Isn’t it about time this practice was stopped in civilised countries? It’s not remotely necessary and I don’t think that preventing you cutting bits of your children’s genitalia off effectively for cosmetic reasons, albeit religiously motivated, amounts to ‘restricting religious freedom’. I hope Iceland press ahead with this and other countries start to follow suit. If people want circumcisions for religious reasons, let them choose when they become an adult. No baby is born a Jew or Muslim, their parents force that identity on them with irreversible surgery.
Isn’t it about time this practice was stopped in civilised countries? It’s not remotely necessary and I don’t think that preventing you cutting bits of your children’s genitalia off effectively for cosmetic reasons, albeit religiously motivated, amounts to ‘restricting religious freedom’. I hope Iceland press ahead with this and other countries start to follow suit. If people want circumcisions for religious reasons, let them choose when they become an adult. No baby is born a Jew or Muslim, their parents force that identity on them with irreversible surgery.
I don't mean to cut in but that's a big deal for certain religions.
This is a delicate subject because many of us were circumcised and do not feel damaged or resent our parents, and it can often feel like we are being asked to. Religious freedom is also an area where it is difficult to make compromises.
It's a hard subject to get your head around. Chopping up someone's religious beliefs is going to erect a lot of resentment. We shouldn't be premature about it.
Frazzled wrote: It's a hard subject to get your head around. Chopping up someone's religious beliefs is going to erect a lot of resentment. We shouldn't be premature about it.
Puns seem a little insensitive. Maybe we should cut them out.
Genital mutilation of either sex is an asinine practice with no place in society, barring religious reasons. And then it should be only allowed when the person reaches age of consent.
Dunno if this is something that requires legislation.
I think over time, with education for new parents who would perhaps just choose to circumcise their sons because they think it's what they're supposed to do for whatever reason (or do it without thinking at all), it will decline.
I don't like the practice, but I despise government intervening in people's personal lives even more.
Let the practice die out because the reasons to not circumcise are better than the reasons to circumcise. Perhaps that's a bit idealistic, but no solution's perfect.
Frazzled wrote: It's a hard subject to get your head around. Chopping up someone's religious beliefs is going to erect a lot of resentment. We shouldn't be premature about it.
Puns seem a little insensitive. Maybe we should cut them out.
Puns are inappropriate no matter how you slice it, and I feel like what we have seen so far are just the tip.
I am against this. While some people have gone on record to complain about male circumcision. That is a new phenomena, and they are a handful out of literal billions.
Male circumcision is a cultural covenant, and it is nobody elses business except the families involved and their faith.
There is no commandment in Islam or Judaism about female circumcision though, it is considerably more dangerous and has detrimental effects on the well being of the female victim. Having an uneven ban is on one but not the other is not illogical.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I don't like the practice, but I despise government intervening in people's personal lives even more.
Where as I despise people mutilating children and believe stopping abusive parents is exactly when government should intervene.
Sure, but can you dial it down a bit? Shades of grey here. Circumcised penises still function, and their bearers still lead normal lives. Let's keep some perspective and try to build bridges.
Frankly, your reaction is going to result in more stubbornness by the parents who might otherwise be open to the kind of education that produces the actual results you want.
Frazzled wrote: And there's the problem. You think the parents are being abusive. Thats at best a misplaced viewpoint, at worst a pretty fethed up one.
I dunno man. While it's not as egregious as female genital mutilation, it definitely seems like the same ballpark: a medically unnecessary surgery done for religious or cultural reasons.
Frazzled wrote: And there's the problem. You think the parents are being abusive. Thats at best a misplaced viewpoint, at worst a pretty fethed up one.
I dunno man. While it's not as egregious as female genital mutilation, it definitely seems like the same ballpark: a medically unnecessary surgery done for religious or cultural reasons.
We should note, in the US for decades it was recommended by the medical community as being healthier.
Medicine and views change. Thats cool. Treat it as such. Going apeshit and using apeshit terms is not helpful to the argument.
(to be clear I am against the practice except for religious reasons, but again thats between the doctor and parents).
Jewish and Muslim leaders however have called the bill an attack on religious freedom.
Religious "freedom"? But no one asked that child if he wants to be a muslim or jewdaist. They just doing that as if child their property, not a individual person.
Frazzled wrote: And there's the problem. You think the parents are being abusive. Thats at best a misplaced viewpoint, at worst a pretty fethed up one.
I dunno man. While it's not as egregious as female genital mutilation, it definitely seems like the same ballpark: a medically unnecessary surgery done for religious or cultural reasons.
We should note, in the US for decades it was recommended by the medical community as being healthier.
Medicine and views change. Thats cool. Treat it as such. Going apeshit and using apeshit terms is not helpful to the argument.
(to be clear I am against the practice except for religious reasons, but again thats between the doctor and parents).
Honestly, why do ‘religious reasons’ carry weight here? That’s not an argument in itself, it boils down to ‘b-b-but muh feels’. What is the logical and moral justification for carrying it out? A justification that stands on its own rather than an appeal to religion which apparently should be given a free pass on this.
Mostly I hear reasons to circumcise your children like ‘to keep clean’. Well washing your dick isn’t difficult. Then there’s some stuff about how you’re slightly less likely to catch HIV if you’re circumcised. And that’s a pretty thin argument to cut parts of sex organs off a baby.
Presuming we're talking about being done by a medical professional.... I personally am against it. A government ban seems... I dunno, man. It seems a little heavy handed. I think if it passed I'd be OK but I think vaxxers are a bigger danger to the population at large.
Frazzled wrote: And there's the problem. You think the parents are being abusive. Thats at best a misplaced viewpoint, at worst a pretty fethed up one.
I dunno man. While it's not as egregious as female genital mutilation, it definitely seems like the same ballpark: a medically unnecessary surgery done for religious or cultural reasons.
And religious cultures tend to do what when put on the defensive? History has shown that assimilation works while targeted laws create undergrounds. Education and cultural peer pressure are more effective than the strong arm of the law.
Jewish and Muslim leaders however have called the bill an attack on religious freedom.
Religious "freedom"? But no one asked that child if he wants to be a muslim or jewdaist. They just doing that as if child their property, not a individual person.
First of all, thank you for "jewdaist".
Second, we don't ask children before we vaccinate them, baptise them, educate them, etc..
And to be clear, I am also against the practice. When we chose not to circumcise our son, my parents were distraught that we were turning our back on our people.
Yeah, I guess I'm pretty conflicted really. I'm definitely against it personally, and if I had kids, which I won't because kids are disgusting, I wouldn't have them circumcised... I also recognize that this is pretty important to some people's religions. I think you have to accommodate religion to a reasonable degree.
When you have a Jehovah's Witness hypothetically refusing a life-saving blood transfusion for their minor child, I think it's reasonable for the government to take that child into custody until they are again healthy. You can't accommodate a totally needless, avoidable death*
But a circumcision seems less onerous. I'm not saying there never are ill effects, but they seem very uncommon and most medical professionals obviously are OK with doing them as they don't see a real harm.
I think it's bad, but a government ban seems heavy handed, I guess.
*of course, my hypothetical was nice and black and white, not some of the murkier areas of medical care being refused for religious grounds.
Jewish and Muslim leaders however have called the bill an attack on religious freedom.
Religious "freedom"? But no one asked that child if he wants to be a muslim or jewdaist. They just doing that as if child their property, not a individual person.
Hey those 8 year olds have to earn. Daddy need a new pair of everything and those coal mines need workers*
*My grandpa went to sea as a child cabin boy to escape mine work. Thats hard core.
Frazzled wrote: And there's the problem. You think the parents are being abusive. Thats at best a misplaced viewpoint, at worst a pretty fethed up one.
I dunno man. While it's not as egregious as female genital mutilation, it definitely seems like the same ballpark: a medically unnecessary surgery done for religious or cultural reasons.
And religious cultures tend to do what when put on the defensive? History has shown that assimilation works while targeted laws create undergrounds. Education and cultural peer pressure are more effective than the strong arm of the law.
a good point but why could you not have both. Argue the efficacy while also implimenting a ban? While it would create an underground this would still cut the number of cases and lets be fair education and cultural peer pressure can't grow bits back.
From a religious perspective, the circumcision of the Abrahamic covenant wasn't the full removal of the foreskin, just the foreskin beyond the glans of the penis. The full removal of the foreskin came during Greek/Roman times, when some Jews were undergoing procedures to lengthen their foreskins so they could pass as non-jews in sports and gymnasiums (which were done naked).
Anyways, the point being is that the full removal of the foreskin isn't necessary to fulfill Jewish custom.
Circumcision has never been necessary for Christians, though it became customary in the early 1900's for reasons of cleanliness and a belief it could help prevent the spread of STDs (and reduce masturbation, but who are we kidding here). IOW for secular reasons, and modern hygene has mostly eliminated these concerns, though it does make keeping the penis clean easier.
Anyways, you can't ban it, or you're effectively banning Judaism. It's a minor surgery that doesn't really interfere with the function of the organ and is still common enough to not cause social stigma. It can be performed with anesthetic, so it really shouldn't be considered abuse.
It's kind of a fethed up practice when you think about it, particularly given the reason (fantasy) and who we do it to (defenseless infants who are supposed to be being protected by the people given it the go-ahead). I am not a fan and, as usual, Iceland is being awesome.
Having that been said, if I ever started a punk band, I ALWAYS liked the name "Tragic Circumcision Accident".
Second, we don't ask children before we vaccinate them, baptise them, educate them, etc..
Vaccinations have a scientifically well established medical benefit and public health concern, baptisms ultimately do not alter a child physicallly, and education... you can’t seriously compare the need for educating a child with circumcising them. WTF?!
It can be performed with anesthetic, so it really shouldn't be considered abuse.
By this logic, you can ritually scar a child so long as it's done under anesthetic and doesn't interfere with bodily functions? I'm just clarifying because this sort of logic seems really odd to me .
It can be performed with anesthetic, so it really shouldn't be considered abuse.
By this logic, you can ritually scar a child so long as it's done under anesthetic and doesn't interfere with bodily functions? I'm just clarifying because this sort of logic seems really odd to me .
The very vast majority of them are done by strapping the baby into this:
And then letting them sip on some sugar water while their skin is being cut off.
It can be performed with anesthetic, so it really shouldn't be considered abuse.
By this logic, you can ritually scar a child so long as it's done under anesthetic and doesn't interfere with bodily functions? I'm just clarifying because this sort of logic seems really odd to me .
Yes, let's jump straight to hyperbole. Society permits the termination of a fetus, but snipping off a bit of skin is abusive? Or let's not.
There's some allowances that can be made for social custom. Tons of guys are circumcised in modern society - we know it doesn't have any serious negative impact beyond the small chance for infection. It's not worth making ILLEGAL
Frazzled wrote: And there's the problem. You think the parents are being abusive. Thats at best a misplaced viewpoint, at worst a pretty fethed up one.
I dunno man. While it's not as egregious as female genital mutilation, it definitely seems like the same ballpark: a medically unnecessary surgery done for religious or cultural reasons.
No there is no comparison.
1. There is a religious component to male circumcision only.
2. Female circumcision is intended to make sex more painful for females, and to limit sexual pleasure in females as a control mechanism.
3. Female circumcision is dangerous, victims bleed to death often.
4. Female circumcision is not standardised, different practitioners remove more or less of the female sexual anatomy. But nearly all remove the surface area of the clitoris.
Its as different as having a tattoo is from being branded, in fact likely more so.
John Prins wrote: Yes, let's jump straight to hyperbole. Society permits the termination of a fetus, but snipping off a bit of skin is abusive? Or let's not.
One is preventing a collection of cells from growing further inside another independent living being. One is intentional damage directly to an independent living being. In the first, the independent living being is giving consent. In the second, the independent living being is not.
Orlanth wrote: 1. There is a religious component to male circumcision only.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote but I think you're wrong about this; I am pretty sure the adherents of FGM do so for religious reasons.
They might claim such but there is no verse in the Koran or Bible to back this up. Its a social/tribal convention in a community that also has religious conventions, it's not religion per se. Other nations with the same faiths, even in the developing world might have no culture of female circumcision.
John Prins wrote: Yes, let's jump straight to hyperbole. Society permits the termination of a fetus, but snipping off a bit of skin is abusive? Or let's not.
One is preventing a collection of cells from growing further inside another independent living being. One is intentional damage directly to an independent living being. In the first, the independent living being is giving consent. In the second, the independent living being is not.
Everyone is a collection of cells. Aborted fetus beyond a certain point are recognisably human. Collections of cells don't have recognisable body parts like hands and feet, aborted fetus often have those.
While I can understand the womans 'right to choose' I can also understand that right should be used to cover parent that don't want to kill their kids because they are inconvenient but want to mark them as a sign of their covenant. They surely have a right to choose too.
Please remember that even non practicing Jews usually practice circumcision as it is a ethnic and ancestral bond. Though admittedly some do not. So it is no longer entirely religious.
Frazzled wrote: And there's the problem. You think the parents are being abusive. Thats at best a misplaced viewpoint, at worst a pretty fethed up one.
I'd counter that the real problem is people chopping up children's penis's.
Parents can believe they are acting in the interest of the child whilst in actuality being abusive. There's no contradiction there and it's reasonable to call it out when it is seen. Neither misplaced nor fethed up.
Tribal religions are absolutely religions, just because they have relatively few adherents compared Christianity or Islam doesn't make them any less relevant (or irrelevant)
as to the story in question I can see how it has the potential to be a major issue for those that want to circumcise for reasons of faith I think it's something that should not be allowed for non-medical reasons in new borns
keeping things clean is no excuse in a developed modern country where the ability to wash isn't going to be in question,
and potential for reduced chance or contracting HIV or HPV is something that's only really going to come up at an age where a child could be expected to have a reasonable degree of input
(perhaps allow it at 12 or so if the child also agrees, plenty of time to indoctrinate them in the faith, old enough to have a fair degree on autonomous though)
Why is circumcision a problem? I know plenty of people who are circumcised, and none of them views it as a problem. Besides religious reasons, it is an operation that sometimes is also needed for medical reasons (my cousin for example had it done when he was 6 for medical reasons). This reeks very strongly of the religious discrimination and the borderline racist anti-Islamic fearmongering that is so popular in Europe these days.
Second, we don't ask children before we vaccinate them, baptise them, educate them, etc..
Vaccinations have a scientifically well established medical benefit and public health concern, baptisms ultimately do not alter a child physicallly, and education... you can’t seriously compare the need for educating a child with circumcising them. WTF?!
I agree with your point, however BobtheInquisitor's point does emphasise that religious adherence is not an informed choice on the part of the child.
FGM is not required by the Koran. However the Talmud and Koran do as I understand it, specifically require circumcision of males as part of religious adherence.
This is the cross-junction where liberal human rights and liberal human rights smash into each other. Parents have rights over their children. Religions have a right to be practised freely. Children have a right not to be mutilated by their parents.
How can the dilemma be resolved?
I don't think there is any way that won't take generations to come about. Jews and Muslims have been circumcising their boys for hundreds of years. I don't think a law giving the boy the right of refusal would be of any use, since 13-year-olds are still highly dependant on their parents for a moral and social framework to life.
Any way, what proportion of Jews and Muslims who get circumcised later regret it and would like to reverse the process? Without a strong showing in this area, the law would seem to have little practical point.
Frazzled wrote: And there's the problem. You think the parents are being abusive. Thats at best a misplaced viewpoint, at worst a pretty fethed up one.
I'd counter that the real problem is people chopping up children's penis's.
Parents can believe they are acting in the interest of the child whilst in actuality being abusive. There's no contradiction there and it's reasonable to call it out when it is seen. Neither misplaced nor fethed up.
You are sounding just like the sort who considers a smack to a naughty child as 'torture'.
You are not calling out what is seen, not this that choice of description.
Actually most countries this occurs in are in Africa. The cultural and tribal traditions occur regardless of which religion is being practiced in the region. The spread of Christianity and colonialism was'nt able to fully stop it. Though attempts were made. It is not also inherently Islamic either.
Frazzled wrote: And there's the problem. You think the parents are being abusive. Thats at best a misplaced viewpoint, at worst a pretty fethed up one.
I'd counter that the real problem is people chopping up children's penis's.
Parents can believe they are acting in the interest of the child whilst in actuality being abusive. There's no contradiction there and it's reasonable to call it out when it is seen. Neither misplaced nor fethed up.
Chopping up? Seriously? Take a breath and walk back from the void, there. We're talking about an ivasive surgical procedure, yes, but hardly a life-altering one let alone a maiming. Circumcised penises still enjoy sex. They still feel and respond. So, please elucidate for me all of the things circumcised men lose out on? What kinds of lifelong trauma justify your rhetoric, describing perfectly functional genitals as if they were gruesome crime scenes?
Orlanth wrote: Careful Bob, your position on the facts and challenging line of questioning might be taken as psychological abuse, or even mental torment.
I can handle that. But please, let's be careful how we respond so as not to veer into a broader culture war topic.
1. Is it your body? If yes, go ahead and do whatever you feel like, if no proceed to step two.
2. Is there a pressing medical need for a procedure that you are the one to authorize? If yes, do the procedure, if not feth off, it's not your body. Whether it is harmful or not is beside the point, it's a question of bodily autonomy.
You are sounding just like the sort who considers a smack to a naughty child as 'torture'.
You are not calling out what is seen, not this that choice of description.
Spoken like a person who doesn't have a friend who was beaten with coat hanger until she passed out.
I mean I know the Off-tpoic can be tumultuous but never thought I'd see child abuse apologism.
Chopping up? Seriously? Take a breath and walk back from the void, there. We're talking about an ivasive surgical procedure, yes, but hardly a life-altering one let alone a maiming. Circumcised penises still enjoy sex. They still feel and respond. So, please elucidate for me all of the things circumcised men lose out on? What kinds of lifelong trauma justify your rhetoric, describing perfectly functional genitals as if they were gruesome crime scenes?
Isn't it interesting how the only counter-arguments are just tug of war over what words are permitted in the thread? Not you know, discussions about consent or human rights, or anything like that. Just 'omg you're not allowed to say that, by my decree"
I mean the mods may as well lock the thread now, it's not like anything productive will come out of it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: 1. Is it your body? If yes, go ahead and do whatever you feel like, if no proceed to step two.
2. Is there a pressing medical need for a procedure that you are the one to authorize? If yes, do the procedure, if not feth off, it's not your body. Whether it is harmful or not is beside the point, it's a question of bodily autonomy.
Except of course, abortion is not killing your body, but another's.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: 1. Is it your body? If yes, go ahead and do whatever you feel like, if no proceed to step two.
2. Is there a pressing medical need for a procedure that you are the one to authorize? If yes, do the procedure, if not feth off, it's not your body. Whether it is harmful or not is beside the point, it's a question of bodily autonomy.
Except of course, abortion is not killing your body, but another's.
For some values of "body". That line of argument is going to get the thread locked post-haste.
You are sounding just like the sort who considers a smack to a naughty child as 'torture'.
You are not calling out what is seen, not this that choice of description.
Spoken like a person who doesn't have a friend who was beaten with coat hanger until she passed out.
I mean I know the Off-tpoic can be tumultuous but never thought I'd see child abuse apologism.
Chopping up? Seriously? Take a breath and walk back from the void, there. We're talking about an ivasive surgical procedure, yes, but hardly a life-altering one let alone a maiming. Circumcised penises still enjoy sex. They still feel and respond. So, please elucidate for me all of the things circumcised men lose out on? What kinds of lifelong trauma justify your rhetoric, describing perfectly functional genitals as if they were gruesome crime scenes?
Isn't it interesting how the only counter-arguments are just tug of war over what words are permitted in the thread? Not you know, discussions about consent or human rights, or anything like that. Just 'omg you're not allowed to say that, by my decree"
I mean the mods may as well lock the thread now, it's not like anything productive will come out of it.
Have you read nothing else in the thread? Using polite discourse is the fundamental requirement for any discussion on Dakka. Deviation results in locking. If you want to discuss consent or human rights, then by necessity you need to find words that are permitted by the rules of the site.
Also, if you go back and read my earlier points, I believe you will find that I was discussing the most efficacious methods one might use to affect the change you wish to see. As someone else pointed out in the thread, this topic contains an inherent human rights dilemma for each position. Perhaps the conversation you want to read is already taking place if you just look for it.
feeder wrote:It's analogous to buying a CD and throwing away the jewel case. It'll still play, but not as nice for the owner.
Some people actually prefer circumcised penises. Or don't care.
ScarletRose wrote:
You are sounding just like the sort who considers a smack to a naughty child as 'torture'.
You are not calling out what is seen, not this that choice of description.
Spoken like a person who doesn't have a friend who was beaten with coat hanger until she passed out.
I mean I know the Off-tpoic can be tumultuous but never thought I'd see child abuse apologism.
There is a huge difference between a soft corrective tap and smashing a kid until he/she passes out though. I would argue that a good parent never needs to hit his/her child, but a soft hit every now and then (soft enough to not really hurt the child) hardly is child abuse. My dad used to hit me, but he never hurt me. It most certainly wasn't abuse. Qualifying every hit as abuse is just being over-hysterical.
ScarletRose wrote:
Chopping up? Seriously? Take a breath and walk back from the void, there. We're talking about an ivasive surgical procedure, yes, but hardly a life-altering one let alone a maiming. Circumcised penises still enjoy sex. They still feel and respond. So, please elucidate for me all of the things circumcised men lose out on? What kinds of lifelong trauma justify your rhetoric, describing perfectly functional genitals as if they were gruesome crime scenes?
Isn't it interesting how the only counter-arguments are just tug of war over what words are permitted in the thread? Not you know, discussions about consent or human rights, or anything like that. Just 'omg you're not allowed to say that, by my decree"
I mean the mods may as well lock the thread now, it's not like anything productive will come out of it.
What about you actually read the thread? The strongest argument for circumcision is religious freedom, which is one of they key values of Western society. Just reducing all opposing arguments to something nonsensical is not very productive no, but that fault lies with you. The thread will only be productive if people actually choose to have a productive discussion, rather than just throw in straw men, red herrings and non-sequiturs.
This is a tough one because it's hard to justify a double standard for female and male circumcision, even though male circumcision is obviously much less harmful. On the other hand, I don't know of any males who have been circumcised who are really complaining about it. Also, if there's one thread I've seen on Dakka where it's impossible to talk about personal experience without getting into TMI territory, this one is it!
"We should let parents cut their penis because some girls will like to feth them more once they grow up" may be one of the weirder arguments I've seen.
My wife was weirded out by the only uncut one she came across, but I know women who prefer uncut. Its good to keep options open, ya know?
I am circumcised, my 8 year old is (not my choice). The wife and I decided if we have kid, and its a boy, he won't be getting the snip. If he wants to late, for religious reasons, that's on him. But I still function normally, so I don't see the issue in it.
Lets wait another 10 years and come back when you can genetically engineer a baby, and see how everyone feel then.
I'd ban it for religious reasons (pretty much the definition of "no reason at all") but reserve the need for surgical procedures (and by this, I mean a sterile OR with doctors and specialists in residence. Not just any mook with a scalpel.)
I don't support a wholesale ban on the procedure though. It IS sometimes necessary to perform the procedure on male children because of medical necessity (I was one of them. I'm not jewish nor muslim, nor any other variety of religion followed by humanity in the last eleventy thousand years) though and a ban would unnecessarily affect those children.
d-usa wrote: "We should let parents cut their penis because some girls will like to feth them more once they grow up" may be one of the weirder arguments I've seen.
You can denigrate any argument by finding the most outrageous defenders of it and placing their argument as a standard position.
Some girls might prefer a circumcised man, its a matter of personal preference like idea breast size. But it's nothing to be counted on. It could be hypothesizes that someone might be culturally conditioned to reject uncircumsized men as undesirable, but that is a continuation of the cultural mark of circumcision.
d-usa wrote: "We should let parents cut their penis because some girls will like to feth them more once they grow up" may be one of the weirder arguments I've seen.
You can denigrate any argument by finding the most outrageous defenders of it and placing their argument as a standard position.
Or, you could see a strange argument, point out that it is a strange argument, without pretending it is the standard position.
One reason I would not like to see this outlawed is because it would drive practitioners underground. Underground circumcision, without the sterile OR or trained professionals, is far more likely to end with tragedies. I would have no problem banning the procedure from happening anywhere outside of a hospital or professionally overseen and prepared surgical center, to avoid tragedies like the one Ouze posted (and others that seem to plague the orthodox Jewish communities). People are going to perform the procedure anyway, so it is society's interest to make it as safe as possible while encouraging participants to educate themselves on medically relevant issues.
chromedog wrote: I'd ban it for religious reasons (pretty much the definition of "no reason at all") but reserve the need for surgical procedures (and by this, I mean a sterile OR with doctors and specialists in residence. Not just any mook with a scalpel.)
Generally rabbis are trained for this. We let minor surgeries happen (piercings, tattoos), even childbirth, happen without a MD. I agree that there should be training and certification for all of the above, however.
John Prins wrote: Yes, let's jump straight to hyperbole. Society permits the termination of a fetus, but snipping off a bit of skin is abusive? Or let's not.
One is preventing a collection of cells from growing further inside another independent living being. One is intentional damage directly to an independent living being. In the first, the independent living being is giving consent. In the second, the independent living being is not.
It's still a false equivalency. Circumcision isn't a cosmetic procedure - it's not even strictly a religious procedure, for the last century it's been considered a hygienic procedure, and to this day doctors consider it 'unnecessary' but more or less a convenience. The closest parallel would be microchipping your infant.
John Prins wrote: The closest parallel would be microchipping your infant.
Well, I guess so, since they both leave no obvious marks and are trivially reversible. Sure. When you put it that way I don't feel so horrified about EITHER idea.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: One reason I would not like to see this outlawed is because it would drive practitioners underground. Underground circumcision, without the sterile OR or trained professionals, is far more likely to end with tragedies. I would have no problem banning the procedure from happening anywhere outside of a hospital or professionally overseen and prepared surgical center, to avoid tragedies like the one Ouze posted (and others that seem to plague the orthodox Jewish communities). People are going to perform the procedure anyway, so it is society's interest to make it as safe as possible while encouraging participants to educate themselves on medically relevant issues.
They are not done in a sterile OR right now. It’s “take them to a clean room, strap them on this board, put on some sterile gloves, let the baby lick some sugar water, wipe down the penis, do the cut or apply the bell, finished”.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: One reason I would not like to see this outlawed is because it would drive practitioners underground. Underground circumcision, without the sterile OR or trained professionals, is far more likely to end with tragedies. I would have no problem banning the procedure from happening anywhere outside of a hospital or professionally overseen and prepared surgical center, to avoid tragedies like the one Ouze posted (and others that seem to plague the orthodox Jewish communities). People are going to perform the procedure anyway, so it is society's interest to make it as safe as possible while encouraging participants to educate themselves on medically relevant issues.
They are not done in a sterile OR right now. It’s “take them to a clean room, strap them on this board, put on some sterile gloves, let the baby lick some sugar water, wipe down the penis, do the cut or apply the bell, finished”.
So perhaps we should work to change that.
Just to clarify, are you saying this is how circumcisions are done in hospitals? Or is this just a reference to a Brit Milah as some perform it?
I would urge caution, or at least thought, regarding a blatant disregard for religious and cultural practices. Assuming that your point of view is superior rather than different is dangerous territory.
"You" or I may not care what someone else's magical being in the sky commands them to do, but they certainly consider it important enough to continue practicing. Depending on the nature of their beliefs, it seems possible they'd believe their very relationship or connection with their deity would be jeopardized if they were prevented from practicing their rituals.
Obviously, not all cultures share the same values. What one considers disgusting mutilation is sacred to another. What one considers the denial of autonomy, another considers sacred duty. There are many shades of grey to the discussion.
I'd rather no one circumcise their sons, but it isn't my choice. It shouldn't be my choice. Making a legal prohibition is not going to prevent the practice among the faithful, it's going to continue under super shady circumstances at worst, or drive that population out of the country at best. Both of those seem like terrible outcomes to me. The former transforms the issue into an actual public health problem, and the latter a de facto expulsion of those that believe they must practice circumcision.
The long-term solution of helping cultures assimilate and changing their values and beliefs over time by challenging their ideas with rhetoric seems like the right way to do things. A good first step would be actually discussing the issue with people who believe that they must circumcise their sons and trying to understand their rationale. Assuming they're monstrous barbarians is not a good starting point.
John Prins wrote: The closest parallel would be microchipping your infant.
Well, I guess so, since they both leave no obvious marks and are trivially reversible. Sure. When you put it that way I don't feel so horrified about EITHER idea.
Both involve no consent on the part of the child and carry the risk of infection, for dubious benefit. Also, microchips can migrate in the body and cause other health problems (rejections, cancers). They're not as innocuous as you might think.
If it is to prevent others from imposing their will on those that cannot speak for themselves? Absolutely. Freedom of religion goes both ways; you're (generic "you") not allowed to impose your religion on others.
If it is to prevent others from imposing their will on those that cannot speak for themselves? Absolutely. Freedom of religion goes both ways; you're (generic "you") not allowed to impose your religion on others.
It's an interesting argument. By the same rationale, should baptism of infants and religious indoctrination of children be prohibited as well? I realize circumcision is perhaps viewed differently than pouring magical water on a baby's forehead, but they're a part of the same spectrum.
Godardc, as someone who is nominally on the same side as you in this issue, there is so much wrong with that last post that I do not know where to start.
As for baptism, I'd argue the same applies. I'm baptised, but I chose to be. My life, my choice.
I was circumcised as a child for medical reasons. Is not a big deal. Of course no old priest did anything with his mouth to my little penis. It was done in a proper medical facility. And it was just the tip. But I kind of agree. I don't feel parents have the right to do this kind of "permanent" things to his children body. Yeah, how you are educated is also in some way permanent, but as an adult you have a choice about all of that. Not about this.
If it is to prevent others from imposing their will on those that cannot speak for themselves? Absolutely. Freedom of religion goes both ways; you're (generic "you") not allowed to impose your religion on others.
It's an interesting argument. By the same rationale, should baptism of infants and religious indoctrination of children be prohibited as well? I realize circumcision is perhaps viewed differently than pouring magical water on a baby's forehead, but they're a part of the same spectrum.
Maybe if the baptism can cause whiplash and a TBI...
BobtheInquisitor wrote: One reason I would not like to see this outlawed is because it would drive practitioners underground. Underground circumcision, without the sterile OR or trained professionals, is far more likely to end with tragedies. I would have no problem banning the procedure from happening anywhere outside of a hospital or professionally overseen and prepared surgical center, to avoid tragedies like the one Ouze posted (and others that seem to plague the orthodox Jewish communities). People are going to perform the procedure anyway, so it is society's interest to make it as safe as possible while encouraging participants to educate themselves on medically relevant issues.
With this I can totally agree. If you just ban it, things are gonna get worse for the children.
Past me feel the same way about baptism, that it was something wrong to do to a baby. But at the same time is just to wet the baby's forehead with a little water. At least in the catholic christian ceremony, I don't know about other types of baptism.
If it is to prevent others from imposing their will on those that cannot speak for themselves? Absolutely. Freedom of religion goes both ways; you're (generic "you") not allowed to impose your religion on others.
It's an interesting argument. By the same rationale, should baptism of infants and religious indoctrination of children be prohibited as well? I realize circumcision is perhaps viewed differently than pouring magical water on a baby's forehead, but they're a part of the same spectrum.
Maybe if the baptism can cause whiplash and a TBI...
What religion is that? Thats a little radical way to baptism a baby.
I joined this forum to talk about my penis, but never found the appropriate thread, nor had the courage to start a thread wherein peens could be discussed. At long last, its here. Thanks OT!
I can feel the threadlock coming on this one, but I can also say that my parents went for my circumcision for health rather than religious reasons.
The health benefits are generally stated as follows:
A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.
Yeah, that's the list alright. One of these days I'm going to look into the research those claims are based on and see whether or not they really hold water.
Throwing my proverbial hat in the ring and say I'm not circumcised, I've never had any difficulty keeping my dong clean and remaining disease/infection free for life.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Considering circumcision to be child abuse is not some universal truth, as evidenced by the fact that many people on Earth disagree with that notion.
Many people disagree about a lot of ethical things. For example, many people consider it morally acceptable (and even morally required) to kill rape victims, often in horribly painful ways. Are we supposed to refrain from calling that murder just because some people disagree with it? Of course not. Circumcision is child abuse, no matter how many abusers wish to defend it or inflict it upon others.
The idea of a new religion popping up in the modern day is not the same as one that has been practicing similar things for over a thousand years.
No, it is exactly the same. None of those questions you ask in any way address the issue of whether or not it is ok to cut parts off of someone who is not able to consent to it. Either it is or isn't ok to do this, you don't get special privileges just because you've been doing it for a long time. Nor does it matter how much "significance" you apply to the act, you are still cutting parts off of someone who is unable to consent, purely for your own satisfaction.
I don't believe it's my place to tell an entire culture how to practice their religion.
Why not? If a culture's desired means of practicing their religion includes "inflicting it upon people who have not chosen to be part of the religion, in a way that has permanent consequences" then I don't see why it isn't your place to tell them to stop. Tolerance is fine when you're talking about people willingly participating in a religion, and in that case they should be free to do pretty much whatever they want. But the right to practice a religion ends when it includes forcing others to participate in it along with you. If adults wish to voluntarily undergo circumcision for religious reasons they are free to do so. They are not allowed to force anyone else to do the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: It's an interesting argument. By the same rationale, should baptism of infants and religious indoctrination of children be prohibited as well? I realize circumcision is perhaps viewed differently than pouring magical water on a baby's forehead, but they're a part of the same spectrum.
That isn't the same at all. A person who is baptized as a child suffers no permanent consequences of the act, if they become an adult and decide they do not wish to be part of the religion the fact that someone sprinkled some water on them decades ago has no impact on their life. It's technically done against their will, but it's a minor thing that they probably don't even remember. A victim of involuntary circumcision is never getting that part of their body back, even if they decide that no, they don't want to be part of that religion or follow its beliefs. Religious indoctrination falls into a gray area between the two. It doesn't leave permanent physical consequences, but it can certainly be abusive for its psychological consequences. The determining factor would be whether indoctrination means "teaching them about your religion, but leaving them free to make their own choices" or "coercing them into following your religion and crushing any attempt to make their own choices".
I'm pretty disappointed the puns got cut short on the first page. They were really building to a head.
Anyhow, on male circumcision I truly don't get how people get so worked up about the issue. I got snipped, because when I was a baby it was the done thing and medically recommended to my parents. Now its understood that it does no good and isn't needed, but it also didn't do me any harm. Sure it probably hurt but babies get hurt all the time. It happens. I have a small scar on forehead from walking in to a coffee table as a toddler. Should my parents have been watching me? Yeah, but you can't watch a kid 24 hours a day. Should they have gotten rid of that table and bought one with rounded edges? Probably, but its impossible to spot every threat lurking everywhere, and there isn't unlimited funds to buy replacements for everything that might hurt a kid. There are limits on how safe we can keep our children, and the pain from the snip is the tiniest fraction of that.
So with my own kid we didn't get him circumcised, because there's no reason to. But if someone has a religious or even an aesthetic conviction to get their kid snipped, then that's their choice. The kid will be hurt, yes, but I guarantee you it will be less pain and less crying than last week when I didn't notice my son climb on the little blue IKEA table and fall off face first, because I was arguing about tanks on dakka.
@Sebster: Accidentally walking into a table is a little different from intentionally causing pain for non-medical reasons.
Having said that, while I'm nominally on the side of not circumcising before someone is old enough to decide for themselves, a full-on ban seems rather heavyhanded a tool to achieve this.
In the Netherlands it's discouraged, but not outright forbidden, which I think is a good middle ground.
On the other hand, I don't know of any males who have been circumcised who are really complaining about it.
Ask the ones whose dick went black and fell off.
Personally, I wouldn't risk it for non-medical reasons, the words "glanular amputation" and "necrosis" would put me off.
And I would probably kill myself if I ended up having the one in 500K kids who dies from an essentially unnecessary operation that amounts to nothing more than body modification. I don't mind if you get an arm amputated because you think it's cool if you're 30 and not mentally challenged in some way (okay, in that case you probably are...), but I really wouldn't cut kids.
would people ever stop inflicting 'good' to others by destroying and meddling with different cultures and religions they don't belong and don't properly understand? isn't it time to re-read 1984...
For those who are not aware, in some countries (like the US), many boys are circumcised, even if they're not jewish or muslim. It definitely impacts people's view, as circumcision is widespread and not necessarily linked to religion there.
On the contrary, in most of Europe, circumcised = jewish or muslim. So banning circumcision is something that only affects religious people, from said religions. In France specifically, I've only seen this issue brought up by far right movement (although it's definitely not something people talk about often), so these viewpoints are often associated with anti-muslim ideas. All I'm trying to say is that depending on where you're from, people might suspect your point of view is heavily biased (or not) towards religion.
But what I find interesting is that in some countries (I believe most of Europe), by default it's illegal to perform medical procedures on children if these procedures are not beneficial to the child's health, which for instance prohibits plastic surgery. But there's usually a special provision for circumcision. It's basically a way to say that it's incompatible with the main ethical frame (don't alter a kid's body unless for its own good), but allowed nonetheless because of tradition.
Personally, I'd never circumcise a child. Too young, not consenting, and unfair on their choice.
Under the same vein, should we be allowed to remove the tip of their pinky finger? Absolutely not.
Circumcision is actually a bit of a strange point for me. My father was, but didn't do the same for me. However, I needed to have the operation when I was 17 for medical reasons. I don't regret the operation, but I certain feel that it should be the person's choice or for medical reasons (possibly at birth), not something made at birth by their parents, especially not for "aesthetic" reasons, or religious, considering that the child hasn't yet been able to decide their faith,
As someone who has been chopped (medical reasons) I can't say I've ever cared or had it be a consideration in anything, nor do I feel like I'm hard done by somehow.
I think it's only ever come up when someone was surprised by it (as in a new girlfriend, not me jumping out from behind a bench).
The risk of complication I can understand, but shouldn't that mean pushing to do it safely rather than driving it underground?
You're chopping off part of a person's body. That should require consent, except in cases where there is a clear medical justification. And that means waiting until a child is old enough to consent.
I don't care if its a part of your religion, your child is an autonomous human being who should have the right to decide for themselves whether parts of their body get chopped off.
Of course it's almost impossible to really know because when one gets cut in adulthood it's because of medical reasons so like for like comparisons are basically impossible.
sebster wrote: I'm pretty disappointed the puns got cut short on the first page. They were really building to a head.
Anyhow, on male circumcision I truly don't get how people get so worked up about the issue. I got snipped, because when I was a baby it was the done thing and medically recommended to my parents. Now its understood that it does no good and isn't needed, but it also didn't do me any harm. Sure it probably hurt but babies get hurt all the time. It happens. I have a small scar on forehead from walking in to a coffee table as a toddler. Should my parents have been watching me? Yeah, but you can't watch a kid 24 hours a day. Should they have gotten rid of that table and bought one with rounded edges? Probably, but its impossible to spot every threat lurking everywhere, and there isn't unlimited funds to buy replacements for everything that might hurt a kid. There are limits on how safe we can keep our children, and the pain from the snip is the tiniest fraction of that.
So with my own kid we didn't get him circumcised, because there's no reason to. But if someone has a religious or even an aesthetic conviction to get their kid snipped, then that's their choice. The kid will be hurt, yes, but I guarantee you it will be less pain and less crying than last week when I didn't notice my son climb on the little blue IKEA table and fall off face first, because I was arguing about tanks on dakka.
There's a huge difference between failure to keep a child 100% safe and deliberately inflicting injury on a child for your own pleasure. Even if the pain is greater from the accident it's still an accident vs. a deliberate act. You wouldn't say "it's ok, I have been hurt worse" if I decided to slash you across the face with a knife just for the fun of it, would you? Even if it's just a shallow cut that doesn't hurt as badly as that time you broke your arm?
For many men just the fact that something has been removed from their body without their consent feels terrible, and is enough of a consequence to ban the practice.
elk@work wrote: would people ever stop inflicting 'good' to others by destroying and meddling with diffrent cultures and religions they don't belong and don't properly understand? isn't it time to re-read 1984...
We can stop doing that when those different cultures and religions stop inflicting their religion/culture on people who have not chosen to be part of it. "It's religion" or "it's culture" does not excuse cutting parts off of someone who does not consent to it, just because it would satisfy you. The child has not voluntarily joined the religion/culture and made their own choice to be circumcised, and that's the end of it. Consent matters.
elk@work wrote: would people ever stop inflicting 'good' to others by destroying and meddling with different cultures and religions they don't belong and don't properly understand? isn't it time to re-read 1984...
But... but... My culture and worldview are superior to yours, you are barbaric! People have been trying to force their choices on other people since the dawn of time. People most likely are never going to stop trying to do that. It seems inherent to Human nature. Just this ironic discussion, which is about people forcing their choice that people shouldn't force their choices on other people on other people, is pretty much evidence of that I think.
We can stop doing that when those different cultures and religions stop inflicting their religion/culture on people who have not chosen to be part of it. "It's religion" or "it's culture" does not excuse cutting parts off of someone who does not consent to it, just because it would satisfy you. The child has not voluntarily joined the religion/culture and made their own choice to be circumcised, and that's the end of it. Consent matters.
And who gave you the right to dictate to other people what they should and should not do? Why should it be your choice whether people are allowed to get their kid circumcised or not? Because at this point it isn't the child who is making any choices, we are.
Also, you don't 'join' a culture or religion. You are born into one. Only in later life can you start making choices about culture or religion (and even those aren't really free choices, given that they will already be heavily influenced by your cultural framework and upbringing). Life is full of things we can not control. Religion is one of them. Forbidding people to practice their religion by banning circumcision is incredibly arrogant at best and downright fascist at worst.
sebster wrote: I'm pretty disappointed the puns got cut short on the first page. They were really building to a head.
Anyhow, on male circumcision I truly don't get how people get so worked up about the issue. I got snipped, because when I was a baby it was the done thing and medically recommended to my parents. Now its understood that it does no good and isn't needed, but it also didn't do me any harm. Sure it probably hurt but babies get hurt all the time. It happens. I have a small scar on forehead from walking in to a coffee table as a toddler. Should my parents have been watching me? Yeah, but you can't watch a kid 24 hours a day. Should they have gotten rid of that table and bought one with rounded edges? Probably, but its impossible to spot every threat lurking everywhere, and there isn't unlimited funds to buy replacements for everything that might hurt a kid. There are limits on how safe we can keep our children, and the pain from the snip is the tiniest fraction of that.
So with my own kid we didn't get him circumcised, because there's no reason to. But if someone has a religious or even an aesthetic conviction to get their kid snipped, then that's their choice. The kid will be hurt, yes, but I guarantee you it will be less pain and less crying than last week when I didn't notice my son climb on the little blue IKEA table and fall off face first, because I was arguing about tanks on dakka.
There's a huge difference between failure to keep a child 100% safe and deliberately inflicting injury on a child for your own pleasure. Even if the pain is greater from the accident it's still an accident vs. a deliberate act. You wouldn't say "it's ok, I have been hurt worse" if I decided to slash you across the face with a knife just for the fun of it, would you? Even if it's just a shallow cut that doesn't hurt as badly as that time you broke your arm?
For many men just the fact that something has been removed from their body without their consent feels terrible, and is enough of a consequence to ban the practice.
elk@work wrote: would people ever stop inflicting 'good' to others by destroying and meddling with diffrent cultures and religions they don't belong and don't properly understand? isn't it time to re-read 1984...
We can stop doing that when those different cultures and religions stop inflicting their religion/culture on people who have not chosen to be part of it. "It's religion" or "it's culture" does not excuse cutting parts off of someone who does not consent to it, just because it would satisfy you. The child has not voluntarily joined the religion/culture and made their own choice to be circumcised, and that's the end of it. Consent matters.
QFT and exalted.
Children don't have consent to have part of their body chopped off for religious reasons they have no concept of, nor for the aesthetic whims of their parents.
elk@work wrote: would people ever stop inflicting 'good' to others by destroying and meddling with different cultures and religions they don't belong and don't properly understand? isn't it time to re-read 1984...
But... but... My culture and worldview are superior to yours, you are barbaric!
People have been trying to force their choices on other people since the dawn of time. People most likely are never going to stop trying to do that. It seems inherent to Human nature. Just this ironic discussion, which is about people forcing their choice that people shouldn't force their choices on other people on other people, is pretty much evidence of that I think.
But surely the default is to do NOTHING? If a child is circumcised, they can't go back and change that if they later want to when they can actually choose. If a child is uncircimcised, they can go and say "yeah, I'll have the cut" whenever they want to. If they do.
We can stop doing that when those different cultures and religions stop inflicting their religion/culture on people who have not chosen to be part of it. "It's religion" or "it's culture" does not excuse cutting parts off of someone who does not consent to it, just because it would satisfy you. The child has not voluntarily joined the religion/culture and made their own choice to be circumcised, and that's the end of it. Consent matters.
And who gave you the right to dictate to other people what they should and should not do? Why should it be your choice whether people are allowed to get their kid circumcised or not? Because at this point it isn't the child who is making any choices, we are.
They're making the choice to do nothing. That's better than making a permanent change to an unconsenting child.
Also, you don't 'join' a culture or religion. You are born into one. Only in later life can you start making choices about culture or religion (and even those aren't really free choices, given that they will already be heavily influenced by your cultural framework and upbringing). Life is full of things we can not control. Religion is one of them. Forbidding people to practice their religion by banning circumcision is incredibly arrogant at best and downright fascist at worst.
No. I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that children can be bound to religious covenant when they aren't aware of their own name.
If you're born into a religion and forced into obeying the tenets of that religion without consent, that's a violation of personal rights. Religion is absolutely a thing we should be able to control, and having that control robbed of us at birth by our predecessors is even more arrogant and/or fascist.
Children don't have religious practices at birth. You're not denying the child anything. If they want to, they can have the cut later. At birth, when they don't even know the concept of religion, that's shameful to suggest.
elk@work wrote: would people ever stop inflicting 'good' to others by destroying and meddling with different cultures and religions they don't belong and don't properly understand? isn't it time to re-read 1984...
But... but... My culture and worldview are superior to yours, you are barbaric! People have been trying to force their choices on other people since the dawn of time. People most likely are never going to stop trying to do that. It seems inherent to Human nature. Just this ironic discussion, which is about people forcing their choice that people shouldn't force their choices on other people on other people, is pretty much evidence of that I think.
We can stop doing that when those different cultures and religions stop inflicting their religion/culture on people who have not chosen to be part of it. "It's religion" or "it's culture" does not excuse cutting parts off of someone who does not consent to it, just because it would satisfy you. The child has not voluntarily joined the religion/culture and made their own choice to be circumcised, and that's the end of it. Consent matters.
And who gave you the right to dictate to other people what they should and should not do? Why should it be your choice whether people are allowed to get their kid circumcised or not? Because at this point it isn't the child who is making any choices, we are.
Also, you don't 'join' a culture or religion. You are born into one. Only in later life can you start making choices about culture or religion (and even those aren't really free choices, given that they will already be heavily influenced by your cultural framework and upbringing). Life is full of things we can not control. Religion is one of them. Forbidding people to practice their religion by banning circumcision is incredibly arrogant at best and downright fascist at worst.
What gives you the right to force YOUR choice to circumcise and your religion onto a child?
No. In a modern western country it is - and should be - quite easy to avoid religion, it's not something you're born into, it's something that people inflict on you. And you can do something about it, otherwise I wonder how I ended up being an atheist although I'm a baptized catholic.
To be honest, nothing in public life annoys me more than people trying to force their imaginary friends on others. I am still wondering why anybody ever jumped on the idea that "prophets hearing voices" could be right in the head.
Raising a child in their Religion is not remotely comparable to circumcision. A child can voluntarily abandon his religion when he grows to adulthood, or convert to another religion if he so chooses. Its not permanent.
Circumcision on the other hand is permanent, and a child who regrets it when he grows to adulthood cannot change it because his parents already made the irreversible decision to chop off a part of his body without his consent.
That is despicable.
Circumcision should only ever be done with the consent of the (adult) recipient, or when a demonstrable medical need overrides that consent.
And I say this as someone who may need to be circumcised himself (at the age of 26) for medical reasons.
elk@work wrote: would people ever stop inflicting 'good' to others by destroying and meddling with different cultures and religions they don't belong and don't properly understand? isn't it time to re-read 1984...
But... but... My culture and worldview are superior to yours, you are barbaric! People have been trying to force their choices on other people since the dawn of time. People most likely are never going to stop trying to do that. It seems inherent to Human nature. Just this ironic discussion, which is about people forcing their choice that people shouldn't force their choices on other people on other people, is pretty much evidence of that I think.
We can stop doing that when those different cultures and religions stop inflicting their religion/culture on people who have not chosen to be part of it. "It's religion" or "it's culture" does not excuse cutting parts off of someone who does not consent to it, just because it would satisfy you. The child has not voluntarily joined the religion/culture and made their own choice to be circumcised, and that's the end of it. Consent matters.
And who gave you the right to dictate to other people what they should and should not do? Why should it be your choice whether people are allowed to get their kid circumcised or not? Because at this point it isn't the child who is making any choices, we are.
Also, you don't 'join' a culture or religion. You are born into one. Only in later life can you start making choices about culture or religion (and even those aren't really free choices, given that they will already be heavily influenced by your cultural framework and upbringing). Life is full of things we can not control. Religion is one of them. Forbidding people to practice their religion by banning circumcision is incredibly arrogant at best and downright fascist at worst.
What gives you the right to force YOUR choice to circumcise and your religion onto a child?
I guess the same thing that gives you the right to force YOUR choice onto a religious community?
elk@work wrote: would people ever stop inflicting 'good' to others by destroying and meddling with different cultures and religions they don't belong and don't properly understand? isn't it time to re-read 1984...
But... but... My culture and worldview are superior to yours, you are barbaric! People have been trying to force their choices on other people since the dawn of time. People most likely are never going to stop trying to do that. It seems inherent to Human nature. Just this ironic discussion, which is about people forcing their choice that people shouldn't force their choices on other people on other people, is pretty much evidence of that I think.
But surely the default is to do NOTHING? If a child is circumcised, they can't go back and change that if they later want to when they can actually choose. If a child is uncircimcised, they can go and say "yeah, I'll have the cut" whenever they want to. If they do.
Doing nothing =/= forcing someone's choices.
Forcing people to do nothing is very much forcing your choices. Saying circumcision is not okay is your opinion. Saying circumcision should not be allowed is your choice, not that of the parents or that of the child. Also, there is no such thing as 'default' outside of computer programs. Default is only default because the system is programmed to see it as the default. It works the same way in real life. What is 'default' or normal is only normal because our brains have been conditioned to see it as such. Different cultures have different 'programming' so to speak and therefore do not see the things you see as default or normal as normal. Ergo, 'default' and normal do not objectively exist. They are cultural concepts that vary from community to community.
We can stop doing that when those different cultures and religions stop inflicting their religion/culture on people who have not chosen to be part of it. "It's religion" or "it's culture" does not excuse cutting parts off of someone who does not consent to it, just because it would satisfy you. The child has not voluntarily joined the religion/culture and made their own choice to be circumcised, and that's the end of it. Consent matters.
And who gave you the right to dictate to other people what they should and should not do? Why should it be your choice whether people are allowed to get their kid circumcised or not? Because at this point it isn't the child who is making any choices, we are.
They're making the choice to do nothing. That's better than making a permanent change to an unconsenting child.
That is just your opinion. Other people may disagree with your opinion. Why is your opinion superior to theirs, and why should your opinion be forced on those people?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Also, you don't 'join' a culture or religion. You are born into one. Only in later life can you start making choices about culture or religion (and even those aren't really free choices, given that they will already be heavily influenced by your cultural framework and upbringing). Life is full of things we can not control. Religion is one of them. Forbidding people to practice their religion by banning circumcision is incredibly arrogant at best and downright fascist at worst.
No. I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that children can be bound to religious covenant when they aren't aware of their own name.
If you're born into a religion and forced into obeying the tenets of that religion without consent, that's a violation of personal rights. Religion is absolutely a thing we should be able to control, and having that control robbed of us at birth by our predecessors is even more arrogant and/or fascist.
Children don't have religious practices at birth. You're not denying the child anything. If they want to, they can have the cut later. At birth, when they don't even know the concept of religion, that's shameful to suggest.
Children do not have religious practices at birth. But their religious practices do begin immediately after birth. For children born into religious families religion is just a normal part of their culture and upbringing. Children also do not know the concept of nationality at birth, yet we have no problem assigning a nationality to them. Some things in life are out of our own control. As young children, everything is out of our own control: our parents, nationality, the haircut our parents give us, religion, culture, language, the food we are given to eat etc. As we grow up, we gradually gain more control of our own. But many of the things that are done to us as children are irreversible. That is not good or bad, that is just the way things are. And as long as those things are not actively harmful, why make such a fuss about one little thing some specific cultures do? If the argument is truly about 'the choice of the child', then it is nonsensical. Children do not get choices in anything, why should they suddenly be allowed a choice in this? Therefore I suspect the actual core of the argument is racist or anti-religious in nature. Many people really hate Jews or Muslims, and therefore they are really eager to ban what those people consider sacred.
XuQishi wrote:
Religion is one of them.
No. In a modern western country it is - and should be - quite easy to avoid religion, it's not something you're born into, it's something that people inflict on you. And you can do something about it, otherwise I wonder how I ended up being an atheist although I'm a baptized catholic. To be honest, nothing in public life annoys me more than people trying to force their imaginary friends on others. I am still wondering why anybody ever jumped on the idea that "prophets hearing voices" could be right in the head.
Because you made that choice later in life. People being able to move to other countries, learn other languages or change their religion as adults doesn't change the fact that people have no control over what nation, language, culture or religion they are originally born into. Also, great job in belittling and offending the majority of the world's population.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Raising a child in their Religion is not remotely comparable to circumcision. A child can voluntarily abandon his religion when he grows to adulthood, or convert to another religion if he so chooses. Its not permanent.
Circumcision on the other hand is permanent, and a child who regrets it when he grows to adulthood cannot change it because his parents already made the irreversible decision to chop off a part of his body without his consent.
That is despicable.
Circumcision should only ever be done with the consent of the (adult) recipient, or when a demonstrable medical need overrides that consent.
And I say this as someone who may need to be circumcised himself (at the age of 26) for medical reasons.
Circumcision is part of the religion. Also, they are not chopping off a part of your body. They just remove a bit of unnecessary skin which will have absolutely zero negative impact on the child at any point of his life. I have never heard of anyone who regrets being circumcised, simply because it is not a big deal at all. A circumcised penis is the same as an uncircumcised penis. All it does is look slightly different and it is also a bit more hygienic.
So not letting you perform a non-medically indicated surgical procedure on a minor is the same as forcing a minor to undergo a non-medically indicated surgical procedure?
Circumcision is part of the religion. Also, they are not chopping off a part of your body. They just remove a bit of unnecessary skin which will have absolutely zero negative impact on the child at any point of his life.
elk@work wrote: would people ever stop inflicting 'good' to others by destroying and meddling with different cultures and religions they don't belong and don't properly understand? isn't it time to re-read 1984...
But... but... My culture and worldview are superior to yours, you are barbaric! People have been trying to force their choices on other people since the dawn of time. People most likely are never going to stop trying to do that. It seems inherent to Human nature. Just this ironic discussion, which is about people forcing their choice that people shouldn't force their choices on other people on other people, is pretty much evidence of that I think.
We can stop doing that when those different cultures and religions stop inflicting their religion/culture on people who have not chosen to be part of it. "It's religion" or "it's culture" does not excuse cutting parts off of someone who does not consent to it, just because it would satisfy you. The child has not voluntarily joined the religion/culture and made their own choice to be circumcised, and that's the end of it. Consent matters.
And who gave you the right to dictate to other people what they should and should not do? Why should it be your choice whether people are allowed to get their kid circumcised or not? Because at this point it isn't the child who is making any choices, we are.
Also, you don't 'join' a culture or religion. You are born into one. Only in later life can you start making choices about culture or religion (and even those aren't really free choices, given that they will already be heavily influenced by your cultural framework and upbringing). Life is full of things we can not control. Religion is one of them. Forbidding people to practice their religion by banning circumcision is incredibly arrogant at best and downright fascist at worst.
What gives you the right to force YOUR choice to circumcise and your religion onto a child?
I guess the same thing that gives you the right to force YOUR choice onto a religious community?
I'm not forcing anything. If a child grows to an appropriate age (say 16), and decides to make a properly informed consensual choice to be circumcised for whatever reason (religious, medical, fine. More power to him. I'm an individualist. I believe in individual Liberty. Only the Individual (the Child) should have right to make this decision. In rare cases, this right can be overridden when there is a pressing medical need (e.g. phimosis).
You however are arguing for Collectivism. You argue that the Collectivist rights of the Community to practice circumcision on un-consenting infants should trump the right of the Individual to make that choice for himself when he comes of age.
I'm not arguing for anything to be forced onto anybody. On the contrary, I'm arguing that YOU should not have the right to violate the rights of Individuals. in a free society, Religion does not give you the right to violate other people's rights.
I'm the one arguing for Freedom of Choice.
You are the one arguing for Totalitarianism.
Children are not the property of their parents, they are autonomous human beings. Parents are simply caretakers until their children come of age. Permanent, irreversible and life changing decisions such as circumcision should wait until the child is old enough to decide for himself.
d-usa wrote: So not letting you perform a non-medically indicated surgical procedure on a minor is the same as forcing a minor to undergo a non-medically indicated surgical procedure?
No. In the first case you are actively forcing people against their will. In the second case, there is no 'forcing', because the minor does not yet have a will of its own that can be overruled by your decision. And since the procedure is harmless there is no need to force people to go against their will.
d-usa wrote: So not letting you perform a non-medically indicated surgical procedure on a minor is the same as forcing a minor to undergo a non-medically indicated surgical procedure?
Circumcision is part of the religion. Also, they are not chopping off a part of your body. They just remove a bit of unnecessary skin which will have absolutely zero negative impact on the child at any point of his life.
Accidents happen. Doesn't make it harmful, nor is it a reason to ban it. This is if I had said: "Traveling with your child in a car will have no negative impact on his life." and then you show pictures of kids involved in car crashes. Accidents happen. Doesn't mean we should ban parents from needlessly putting their child in a car (when they could also choose a safer method of transportation or not travel at all).
As far as the "nobody ever regrets it" argument goes, that is also something completely based on local culture.
I was born in Germany in a US military facility to a US father, and US cultural practices were followed. The cultural practice in Germany however makes that procedure not very common. As a result, it was something that made me stand out as "different" in school and during sports.
d-usa wrote: So not letting you perform a non-medically indicated surgical procedure on a minor is the same as forcing a minor to undergo a non-medically indicated surgical procedure?
No. In the first case you are actively forcing people against their will. In the second case, there is no 'forcing', because the minor does not yet have a will of its own that can be overruled by your decision.
And since the procedure is harmless there is no need to force people to go against their will.
What gives you the right to force circumcision onto a child against their will?
We're still waiting for an answer.
Stopping you from violating other people's rights is not violating your rights. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.
d-usa wrote: So not letting you perform a non-medically indicated surgical procedure on a minor is the same as forcing a minor to undergo a non-medically indicated surgical procedure?
No. In the first case you are actively forcing people against their will. In the second case, there is no 'forcing', because the minor does not yet have a will of its own that can be overruled by your decision.
And since the procedure is harmless there is no need to force people to go against their will.
Well, there is no arguing against a mindset that children have no rights and can be cut on without any second thought or an ignorance regarding the medical risks of a surgical procedure.
d-usa wrote: As far as the "nobody ever regrets it" argument goes, that is also something completely based on local culture.
I was born in Germany in a US military facility to a US father, and US cultural practices were followed. The cultural practice in Germany however makes that procedure not very common. As a result, it was something that made me stand out as "different" in school and during sports.
Is there a pattern of Germans treating people poorly who are different because they are circumcised? What's the solution to that?
Even if one agrees that an unnecessary procedure should not be performed on a child, the implications for the religious minorities involved are too big to ignore. For someone whose grandparents fled Eastern Europe, it's difficult not to hear a sinister ulterior motive under the rhetoric.
d-usa wrote: As far as the "nobody ever regrets it" argument goes, that is also something completely based on local culture.
I was born in Germany in a US military facility to a US father, and US cultural practices were followed. The cultural practice in Germany however makes that procedure not very common. As a result, it was something that made me stand out as "different" in school and during sports.
Is there a pattern of Germans treating people poorly who are different because they are circumcised? What's the solution to that's?
Yesterday was the anniversary of the US Internment of Japanese Americans.
But as far as stuff that actually matters to the subject at hand: There is a pattern in both the US and Germany of kids being donkey-caves to one another for being different, and kids being extremely self conscious during puberty about how their bodies (and especially their genitals) look.
Circumcision is very common in the US, and not very common in Europe. That is just one thing to keep in mind when we (mostly US based) make the "I didn't feel different being circumcised" argument.
The rates are between 50-60% in the US, and usually less than 10% in Europe with many countries being in the single digits.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What gives you the right to force YOUR choice to circumcise and your religion onto a child?
I guess the same thing that gives you the right to force YOUR choice onto a religious community?
I'm not forcing anything. If a child grows to an appropriate age (say 16), and decides to make a properly informed consensual choice to be circumcised for whatever reason (religious, medical, fine. More power to him. I'm an individualist. I believe in individual Liberty. Only the Individual (the Child) should have right to make this decision. In rare cases, this right can be overridden when there is a pressing medical need (e.g. phimosis).
You however are arguing for Collectivism. You argue that the Collectivist rights of the Community to practice circumcision on un-consenting infants should trump the right of the Individual to make that choice for himself when he comes of age.
I'm not arguing for anything to be forced onto anybody. On the contrary, I'm arguing that YOU should not have the right to violate the rights of Individuals. in a free society, Religion does not give you the right to violate other people's rights.
I'm the one arguing for Freedom of Choice.
You are the one arguing for Totalitarianism.
Children are not the property of their parents, they are autonomous human beings. Parents are simply caretakers until their children come of age. Permanent, irreversible and life changing decisions such as circumcision should wait until the child is old enough to decide for himself.
Okay, are you making a joke here? Because at this point I am afraid Poe's law is in effect. The random capitalisation seems like a giveaway, but still...
So, just in case you are not kidding I will try to respond to this seriously. If you are kidding, then congratulations, you fooled me
When you force people not to perform a certain ritual procedure, then you are forcing people. It takes some seriously messed up mental gymnastics to deny that.
Individualism is all well and good, but with children this presents a problem. Young children can't express their individual will (and in fact they do not even have a concept of that). What you are saying is that we should not force things onto them. Problem is, parents need to take care of their child, because the child can not take care of itself. All of the care parents give to their children disregards the child's will. Children do not get to make choices, because they are not capable of making those choices. It is as simple as that. Choices get made for them, including many that will have far bigger impacts on their life than a relatively trivial ritual like circumcision. There seems to be little actual reasoning for singling out circumcision from this huge pile of irreversible choices that get made for children beyond hate of religion or Muslims.
Individualism vs collectivism is just a relative thing. Some cultures are heavily individualist and other cultures are heavily collectivist. Yet other cultures are somewhere in-between. There is no need to force individualist principles on a collective culture or vice versa. Now that is totalitarian. In a free society, instead of trying to force our principles on others, we should just accept and respect the principles of others, even if we disagree with them.
d-usa wrote: As far as the "nobody ever regrets it" argument goes, that is also something completely based on local culture.
I was born in Germany in a US military facility to a US father, and US cultural practices were followed. The cultural practice in Germany however makes that procedure not very common. As a result, it was something that made me stand out as "different" in school and during sports.
Is there a pattern of Germans treating people poorly who are different because they are circumcised? What's the solution to that's?
Yesterday was the anniversary of the US Internment of Japanese Americans.
But as far as stuff that actually matters to the subject at hand: There is a pattern in both the US and Germany of kids being donkey-caves to one another for being different, and kids being extremely self conscious during puberty about how their bodies (and especially their genitals) look.
Circumcision is very common in the US, and not very common in Europe. That is just one thing to keep in mind when we (mostly US based) make the "I didn't feel different being circumcised" argument.
Kids are always going to find ways to be donkey-caves. They are like chimps with the power of speech, and they are ruthless when it comes to jockeying through the social order. You can never satisfy them by giving in. Braces, hair color, clothes, facial features, are all potential weaknesses to be exploited.
As someone pointed out earlier, in Europe there is often a political subtext to the demand for anti-circumcision laws. The potential harm caused by outlawing Judaism and Islam seems far higher to me than the harm of allowing circumcisions, especially if we passed regulations to make the procedure even safer.
Also, great job in belittling and offending the majority of the world's population.
That's okay for me, the majority is not necessarily correct.
If the majority always got what it thought was right we would still be sitting in caves, grunting at each other.
And yes, I do believe that not every human culture* is equal. Some are better, some are worse in many aspects. If you're thinking about a rebuttal, think hard if you would like to be a neighbor of the aztecs or ISIS.
*not human being. I don't care what genes you carry, what you look like or who you like to sleep with. That's all just biology.
For me, It's what you believe in what makes you a better or a worse human. Sadly, many religions focus very hard on bringing the worst out in people, and that includes some political ideologies, most of them are just godless civil religions anyway with apocalyptic visions, a utopia and some kind of savior-type figure, like fascism or communism. But since we're there, I'd classify myself as an atheist anti-collectivist. It probably helps that I've got quite the score on the autism spectrum, people have called me an emotional robot before. To be honest, I prefer that over the idea of being controlled by illogical hormonal reactions.
In a free society, instead of trying to force our principles on others, we should just accept and respect the principles of others, even if we disagree with them.
Technically yes, in practice usually the least tolerant position wins in the end and ends the free society. This is because people are lazy. If I had the power to forbid people to eat cheese from tomorrow on, my guess is that some would scream, some would grumble, most people would do nothing and in a generation or two nobody would remember, but the people would be less free. This is why I'm so strongly pro individualism, a collective is never very free.
I think everything I would have responded to has already been addressed.
There is a wide spectrum when it comes to human beliefs. Agree with it or not, like it or not, religion is ingrained in many cultures. The indoctrination of an infant into the culture’s religion is considered by some to be a duty, wrapped up with all the rituals and practices that entails.
Realize that “but for the grace of God” you could have been born in a time or place that celebrates these practices, and they would be so normal to you that thinking of living life otherwise... well, you probably wouldn’t.
But okay, you’re not in a different time or place. You’re here and now, and that “here” is probably a western country that has historically embraced the very ritual (or procedure, if you like) in question. Cultures and their values change over time, that’s okay, that’s natural. Time and context do matter.
Obviously, not everyone shares the same values, and when suddenly an imposition of one group onto the other takes place, their will and culture have just been trampled. This will breed resentment and conflict, on what scale one cannot predict (I don’t expect Jews to start bombing Icelandic pubs).
“This covenant with G‑d surpasses human comprehension. It is a bond that pledges unconditional devotion, no matter what may transpire between G‑d and individual. It is a bond that is absolute and unchallengeable. For this reason a Jew is circumcised as an infant, when he has not yet developed his capacity for reasoning or making judgements, for the covenant of circumcision is not an intellectual or calculated partnership. The circumcision of an infant demonstrates that the connection between the Jews and G‑d is beyond rationale.”
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1452224/jewish/Why-Circumcise.htm
I provided this quote/link as a means of explaining that position in the best way I could, but I don’t personally ascribe to it, nor could I really do the position justice in an argument. But since we’re mostly talking about people who have no voice in our discussion here, it seemed only appropriate to at least try and understand their point of view.
A response I see repeatedly is that parents shouldn’t get to decide for their children, and this is the whole point of banning the practice. Again, this is not some universal truth. Many would scoff at the notion that others have any place telling them how to raise/decide for their children. Different cultures have different values. That does matter. When you disregard that, you insist that your beliefs are superior to theirs. When you outlaw them, you impose your will tyrannically. I realize I’m now repeating myself, and that doing so probably isn’t going to make my point more effective for those who disagree, so I’ll let this be the last time.
It’s odd to me, because there is a modern school of thought (among many others) that suggests all cultures and their peoples have a place in the modern, open-minded, welcoming societies of the west. Except, what happens when the cultural values clash? Laws enacted once a group arrives are explicitly discriminatory, while those that exist beforehand are kind of a “you know what you’re getting into” situation.
As for all the hypothetical questions about how to handle whacky beliefs, they’re not really relevant. We’re talking about the situation that actually exists and is under discussion.
Except, what happens when the cultural values clash?
The most tolerant of them is going to be the first under the bus as with time it will be subjugated by the less tolerant ones. It's no wonder that most polytheistic religions are dead.
Also, great job in belittling and offending the majority of the world's population.
That's okay for me, the majority is not necessarily correct.
No. But it doesn't matter whether you think they are right or wrong. You should not insult people. That is always wrong. If the majority always got what it thought was right we would still be sitting in caves, grunting at each other.
XuQishi wrote: And yes, I do believe that not every human culture* is equal. Some are better, some are worse in many aspects. If you're thinking about a rebuttal, think hard if you would like to be a neighbor of the aztecs or ISIS.
*not human being. I don't care what genes you carry, what you look like or who you like to sleep with. That's all just biology. For me, It's what you believe in what makes you a better or a worse human. Sadly, many religions focus very hard on bringing the worst out in people, and that includes some political ideologies, most of them are just godless civil religions anyway with apocalyptic visions, a utopia and some kind of savior-type figure, like fascism or communism. But since we're there, I'd classify myself as an atheist anti-collectivist. It probably helps that I've got quite the score on the autism spectrum, people have called me an emotional robot before. To be honest, I prefer that over the idea of being controlled by illogical hormonal reactions.
That is okay. I also believe some cultures are better than others, with my own culture being the best. That is Human nature, it is how we are indoctrinated from birth. But I do acknowledge that it is a relative good and bad, and that me believing something does not actually make it truth. As an atheist, this should be easy to understand for you. Just because you believe your culture is better, does not mean it actually is better.
As to religion, all religions strife to bring out the good of people. Simply reading the Bible or the Koran makes this very obvious. The problem once again comes when people start thinking their 'good' (as taught by their religion) is better than the 'good' of others, and then set out to 'help' the poor heathens by forcing their values on them.
Except, what happens when the cultural values clash?
The most tolerant of them is going to be the first under the bus as with time it will be subjugated by the less tolerant ones. It's no wonder that most polytheistic religions are dead.
Sadly, that is the way things seem to tend to go. But people who followed polytheistic religions were not necessarily more tolerant.
d-usa wrote: So not letting you perform a non-medically indicated surgical procedure on a minor is the same as forcing a minor to undergo a non-medically indicated surgical procedure?
No. In the first case you are actively forcing people against their will. In the second case, there is no 'forcing', because the minor does not yet have a will of its own that can be overruled by your decision. And since the procedure is harmless there is no need to force people to go against their will.
What gives you the right to force circumcision onto a child against their will?
We're still waiting for an answer.
Culture and tradition. If I were a muslim father, I would consider this an important part of my child's development and upbringing, just as I would consider it an important part of his development and upbringing to force him to eat his veggies. I am also not forcing him to undergo circumcision, as forcing implies resistance. My child would be too young to understand or resist it, so I would be making him undergo circumcision, but I would not be forcing him. Important semantic difference.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Stopping you from violating other people's rights is not violating your rights. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.
What is a right or not is relative. It is dependent on culture. Muslims consider circumcising their children a right. When you forcing them to stop you are violating their rights. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. Speaking legally, freedom of religion (which includes circumcision) is also enshrined as a fundamental right in many country's constitutions.
d-usa wrote: As far as the "nobody ever regrets it" argument goes, that is also something completely based on local culture.
I was born in Germany in a US military facility to a US father, and US cultural practices were followed. The cultural practice in Germany however makes that procedure not very common. As a result, it was something that made me stand out as "different" in school and during sports.
Is there a pattern of Germans treating people poorly who are different because they are circumcised? What's the solution to that's?
Yesterday was the anniversary of the US Internment of Japanese Americans.
But as far as stuff that actually matters to the subject at hand: There is a pattern in both the US and Germany of kids being donkey-caves to one another for being different, and kids being extremely self conscious during puberty about how their bodies (and especially their genitals) look.
Circumcision is very common in the US, and not very common in Europe. That is just one thing to keep in mind when we (mostly US based) make the "I didn't feel different being circumcised" argument.
Kids are always going to find ways to be donkey-caves. They are like chimps with the power of speech, and they are ruthless when it comes to jockeying through the social order. You can never satisfy them by giving in. Braces, hair color, clothes, facial features, are all potential weaknesses to be exploited.
As someone pointed out earlier, in Europe there is often a political subtext to the demand for anti-circumcision laws. The potential harm caused by outlawing Judaism and Islam seems far higher to me than the harm of allowing circumcisions, especially if we passed regulations to make the procedure even safer.
At the same time, we shouldn’t discount medical arguments and ethical arguments about the bodily autonomy of minors based on a “will religious minorities think we are bigots” argument.
If something is bad, then not addressing the issue because some religious communities won’t like it is stupid. If the argument is that something is bad BECAUSE it is the practice of a religious minority, then yeah that would be a stupid argument.
The youngest age to marry in (most?) Europe is 18. Is that because they hate religions who may have child brides (poor folks from the Southern US)?
, freedom of religion (which includes circumcision) is also enshrined as a fundamental right in many country's constitutions
This right has two sides, though. The other one is that it also grants freedom from religion. It could be argued - on a philosophical level, probably not a practical one, since children sort of belong to their parents in most countries - that this right is being violated by people doing religious stuff to or with their children before those can decide if they think that it's a good idea.
Culture and tradition. If I were a muslim father, I would consider this an important part of my child's development and upbringing, just as I would consider it an important part of his development and upbringing to force him to eat his veggies. I am also not forcing him to undergo circumcision, as forcing implies resistance. My child would be too young to understand or resist it, so I would be making him undergo circumcision, but I would not be forcing him. Important semantic difference.
Therefore I suspect the actual core of the argument is racist or anti-religious in nature.
to the point... more to this, it's clearly of anti-family nature... just another launching pad for 'piercing family veil' as if family is actually nothing... only a child individual, and his rights, and so many caring civilised strangers (don't mistake parents for being caring and having a child's best interest in heart, those dudes can't be trusted)... bugger the family... ban circumcision (bad for child), baptising (not child's choice)... but not abortions on request (legal in most 'civilised' countries where 'free' people live up to their individual freedoms) - this is an individual's choice and bugger the child...
For me, the reason to not bann it outright is that what will happens is that people will still do it, but from illegal means. And thats will translate in more childs having problems and dying.
The way to change this kind of practice is make it more regulated and difficult, with stricter healthy controls and very hard punishement to people that don't follow them, causing harm to the babies, until the amount of people that do it with the years go down as culture changes to adapt to the new situation.
d-usa wrote: Should my child's genitals be mine to do with as I please, simply because it's my child and he/she might not remember what happened?
That would depend entirely on what you want to do.. Some actions are permissible, others are not.
So are you changing your argument from "the child won't remember and isn't resisting while I'm messing with his genitals and he has no free will because he's a child, so it's okay" to "the child won't remember and isn't resisting while I'm messing with his genitals and has no free will because he's a child, so it's okay some of the time"?
d-usa wrote: So are you changing your argument from "the child won't remember and isn't resisting while I'm messing with his genitals and he has no free will because he's a child, so it's okay" to "the child won't remember and isn't resisting while I'm messing with his genitals and has no free will because he's a child, so it's okay some of the time"?
You saw how you dressed the kid right? Was clearly asking for it.
Iron_Captain wrote: Culture and tradition. If I were a muslim father, I would consider this an important part of my child's development and upbringing, just as I would consider it an important part of his development and upbringing to force him to eat his veggies. I am also not forcing him to undergo circumcision, as forcing implies resistance. My child would be too young to understand or resist it, so I would be making him undergo circumcision, but I would not be forcing him. Important semantic difference.
You invoke Poe's Law, then equate forcing a child to eat his vegetables to chopping off a child's foreskin???
I don't give a feth about your culture and traditions. Culture and tradition does not give you the right to violate another person's human rights.
And that is what this is, a Human Rights issue. Your Rights end where another person's rights begin.
Religion does not give you the right to violate another person's body.
What is a right or not is relative. It is dependent on culture. Muslims consider circumcising their children a right. When you forcing them to stop you are violating their rights. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.
Speaking legally, freedom of religion (which includes circumcision) is also enshrined as a fundamental right in many country's constitutions.
Right. And we live in the West, where we have this pesky little thing called Human Rights that outlaws barbaric practices such as mutilating people's bodies without their consent.
Freedom of Religion does not extend to violating other people's Rights. The fact that an infant is incapable of voicing his consent or objection does not mean that he does not have those rights.
Kilkrazy wrote: Human rights includes freedom to practice one's religion, though.
Yes, but that does not and should not extend to overriding other people's rights.
People have the freedom to practice their religion, but that right ends at violating another person's Human Right to bodily integrity.
If you want to practice the worst and most barbaric parts of your religion, such as chopping off a part of your son's willy (or girls too for that matter), then you should emigrate to a country without Human Rights.
Honestly, "barbarian" is a completely meaningless term that serves no purpose other than as an appeal to emotion. There's enough arguments against circumcision without having to resolve to such tactics.
We draw the line on religion being a reason to do what you like to you kids in other ways. You can’t have child brides and forced marriages, we don’t let Jehovah’s Witnesses kill their kids by refusing lifesaving treatment.
I don’t believe religious freedom extends to doing what you like to your children. You have the freedom to express your religion in ways that don’t harm and irreparably alter others in your care. There shouldn’t be an accepted religious argument for putting children to any surgery, only a medical one like phimosis. But a doctor signs that off after alternatives have been explored. That someone cites the outside chance of phimosis as a reason to circumcise babies is really quite pathetic as justification. As are all the myths about cleanliness.
d-usa wrote: As far as the "nobody ever regrets it" argument goes, that is also something completely based on local culture.
I was born in Germany in a US military facility to a US father, and US cultural practices were followed. The cultural practice in Germany however makes that procedure not very common. As a result, it was something that made me stand out as "different" in school and during sports.
Is there a pattern of Germans treating people poorly who are different because they are circumcised? What's the solution to that's?
Yesterday was the anniversary of the US Internment of Japanese Americans.
But as far as stuff that actually matters to the subject at hand: There is a pattern in both the US and Germany of kids being donkey-caves to one another for being different, and kids being extremely self conscious during puberty about how their bodies (and especially their genitals) look.
Circumcision is very common in the US, and not very common in Europe. That is just one thing to keep in mind when we (mostly US based) make the "I didn't feel different being circumcised" argument.
Kids are always going to find ways to be donkey-caves. They are like chimps with the power of speech, and they are ruthless when it comes to jockeying through the social order. You can never satisfy them by giving in. Braces, hair color, clothes, facial features, are all potential weaknesses to be exploited.
As someone pointed out earlier, in Europe there is often a political subtext to the demand for anti-circumcision laws. The potential harm caused by outlawing Judaism and Islam seems far higher to me than the harm of allowing circumcisions, especially if we passed regulations to make the procedure even safer.
At the same time, we shouldn’t discount medical arguments and ethical arguments about the bodily autonomy of minors based on a “will religious minorities think we are bigots” argument.
If something is bad, then not addressing the issue because some religious communities won’t like it is stupid. If the argument is that something is bad BECAUSE it is the practice of a religious minority, then yeah that would be a stupid argument.
The youngest age to marry in (most?) Europe is 18. Is that because they hate religions who may have child brides (poor folks from the Southern US)?
There are degrees of badness. If something is bad, but very rarely actually harmful, is it better to allow that or ban actual religious practices that effectively ban religions, forcing them underground and into defacto second class status? I think the latter would harm far more people. And if you thought kids were mean to the circumcised before, just wait a generation in this bold new world where Judaism isn't illegal but practicing Judaism is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: For me, the reason to not bann it outright is that what will happens is that people will still do it, but from illegal means. And thats will translate in more childs having problems and dying.
The way to change this kind of practice is make it more regulated and difficult, with stricter healthy controls and very hard punishement to people that don't follow them, causing harm to the babies, until the amount of people that do it with the years go down as culture changes to adapt to the new situation.
This is pretty much my position. I am personally against circumcision, but for this reason, as well as a family history of "don't worry, we're not making you people illegal yet" experiences, I can't comfortably side making the procedure illegal. As I said on the very first page, assimilation works far better than force, and increased safety regulations will reduce harm the most.
d-usa wrote: Should my child's genitals be mine to do with as I please, simply because it's my child and he/she might not remember what happened?
That would depend entirely on what you want to do.. Some actions are permissible, others are not.
So are you changing your argument from "the child won't remember and isn't resisting while I'm messing with his genitals and he has no free will because he's a child, so it's okay" to "the child won't remember and isn't resisting while I'm messing with his genitals and has no free will because he's a child, so it's okay some of the time"?
That was never my argument. You are just putting up a straw man now and I am not bother going to respond to that. I expect a more mature discussion of you.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: Culture and tradition. If I were a muslim father, I would consider this an important part of my child's development and upbringing, just as I would consider it an important part of his development and upbringing to force him to eat his veggies. I am also not forcing him to undergo circumcision, as forcing implies resistance. My child would be too young to understand or resist it, so I would be making him undergo circumcision, but I would not be forcing him. Important semantic difference.
You invoke Poe's Law, then equate forcing a child to eat his vegetables to chopping off a child's foreskin???
I did not equate them, I compared them. Very different things.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I don't give a feth about your culture and traditions. Culture and tradition does not give you the right to violate another person's human rights.
Those "human rights" of yours are just your personal values. Your personal values do not give you the right to violate my human rights.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Religion does not give you the right to violate another person's body.
No it doesn't. Good thing then that circumcision does not constitute 'violating another person's body'.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What is a right or not is relative. It is dependent on culture. Muslims consider circumcising their children a right. When you forcing them to stop you are violating their rights. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. Speaking legally, freedom of religion (which includes circumcision) is also enshrined as a fundamental right in many country's constitutions.
Right. And we live in the West, where we have this pesky little thing called Human Rights that outlaws barbaric practices such as mutilating people's bodies without their consent.
Freedom of Religion does not extend to violating other people's Rights. The fact that an infant is incapable of voicing his consent or objection does not mean that he does not have those rights.
There is nothing barbaric about circumcision. You have degraded yourself to outright bigotry now, insulting entire religions and communities. Circumcision does not violate any human right except ones you are making up. You can read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights here: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ Note that "Freedom from circumcision" is not on the list.
I think a blanket ban on genital mutilation of minors is a perfectly acceptable compromise between the right to freely practice religion and the right to bodily autonomy. Want to ensure your child follows in your Jewish or Muslim footsteps? Be a good example of your faith so your child will want to get the procedure when they are of age.
We have to decide where to draw the line. Which Right should trump the other Right? Which Right do you value most?
me and my kids are not circumsized, we're orthodox... I've got Jewish friends circumsized as well as their boy kids... another friend of mine is Moslem and his son has been circumsized... all of them are healthy families, loving parents and happy kids... no reason to draw lines and intrude on their traditions... the only fact that somebody happens to have an 'opinion' and theorize on abstract 'rights' doesn't necessarily gives him a valid right to draw lines for others
We have to decide where to draw the line. Which Right should trump the other Right? Which Right do you value most?
me and my kids are not circumsized, we're orthodox... I've got Jewish friends circumsized as well as their boy kids... another friend of mine is Moslem and his son has been circumsized... all of them are healthy families, loving parents and happy kids... no reason to draw lines and intrude on their traditions... the only fact that somebody happens to have an 'opinion' and theorize on abstract 'rights' doesn't necessarily gives him a valid right to draw lines for others
Your traditions do not give you the right to make permanent changes to your child's body.
Your child deserves the opportunity to decide for himself.
We have to decide where to draw the line. Which Right should trump the other Right? Which Right do you value most?
me and my kids are not circumsized, we're orthodox... I've got Jewish friends circumsized as well as their boy kids... another friend of mine is Moslem and his son has been circumsized... all of them are healthy families, loving parents and happy kids... no reason to draw lines and intrude on their traditions... the only fact that somebody happens to have an 'opinion' and theorize on abstract 'rights' doesn't necessarily gives him a valid right to draw lines for others
Your traditions do not give you the right to make permanent changes to your child's body.
Your child deserves the opportunity to decide for himself.
you don't tell me you know and understand my traditions and mean better for my kids then me ))))
We have to decide where to draw the line. Which Right should trump the other Right? Which Right do you value most?
me and my kids are not circumsized, we're orthodox... I've got Jewish friends circumsized as well as their boy kids... another friend of mine is Moslem and his son has been circumsized... all of them are healthy families, loving parents and happy kids... no reason to draw lines and intrude on their traditions... the only fact that somebody happens to have an 'opinion' and theorize on abstract 'rights' doesn't necessarily gives him a valid right to draw lines for others
Especially when said 'right' is not an actual right but just something they made up.
There is no such thing as a right to "bodily autonomy", such a right would be massively impractical in regards to children, the handicapped and others who simply can not make their own decisions regarding their body.
We do have a human right of bodily security, which is a related but very different thing. Basically, what it means is that we have a right not to have nasty things done to our body. Circumcision isn't nasty, it is a minor cosmetic and hygienic alteration that has no further effects on the life of a child. It is little different from getting your ears pierced. I wonder if Christianity required children to have their ears pierced as part of the initiation rites it would generate the same response from some people? I suspect not. I suspect the real issue is people being sensitive about penises and disliking Muslims. Hell, I don't just suspect it, I know it, because there is plenty of parents who have their children's ears pierced at an age at which the child is too young to make her (or sometimes his) own decision, and I don't see some wacko Icelandic politician trying to ban that.
Their traditions precisely give them the right to do that. You disagreeing with that notion does not change their ability to do so.
They still do, and will continue to, until such time that a law is passed prohibiting it. And then, we can all observe the consequences, for better or worse.
We have to decide where to draw the line. Which Right should trump the other Right? Which Right do you value most?
me and my kids are not circumsized, we're orthodox... I've got Jewish friends circumsized as well as their boy kids... another friend of mine is Moslem and his son has been circumsized... all of them are healthy families, loving parents and happy kids... no reason to draw lines and intrude on their traditions... the only fact that somebody happens to have an 'opinion' and theorize on abstract 'rights' doesn't necessarily gives him a valid right to draw lines for others
Especially when said 'right' is not an actual right but just something they made up.
We have to decide where to draw the line. Which Right should trump the other Right? Which Right do you value most?
me and my kids are not circumsized, we're orthodox... I've got Jewish friends circumsized as well as their boy kids... another friend of mine is Moslem and his son has been circumsized... all of them are healthy families, loving parents and happy kids... no reason to draw lines and intrude on their traditions... the only fact that somebody happens to have an 'opinion' and theorize on abstract 'rights' doesn't necessarily gives him a valid right to draw lines for others
Especially when said 'right' is not an actual right but just something they made up.
And? How does that give a right to "bodily autonomy"? All it says is that a person has a right to respect for physical and mental integrity, which most certainly is not violated by circumcision, unless you want to argue that the parents do not respect their child and have no regard for his physical well-being. Also, I just browsed through some relevant Dutch court documents, and there are at least two cases in which it is explained that circumcision does not violate Article 3.
Iron_Captain wrote: Circumcision isn't nasty, it is a minor cosmetic and hygienic alteration that has no further effects on the life of a child.
The has been demonstrated to you in this very thread that this is not the case. Why do you cling to this belief in spite of facts to the contrary?
Because I know loads of people who have been circumcised and none of them has ever had any negative effects, nor have I have heard someone complain about being circumcised. On the contrary, I have mostly just heard positive things about circumcision. You are the very first person in my life to imply circumcision is something nasty, so please excuse me when I regard you as a statistical anomaly.
We have to decide where to draw the line. Which Right should trump the other Right? Which Right do you value most?
me and my kids are not circumsized, we're orthodox... I've got Jewish friends circumsized as well as their boy kids... another friend of mine is Moslem and his son has been circumsized... all of them are healthy families, loving parents and happy kids... no reason to draw lines and intrude on their traditions... the only fact that somebody happens to have an 'opinion' and theorize on abstract 'rights' doesn't necessarily gives him a valid right to draw lines for others
Especially when said 'right' is not an actual right but just something they made up.
And?
How does that give a right to "bodily autonomy"? All it says is that a person has a right to respect for physical and mental integrity, which most certainly is not violated by circumcision, unless you want to argue that the parents do not respect their child and have no regard for his physical well-being.
Pretty sure having part of your body removed without consent is the definition of having your bodily integrity violated.
Also, if you're going to accuse people of having racist motives for opposing male circumcision perhaps you should accuse them of being anti-semite rather than islamophobic, considering Judaism is more commonly associated with circumcision than Islam. It'd still be a morally bankrupt argument, but at least you'd have the right religion.
In other words, are you (personally) the arbiter of their ability to do so? Should you be? Only this matter, or other aspects of people's lives as well?
Iron_Captain wrote: Circumcision isn't nasty, it is a minor cosmetic and hygienic alteration that has no further effects on the life of a child.
The has been demonstrated to you in this very thread that this is not the case. Why do you cling to this belief in spite of facts to the contrary?
Because I know loads of people who have been circumcised and none of them has ever had any negative effects, nor have I have heard someone complain about being circumcised. On the contrary, I have mostly just heard positive things about circumcision.
You are the very first person in my life to imply circumcision is something nasty, so please excuse me when I regard you as a statistical anomaly.
Just because you don't know anyone who has had complications or regrets following the procedure does not mean it is a statistical anomaly.
D-usa and others provided links where you can learn about the potential drawbacks. You've got, 'nah, my friends are fine'. That's not how you become more informed about the world.
We have to decide where to draw the line. Which Right should trump the other Right? Which Right do you value most?
me and my kids are not circumsized, we're orthodox... I've got Jewish friends circumsized as well as their boy kids... another friend of mine is Moslem and his son has been circumsized... all of them are healthy families, loving parents and happy kids... no reason to draw lines and intrude on their traditions... the only fact that somebody happens to have an 'opinion' and theorize on abstract 'rights' doesn't necessarily gives him a valid right to draw lines for others
Especially when said 'right' is not an actual right but just something they made up.
You didn't stop longer than the two seconds to see if it was relevant.
Circumcision is not a violation of mental or physical integrity as it does not in any way impair the functionality of the recipient.
It is a cultural mark that is all, a sign of membership of the people groups who have that covenant, the Jew and Moslems.
Does it matter? If an Aztec priest showed up in the middle of Paris and tried to perform a human sacrifice he'd be charged with murder. Religious or otherwise killing a human is frowned upon in the modern society as is cutting bits off babies for religious reasons.
Or effectively banning religious slaughter of animals.
We have to decide where to draw the line. Which Right should trump the other Right? Which Right do you value most?
me and my kids are not circumsized, we're orthodox... I've got Jewish friends circumsized as well as their boy kids... another friend of mine is Moslem and his son has been circumsized... all of them are healthy families, loving parents and happy kids... no reason to draw lines and intrude on their traditions... the only fact that somebody happens to have an 'opinion' and theorize on abstract 'rights' doesn't necessarily gives him a valid right to draw lines for others
Your traditions do not give you the right to make permanent changes to your child's body.
Your child deserves the opportunity to decide for himself.
Does it matter? If an Aztec priest showed up in the middle of Paris and tried to perform a human sacrifice he'd be charged with murder. Religious or otherwise killing a human is frowned upon in the modern society as is cutting bits off babies for religious reasons.
Or effectively banning religious slaughter of animals.
Circumcision is not a violation of mental or physical integrity as it does not in any way impair the functionality of the recipient.
It is a cultural mark that is all, a sign of membership of the people groups who have that covenant, the Jew and Moslems.
So it would be ok to, say, brand our kids if our religion called for it? Pull off their toenails? Slice the tip off their nose?
None of those things would in any way 'impair their functionality'. All of them would be considered barbaric by western society.
The only reason circumcision isn't viewed the same way is that 'it's traditional!' ... which is another way of saying 'We're not prepared to accept that it's not actually the right thing to do, because we've been doing it for a long time and change is bad, m'kay?'
Circumcision is not a violation of mental or physical integrity as it does not in any way impair the functionality of the recipient.
.
Merriam Webster wrote:Definition of integrity
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness
Emphasis mine. Removing part of the body is a violation of integrity by definition. It's what the word means.
Do you vote for such a thing, endorse it in some way (write your representative, or whatever the equivalent is in your country), physically restrain someone during a circumcision ceremony? I’m talking about real actions and consequences that flow from your person, beyond mere feelings.
As for the “only Jews care” bit above, read the article in the OP. Surely the imam does not represent all Muslims, but he is a religious leader and he opposes it.
Thats another point. Personally I'm agaisn't piercing the ears of female babies, but in Spain at least his something they do automatically everytime, without even asking the parents.
Does it matter? If an Aztec priest showed up in the middle of Paris and tried to perform a human sacrifice he'd be charged with murder. Religious or otherwise killing a human is frowned upon in the modern society as is cutting bits off babies for religious reasons.
Or effectively banning religious slaughter of animals.
Does it matter? If an Aztec priest showed up in the middle of Paris and tried to perform a human sacrifice he'd be charged with murder. Religious or otherwise killing a human is frowned upon in the modern society as is cutting bits off babies for religious reasons.
Or effectively banning religious slaughter of animals.
Wasn’t circumcision done in the past because people were much less clean and it helped to prevent infection, and washing it too thoroughly might get misconstrued as “playing with it”. Which would offend Mr. God?
We have to decide where to draw the line. Which Right should trump the other Right? Which Right do you value most?
me and my kids are not circumsized, we're orthodox... I've got Jewish friends circumsized as well as their boy kids... another friend of mine is Moslem and his son has been circumsized... all of them are healthy families, loving parents and happy kids... no reason to draw lines and intrude on their traditions... the only fact that somebody happens to have an 'opinion' and theorize on abstract 'rights' doesn't necessarily gives him a valid right to draw lines for others
Especially when said 'right' is not an actual right but just something they made up.
And? How does that give a right to "bodily autonomy"? All it says is that a person has a right to respect for physical and mental integrity, which most certainly is not violated by circumcision, unless you want to argue that the parents do not respect their child and have no regard for his physical well-being.
Pretty sure having part of your body removed without consent is the definition of having your bodily integrity violated.
Also, if you're going to accuse people of having racist motives for opposing male circumcision perhaps you should accuse them of being anti-semite rather than islamophobic, considering Judaism is more commonly associated with circumcision than Islam. It'd still be a morally bankrupt argument, but at least you'd have the right religion.
Well, then I will have to inform you of the fact that European courts seem to generally disagree with you. As do I. You are interpreting bodily integrity in a different way from intended by those who draft (and interpret) that article. "Not removing parts of the body" is not precisely what is meant by bodily integrity (although it can fall under it). It is much broader and more vague than that, or else you could use the same arguments to jail doctors for performing life-saving surgery on people who have lost consciousness, or jail parents for cutting their children's nails. To keep it short, there needs to be a malevolent intent. There is no malevolent intent in circumcision, and it is a procedure that is needed to let the child function correctly in his community. For the record, a local court in Cologne once did rule that circumcision constitutes a breach of children's rights, but it was quickly overruled by the German government: http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/103/1710331.pdf (also, just in case you might be able to read Dutch, here is a paper that outlines the opinion of the Dutch High Council (the highest court in the Netherlands) on the matter and gives a good discussion of the issue in general: http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/101027/101027.pdf?sequence=1
Furthermore, if you do not associate circumcision with Muslims then I guess that is just you. When I think of religious circumcision I think of Muslims before Jews, but that may be because I interact more with Muslims than I do with Jews. In either case, both practice and are associated with religious circumcision.
In other words, are you (personally) the arbiter of their ability to do so? Should you be? Only this matter, or other aspects of people's lives as well?
That was a direct response to an earlier post, it took too long to type so there was a bit of a gap. It's to do with conflicting rights. Your right to believe you should be doing something isn't impinged by the other party's right for to not have it done to them.
In other words, are you (personally) the arbiter of their ability to do so? Should you be? Only this matter, or other aspects of people's lives as well?
That was a direct response to an earlier post, it took too long to type so there was a bit of a gap. It's to do with conflicting rights. Your right to believe you should be doing something isn't impinged by the other party's right for to not have it done to them.
But again you should be careful. If you give the government the right to tell parents what to do in this instance, then you give government the right to tell parents what to do in general.
Just because you don't know anyone who has had complications or regrets following the procedure does not mean it is a statistical anomaly.
D-usa and others provided links where you can learn about the potential drawbacks. You've got, 'nah, my friends are fine'. That's not how you become more informed about the world.
Actually it does. Circumcision is a long tradition, if it had the side effects you are talking about we would have known that long ago,
Verse not in the Bible:
"And verily Moses said unto God. We have circumcised our male children and a portion of them died from infection. Sorry boss but not doing that one again."
Circumcision has been practiced for literal millenia with negligible ill effect. There is no culture of fear amongst Jews of 'will my child live though this'. As with anything we do from crossing the road to swallowing food things can go wrong on occasion.
Until now there were no social side effects, but entitled snowflakes, often not of the religions or cultural groups that practice circumcision want to stop the practice.
In other words, are you (personally) the arbiter of their ability to do so? Should you be? Only this matter, or other aspects of people's lives as well?
That was a direct response to an earlier post, it took too long to type so there was a bit of a gap. It's to do with conflicting rights. Your right to believe you should be doing something isn't impinged by the other party's right for to not have it done to them.
But again you should be careful. If you give the government the right to tell parents what to do in this instance, then you give government the right to tell parents what to do in general.
Good point.
I will take it further though.
People are brainwashed by political correctness and believe it is their call to cancel another whole people groups culture because it offends them. Jews (or Moslems) need not care if some of those on Dakka who find circumcision reprehensible do so, What is actually reprehensible is that people call for the banning of a cultural mark practiced by an entire people group over millenia with provable justification that it has done them no harm, because snowflakes now feel salty about it.
Now if Jews sacrificed their firstborn or something like that then yeah, intervene. If they practiced FGM which actually does harm the recipient and steals from them their ability to have pleasurable sex then yeah intervene. But circumcision has no such effects. It is only now with snowflakes hyping up other snowflakes and asking didt this happen without your consent as if that was some great horror.
Let me tell you about other things that happened without a child's consent. Going to school. I am not circumcised, but if I was a Jew or Moslem it would have happened when I was eight days old, and I would be none the wiser. But going to school, I had to do that and hated it. I also have to pay my taxes, I dont like doing that, I might have to turn up at a court against my will if I violated the law, or I might get conscripted into the military in a modern society. Lots of things happen without our consent, with varying probabilities of them happening.
Now I ask you are all the anti-circumcision lobby apologists here libertarian anarchists? If not then you are hypocritical somewhere and you will agree with people being forced to do something without their consent, and unlike circumcision the lack of consent is often active.
In other words, are you (personally) the arbiter of their ability to do so? Should you be? Only this matter, or other aspects of people's lives as well?
That was a direct response to an earlier post, it took too long to type so there was a bit of a gap. It's to do with conflicting rights. Your right to believe you should be doing something isn't impinged by the other party's right for to not have it done to them.
But again you should be careful. If you give the government the right to tell parents what to do in this instance, then you give government the right to tell parents what to do in general.
I'd advise you look up what your local governmental body in charge of children (up here it is the Ministry of Children and Families) has the power to do in the name of 'protecting the children'.
The MCFD recently decided banning recording devices (baby monitors, for example) in children's rooms after the child is over the age of 18 months.
The MCFD recently decided banning recording devices (baby monitors, for example) in children's rooms after the child is over the age of 18 months.
1. Thats stupid. Stupid and dangerous.*
2. Wow, ok, so you've already given up your rights. What will you do when the government tells you you can only have female babies?
*Frazzled can't sleep now without a white noise machine because of when we had a baby monitor. Frazzled reminded Eldest Daughter the other day about how she would sing at night, before she could talk. It must have been dusty in the restaurant because Frazzled got something in his eyes...
Orlanth wrote:Until now there were no social side effects, but entitled snowflakes, often not of the religions or cultural groups that practice circumcision want to stop the practice.
I agree with this very much. People are making an issue out of something that totally is not an issue, and which has not been an issue for the past 3000 years. The people complaining are not affected by it and the people affected by it are not complaining. Crazy world this is...
Orlanth wrote:Until now there were no social side effects, but entitled snowflakes, often not of the religions or cultural groups that practice circumcision want to stop the practice.
I agree with this very much. People are making an issue out of something that totally is not an issue, and which has not been an issue for the past 2000 years.
The people complaining are not affected by it and the people affected by it are not complaining. Crazy world this is...
You know what else is crazy? If you find the Google translater you can annoy the heck out of your wife by retyping everything she's saying and having it speak it in Russian back at her. I would advise having your running shoes on, you will need them.
'Religious Freedom' shouldn't be a blanket permission slip for parents to do what they want to their children.
It isnt.
However 'political correctness' should not be blanket permission to redact another people groups culture because it offend your own sensibilities.
I face this point strongly at you. If you want to ban something pre-existing in a cultural group, prove harm. Prove to Jews and Moslems that they and their children are better off without circumcision, prove where it has harmed them. If you manage to do that you might have the beginning of a point. Yet it would be the height of arrogance to even try the first part, because you are not a fair or empowered arbiter of what Jews and Moslems should consider wholesome to their cultural and people group. As for the second millenia of history speak against you, all you have for you are the vocal sensibilities of a modern minority airing a never before presented mass grievance to a millenai old non-problem.
So really it comes down to this. Your (collective to those who oppose the cultural tradition of circumcison, so I am not singling out any single person) personal delicate sensibilities are in your opinion a moral trump over the collective will of an entire people group. At best I can call that deluded and arrogant, and it a hallmark of the false moral superiority the politically correct consider themselves to have.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:What gives you the right to force YOUR choice to circumcise and your religion onto a child?
I guess the same thing that gives you the right to force YOUR choice onto a religious community?
No choice is being made. That's the difference. You're making a choice to actively alter something that can't be revoked - an irreversable choice that cannot be rescinded.
The alternative is to let the child have autonomy over their own body and choose to have it later in life - when they can actually consent.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:But surely the default is to do NOTHING? If a child is circumcised, they can't go back and change that if they later want to when they can actually choose. If a child is uncircimcised, they can go and say "yeah, I'll have the cut" whenever they want to. If they do.
Doing nothing =/= forcing someone's choices.
Forcing people to do nothing is very much forcing your choices. Saying circumcision is not okay is your opinion. Saying circumcision should not be allowed is your choice, not that of the parents or that of the child.
Also, there is no such thing as 'default' outside of computer programs. Default is only default because the system is programmed to see it as the default. It works the same way in real life. What is 'default' or normal is only normal because our brains have been conditioned to see it as such. Different cultures have different 'programming' so to speak and therefore do not see the things you see as default or normal as normal. Ergo, 'default' and normal do not objectively exist. They are cultural concepts that vary from community to community.
Sorry, what?!
So if MY culture believes that all left arms should be cut off, that's okay? Because there's no natural default - such as, I don't know, newborn - where we start out from when we enter the world?
Sweet.
Guess I can happily lop the left limbs from everyone in my culture, because that's okay. What? People are complaining that they don't have all the body parts they started out with? Well, they couldn't tell me no, therefore it's completely up to me!
No. There is absolutely a default when it comes to the human body. It's called newborn. Genetic mutations, that's part of that default. Everyone's "default" is different. But everyone HAS one. One bereft of scars, piercings, hair dyes and styles, clothing, etc etc. Culture can change that, but there IS a default. The VAST majority of children are born with foreskins with no damage. That's a default for all those children. To suggest otherwise would support the idea that it's not "normal" for us to have four limbs.
That is just your opinion. Other people may disagree with your opinion. Why is your opinion superior to theirs, and why should your opinion be forced on those people?
Because my opinion isn't deciding one for a child that can't consent.
If you want to go with the "it's just an opinion bro" - what says I can't do the same to you? What says you have any power to stop me? After all, when you boil it down, it's all "just opinions". So might makes right, yeah?
Does that mean that people who are physically or sexually assaulted have less valid opinions? Or that their assaulter's opinions are valid? Because after all, all opinions are valid. And if someone wants to assault you, that's okay, because their opinion just as valid as yours?
Children do not have religious practices at birth. But their religious practices do begin immediately after birth.
But you just said that they don't? What's the difference? A child doesn't have religious practices until they choose it. That choice may be biased in some respect, but that choice is theirs. The normal age at which children are cut is FAR younger than when they can meaningfully engage in religious practice FOR THEMSELVES. You're just describing the selfish parents who force their own faith upon their child, who cannot consent nor revoke it.
For children born into religious families religion is just a normal part of their culture and upbringing.
Unless they decide that they don't wish to be part of that, and know they'll never be free of that mutilation on their bodies.
Again - religion being forced on the child, not fostered.
Children also do not know the concept of nationality at birth, yet we have no problem assigning a nationality to them.
Nationality doesn't require a permanent change of your body. You can change that.
Some things in life are out of our own control.
Some.
As young children, everything is out of our own control: our parents, nationality, the haircut our parents give us, religion, culture, language, the food we are given to eat etc. As we grow up, we gradually gain more control of our own. But many of the things that are done to us as children are irreversible. That is not good or bad, that is just the way things are. And as long as those things are not actively harmful, why make such a fuss about one little thing some specific cultures do?
Having parts of your body removed is not the same as what your parents feed you.
If I'm to accept that children have, and SHOULD have, no control or personal rights, then I fear for any child in that culture. Any environment where people can justify doing what they want to people for personal reasons because "they can't consent", and "that is just the way things are" is an environment that should be ashamed in itself.
Cutting off part of someone else's body isn't "some little thing". It's a part of their body, and should be respected like any other. Otherwise, where do we draw the lines? Eyebrows? Earlobes? Hair? Fingers/toes? Limbs - after all, people can survive without them.
It's okay - they're just "one little thing some specific cultures do". /sarcasm
If the argument is truly about 'the choice of the child', then it is nonsensical. Children do not get choices in anything, why should they suddenly be allowed a choice in this? Therefore I suspect the actual core of the argument is racist or anti-religious in nature. Many people really hate Jews or Muslims, and therefore they are really eager to ban what those people consider sacred.
And the "if you hate X you're a racist/sexist/xenophobe" argument surfaces.
If you TRULY believe that children have no choice, and should surrender all their autonomy, I dread to think your opinion of active paedophiles.
Because you made that choice later in life. People being able to move to other countries, learn other languages or change their religion as adults doesn't change the fact that people have no control over what nation, language, culture or religion they are originally born into.
But when part of your body is cut off without your consent, no amount of changing your opinion will grow that back.
Being born into a religious group and that influencing you is okay - so long as any permanent changes are done with your CONSENT.
Circumcision is part of the religion. Also, they are not chopping off a part of your body. They just remove a bit of unnecessary skin which will have absolutely zero negative impact on the child at any point of his life.
I'm not going to repeat all of the cases where it HAS done just that, nor re-emphasize the loss of sensation in that region.
I have never heard of anyone who regrets being circumcised, simply because it is not a big deal at all.
"I've not heard of it, therefore it doesn't exist!"
I've never had someone I know stabbed, or heard of it beyond news media. Doesn't mean people don't get stabbed.
A circumcised penis is the same as an uncircumcised penis. All it does is look slightly different and it is also a bit more hygienic.
Except when it's done without consent.
I could take this into the sexual territory, but I'm sure no-one wants me to write that, and nor do I.
d-usa wrote:Well, there is no arguing against a mindset that children have no rights and can be cut on without any second thought or an ignorance regarding the medical risks of a surgical procedure.
Apparently not.
I mean, feth children's rights. If my holy book or culture says I can do what I want to their genitals, ain't nothing going to get in my way. /sarcasm
I wonder what Iron Captain's view of messing with minor's genitals in the other sense would be. I mean, if it's supported by their culture and religion, and the child doesn't have any opinion of their own...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I'm surprised at you Kilkrazy. I had thought better of you.
That may be a devil's advocate, to be fair. I read it as such.
2. Wow, ok, so you've already given up your rights. What will you do when the government tells you you can only have female babies?
Probably realize that slippery slope fallacies are fallacies for a reason.
Ask the Chinese how much of a fallacy that is. Forced abortions anyone? Or the Germans if their children were not up to standard during a certain period, or the Spartans...How many children were taken from Native Americans / aboriginals because their culture was just "not up to snuff?"
2. Wow, ok, so you've already given up your rights. What will you do when the government tells you you can only have female babies?
Probably realize that slippery slope fallacies are fallacies for a reason.
Slippery slopes sadly are your home ground Walrus:
"Emphasis mine. Removing part of the body is a violation of integrity by definition. It's what the word means. "
Integrity means wholeness, and is not literal, after all we shed cells. The EU bans dismemberment punishments for example of physical integrity.
If you want to ban circumcision because it literally removes a portion of the body, then you can't have wisdom teeth pulled or tonsils out of a child either. However we can because we don't devolve the law into literalism. Integrity means wholeness as in wholeness of function, and male circumcision does not violate that. Integrity as wholeness also means that medicine can be practiced as parts can be removed to restore as much wholeness as possible.
Changing the meaning of integrity to somethign more literal rather than legal not only misreads the law, which is generally unwise. It seats you on the slippery slope of playing pedantry with legal definitions. Sovereign citizens do that, and look how far (or not) it gets them.
2. Wow, ok, so you've already given up your rights. What will you do when the government tells you you can only have female babies?
Probably realize that slippery slope fallacies are fallacies for a reason.
Ask the Chinese how much of a fallacy that is. Forced abortions anyone? Or the Germans if their children were not up to standard during a certain period, or the Spartans...How many children were taken from Native Americans / aboriginals because their culture was just "not up to snuff?"
Now lets have some tea!
I have to give you credit for doubling down on the fallacy when called out. That's a bold move; let's see if it pays off.
2. Wow, ok, so you've already given up your rights. What will you do when the government tells you you can only have female babies?
Probably realize that slippery slope fallacies are fallacies for a reason.
Slippery slopes sadly are your home ground Walrus:
"Emphasis mine. Removing part of the body is a violation of integrity by definition. It's what the word means. "
Integrity means wholeness, and is not literal, after all we shed cells. The EU bans dismemberment punishments for example of physical integrity.
If you want to ban circumcision because it literally removes a portion of the body, then you can't have wisdom teeth pulled or tonsils out of a child either. However we can because we don't devolve the law into literalism. Integrity means wholeness as in wholeness of function, and male circumcision does not violate that. Integrity as wholeness also means that medicine can be practiced as parts can be removed to restore as much wholeness as possible.
Changing the meaning of integrity to somethign more literal rather than legal not only misreads the law, which is generally unwise. It seats you on the slippery slope of playing pedantry with legal definitions. Sovereign citizens do that, and look how far (or not) it gets them.
I am more curious when we can casually just have wisdom teeth or tonsils pulled out of a child without them being inflamed or causing problems. Can one casually get them pulled without them already causing a problem?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:What gives you the right to force YOUR choice to circumcise and your religion onto a child?
I guess the same thing that gives you the right to force YOUR choice onto a religious community?
No choice is being made. That's the difference. You're making a choice to actively alter something that can't be revoked - an irreversable choice that cannot be rescinded.
The alternative is to let the child have autonomy over their own body and choose to have it later in life - when they can actually consent.
Why is that important. It wasn't important before, it wasn't important for millenia. But you say its important now. Jews have long understood that the decision to circumcise their male children is taken by the parents as part of their community. They have likely been aware for millenia that the child is not consulted. It hasn't harmed their society and they haven't of themselves tried to stop it and they have had many opportunities to do so.
It is not for you to make their choice for them either.
Also by leaving circumcision to a consenting age you make it more painful, more dangerous and you also deny the child the right to enter their covenant at the correct age. This is important as societal believing is an important benefit. People are tribal, and Jews can and do take comfort in the fact that they have a covenant.
I put this to you, even leaving the greatly increased problems of adult circumcision aside, by denying children their social covenant you will likely be increasing rather than decreasing the number of dissatisfied adults. I think more Jews will wish with regret they were 'real Jews' than wish they had not been circumcised.
Adult circumcision is mentioned in the Bible too, and it is significantly different, more painful and more discommoditating.
I think both "sides" are throwing out slippery slopes and straw men, and it's unnecessary.
We're talking about circumcision, a practice that exists within religions that really do exist and have for a very long time. It really doesn't matter much how one would react to a hypothetical. "Words are wind," as was said at some point in Game of Thrones.
I wish I never clicked on this thread and read it all the way through. I've learned more about the status of Dakka's peckers than I ever wanted to know.
2. Wow, ok, so you've already given up your rights. What will you do when the government tells you you can only have female babies?
Probably realize that slippery slope fallacies are fallacies for a reason.
Slippery slopes sadly are your home ground Walrus:
"Emphasis mine. Removing part of the body is a violation of integrity by definition. It's what the word means. "
Integrity means wholeness, and is not literal, after all we shed cells. The EU bans dismemberment punishments for example of physical integrity.
If you want to ban circumcision because it literally removes a portion of the body, then you can't have wisdom teeth pulled or tonsils out of a child either. However we can because we don't devolve the law into literalism. Integrity means wholeness as in wholeness of function, and male circumcision does not violate that. Integrity as wholeness also means that medicine can be practiced as parts can be removed to restore as much wholeness as possible.
Changing the meaning of integrity to somethign more literal rather than legal not only misreads the law, which is generally unwise. It seats you on the slippery slope of playing pedantry with legal definitions. Sovereign citizens do that, and look how far (or not) it gets them.
Just making sure I understand your argument correctly; are you arguing that I'm making a slippery slope argument because you believe that applying the definition of integrity that I do leads to problems regarding other medical procedures?
2. Wow, ok, so you've already given up your rights. What will you do when the government tells you you can only have female babies?
Probably realize that slippery slope fallacies are fallacies for a reason.
Slippery slopes sadly are your home ground Walrus:
"Emphasis mine. Removing part of the body is a violation of integrity by definition. It's what the word means. "
Integrity means wholeness, and is not literal, after all we shed cells. The EU bans dismemberment punishments for example of physical integrity.
If you want to ban circumcision because it literally removes a portion of the body, then you can't have wisdom teeth pulled or tonsils out of a child either. However we can because we don't devolve the law into literalism. Integrity means wholeness as in wholeness of function, and male circumcision does not violate that. Integrity as wholeness also means that medicine can be practiced as parts can be removed to restore as much wholeness as possible.
Changing the meaning of integrity to somethign more literal rather than legal not only misreads the law, which is generally unwise. It seats you on the slippery slope of playing pedantry with legal definitions. Sovereign citizens do that, and look how far (or not) it gets them.
I am more curious when we can casually just have wisdom teeth or tonsils pulled out of a child without them being inflamed or causing problems. Can one casually get them pulled without them already causing a problem?
Yes it happens, and some people also have a healthy appendix removed also. Minimises future risk. My tonsils were removed when I was a child, and not during tonsilitis but as a precautionary measure. I do remember the stay in a childrens ward afterwards and seeing the doctor before the operation. I was not consulted for personal consent, and unlike an eight day old child was aware of what was going on, which makes it 'worse' than bris, and it wasn't a 'necessary' procedure as my tonsils were at the time healthy.
Thankfully I am not a snowflake so I am not triggered; and the NHS doctors were not censured by the EU for violating my 'integrity' either. But then it was the 1970's, snowflakery wasnt present in its current form.
A fair and worthwhile aspect of the conversation to consider. Also consider that nearly every procedure has risk associated with it. Of course, in this case, the argument is that it isn't medically necessary (i.e. religion has no bearing on "justifying" it at all) by those with no "skin" in the game.
My personal view. I don't like the practice, but I am loath for the government to tell parents what to do with their children except in severe circumstances.
Governments have a VERY long history of doing horrible things and a penchant for power. As noted there was a time when the government took native American children from their families to force them to be white, put the Japanese in concentration camps, thought it was perfectly acceptable that millions would be enslaved, and thought GLBTX were mentally deranged and needed help. So lets watch out when we think its ok for government to tell people to do something, or else the the enforcers come.
Just making sure I understand your argument correctly; are you arguing that I'm making a slippery slope argument because you believe that applying the definition of integrity that I do leads to problems regarding other medical procedures?
You are on the slippery slope because you take a literalist definition of integrity rather than a legal definition. Yet despite using the wrong definition you try to impose it to the law.
This has knock on effects because by your own standards anything can reduced to reductio ad absurdum, by playing word games with the law, medical ethics or whatever. You end up without a logical point on which to stand. Examples were given as to how this devolves.
The only way out is to backtrack and abandon your own definitions and use the proper legal ones, which is wise, at this point you will realise the circumcision of males doesn't violate physical integrity by its legal definition and your entire premise is erroneous.
In which case my final comment will be that it's called a slippery slope fallacy because it's a fallacy, not because it's somehow a sound argument to make.
'Religious Freedom' shouldn't be a blanket permission slip for parents to do what they want to their children.
It isnt.
However 'political correctness' should not be blanket permission to redact another people groups culture because it offend your own sensibilities.
My belief that parents shouldn't be getting bits cut off their children is nothing to do with political correctness.
OK.
1. Lets all accept that the posters posting here are all posting in good faith, with concern for Da Childrinz.
2. Lets step back and put a hypothetical here. Your flag is Aussie land correct? In the past governemnt thought it was better for aboriginal children to be taken, given to christian families and raised as such, because their practices were considered backwards and it was better for the children.
How is that different? Where is the limit on government power? In this instance you (general, not the Infernal Cat that is Insaniak*) are taking a religious conviction that people will literally fight you for (and a certain group died by the millions because of) and ignoring because of your belief that government knows better.
Its been an interesting thread. My position was meh before but has strengthened now that I thought about some of the misdeeds government has done.
*Don't think that we have not noted your evilz Cat moniker. Cat drool dogs rule!
If a government wants to make something illegal they should be able to present a clear and strongly supported cause that the thing is causing harm. I'm not seeing strong evidence that circumcising babies is causing real harm. What is the rate in which circumcisions in Iceland actually result in lasting harm to the functionality of the penis? Can the government in Iceland put measures in place to reduce the failure rate of circumcisions rather than banning it? Removing a baby boy's foreskin certainly isn't necessary but that doesn't mean it needs to be outlawed.
'Religious Freedom' shouldn't be a blanket permission slip for parents to do what they want to their children.
It isnt.
However 'political correctness' should not be blanket permission to redact another people groups culture because it offend your own sensibilities.
My belief that parents shouldn't be getting bits cut off their children is nothing to do with political correctness.
Yes it is, you just down see that yet. PC is an insidious brainwashing doctrine, and otherwise quite reasonable people dont know when they are mired by it.
What is political correctness?, it is a hegemonious belief system that is based on modern sensibilities and imposition of those sensibilities.
You are practicing PC by claiming that your belief in wanting circumcision stopped overrides the parents and communities which want to continue it.
Your opinion is entirely based on modern sensibilities, we are in the first generation to challenge circumcision and prior generations practiced it without this resistence.
Also your opinion isnt fact based, its sensibility based. You distain circumcision because it offends you that parents 'snip bits off their children'. Your opinion is not based on what is best for them, or whether harm is done. You assume harm is done because PC sensibilities are offended, the idea that child is not actively consulted on an event is the offence to PC dogma, when it coes down to it that likely doesn't matter and hasn't mattered for millenia so far.
sorry, but its 100% PC doctrine.
Whether you are PC in other areas is moot, you are PC here and by wanting to impose your will on an entire people group against the weight of their will, history and culture, let alone the evidence that outside of PC sensibilities there is no inherent ill effect in the procedure, so its quite a bit of PC dogma you are (I think unwittingly) spouting.
Who should determine how Jews/Moslems express their continuation of their millenia old cultures, insaniak, or Jews/Moslems?
Hopefully you will understand that people should choose to express their own culture. Funnily enough that is 'PC' also, but PC in its true form is highly hypocritical, it might express a desire for equality and diversity, but when it comes down to it there are core sensibilities and actual equality and acceptance often has to tow the line to it.
You should study this more. Understand that political correctness is not a liberation movement but a thinly veiled conformity movement and one that is highly aggressive in its approach. Hence the reaction to a circumcision being to attempt to ban it.
Until now there were no social side effects, but entitled snowflakes, often not of the religions or cultural groups that practice circumcision want to stop the practice.
Well that’s about it for reasoned discussion. Opposition to carrying out medically unnecessary surgeries on babies in he name of religion makes you an ‘entitled snowflake’.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:What gives you the right to force YOUR choice to circumcise and your religion onto a child?
I guess the same thing that gives you the right to force YOUR choice onto a religious community?
No choice is being made. That's the difference. You're making a choice to actively alter something that can't be revoked - an irreversable choice that cannot be rescinded.
You are choosing not to let people practice their religion. That is a choice. Do not be deliberately dense.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:The alternative is to let the child have autonomy over their own body and choose to have it later in life - when they can actually consent.
No, it is not. The circumcision needs to be performed shortly after birth. Circumcision is a sign that shows someone is part of their religious community. You can not exclude children from their religious communities.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:But surely the default is to do NOTHING? If a child is circumcised, they can't go back and change that if they later want to when they can actually choose. If a child is uncircimcised, they can go and say "yeah, I'll have the cut" whenever they want to. If they do.
Doing nothing =/= forcing someone's choices.
Forcing people to do nothing is very much forcing your choices. Saying circumcision is not okay is your opinion. Saying circumcision should not be allowed is your choice, not that of the parents or that of the child.
Also, there is no such thing as 'default' outside of computer programs. Default is only default because the system is programmed to see it as the default. It works the same way in real life. What is 'default' or normal is only normal because our brains have been conditioned to see it as such. Different cultures have different 'programming' so to speak and therefore do not see the things you see as default or normal as normal. Ergo, 'default' and normal do not objectively exist. They are cultural concepts that vary from community to community.
Sorry, what?!
So if MY culture believes that all left arms should be cut off, that's okay? Because there's no natural default - such as, I don't know, newborn - where we start out from when we enter the world?
Sweet.
Guess I can happily lop the left limbs from everyone in my culture, because that's okay. What? People are complaining that they don't have all the body parts they started out with? Well, they couldn't tell me no, therefore it's completely up to me!
Don't make up nonsensical exaggerations. It is a waste of your time and effort, and mine as well. I would like to have a more intelligent discussion, and both you and I know that removing a small piece of extraneous skin is quite different from cutting off entire limbs. A religion that requires cutting off the left arm would not last very long, to say the least.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:No. There is absolutely a default when it comes to the human body. It's called newborn. Genetic mutations, that's part of that default. Everyone's "default" is different. But everyone HAS one. One bereft of scars, piercings, hair dyes and styles, clothing, etc etc. Culture can change that, but there IS a default. The VAST majority of children are born with foreskins with no damage. That's a default for all those children. To suggest otherwise would support the idea that it's not "normal" for us to have four limbs.
Why is the moment of birth more default than the moment of conception or the moment of death or any random moment in a person's life? Our bodies are never static, they are in constant development. The idea of some kind of artificial 'default state' is preposterous. Which only illustrates my point more. "Default" is not actually default or normal, it is just a relative, personal notion that varies between cultures or even individuals. Which of course means it is quite meaningless when we are talking about cross-cultural interactions.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
That is just your opinion. Other people may disagree with your opinion. Why is your opinion superior to theirs, and why should your opinion be forced on those people?
Because my opinion isn't deciding one for a child that can't consent.
Yes it is. You are deciding they are not supposed to be circumcised. And you are not just making a choice for the child here, you are also making a choice for his parents, who are legally entitled to make choices for their children.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:If you want to go with the "it's just an opinion bro" - what says I can't do the same to you? What says you have any power to stop me? After all, when you boil it down, it's all "just opinions". So might makes right, yeah?
Does that mean that people who are physically or sexually assaulted have less valid opinions? Or that their assaulter's opinions are valid? Because after all, all opinions are valid. And if someone wants to assault you, that's okay, because their opinion just as valid as yours?
Don't put up a straw man. Circumcision is not sexual assault. And just because different opinions have different values in different situations doesn't mean your opinion is worth more.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Children do not have religious practices at birth. But their religious practices do begin immediately after birth.
But you just said that they don't? What's the difference? A child doesn't have religious practices until they choose it. That choice may be biased in some respect, but that choice is theirs. The normal age at which children are cut is FAR younger than when they can meaningfully engage in religious practice FOR THEMSELVES. You're just describing the selfish parents who force their own faith upon their child, who cannot consent nor revoke it.
For children born into religious families religion is just a normal part of their culture and upbringing.
Unless they decide that they don't wish to be part of that, and know they'll never be free of that mutilation on their bodies.
Again - religion being forced on the child, not fostered.
From this I infer you are not religious, that you hate religion and that you have not even the vaguest idea of what religion actually is or how it works. Therefore I don't think it is worthy of my time to continue this particular tangent with you.
Also, good luck trying to find a child who thinks of his circumcised penis as being "mutilated". You are making an issue out of nothing.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As young children, everything is out of our own control: our parents, nationality, the haircut our parents give us, religion, culture, language, the food we are given to eat etc. As we grow up, we gradually gain more control of our own. But many of the things that are done to us as children are irreversible. That is not good or bad, that is just the way things are. And as long as those things are not actively harmful, why make such a fuss about one little thing some specific cultures do?
Having parts of your body removed is not the same as what your parents feed you.
No, but good luck finding someone who cares about that.
If I'm to accept that children have, and SHOULD have, no control or personal rights, then I fear for any child in that culture. Any environment where people can justify doing what they want to people for personal reasons because "they can't consent", and "that is just the way things are" is an environment that should be ashamed in itself.
Trying to set up even more straw men are you? I never said children have no rights, that is something you just inserted.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Cutting off part of someone else's body isn't "some little thing". It's a part of their body, and should be respected like any other. Otherwise, where do we draw the lines? Eyebrows? Earlobes? Hair? Fingers/toes? Limbs - after all, people can survive without them.
It's okay - they're just "one little thing some specific cultures do". /sarcasm
As a matter of fact, in your culture it is quite normal for parents to have the ears of their very young daughters pierced, without their consent. There is also plenty of cultures and religions that do weird things with hair, again without a child's consent.
I guess we should draw the line at where it is actually drawn by virtually any culture: Things that actually harm the child. Circumcision falls well below that line.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If the argument is truly about 'the choice of the child', then it is nonsensical. Children do not get choices in anything, why should they suddenly be allowed a choice in this? Therefore I suspect the actual core of the argument is racist or anti-religious in nature. Many people really hate Jews or Muslims, and therefore they are really eager to ban what those people consider sacred.
And the "if you hate X you're a racist/sexist/xenophobe" argument surfaces.
If you TRULY believe that children have no choice, and should surrender all their autonomy, I dread to think your opinion of active paedophiles.
So, you are out of straw and resort to ad hominem? How disappointing.
But since you seem curious, my opinion on active pedophiles is that they should be locked up, and if possible we should help them deal with their problem in a way that does not involve them harming children. This would prevent regression. The big difference between sexual abuse of children and the circumcision of children is that the first is actively harmful for kids, while the second is not.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Because you made that choice later in life. People being able to move to other countries, learn other languages or change their religion as adults doesn't change the fact that people have no control over what nation, language, culture or religion they are originally born into.
But when part of your body is cut off without your consent, no amount of changing your opinion will grow that back.
Being born into a religious group and that influencing you is okay - so long as any permanent changes are done with your CONSENT.
So permanent mental changes are okay, but physical changes are not? Why so?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Circumcision is part of the religion. Also, they are not chopping off a part of your body. They just remove a bit of unnecessary skin which will have absolutely zero negative impact on the child at any point of his life.
I'm not going to repeat all of the cases where it HAS done just that, nor re-emphasize the loss of sensation in that region.
I have never heard of anyone who regrets being circumcised, simply because it is not a big deal at all.
"I've not heard of it, therefore it doesn't exist!"
I've never had someone I know stabbed, or heard of it beyond news media. Doesn't mean people don't get stabbed.
No, people do get stabbed. Yet despite that there is no place in the world that has banned knifes. Just because there are rare accidents doesn't mean circumcision as a whole is dangerous. For the vast, vast majority of children who have been circumcised in the past millennia it has had nothing but a positive impact on their life.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
A circumcised penis is the same as an uncircumcised penis. All it does is look slightly different and it is also a bit more hygienic.
Except when it's done without consent.
I could take this into the sexual territory, but I'm sure no-one wants me to write that, and nor do I.
d-usa wrote:Well, there is no arguing against a mindset that children have no rights and can be cut on without any second thought or an ignorance regarding the medical risks of a surgical procedure.
Apparently not.
I mean, feth children's rights. If my holy book or culture says I can do what I want to their genitals, ain't nothing going to get in my way. /sarcasm
I wonder what Iron Captain's view of messing with minor's genitals in the other sense would be. I mean, if it's supported by their culture and religion, and the child doesn't have any opinion of their own...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I'm surprised at you Kilkrazy. I had thought better of you.
That may be a devil's advocate, to be fair. I read it as such.
I read this part of your post (or to be honest, your entire post actually) as:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Help! I do not have any actual arguments! But I can't be wrong, I know I am right! So instead, let me just ridicule their arguments and make dark insinuations about them. That will make them look bad and me look right! Who needs a proper discussion anyway?
But congratulations. I think your remarks on children's genitals just lowered the bar on Dakka OT to previously unexplored depths.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think we've said everything there is to say on the subject.
I therefore would like to ring the bell, end the thread, but I will leave it open for final comments...
That seems a good idea. I am afraid this discussion is getting worse rather than better.
Realize that your views on life are not inherently superior to those of others, and be extremely cautious when you advocate for the imprisonment of others (that is the proposed punishment, 6 years) for your choice to criminalize a religious practice.
Frazzled wrote:My personal view. I don't like the practice, but I am loath for the government to tell parents what to do with their children except in severe circumstances.
Governments have a VERY long history of doing horrible things and a penchant for power. As noted there was a time when the government took native American children from their families to force them to be white, put the Japanese in concentration camps, thought it was perfectly acceptable that millions would be enslaved, and thought GLBTX were mentally deranged and needed help. So lets watch out when we think its ok for government to tell people to do something, or else the the enforcers come.
I can understand that, but what could be bad about not mutilating children?
Orlanth wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No choice is being made. That's the difference. You're making a choice to actively alter something that can't be revoked - an irreversable choice that cannot be rescinded.
The alternative is to let the child have autonomy over their own body and choose to have it later in life - when they can actually consent.
Why is that important. It wasn't important before, it wasn't important for millenia. But you say its important now. Jews have long understood that the decision to circumcise their male children is taken by the parents as part of their community. They have likely been aware for millenia that the child is not consulted. It hasn't harmed their society and they haven't of themselves tried to stop it and they have had many opportunities to do so.
And now people want to stop. Why is that a problem? What problems does it cause?
Those same older cultures you refer to also has less than savoury views on: Homosexuality Gender identity Race And much MUCH more. Just because it was done before doesn't make it a good thing.
It is not for you to make their choice for them either.
Nor is it the parents. Just because they gave birth to their child doesn't mean they get to permanently change their body. Child's body, child's choice. Until they can decide, nothing permanent should be trust upon them.
Also by leaving circumcision to a consenting age you make it more painful, more dangerous and you also deny the child the right to enter their covenant at the correct age. This is important as societal believing is an important benefit. People are tribal, and Jews can and do take comfort in the fact that they have a covenant.
I put this to you, even leaving the greatly increased problems of adult circumcision aside, by denying children their social covenant you will likely be increasing rather than decreasing the number of dissatisfied adults. I think more Jews will wish with regret they were 'real Jews' than wish they had not been circumcised.
But you're forcing that mutilation upon a child who there is NO GUARANTEE that they will want to join that covenant. That's like me saying "my child will want to be a high pitched singer, let's cut his testes off!" Who says that child will become that?
You're forcing that child into a box which they might fit into. But they might also turn around and not want to be in that box which you picked out for him. And whilst he can go back and easily fit into that other box, that bit you cut off to fit him in your box is still missing.
I'm also sure many non-Jews are perfectly happy they weren't circumcised.
Adult circumcision is mentioned in the Bible too, and it is significantly different, more painful and more discommoditating.
I can understand, and personally attest, to circumcision being painful as an young adult. But I did it under the knowledge that I chose it. Not my parents, not my GP, not my friends. ME. I knew the risks, I knew the benefits, and I chose to have it done. No-one forced it upon me, and if I do, later in life, come to regret it, that's on me. Not on someone else.
Also, note that in the Bible, adult circumcision isn't done with anaesthetic, proper medical attention and a greater understanding of the human anatomy.
Iron_Captain, it's a good job this is my final post here - given your response, whatever I put next would have been wasted.
Political Correctness has feth all to do with this.
This about Parent's Right to practice their religion by mutilating their children...vs a child's Right to not be mutilated.
I say the Child should make that decision, not the Parents.
What of circumcised children who grow to adulthood and regret the circumcision that was forced onto them without their consent? Are their views irrelevant?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No choice is being made. That's the difference. You're making a choice to actively alter something that can't be revoked - an irreversable choice that cannot be rescinded.
The alternative is to let the child have autonomy over their own body and choose to have it later in life - when they can actually consent.
Why is that important. It wasn't important before, it wasn't important for millenia. But you say its important now. Jews have long understood that the decision to circumcise their male children is taken by the parents as part of their community. They have likely been aware for millenia that the child is not consulted. It hasn't harmed their society and they haven't of themselves tried to stop it and they have had many opportunities to do so.
And now people want to stop. Why is that a problem? What problems does it cause?
Those same older cultures you refer to also has less than savoury views on: Homosexuality Gender identity Race And much MUCH more. Just because it was done before doesn't make it a good thing.
The problem is that people do not want to stop. There is just a very tiny minority of people who are not even affected by it who want it to stop. That is the issue. The people who actually are affected by it want to continue.
Those same older cultures you refer to also has less than savoury views on:
Homosexuality
Gender identity
Race
And much MUCH more. Just because it was done before doesn't make it a good thing.
Amongst others, but this is different. Also all the culture had similar views, you can't just lump that on Jews and Moslems, you have to lump that on humans in general.
While moving forwards take care not to step backwards. Circumcision has no bearing on equal rights.
Child's body, child's choice. Until they can decide, nothing permanent should be trust upon them..
Reality disagrees with you. Many changes are made without the childs choice. Also history disagrees with you. You are spouting a modern sensibility, that doesnt effect reality. Until you impose that sensibility no offence is caused. History back this up as FACT.
But you're forcing that mutilation upon a child who there is NO GUARANTEE that they will want to join that covenant. That's like me saying "my child will want to be a high pitched singer, let's cut his testes off!" Who says that child will become that?
No there is no comparison. People did use to remove testicles of children to make them better singers, the castrati. It was a sign of a bygone age, and we opposed that even in an age when it was ok to make slaves of blacks and women were considered even by the liberated as second class citizens.
Circumcision include the covenant at the time, and while people can and do regret being of the cultural group it is a slim minority who do. Jews have their covenant and the vast majority do not regret it, in fact it can be advantageous and has kept Jusdiasm together in the long millenia of the diaspora. A Physical covenant is a major part of that.
Also circumcision is not a mutilation, you use that loaded word to try to give false weight to your offended sensibilities, which are not of any relevance to the Jewish and Moslem peoples.
I can understand, and personally attest, to circumcision being painful as an young adult. But I did it under the knowledge that I chose it. Not my parents, not my GP, not my friends. ME. I knew the risks, I knew the benefits, and I chose to have it done. No-one forced it upon me, and if I do, later in life, come to regret it, that's on me. Not on someone else.
Whoopee-do. So your happy, good on you. Don't impose your sensibilities on entire race and culture groups. Leave it to them to decide how to maintain or develop their culture. and it you dont like it if they choose not to change, grow a thicker skin and recognise that it is their choice how they develop, and recognise the flat fact that this part of their culture hasn't hurt them in the past, and has arguably strengthened them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No choice is being made. That's the difference. You're making a choice to actively alter something that can't be revoked - an irreversable choice that cannot be rescinded.
The alternative is to let the child have autonomy over their own body and choose to have it later in life - when they can actually consent.
Why is that important. It wasn't important before, it wasn't important for millenia. But you say its important now. Jews have long understood that the decision to circumcise their male children is taken by the parents as part of their community. They have likely been aware for millenia that the child is not consulted. It hasn't harmed their society and they haven't of themselves tried to stop it and they have had many opportunities to do so.
And now people want to stop. Why is that a problem? What problems does it cause?
Those same older cultures you refer to also has less than savoury views on:
Homosexuality
Gender identity
Race
And much MUCH more. Just because it was done before doesn't make it a good thing.
The problem is that people do not want to stop. There is just a very tiny minority of people who are not even affected by it who want it to stop. That is the issue. The people who actually are affected by it want to continue.
Do they though? I assume you'll have a worldwide statistic to back up that opinion?
A person that starts using terms like "Triggered", "Political Correctness", "Entitled", etc... instantly should be ignored because he shows that has no interest in having a honest discussiong. His/Her only objetive is to put tags and shout his propaganda, instead of actually face the points other people is doing.
I say the Child should make that decision, not the Parents.
They say otherwise and they are the parents, you are not. End of argument, unless you want to be dogmatic and try and force the issue with unwarranted intrusive legislation.
What of circumcised children who grow to adulthood and regret the circumcision that was forced onto them without their consent? Are their views irrelevant?
No, but the law cannot be used to this ends. There is always a what if. What if the child wished they had entered the covenant at the proper age, and spent their childhood in the covenant.
We can only look at the realities. Circumcision does not impair the child, stunt their development and is considered a sign of membership of a cultural continuation that has progressed for millenia without this having been a problem before, or in fact now.
Your what ifs are adding mud to clear waters. In a vast population of worlds Jews ans Moslems some will regret, some may even have botched procedures, but these are statistical anomalies that do not detract from the whole.
Circumcision has worked as a covenant, and the people groups who keep the covenant want to continue to do so.
This fact should be enough, but when PC raises its dogmas, the doctrinaire want to impose their will by force. It is ironic but that they do so under the delusion of free choice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: A person that starts using terms like "Triggered", "Political Correctness", "Entitled", etc... instantly should be ignored because he shows that has no interest in having a honest discussiong. His/Her only objetive is to put tags and shout his propaganda, instead of actually face the points other people is doing.
Well I do give my opinions fully, and my words are well chosen. I have not come up short in expressing the logic behind my opinions and have done so honestly and faced all opposed arguement squarely and fully. I am not obliged to forward opinions that you agree with or you like.
I say triggered because I believe it fits the facts, and have not come up short in explaining why either. You can choose to ignore that if you have no counter argument, but at least be honest about it.
History and fact are on my side. Circumcision is not a problem, because man has physically not changed and it hasn't been a problem before.
It is only a problem to those who are triggered by modern sensibilities and believe they know better than a millenia old culture that has practiced circumcision with negligible ill effect problem arising.
You can ignore that argument if you will, I cannot force you to listen but dont do so under the delusion you are on a higher moral plain in doing so.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No choice is being made. That's the difference. You're making a choice to actively alter something that can't be revoked - an irreversable choice that cannot be rescinded.
The alternative is to let the child have autonomy over their own body and choose to have it later in life - when they can actually consent.
Why is that important. It wasn't important before, it wasn't important for millenia. But you say its important now. Jews have long understood that the decision to circumcise their male children is taken by the parents as part of their community. They have likely been aware for millenia that the child is not consulted. It hasn't harmed their society and they haven't of themselves tried to stop it and they have had many opportunities to do so.
And now people want to stop. Why is that a problem? What problems does it cause?
Those same older cultures you refer to also has less than savoury views on:
Homosexuality
Gender identity
Race
And much MUCH more. Just because it was done before doesn't make it a good thing.
The problem is that people do not want to stop. There is just a very tiny minority of people who are not even affected by it who want it to stop. That is the issue. The people who actually are affected by it want to continue.
Do they though? I assume you'll have a worldwide statistic to back up that opinion?
No, but I do not need to. Just read the article in the OP. The reaction of the communities that actually are affected by this is all the evidence one needs. Now, do you have a statistic saying most people no longer want to continue?
Since when was it politically correct to oppose religious practices, and advocate curbing religious freedom?? Thats as un-PC as you can get.
I would expect the default position of so-called "SJW's" to be to side with the religious freedom argument.
I'm surprised that you of all people are taking that side, I never expected that of you.
Political correctness is not about freedom it is about control. If something is not 'politically correct' or 'inappropriate' it can get redacted or forced away even if legal. Rights are eroded that way, not established.
SJW's are a factor of the political correct movement and use its Modus Operandi but not its whole, and political correctness and SJW's in particular has often seen religion as an enemy.
Political correctness is an insidious brainwashing dogma, and it ensnares otherwise reasonable people. Hence how you can have selective 'safe spaces' in universities where PC opinion is welcome and non- PC opinion is shouted down. Even one generation ago had the schenanigans of safe spacing been tried in places of learning people would not accept it, but thinking has changed, devolved even.
I wont go on this more here as it is going off topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: It is if you buy into the laughably idiotic "christians are persecuted" mantra.
This thread has little to do with Christianity. Cheap shot missed.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think we've said everything there is to say on the subject.
I therefore would like to ring the bell, end the thread, but I will leave it open for final comments...
1) It's not "risk free"
2) In other countries where it is not common, it can lead to a child being self-conscious when he has the only other penis in the locker room.
3) A child has the right to make their own decisions, and not have decisions thrust upon them for no medical purpose.
4) I feel the same way about religious circumcision as I feel about parents subjecting their children to conversion therapy.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think we've said everything there is to say on the subject.
I therefore would like to ring the bell, end the thread, but I will leave it open for final comments...
1) It's not "risk free"
2) In other countries where it is not common, it can lead to a child being self-conscious when he has the only other penis in the locker room.
3) A child has the right to make their own decisions, and not have decisions thrust upon them for no medical purpose.
4) I feel the same way about religious circumcision as I feel about parents subjecting their children to conversion therapy.
1. Its negligible risk. As in nothing is completely risk free, claiming circumcision was not risk free was being dishonest and unfair.
2. In countries where it is not common it can and does reinforce the cultural identity. Thus helping the diaspora survive despite cultural pressures to become apostate and lose their identity.
3. A person has the right to make decisions for themselves when they come of age, a parent has the right to make long lasting and permanent choices for the child. Parents are normally better at making these choices than meddlers also, as humans normally develop a parental bond. We should trust this in cases where this has been unbroken, and the parental choice to bring up a child in a religious and cultural covenant has not caused undue harm.
4. I feel the same way about meddlers interfering in other peoples long established and working cultures because it offends their sensibilities to their cultures to be proliferated as I feel about revolutionary marxism as a power group.
5. These ancient cultures aren't broken, at least not in these regards, there is no evidence that the Jewish and Moslem peoples have suffered for having their covenant, so they don't need meddlers to fix them according to their trendy progressive PC standards.
feeder wrote: It is if you buy into the laughably idiotic "christians are persecuted" mantra.
In the USA? Not so much. In Sudan? Very much so.
In other interesting news, the party pushing this ban also is pushing to change Iceland's organ donation policy from an opt-in to an opt-out system - which would assume consent of organ harvesting unless the person specifically made efforts to opt out.
The hypocrisy is boggling. On the one hand, the child can't consent so circumcision is bad, but on the other, we don't need a dead person's consent to harvest their organs. Maybe someone should have told them that the foreskin is a good source of stem cells, then they'd be all for it.
I assume Iceland will also be the first nation to mandate organ harvesting from the deceased, regardless of their wishes.
feeder wrote: It is if you buy into the laughably idiotic "christians are persecuted" mantra.
In the USA? Not so much. In Sudan? Very much so.
I very much doubt there is much of a PC crowd in the Sudan.
In other interesting news, the party pushing this ban also is pushing to change Iceland's organ donation policy from an opt-in to an opt-out system - which would assume consent of organ harvesting unless the person specifically made efforts to opt out.
The hypocrisy is boggling. On the one hand, the child can't consent so circumcision is bad, but on the other, we don't need a dead person's consent to harvest their organs.
I guess there is no difference between the two situations. They are totally identical in every important way.
You can ask the opinion of a donor before they die, they can make informed consent It’s easy for them to make their wishes clear just as as they do for disposal of their body, via burial or cremation, etc.
Babies have never had the opportunity or capacity to make any kind of decision or give meaningful consent.
Are there any more utterly false equivalencies to be made in this thread or shall we go back to comparing circumcision to vaccinations and abortions? This thread is full of straw, it actually quite poor as a debate.
The hypocrisy is boggling. On the one hand, the child can't consent so circumcision is bad, but on the other, we don't need a dead person's consent to harvest their organs. Maybe someone should have told them that the foreskin is a good source of stem cells, then they'd be all for it.
I assume Iceland will also be the first nation to mandate organ harvesting from the deceased, regardless of their wishes.
It doesn't boggle me, this is how the PC control system works. It is inherently contrary and selective in advancement of rights, some rights are artificially weighted so that other rights are diminished and a new cultural balance of empowerment and disempowerment is created. It is within this balance that the centralisation of control occurs.
It is an effective means of government, and very insidious. New Labour in the UK used this extensively, and most people didn't even notice. I proposed a political model of how this works back nearly 20 years ago, at the time predictive and now reactive because it was fairly solid I have had to alter precious little in hindsight.
I didnt know what the Progressive party in Iceland was doing, thanks for the heads up, will look at it as a case study.
There is no culture of fear amongst Jews of 'will my child live though this'.
Well, in the olden times people had a different outlook on children, as in they had a ton of them and it wasn't so bad if one didn't make it. My great-grandma said "well, I had 10, 3 made it, good for them" (I'm paraphrasing).
In the 19th century - and probably before that - where I come from (at the time a very poor region) it wasn't uncommon to make field-hands by giving babies alcohol to developmentally hinder them so they wouldn't stand in line for an inheritance. That's how much value children really represented if you had too many of them.
Not everything people have been doing for a long time is cool, in the Roman Law of the Twelve Tables killing disabled children was mandatory and they used that for quite a while, too, for example.
It would seem that the only responses that generate any real discussion are the back-and-forthing, as opposed to something based on the beliefs of those whose religious rights would be eliminated by the proposed laws.
Much, “You’re wrong, I don’t care what the other side says” as well. All in all, not sure we accomplished anything.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: It would seem that the only responses that generate any real discussion are the back-and-forthing, as opposed to something based on the beliefs of those whose religious rights would be eliminated by the proposed laws.
Much, “You’re wrong, I don’t care what the other side says” as well. All in all, not sure we accomplished anything.
Iceland seems to be trying to implement something based on the experiences of those whose body autonomy rights are eliminated by current practices.
Not sure what can actually be done here. You need to either choose the right of body autonomy over religion, or vice versa.
Does Male Circumcision actually cause bodily harm and permanent damage other than the removal and rearranging of skin?
Yes. There have been numerous reports on this, which include, but are not limited to:
Loss of sensation
Scarring
Risk of more troublesome injuries (albeit "only" a risk)
Emotional trauma
Well, I don't think you necessarily need to intervene on anyone else's behalf. The Jews and Muslims (i.e. the ones actually affected by the practice) seem just fine with it.
Except for the ones who aren't, of course. I'm sure there are some who don't choose to practice the religion and harbor resentment over their parents' choice. Could only speculate, never met anyone like that, but it seems reasonable to assume they exist.
I think (as I linked to a page earlier saying as much) the imposition of the act signifying the covenant taking place before anyone can make a choice is significant in and of itself, and doesn't need anyone's permission until such time that the rest of the population with different cultural values decrees that they now have the ability to imprison anyone who opposes a prohibition with action.
Essentially, it's saying if you want to practice this religious custom, you can either go to jail for 6 years or go somewhere else. Iceland is free to say that, they're a sovereign country as far as I know.
Iron_Captain wrote:
No. In the first case you are actively forcing people against their will. In the second case, there is no 'forcing', because the minor does not yet have a will of its own that can be overruled by your decision.
And since the procedure is harmless there is no need to force people to go against their .
You must not have any children yet. Our youngest is now 3,5 weeks old, and most definitely has a will of her own.
Isn’t it about time this practice was stopped in civilised countries? It’s not remotely necessary and I don’t think that preventing you cutting bits of your children’s genitalia off effectively for cosmetic reasons, albeit religiously motivated, amounts to ‘restricting religious freedom’. I hope Iceland press ahead with this and other countries start to follow suit. If people want circumcisions for religious reasons, let them choose when they become an adult. No baby is born a Jew or Muslim, their parents force that identity on them with irreversible surgery.
I'm Jewish, and circumcised, and have no real strong feelings about it. When it's men talking about circumcising other males, it's hard to get too worked up about it (I've never had a foreskin, and don't miss it). Circumcising women (aka genital mutilation) is another thing entirely.
However, I'm an epidemiologist, and circumcision does reduce the risk of acquiring HIV and other STDs. This has been shown by countless studies and clinical trials, we are as certain of this as we are of smoking and lung cancer. The foreskin has tons of cells that things like HIV and other pathogens just love. So saying it's "not remotely necessary" is incorrect. In places where HIV is very prevalent (e.g., much of Africa), circumcision remains one of the few tools in our toolbox to prevent HIV infection.
In Spain we have a op-out system for organ donations. It works great, we are the world leaders in organ donations.
If a family wants for the body of his loved one to remain untouched they can do it unless the person that died stated officially that he wanted to donate his organ after he died. In most cases that doesn't happen, the person dies before writting down his wishes about what he wants, the family has no problem with his organs being transplanted to other person if theres that possibility, nobody gets harmed, and 1 or more people can receive a new organ. And at his core, Spain is still a very religious country with most of his catholic values untouched.
But I assume that this doesn't helps anybody agenda, for people trying to make Iceland looks like they want to harvets their citizens for organs.
Does Male Circumcision actually cause bodily harm and permanent damage other than the removal and rearranging of skin?
Yes. There have been numerous reports on this, which include, but are not limited to:
Loss of sensation
Scarring
Risk of more troublesome injuries (albeit "only" a risk)
Emotional trauma
I’ve read some accounts in the news of serious injuries resulting from botched circumcisions but articles are a bit vague on what actually has gone wrong and leave it to the imagination as to what exactly has been chopped off. There are a few extreme cases of babies dying as a result of it being badly performed. This should at least make it a requirement that a medical practitioner carry the procedure out.
Putting some numbers on this...
A 2010 review found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a typical complication rate of 1.5% for babies and 6% for older children, with few cases of severe complications. Bleeding, infection, and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited.
All surgery carries risk, but they report the following..
Spoiler:
The most common early (intra-operative) complications tend to be minor and treatable: pain, bleeding, swelling or inadequate skin removal. However, serious complications can occur during the procedure, including death from excess bleeding and amputation of the glans penis if the glans is not shielded during the procedure. Late (post-operative) complications include pain, wound infection, the formation of a skin-bridge between the penile shaft and the glans, infection, urinary retention, meatal ulcer, meatal stenosis, fistulas, loss of penile sensitivity, sexual dysfunction and edema of the glans penis.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Well, I don't think you necessarily need to intervene on anyone else's behalf. The Jews and Muslims (i.e. the ones actually affected by the practice) seem just fine with it.
There are those who simply do it "because everyone else does", as it seems in America. Jews and Muslims have it as part of their creed, but it's still legal to have it done, as someone said earlier for "aesthetic" reasons.
Orlanth wrote: 2. In countries where it is not common it can and does reinforce the cultural identity. Thus helping the diaspora survive despite cultural pressures to become apostate and lose their identity.
So let me get this straight: it's ok to cut parts off of someone without their consent because it helps prevent them from becoming apostates? Are you serious?
3. A person has the right to make decisions for themselves when they come of age, a parent has the right to make long lasting and permanent choices for the child.
However, they do not have an unlimited right to do so. They can make choices in the best interest of the child, acting as their representative until they are at a point where they can make their own decisions. They do not have the right to make choices that have permanent consequences on the child simply because the parent finds it appealing. This is not an urgent medical crisis where the parent needs to act to save the child's life, it's a purely aesthetic modification performed because the parent wants it done. Your child is not your toy, you don't get to cut pieces off of your child to make yourself feel better.
5. These ancient cultures aren't broken, at least not in these regards, there is no evidence that the Jewish and Moslem peoples have suffered for having their covenant, so they don't need meddlers to fix them according to their trendy progressive PC standards.
Actually we do have evidence of men who do not like the fact that they were circumcised without their consent and have suffered as a result. Do not dismiss the unwilling victims of the practice.
And if the principle that your right to follow your religion does not include the right to impose it on other people without their consent is "trendy progressive PC standards" then that concept has lost all meaning. Individual freedoms and the lines where they end are a long-established precedent in law and culture, across all parts of the political spectrum.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: It would seem that the only responses that generate any real discussion are the back-and-forthing, as opposed to something based on the beliefs of those whose religious rights would be eliminated by the proposed laws.
Much, “You’re wrong, I don’t care what the other side says” as well. All in all, not sure we accomplished anything.
We aired the opinions, on both/all sides, mission accomplished. There is no need for Dakka Off Topic to justify its existence by finding solutions to the worlds problems.
Orlanth wrote: Political correctness is not about freedom it is about control. If something is not 'politically correct' or 'inappropriate' it can get redacted or forced away even if legal. Rights are eroded that way, not established.
Rights are only "eroded" because you are only considering the right to impose religion on people without their consent as a "right" and dismissing the right to control what happens to your body. The right to forcibly impose your religious customs (literally at knife-point) on someone without their consent is removed, the right to control of your body is reinforced. And I think I know which of those two rights is more valuable to society.
Hence how you can have selective 'safe spaces' in universities where PC opinion is welcome and non- PC opinion is shouted down.
And very often those "safe spaces" are demanded by right-wing groups who don't like the idea of being criticized. Your idea that this is about the "PC left" or whatever is not reality.
The hypocrisy is boggling. On the one hand, the child can't consent so circumcision is bad, but on the other, we don't need a dead person's consent to harvest their organs.
I guess there is no difference between the two situations. They are totally identical in every important way.
They don't have to be identical to be logically inconsistent. On the one, they demand explicit consent (which an infant cannot give, so it's bad), in the other, they assume consent where none was given.
Yes, they can opt-out, assuming they knew about it (lots of people don't know they can opt-in to organ donation in many countries, and many people who would be okay with donation can't muster the effort to tick a box), and it's entirely possible and likely that hospital staff will either be unable to find the opt-out form or not even look for it - as doctors in many nations don't bother to harvest organs because they didn't look for the opt-in form. Organ donation has do be done in a prompt fashion, so there are many opportunities for the opt-out form to be unavailable within that window. People die unexpectedly all the time, a nineteen year old probably hasn't given organ donation a single thought.
Opt out systems are generally bad systems designed to take advantage of uninformed and/or lazy people.
The hypocrisy is boggling. On the one hand, the child can't consent so circumcision is bad, but on the other, we don't need a dead person's consent to harvest their organs.
I guess there is no difference between the two situations. They are totally identical in every important way.
They don't have to be identical to be logically inconsistent. On the one, they demand explicit consent (which an infant cannot give, so it's bad), in the other, they assume consent where none was given.
Yes, they can opt-out, assuming they knew about it (lots of people don't know they can opt-in to organ donation in many countries, and many people who would be okay with donation can't muster the effort to tick a box), and it's entirely possible and likely that hospital staff will either be unable to find the opt-out form or not even look for it - as doctors in many nations don't bother to harvest organs because they didn't look for the opt-in form. Organ donation has do be done in a prompt fashion, so there are many opportunities for the opt-out form to be unavailable within that window. People die unexpectedly all the time, a nineteen year old probably hasn't given organ donation a single thought.
Opt out systems are generally bad systems designed to take advantage of uninformed and/or lazy people.
And you are basing your affirmation that Opt-out systems are bad based in what metric, statistic or data? Is not like they are using those organs to make hamburguers or to sell them in the black market.
If not donating your organs is so important to you for religious, personal, or ethical reasons, you or your family should be informed enough and have enough interest to just formalise that they don't want that. In reality most people don't care, and in a opt-in system many organs that are totally usable to save peoples lives are just wasted. I'm sad that for medical reasons I can't donate organs or even blood, but most people in Spain is very proud of our medical system and to be the country in the world with most organ trasplants.
If you don't like that system thats ok but to put it as inherently flawed is just dishonest.
Galas wrote: In Spain we have a op-out system for organ donations. It works great, we are the world leaders in organ donations.
If a family wants for the body of his loved one to remain untouched they can do it unless the person that died stated officially that he wanted to donate his organ after he died. In most cases that doesn't happen, the person dies before writting down his wishes about what he wants, the family has no problem with his organs being transplanted to other person if theres that possibility, nobody gets harmed, and 1 or more people can receive a new organ. And at his core, Spain is still a very religious country with most of his catholic values untouched.
But I assume that this doesn't helps anybody agenda, for people trying to make Iceland looks like they want to harvets their citizens for organs.
Unsurprising that Catholics have no problem harvesting parts from dead people. That's how they get relics, after all.
More seriously, Iceland does want to harvest its -dead- citizens for organs. Opt-out systems would definitely increase the supply of organs. Good for Iceland, bad for individual liberty/consent.
Do corpses have rights? Can they be negated those rights? Can they be negated of their liberty?
I disagree with the idea that liberty is the most important value no matter whatever else. We sacrifice our own liberty all the time for the shake of the community. We live under laws that tell us what we can and we can't for the "greater good". Liberty isn't inherently good, Laws aren't inherently bad, or the opposite. All cases should be studied individually.
If theres such a great benefit to the community at the expense of some corpses having some organs removed with families that didn't wanted that but for whatever reason never reflected that desire officialy, at least for me is surely worth it. And as the Spanish system shows, it appears it works. The cases where one person/family that didn't wanted his organs removed have them removed are nearly non existent.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: It would seem that the only responses that generate any real discussion are the back-and-forthing, as opposed to something based on the beliefs of those whose religious rights would be eliminated by the proposed laws.
Much, “You’re wrong, I don’t care what the other side says” as well. All in all, not sure we accomplished anything.
We aired the opinions, on both/all sides, mission accomplished. There is no need for Dakka Off Topic to justify its existence by finding solutions to the worlds problems.
Yeah, fair enough. Generally speaking, a little more effort toward understanding an opposing point of view would be nice, but that is not easy under the best of circumstances.
And you are basing your affirmation that Opt-out systems are bad based in what metric, statistic or data? Is not like they are using those organs to make hamburguers or to sell them in the black market.
Based on the general backlash of the public when such systems are put in place by private entities. It's usually done in a predatory fashion.
I'm sure there are good uses for opt-out - organ donation might even be one of those uses, but it's inconsistent coming from a government that's touting individual consent over the rights of parents.
If not donating your organs is so important to you
It's not. It's just meat, and I'm opt-in, though I know my relatives will object if the time comes, because my organs living on after me gives them the creeps.
The organ-harvesting analogy doesn't even make any sense.
Taking organs from a corpse does not have an impact on the person whose body is being altered without their consent, because that person is dead and no longer able to experience anything. Sure, there's an argument for respect and not unnecessarily defiling a body, but you can't argue that the person actually suffers any harm from it. At that point it's all about what is best for society, and what is best for the friends and family of that person. And I don't think there's a very credible argument that using the organs of a dead person to save the lives of other people is such an obvious act of disrespect that we should presume a default "no" to it.
Cutting parts off a child who is unable to consent to the act does have an impact. They might not be aware of what is going on at the time, but they have to live with that decision for their entire lives. That's a definite and direct impact to the person whose consent is ignored.
And you are basing your affirmation that Opt-out systems are bad based in what metric, statistic or data? Is not like they are using those organs to make hamburguers or to sell them in the black market.
Based on the general backlash of the public when such systems are put in place by private entities. It's usually done in a predatory fashion.
But thats different. Those private entities gain money from doing it. Public health services don't. They have all the interests to make opting-out as difficult as possible. If the privates entities gived the family of the deceased person a good chunk of money after harvesting them, well, that would be different, but I think nobody would like that because it can degenerate in all kind of creepy stuff.
My parents are foster carers, so I've seen a lot of neglected children over the years. There was an eleven month old baby who'd been locked in a room and paid virtually no attention his whole life. It was somewhat eerie, he never screamed or made any noise; on account of the fact that he'd learnt that it wasted energy and achieved nothing (nobody would pay him any attention or give him what he wanted). He just sat and stared silently. Meanwhile, there was another younger girl who got very little of the right kind of input, and had zilch in the way of capacity to empathise. Utter sociopath.
In both cases, the children had already been physically affected by their parents. If you perform a brain scan on abused children both at the time and when they are older, there are certain areas of the brain which simply don't develop if they don't receive the appropriate stimuli and input at the right time. And they never will. Those forms of development have to take place at that crucial younger age, or it simply doesn't happen.
My point? Bad parents do this sort of physical harm all the time to their kids, and most of them are never taken away by social services. If you advocated taking children away from all bad parents, it would be chaos. Yet those parents are doing infinitely more irreparable physical biological harm to their children than a quick snip ever could possibly begin to; and few people advocate the State intervene en masse. It is quite obviously socially accepted that anything short of downright sustained abusive behaviour is permitted by parents towards their children with no state intervention.
And if we are to remain a free society, I think it likely has to remain that way. The State trying to intervene in parenting to any real degree is a massive minefield. In the case of FGM the health risks and complications are generally quite severe. In circumcision? Not so much. In much the same way, hitting your child over and over is considered abusive and grounds for removing them. One quick snip at birth due to religious devotions? Not really.
Doubtless some would (and do) consider it abusive; but I consider that unfair. Abuse has a very specific meaning and context; and few Jewish parents circumcise their children because they dislike them/hate them/want to control them/get off on sadistic urges. FGM is very much about controlling the child when it is older; circumcision is not (another key distinction there, I feel).
Additionally, there's a certain degree of cultural imperialism in attempting to curb circumcision which shouldn't be lost sight of. For argument's sake, say it was the law that Jewish children got circumcised on their bar mitzvah later in life when they were able to vocally consent to the action. A Jewish child raised in an isolated kibbutz where everyone had had it done and considered it normal would simply consent to it as part of the ritual of becoming a man without thinking twice. He'd never have been exposed to the strain of thought that considered it abusive after all; in the same way that he wouldn't be questioning at that age whether or not God was real, whether the Talmud was really the best way of doing things, and so forth. He'd treat it in the same way he did Kiddesh; just part of the way things are done.
It would be the same if there was an Amish sect that decreed you cut off the last part of your left hand pinky finger at 13. Or a pagan one which had a 'Trial of pain and hunting', or whatever. There's a lot of African tribes which have similar rituals (I believe there's one which involves walking on fire, or somesuch). Being able to consent/deny means nothing if you're not surrounded by the cultural and social structures which would actually make you want to dissent (for the most part that is, you'll always get the odd outlier). In effect, what those who want to ban circumcision would like to do is not only make explicit consent necessary, but also inculcate the child in the strain of cultural thinking which would make the child actually want to dissent (instead of just treating it as commonplace).
Before anyone rushes to disagree because they feel that I'm saying this is a bad thing; I'm not. We all prefer our own cultures and social structures, and strive to make neighbouring ones more like our own. Many cultures preach FGM currently; and we're doing our best (and rightly so) to squash it here in the UK. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that what we are doing in that case is still ultimately a case of forcing one set of cultural rules onto people who often do not wish them. And that for the State to start doing that sort of thing is a bit wobbly, and a bit ethically questionable. In every case where it takes place, it really needs to be done on a case by case basis and receive a certain degree of ethical justification, i.e., is it really necessary?
In this case, I (personally) think there are bad parenting practices which do far more physical damage to children which are utterly unpoliced by the State. Given that the parents wish the best for their child (the motivation is not abusive), the effects are minimal, and the vast majority of those who had it done to them utterly indifferent; I do not think it a cultural affectation that requires active purging by the State.
But of course, YMMV. And damn that post got a bit rambly,
Taking organs from a corpse does not have an impact on the person whose body is being altered without their consent, because that person is dead and no longer able to experience anything.
People have been diagnosed dead when they were not. This is probably the primary fear of most people who refuse organ donation, though admittedly it's a very rare circumstance - rare enough to make the news when it happens.
John Prins wrote: People have been diagnosed dead when they were not. This is probably the primary fear of most people who refuse organ donation, though admittedly it's a very rare circumstance - rare enough to make the news when it happens.
It's incredibly rare, and I'd be very surprised if this was happening in a case where they were in a hospital and proper verification of death was able to happen. I suspect most of these cases involve things like an accident victim being declared dead at the scene, and people realizing later that they were just very badly injured and the signs of life were too faint to be detected by a particular observer. The chances of someone getting their organs removed without anyone realizing that they are still alive are not zero, but it's incredibly unlikely that it would ever happen outside of theoretical debates.
Does Male Circumcision actually cause bodily harm and permanent damage other than the removal and rearranging of skin?
No. As with any medical procedure, in very rare cases the procedure can lead to complications if it is not executed properly, but in the vast majority of cases it causes no lasting effects. When executed properly by a trained specialist it is virtually risk-free. In the US for example, only 0.12% of operations lead to complications (according to Wikipedia at least). In contrast to what some fearmongers in this thread would have you believe.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: It would seem that the only responses that generate any real discussion are the back-and-forthing, as opposed to something based on the beliefs of those whose religious rights would be eliminated by the proposed laws.
Much, “You’re wrong, I don’t care what the other side says” as well. All in all, not sure we accomplished anything.
We aired the opinions, on both/all sides, mission accomplished. There is no need for Dakka Off Topic to justify its existence by finding solutions to the worlds problems.
I agree. Both sides have had their say. Some people on both sides put forth some good arguments, others are less... eloquent.
I feel it would be best if the thread would get locked now, so that it won't get out of hand.
Galas wrote: But thats different. Those private entities gain money from doing it. Public health services don't. They have all the interests to make opting-out as difficult as possible. If the privates entities gived the family of the deceased person a good chunk of money after harvesting them, well, that would be different, but I think nobody would like that because it can degenerate in all kind of creepy stuff.
I think in the case of organ donation, it's more the politicians who stand to gain from the opt-out system. I'd rather the system assume that my body belonged to my heirs, rather than the state, even if I'm pro-organ donation.
John Prins wrote: People have been diagnosed dead when they were not. This is probably the primary fear of most people who refuse organ donation, though admittedly it's a very rare circumstance - rare enough to make the news when it happens.
It's incredibly rare, and I'd be very surprised if this was happening in a case where they were in a hospital and proper verification of death was able to happen
Not hard to find on google. A drug overdose was involved, which caused the misdiagnosis.
Does Male Circumcision actually cause bodily harm and permanent damage other than the removal and rearranging of skin?
No. As with any medical procedure, in very rare cases the procedure can lead to complications if it is not executed properly, but in the vast majority of cases it causes no lasting effects. When executed properly by a trained specialist it is virtually risk-free. In the US for example, only 0.12% of operations lead to complications (according to Wikipedia at least). In contrast to what some fearmongers in this thread would have you believe.
Except, of course, for the demonstrated loss of sensitivity. But you keep on doin' you, comrade.
Does Male Circumcision actually cause bodily harm and permanent damage other than the removal and rearranging of skin?
No. As with any medical procedure, in very rare cases the procedure can lead to complications if it is not executed properly, but in the vast majority of cases it causes no lasting effects. When executed properly by a trained specialist it is virtually risk-free. In the US for example, only 0.12% of operations lead to complications (according to Wikipedia at least). In contrast to what some fearmongers in this thread would have you believe.
Except, of course, for the demonstrated loss of sensitivity. But you keep on doin' you, comrade.
Orlanth wrote: Political correctness is not about freedom it is about control. If something is not 'politically correct' or 'inappropriate' it can get redacted or forced away even if legal. Rights are eroded that way, not established.
Rights are only "eroded" because you are only considering the right to impose religion on people without their consent as a "right" and dismissing the right to control what happens to your body. The right to forcibly impose your religious customs (literally at knife-point) on someone without their consent is removed, the right to control of your body is reinforced. And I think I know which of those two rights is more valuable to society.
Hence how you can have selective 'safe spaces' in universities where PC opinion is welcome and non- PC opinion is shouted down.
And very often those "safe spaces" are demanded by right-wing groups who don't like the idea of being criticized. Your idea that this is about the "PC left" or whatever is not reality.
Wait, you're now arguing parents have no right to instruct their children on religion? My how Leninist of you.
Orlanth wrote: Political correctness is not about freedom it is about control. If something is not 'politically correct' or 'inappropriate' it can get redacted or forced away even if legal. Rights are eroded that way, not established.
Rights are only "eroded" because you are only considering the right to impose religion on people without their consent as a "right" and dismissing the right to control what happens to your body. The right to forcibly impose your religious customs (literally at knife-point) on someone without their consent is removed, the right to control of your body is reinforced. And I think I know which of those two rights is more valuable to society.
Hence how you can have selective 'safe spaces' in universities where PC opinion is welcome and non- PC opinion is shouted down.
And very often those "safe spaces" are demanded by right-wing groups who don't like the idea of being criticized. Your idea that this is about the "PC left" or whatever is not reality.
Wait, you're now arguing parents have no right to instruct their children on religion? My how Leninist of you.
Okay he's quite literally saying he dislikes the idea of people being forced to accept something permanent on their body due to religious faith laws that are irreversible in the grand scheme of things. This is as very disingenuous.
Can you actually debate what he's saying or are you really just going to give irrelevant snark?
Does Male Circumcision actually cause bodily harm and permanent damage other than the removal and rearranging of skin?
No. As with any medical procedure, in very rare cases the procedure can lead to complications if it is not executed properly, but in the vast majority of cases it causes no lasting effects. When executed properly by a trained specialist it is virtually risk-free. In the US for example, only 0.12% of operations lead to complications (according to Wikipedia at least). In contrast to what some fearmongers in this thread would have you believe.
Except, of course, for the demonstrated loss of sensitivity. But you keep on doin' you, comrade.
Loss of sensitivity is a benefit dude.
No its not...
Spoiler:
delayed ejaculation quickly loses it's appeal, when your girlfriend loses patience and demands that you stop so she can go to sleep.
Hence how you can have selective 'safe spaces' in universities where PC opinion is welcome and non- PC opinion is shouted down.
And very often those "safe spaces" are demanded by right-wing groups who don't like the idea of being criticized. Your idea that this is about the "PC left" or whatever is not reality.
I didn't mention left or right. besides in the UK at least the far right have zero influence over safe spaces.
Besides you are missing the point, people from any point of the political spectrum can justifiably ask for a platform under free speech, safe spaces is about denial of sald platform.
Frazzled wrote: He's arguing against the right of parents in their religion. That's right out of 1920s USSR, or 2018 Saudi Arabia.
No hes not. He's arguing that a parent's right to practice their religion should not override their offspring's right to decide on permanent changes to their body.
Peregrine wrote: And I think I know which of those two rights is more valuable to society.
.
So do I. The right for a parent to choose how to raise their children.
It has in the vast majority of circumstances acceptable for society to allow a parent to make sort and long term choices for a child under the age of consent. This includes life changing decisions like cultural rooting and education.
Jews and Moslems have already spoken, your dogmatised meddling is unwelcome.
Jews and Moslems have shown through millenia and centuries of history that their covenant fashions a cultural bond which does not impair and is important to their people.
All you have to offer is your hysterical hatred of religion.
Frazzled wrote: He's arguing against the right of parents in their religion. That's right out of 1920s USSR, or 2018 Saudi Arabia.
No hes not. He's arguing that a parent's right to practice their religion should not override their offspring's right to decide on permanent changes to their body.
Frazzled wrote: He's arguing against the right of parents in their religion. That's right out of 1920s USSR, or 2018 Saudi Arabia.
No hes not. He's arguing that a parent's right to practice their religion should not override their offspring's right to decide on permanent changes to their body.
like getting teeth pulled? Like vaccinations?
False equivalency given that there is a longstanding established benefit to vaccination, and teeth pulling.. I hope you do mean Wisdom teeth, rather then say just randomly yanking your childs teeth out. Because one is a medical benefit, the other would probably get CPS on you if you decided your child should go through life toothless, orr decide that there's some benefit for why your child is going to lose his molars permanently for some odds and ends you've decided.
Frazzled wrote: He's arguing against the right of parents in their religion. That's right out of 1920s USSR, or 2018 Saudi Arabia.
No hes not. He's arguing that a parent's right to practice their religion should not override their offspring's right to decide on permanent changes to their body.
like getting teeth pulled? Like vaccinations?
False equivalency given that there is a longstanding established benefit to vaccination, and teeth pulling.. I hope you do mean Wisdom teeth, rather then say just randomly yanking your childs teeth out. Because one is a medical benefit, the other would probably get CPS on you if you decided your child should go through life toothless, orr decide that there's some benefit for why your child is going to lose his molars permanently for some odds and ends you've decided.
There's a long standing benefit to religious instruction.
There is a small portion of people who react to vaccinations to the point of dying.
Frazzled wrote: He's arguing against the right of parents in their religion. That's right out of 1920s USSR, or 2018 Saudi Arabia.
No hes not. He's arguing that a parent's right to practice their religion should not override their offspring's right to decide on permanent changes to their body.
like getting teeth pulled? Like vaccinations?
Those have valid medical justifications.
Chopping off a part of your child's body because some half illiterate shepherd 3000 years ago claimed its what God wants you to do is not a valid medical justification.
Circumcision is religious instruction? I'm not actually sure what you are trying to say at this point anymore, because if that's the case most of the benefits as dictated by the medical community are small enough that there's no reason to fully institute a circumcision program.
While vaccinations there can be complications.. But the benefits are not negotiable, given the vast power vaccinations have had in eliminating disease and the overall herd effect it's had on allowing for many to survival communicable diseases. To say one is equivalent to the other is intentionally trying to obscure.
Well, the prophet Mohammed did marry a 9 year old girl or something like that, but afaik child marriage isn't mandated by islam or anything. So like female genital mutilation it is a cultural (it is usually done to cement tribal alliances) rather than a religious custom. The big difference why I disapprove of these things but do not of circumcision is that those things have been shown to be harmful to children, whereas circumcision is not.
1st Book of Dakka, 3rd Letter to the MODerinthians:
4. When thy claim of infringement of the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with religious teachings, including the right to bodily modification of their children, is confronted with less culturally accepted religious preferences, do not admit that religious is always a “get out of jail free card”.
5. Instead give honor to The Lord Thy MODs by changing the argument that parents are free to raise their children according to religious customs*.
6. (*, for certain definitions of religion, subject to arbitration, see Dakkianity Terms and Conditions, no refund of DCM tithes)
I feel like most the fire in this fight comes from non circumcised men - who at heart really just feel inadequate with themselves. The circumcised have no problem having more ergonomic stuff. This is literally a non issue as it actually improves the life of the "victim". It's probably the one barbaric custom that actually makes sense. Unlike female circumcision which can totally remove sexual pleasure and is done specifically for that purpose.
Look at the crazy stuff that undeveloped tribes practice! Wearing giant earings around their lips the size of soccer balls. Stretching out their necks with spacers. You see this stuff on discovery channel and the shows hosts calls that fascinating. Make a small snippet on a baby boy that will improve his genital hygiene and increase his confidence with women? BARBARIANS!
Furthermore - my parents are non religious and they chose to circumcise me just because that's what everyone was doing. It is a cultural thing - in fact - the few non circumcised friends I have. They are from non denominational Christian groups. That's probably not the norm but interesting nonetheless. Something else interesting - if the father then too probably is his son.
Xenomancers wrote: I feel like most the fire in this fight comes from non circumcised men - who at heart really just feel inadequate with themselves. The circumcised have no problem having more ergonomic stuff. This is literally a non issue as it actually improves the life of the "victim". It's probably the one barbaric custom that actually makes sense. Unlike female circumcision which can totally remove sexual pleasure and is done specifically for that purpose.
Look at the crazy stuff that undeveloped tribes practice! Wearing giant earings around their lips the size of soccer balls. Stretching out their necks with spacers. You see this stuff on discovery channel and the shows hosts calls that fascinating. Make a small snippet on a baby boy that will improve his genital hygiene and increase his confidence with women? BARBARIANS!
Yeah, you can't imagine how difficult life is for those who have to wash themselves properly.
I'm planning on removing my daughters' hands, because it's easier than teaching them how to keep them clean.
Having said that, while 'it's easier to keep clean' is a bizarre justification for cutting bits off your child anywhere with an adequate water supply, there are still parts of the world where it would be a worthwhile consideration.
I mean, I would rather see something done about ensuring everyone has access to clean and sufficient water rather than mutilating children... But the world is still some way away from that.
Xenomancers wrote: I feel like most the fire in this fight comes from non circumcised men - who at heart really just feel inadequate with themselves. The circumcised have no problem having more ergonomic stuff. This is literally a non issue as it actually improves the life of the "victim". It's probably the one barbaric custom that actually makes sense. Unlike female circumcision which can totally remove sexual pleasure and is done specifically for that purpose.
Look at the crazy stuff that undeveloped tribes practice! Wearing giant earings around their lips the size of soccer balls. Stretching out their necks with spacers. You see this stuff on discovery channel and the shows hosts calls that fascinating. Make a small snippet on a baby boy that will improve his genital hygiene and increase his confidence with women? BARBARIANS!
Personal insults and uncited assertions.
How do you think circumsized men feel when they are called victims of genital mutilation? Do you think they roll into a ball and cry about it? No - they do not care and are almost unanimously happy with their parents decsion. The banning of a harmless and slightly benifical custom based on who knows what idealolgy is actually what is insulting.
Considering how much cottage cheese I’ve wiped off from circumcised penises, it may be a good thing to prevent more uncircumcised penises from entering the general population until we can have a comprehensive genital hygiene education program.
insaniak wrote: Yeah, you can't imagine how difficult life is for those who have to wash themselves properly.
I'm planning on removing my daughters' hands, because it's easier than teaching them how to keep them clean.
Having said that, while 'it's easier to keep clean' is a bizarre justification for cutting bits off your child anywhere with an adequate water supply, there are still parts of the world where it would be a worthwhile consideration.
I mean, I would rather see something done about ensuring everyone has access to clean and sufficient water rather than mutilating children... But the world is still some way away from that.
Some things are harder to clean than others...this is pretty much unarguable. Some things like...warm, dark, enclosed environments are better at breeding bacteria. Also lets not forget the purpose of the foreskin - to protect the member from being damaged. As we wear clothing now and always will - the foreskin was already on it's way out from an evolutionary standpoint (you must admit compared to other primates humans have quite exposed genitals). Who are you to stop the next phase of human evolution?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Considering how much cottage cheese I’ve wiped off from circumcised penises, it may be a good thing to prevent more uncircumcised penises from entering the general population until we can have a comprehensive genital hygiene education program.
You are talking about disease. I am talking about crotch rot.
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, the prophet Mohammed did marry a 9 year old girl or something like that, but afaik child marriage isn't mandated by islam or anything.
True this.
Child marriage is also less of a problem than it appears. Marriage has several stages in ancient custom, a girl is married at a very young age which is a ceremony of betrothal, a bit like an engagement plus, then there is a later consummated marriage.
Child marriages normally happen for one of two reasons, to secure a benefactor for the child and for political alliance. An example of the former is the knowledge that ancient societies had no such thing as a state welfare and a child marriage established provision, the second is just like any other form of political marriage but with delayed consummation. Julius Caesar married the 12 year old daughter of Gaius Pompey to secure an alliance between the two statesmen.
While there would likely be plenty of paedophiles around in ancient society there is no excuse to claim Mohammed or Caesar was one. It would also be ignorant for those to assume that ancient customs and procedures are identical to modern ones just because they share the same name and broadest purpose.
Orlanth wrote: Jews and Moslems have already spoken, your dogmatised meddling is unwelcome.
I don't care if it's welcome. Their child abuse is not welcome either.
All you have to offer is your hysterical hatred of religion.
No, I have my belief, which is shared by religious people (at least one of them posting in this thread) that personal freedom and the right to control one's own body takes priority over someone else's desire to cut bits off of that body.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Besides you are missing the point, people from any point of the political spectrum can justifiably ask for a platform under free speech, safe spaces is about denial of sald platform.
That is not what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech means that the government can not prevent you from speaking or punish you for speaking. It does not mean, and never has meant, that anyone is obligated to provide you with a platform to speak from. Safe spaces that decline to provide a platform for particular speakers are not an infringement of free speech rights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: How do you think circumsized men feel when they are called victims of genital mutilation? Do you think they roll into a ball and cry about it? No - they do not care and are almost unanimously happy with their parents decsion. The banning of a harmless and slightly benifical custom based on who knows what idealolgy is actually what is insulting.
Actually I've seen a lot of comments from circumcised men who are not happy with the fact that it was done to them without their consent. In fact, I'd guess that this is where the majority of the opposition comes from.
Wasn't this thread supposed to die like three or four pages ago? Judging by some of the quality comments we've had since that would probably have been for the better.
Orlanth wrote: Jews and Moslems have already spoken, your dogmatised meddling is unwelcome.
I don't care if it's welcome. Their child abuse is not welcome either.
Prove your claim of child abuse. Recipients have no memory of the ritual, and it causes no harm, and it is purely a mark of membership of a racial, cultural and religious covenant, and it is respected in their community. Furthermore it is openly practiced in modern countries with very strict laws on child abuse, and nowhere as yet is it considered such.
If you think its child abuse call the child abuse hotline and shop your local synagogue, see how far you get.
Its time your intolerance, and hatred makes way so people groups can continue their ancient and open tradition as they have vocalised they want to do. And remember those Imams and Rabbis or common Jews and Moslems that call for non interference in their customs and practices are themselves circumcised by them, and have far better cause to claim to understand it than you do. Yet somehow they don't see things as you do, so should respect the great clearer understanding of those who have gone through the covenant themselves and the communities that support them.
No, I have my belief, which is shared by religious people (at least one of them posting in this thread) that personal freedom and the right to control one's own body takes priority over someone else's desire to cut bits off of that body.
Your belief is not actionable over the rights of others when they have the weight of history on their side showing that the covenant does not cause harm. The fact that you are offended by it is irrelevant and is a sign only of your own intolerance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Besides you are missing the point, people from any point of the political spectrum can justifiably ask for a platform under free speech, safe spaces is about denial of sald platform.
That is not what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech means that the government can not prevent you from speaking or punish you for speaking. It does not mean, and never has meant, that anyone is obligated to provide you with a platform to speak from. Safe spaces that decline to provide a platform for particular speakers are not an infringement of free speech rights.
You misinterpret safe spaces. Safe spacing is where those who use a forum deny access to others who would otherwise have right to speak there. So if a university allows a speaker that speaker should be heard and not blocked by safe spacers. That by the way is an infringement of free speech, especially when safe spacers blok access to listed invitees.
Orlanth wrote: Prove your claim of child abuse. Recipients have no memory of the ritual, and it causes no harm, and it is purely a mark of membership of a racial, cultural and religious covenant, and it is respected in their community.
It is child abuse because it involves cutting off part of a child's body without their consent, and then hoping that when they're an adult they look back on it with approval. If that person decides to leave the community as an adult then they're stuck with a permanent symbol inflicted on them without their consent, plus the psychological effects (if any) of knowing that someone cut off part of their body without their consent and they just have to live with it.
Your belief is not actionable over the rights of others when they have the weight of history on their side showing that the covenant does not cause harm. The fact that you are offended by it is irrelevant and is a sign only of your own intolerance.
You do not have the right to cut off parts of someone's body without their consent. I don't care what history or tradition or whatever you have behind it, the weight of history ends when it infringes upon the rights of the individual being subjected to that history. Call me intolerant if you want, I'll proudly state that I am intolerant of child abuse.
You misinterpret safe spaces. Safe spacing is where those who use a forum deny access to others who would otherwise have right to speak there. So if a university allows a speaker that speaker should be heard and not blocked by safe spacers. That by the way is an infringement of free speech, especially when safe spacers blok access to listed invitees.
There is no right to speak at a university, and you are confusing safe spaces (a space with rules applied by the people running it to exclude certain unwelcome speech) with protests. And really what you're asking for is safe spaces for speakers to be invited to speak without protests, because it's really annoying to have protests saying " this guy".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Its time your intolerance, and hatred makes way so people groups can continue their ancient and open tradition as they have vocalised they want to do.
I don't care if they vocalize their desire to commit child abuse. They can vocalize all they want, their desire to do it does not take priority over the rights of the children they wish to cut pieces off of.
And remember those Imams and Rabbis or common Jews and Moslems that call for non interference in their customs and practices are themselves circumcised by them, and have far better cause to claim to understand it than you do. Yet somehow they don't see things as you do, so should respect the great clearer understanding of those who have gone through the covenant themselves and the communities that support them.
I am aware that some people are happy with the outcome. Others, however, are not. That is why the answer is to ban cutting pieces off of children without their consent, and allow adults to make the decision on whether or not to undergo circumcision for whatever reasons they wish.
But tell me, how many men saying "I hate that this was done to me without my consent" do you consider an acceptable price for maintaining tradition, and the desire to cut parts off of children? What percentage of victims is it ok to create before it is no longer acceptable?
Orlanth wrote: Prove your claim of child abuse. Recipients have no memory of the ritual, and it causes no harm, and it is purely a mark of membership of a racial, cultural and religious covenant, and it is respected in their community.
It is child abuse because it involves cutting off part of a child's body without their consent, and then hoping that when they're an adult they look back on it with approval. If that person decides to leave the community as an adult then they're stuck with a permanent symbol inflicted on them without their consent, plus the psychological effects (if any) of knowing that someone cut off part of their body without their consent and they just have to live with it.
I call you out on this again. If its child abuse why wait, go ahead be a good citizen and report it. The US has solid laws against child abuse.
“It’s legal” is a gakky reason to pretend something is or isn’t abuse.
Conversion therapy is legal, it used to be legal to beat your spouse, it used to be legal to rape your wife, it’s still legal for schools to beat children in many areas.
Or C: as we often do, we will ignore the abuse because people refuse to acknowledge it for whatever reason. The fact that the courts will not find you guilty of that crime does not change the moral status of the act. I'm surprised that a religious and anti-statist person like you would reject the separation of legality and morality, and assume that an act can not be abuse in the moral sense unless the state is willing to make it illegal and punish it.
d-usa wrote: “It’s legal” is a gakky reason to pretend something is or isn’t abuse.
Conversion therapy is legal, it used to be legal to beat your spouse, it used to be legal to rape your wife, it’s still legal for schools to beat children in many areas.
Actually the law is what we have to go on. Yes it also be used to be legal to have a slave etc. However is that relevant here?
There are stringent laws in both the US and UK about child abuse, you can't pretend it's an ignored issue that is somehow overlooked. It isnt.
Furthermore by claiming that circumcision is child abuse you are calling out the Rabbis and Imams who practice circumcision child abusers. If you wish to make such a claim, or defend someone else who does then you need to show justifiable legal grounds.
You might not notice but its not acceptable to accuse people of being child abusers without actual evidence of a crime, it's not some throw in comment, it's a serious accusation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Or C: as we often do, we will ignore the abuse because people refuse to acknowledge it for whatever reason. The fact that the courts will not find you guilty of that crime does not change the moral status of the act. I'm surprised that a religious and anti-statist person like you would reject the separation of legality and morality, and assume that an act can not be abuse in the moral sense unless the state is willing to make it illegal and punish it.
There is no C. Either its child abuse or it isn't. Its not an irrelevant accusation, its an important one. You are either legally right or legally wrong.
The point is that “it’s legal” is a stupid argument for anything, because society and culture can change what is legal.
Edit: and if we are now at the “you can only make arguments based on legal definitions and can’t use any term outside of their exact legal definition” stage of the thread, then it’s time for this guy and time to head out.
I’ve strapped a baby down and dipped the pacifier in sugar water for the crying baby while the doc was snipping away. That’s one of the things that turned me sour on the procedure. I’ve said my piece, I’ve pointed out stupid arguments, now it’s time to do something more productive. Maybe I’ll make sure there’s no smegma anywhere near my nethers.
Orlanth wrote: Actually the law is what we have to go on. Yes it also be used to be legal to have a slave etc. However is that relevant here?
This is just proving my point. Slavery used to be legal, but it was never moral, not even when the law was still lagging behind morality on the subject. Just like cutting pieces off of people without their consent is morally abuse, even if the state does not recognize it as such.
Furthermore by claiming that circumcision is child abuse you are calling out the Rabbis and Imams who practice circumcision child abusers. If you wish to make such a claim, or defend someone else who does then you need to show justifiable legal grounds.
What legal grounds do I need? Morally speaking they are child abusers, whether or not they are convicted of the crime. I don't need to prove the legal issue in court to make the moral claim.
There is no C. Either its child abuse or it isn't. Its not an irrelevant accusation, its an important one. You are either legally right or legally wrong.
That's moving the goalposts. You asked what would happen if I reported it, and the third (of at least three, possibly more) possibility is that abuse is occurring but people will refuse to acknowledge it.
.
this guy".
and time to head out.