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.

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.

 Iron_Captain 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

Especially when said 'right' is not an actual right but just something they made up.

Took me 2 seconds to Google

 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?

It is also clear that it means different things to different people. There is not one way of looking at it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain 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

Especially when said 'right' is not an actual right but just something they made up.

Took me 2 seconds to Google

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.

 feeder wrote:

 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain 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

Especially when said 'right' is not an actual right but just something they made up.

Took me 2 seconds to Google

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.

I respect people's right to a religious freedom that allows them to believe that circumcision should be performed on their kids.

I don't respect their right to do it.

There you go, the 'religious freedom' question answered.

And what consequences does your respect have?

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:

 feeder wrote:

 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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain 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

Especially when said 'right' is not an actual right but just something they made up.

Took me 2 seconds to Google

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.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
And what consequences does your respect have?

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.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/belgian-region-walloon-bans-kosher-halal-meat-islam-jewish-a7723451.html

Actually a lot of countries have banned docking and cropping dogs, about time we did the same for humans.

 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.

Actually...it does.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
And what consequences does your respect have?

Kids don't get parts of their body chopped off until they're old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want it to happen?


'Religious Freedom' shouldn't be a blanket permission slip for parents to do what they want to their children.

jouso wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
And what consequences does your respect have?

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.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/belgian-region-walloon-bans-kosher-halal-meat-islam-jewish-a7723451.html

Actually a lot of countries have banned docking and cropping dogs, about time we did the same for humans.

Yet abortion is legal.
Parents can also have their kid's ears pierced, or give them vaccinations.

 Orlanth wrote:

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?'

 Orlanth wrote:


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.

Ok, but how is that prohibition accomplished?

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
And what consequences does your respect have?

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.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/belgian-region-walloon-bans-kosher-halal-meat-islam-jewish-a7723451.html

Actually a lot of countries have banned docking and cropping dogs, about time we did the same for humans.

Yet abortion is legal.

Not at all relevant.

Parents can also have their kid's ears pierced, or give them vaccinations.

The former is not permanent, and the latter has a proven medical benefit.

I kind of like moms that pierce their babies ears, it is a handy guide to quickly identify people that aren't worth talking to.

edit: fix quote derp

 Frazzled wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
And what consequences does your respect have?

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.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/belgian-region-walloon-bans-kosher-halal-meat-islam-jewish-a7723451.html

Actually a lot of countries have banned docking and cropping dogs, about time we did the same for humans.

Yet abortion is legal.
Parents can also have their kid's ears pierced, or give them vaccinations.

Not that I agree with the practice, but a pierced ear left for a few days will close the hole naturally. A snipped foreskin won't grow back.

Let's not get into the whole abortion thing and life begins at conception vs viable fetus.

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?

Side note: Anyone hear about tugger surgery?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain 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

Especially when said 'right' is not an actual right but just something they made up.

Took me 2 seconds to Google

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.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
And what consequences does your respect have?

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.

 Riquende wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
And what consequences does your respect have?

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.

 feeder wrote:


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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Riquende wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
And what consequences does your respect have?

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Riquende wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
And what consequences does your respect have?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
...but entitled snowflakes...

Thanks mate, speaking of handy guides to quickly identify people not worth talking to...

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...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.