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'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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, please elucidate for me all of the things circumcised men lose out on?

"Docking" springs to mind ... you might not want to Google that ...

@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,

 Peregrine wrote:
in a way that has permanent consequences

I don't quite follow this, what consequences?

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.

Herzlos wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
in a way that has permanent consequences

I don't quite follow this, what consequences?

As someone who has been chopped (medical reasons) I can't say I've ever cared or had it be a consideration in anything,

Some studies link it to reduced sexual pleasure (which would also tie in with the circumcision - less masturbation thing).

Male circumcision tied to less sexual pleasure
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-male-circumcision/male-circumcision-tied-to-less-sexual-pleasure-idUSBRE91D1CO20130214

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?

Herzlos wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
in a way that has permanent consequences

I don't quite follow this, what consequences?

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

Herzlos wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
in a way that has permanent consequences

I don't quite follow this, what consequences?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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?

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.

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.

 War Drone wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, please elucidate for me all of the things circumcised men lose out on?

"Docking" springs to mind ... you might not want to Google that ...

Sadly, I don't need to.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain 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.

https://www.yourwholebaby.org/images-of-circumcision-complications

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain 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.

https://www.yourwholebaby.org/images-of-circumcision-complications

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

I guess the same thing that gives you the right to force YOUR choice onto a religious community?

I'm not the one making a Choice. I'm arguing that the Choice should be left to the Individual, not the Collectivist Group.

 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.

 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.

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:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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:

 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.

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.