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.

Well, if we can't take any perspective on this or sort these issues into various shades of bad, I guess Peregrine you're just going to have to step up and protect the helpless. If your convictions won't allow you to admit the slightest degree between something you disagree with and rampant abuse, then I guess your own moral code demands you track down every mohel in the phone book and put an end to their reigns of blood.

Or maybe recognize that there are greater forms of harm, and a blanket ban on a nearly-harmless Procedure performed on UNCONSENTING BABIES might actually cause a greater harm on both the same babies and the society at large.

 d-usa wrote:
The point is that “it’s legal” is a stupid argument for anything, because society and culture can change what is legal.

It's valid for when something legal and socially harmless is claimed to be something extremely socially damaging like child abuse.

There is a gravity to the claim that circumcision is child abuse and it needs backing up with facts.

I have provided facts as to why it isn't. It is not an overlooked issue, it is not currently illegal anywhere.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

However with slavery there was a mass movement seeking to reverse the wrong and slavery was progressively banished in one country after another. Also even before that there was a strong chorus of feeling that slavery was wrong.

There is no such concern with circumcision. It's seriously proposed in one nation only, against the wishes of a significant portion of the populace on genuine rights grounds. There is no notable motion to emulate Iceland's path elsewhere, so Iceland will not be pioneering more like a politically correct rogue state with regards to rights on this issue.

 Peregrine wrote:

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..

To make a moral claim you need to show morality.
Historical evidence shows conclusively that society continues without problems if the covenant of circumcision is practiced. There is no evidence otherwise.
Those who practice it and have gone through it are willing to continue it for future generations, and as shown from the weight of history successive generations despite a very clear understanding of the practice have not changed their opinions of it.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

There are two options, if you wish to make an accusation of child abuse you are either right or wrong.

Society is well aware that circumcision occurs, they have been for millenia. There has been no move to ban it up until now. Yet this is in spite of the issue being clearly understood and with empowerment for social change active, some societies even had openly anti-semitic agendas and yet didn't see need for a circumcision ban . There cannot be a refusal to acknowledge when the subject is clearly documented, clearly evident, openly practiced and also discussed.

"Shock horror, we just found out that Jews circumcise their male children, what shall we do." - Not being said.

Regarding “it’s not illegal anywhere”:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The point is that “it’s legal” is a stupid argument for anything, because society and culture can change what is legal.

It's valid for when something legal and socially harmless is claimed to be something extremely socially damaging like child abuse.

There is a gravity to the claim that circumcision is child abuse and it needs backing up with facts.

I have provided facts as to why it isn't. It is not an overlooked issue, it is not currently illegal anywhere.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

However with slavery there was a mass movement seeking to reverse the wrong and slavery was progressively banished in one country after another. Also even before that there was a strong chorus of feeling that slavery was wrong.

There is no such concern with circumcision. It's seriously proposed in one nation only, against the wishes of a significant portion of the populace on genuine rights grounds. There is no notable motion to emulate Iceland's path elsewhere, so Iceland will not be pioneering more like a politically correct rogue state with regards to rights on this issue.

 Peregrine wrote:

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..

To make a moral claim you need to show morality.
Historical evidence shows conclusively that society continues without problems if the covenant of circumcision is practiced. There is no evidence otherwise.
Those who practice it and have gone through it are willing to continue it for future generations, and as shown from the weight of history successive generations despite a very clear understanding of the practice have not changed their opinions of it.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

There are two options, if you wish to make an accusation of child abuse you are either right or wrong.

Society is well aware that circumcision occurs, they have been for millenia. There has been no move to ban it up until now. Yet this is in spite of the issue being clearly understood and with empowerment for social change active, some societies even had openly anti-semitic agendas and yet didn't see need for a circumcision ban . There cannot be a refusal to acknowledge when the subject is clearly documented, clearly evident, openly practiced and also discussed.

"Shock horror, we just found out that Jews circumcise their male children, what shall we do." - Not being said.

Probably not a lot but of Jews or Muslims in Iceland. Their concern for minority rights may be minimal.

I have read this, and come to a bit of a conclusion.

I was circumcised. I've known nothing else, have never felt unhappy about it. Without knowledge of having a foreskin, I have nothing to compare it to. I enjoy sexual activities, thoroughly, and quite enjoy the sensations that I get from them.

My wife's uncle chose to have a circumcision in his late 50's. He was dating a sex therapist at the time. I don't know if it was his idea and it happened to coincide with the timing, or what. He wishes he'd had it done sooner.

My best friend [you can tell he's my best friend, because we awkwardly talked about it over a couple of beers] and his family have a tradition of NOT being circumcised. He was upset, because his doctor recommended he have a circumcision for medical reasons. He likened his condition to having to wear a hat that was two sizes too small for your head. He was "tender" for a while, but hasn't complained about it... though to be honest I haven't brought it up. "Hey bud, how's your weiner? Does fething your wife still feel as good as it used to?" I think I'll ask him the next time I see him though, as now I'm curious.

My wife and I decided to have our children circumcised. I'm not religious, at all, and she's lightly-Catholic. I am happy to have been circumcised, and my wife's description of lady-locker-talk is that most women prefer circumcised penises. We decided it would be best for our children to be circumcised, as I don't know about any extra precautions or practices that "stock" penises require. I felt I was better equipped to care for my children if they were the same as me.


Regarding the concept that this is malicious child abuse, mutilating children, I admit I was conflicted about it. The decision was ultimately put to me, as the father. I weighed the idea that I genuinely want what's best for my children, and was aware that I would be making a decision about permanently altering their bodies without their consent. I decided that the risks of harm during the procedure, and the risk of future anger at me for making this decision was outweighed by the benefits of my better understanding circumcised penises... and the benefits of being more physically attractive to women, using the best information I had available.

That's parenting. You constantly make decisions for life forms that have no say in what you do or how you raise them. No child gets to choose their parents. As a parent, I do my best and try not to feth up too often or too badly. Quite frankly, if my boys grow to be men, and decide to have families of their own, and the worst thing about their childhood that they hold against me is that they were circumcised, well, they'll have done a gak-load of drugs and had years of therapy to wipe clean all the other things that were worse.

In the end, I think I prefer to have been circumcised, and with the information I have I believe my boys will also be happy [er] to have been circumcised than not.

 John Prins wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

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

That's not how an opt-out system works. In an opt-out system like ours there are effectively 3 groups of people.

- You make a conscious choice to opt-in.
- You make a conscious choice to opt-out.
- You don't make a choice, in which case your next of kin are asked instead.

The only way to get your organs harvested against your will is if you don't specifically state it in life and your family doesn't know about it (or they don't care about your wishes).

 greatbigtree wrote:


That's parenting. You constantly make decisions for life forms that have no say in what you do or how you raise them.

But times change. The way I'm raising my son has significant differences with how my grandfather raised my father (starting with my father having to do seasonal agricultural work in France aged just 12, which was pretty normal at the time)

People have been cropping ears from dogs for centuries, and only recently it's been made illegal.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I have read this, and come to a bit of a conclusion.

I was circumcised. I've known nothing else, have never felt unhappy about it. Without knowledge of having a foreskin, I have nothing to compare it to. I enjoy sexual activities, thoroughly, and quite enjoy the sensations that I get from them.

My wife's uncle chose to have a circumcision in his late 50's. He was dating a sex therapist at the time. I don't know if it was his idea and it happened to coincide with the timing, or what. He wishes he'd had it done sooner.

My best friend [you can tell he's my best friend, because we awkwardly talked about it over a couple of beers] and his family have a tradition of NOT being circumcised. He was upset, because his doctor recommended he have a circumcision for medical reasons. He likened his condition to having to wear a hat that was two sizes too small for your head. He was "tender" for a while, but hasn't complained about it... though to be honest I haven't brought it up. "Hey bud, how's your weiner? Does fething your wife still feel as good as it used to?" I think I'll ask him the next time I see him though, as now I'm curious.

My wife and I decided to have our children circumcised. I'm not religious, at all, and she's lightly-Catholic. I am happy to have been circumcised, and my wife's description of lady-locker-talk is that most women prefer circumcised penises. We decided it would be best for our children to be circumcised, as I don't know about any extra precautions or practices that "stock" penises require. I felt I was better equipped to care for my children if they were the same as me.


Regarding the concept that this is malicious child abuse, mutilating children, I admit I was conflicted about it. The decision was ultimately put to me, as the father. I weighed the idea that I genuinely want what's best for my children, and was aware that I would be making a decision about permanently altering their bodies without their consent. I decided that the risks of harm during the procedure, and the risk of future anger at me for making this decision was outweighed by the benefits of my better understanding circumcised penises... and the benefits of being more physically attractive to women, using the best information I had available.

That's parenting. You constantly make decisions for life forms that have no say in what you do or how you raise them. No child gets to choose their parents. As a parent, I do my best and try not to feth up too often or too badly. Quite frankly, if my boys grow to be men, and decide to have families of their own, and the worst thing about their childhood that they hold against me is that they were circumcised, well, they'll have done a gak-load of drugs and had years of therapy to wipe clean all the other things that were worse.

In the end, I think I prefer to have been circumcised, and with the information I have I believe my boys will also be happy [er] to have been circumcised than not.

You are a child abuser, apparently. ?

Do you have any comments on how sick and evil you purportedly are.

That's enough, if we've devolved to pitifully low quality bait like that we're done