Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

XuQishi wrote:

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.

XuQishi wrote:

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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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.

 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.

"Forcing" doesn't imply resistance at all.

3 : violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing. The child is made to undergo the procedure and has no choice in the matter, and is thus compelled.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Talk, you bastard!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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...

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’s a pretty broad set of potential actions, though. There is a single action in question.

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.

 d-usa wrote:
As a result, it was something that made me stand out as "different" in school and during sports.

"Hey D, all the cool kids are space docking, you wanna... aw... aww, man. Nevermind."

It's like a modern age Rudolph the Reindeer, in a way.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

Human rights includes freedom to practice one's religion, though.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Human rights includes freedom to practice one's religion, though.

And the freedom to not have someone else's religion imposed on you. We've been over this already.

 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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Human rights includes freedom to practice one's religion, though.

Typically your freedom to practice religion only extends up to someone else's body, otherwise we wouldn't be making such a deal about ISIS.

Ultimately, we have two conflicting and mutually exclusive Rights.

Freedom of Religion.

And Body Integrity.

We have to decide where to draw the line. Which Right should trump the other Right? Which Right do you value most?

I fall on the side of Individual Liberty. Circumcision should wait until an individual is old enough to give his own voluntary and informed Consent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm surprised at you Kilkrazy. I had thought better of you.

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:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ultimately, we have two conflicting and mutually exclusive Rights.

Freedom of Religion.

And Body Integrity.

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

 elk@work wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ultimately, we have two conflicting and mutually exclusive Rights.

Freedom of Religion.

And Body Integrity.

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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 elk@work wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ultimately, we have two conflicting and mutually exclusive Rights.

Freedom of Religion.

And Body Integrity.

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 ))))

 elk@work wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ultimately, we have two conflicting and mutually exclusive Rights.

Freedom of Religion.

And Body Integrity.

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.