may be potential benefits for it? More than a decade ago a few medical doctors in the USA circumcised females claiming benefits of the procedure. There was a public outcry against this and doctors lost their privileges to practice.
Would any male dare write an article debating the "pros and cons" of female circumcision? Why are so many females adamant that males undergo a mutilating procedure which they themselves would not undergo? One must seriously question their real motive in defending male circumcision. They are demanding equality under the law - the right to choose what is in the best interests of their own body - "not the church not the state etc". - but will use every possible strategy to vehemently oppose the same rights for males. These individuals have no qualms expressing their outrage (publicly in the media - articles and letters) denouncing males who would dare defend their right to an intact body as they were created.
Many females argue that males should be circumcised because a circumcised penis is more attractive to them. Would females, who believe that only they should decide what is in their best interests, alter their bodies if males stated that the removal of the clitoral hood would make sex more attractive for males? If not, then why the chauvinism and bigotry? Obviously what is good for the gander should be good for the goose!
MEDICAL FRAUD* and the criminal assault of boys
being Intact is the norm in Canada
Kudos to the CMAJ for publishing this prescient paper more than a decade ago.1
Since the publication of LeBourdaisí paper, there have been many changes in Canada. All Canadian health insurance plans have ended coverage of medically-unnecessary non-therapeutic circumcision. St. Boniface Hospital in Winnipeg no longer permits the performance of this injurious operation.2 The Canadian Paediatric Society reports that many paediatricians refuse to perform the operation.3
The incidence of non-therapeutic male neonatal circumcision has been declining in Canada for years. Reportedly, Newfoundland had no circumcisions and Nova Scotia is down to 1.1 percent in 2003.4 The Canadian Institute for Health Information now reports that in 2005, the incidence of male circumcision further declined to 9.2 percent. Expressed another way, 90.8 percent of Canadian newborn boys are going home with intact genitals.
Non-circumcision of newborn boys now is the norm in Canada by a wide and increasing margin.
cmaj.ca -- eLetters for LeBourdais, 152 (11) 1873-1876
The government only stopped funding circumcision through universal health care in the 90's. That means the entire current generation is circumcised, except for the parents who had the sense to say no.
The majority of uncircumcised men in Canada immigrated from other countries where it's not practiced.