Circumcision

[3point14]

Quoting myself again, but I have to go, and I needed to get this out before I did

Can you suggest a decent method of answering this question?

You see, the thing is, that if you can't find a decent answer to this question, then you have absolutely no grounds for objection when confronted with those faiths that insist on ritual scarring, trial by ordeal, mutilation of neck, feet and genitalia and any other unpleasant things that various faiths insist their young people go through, because they simply call it 'faith' and you have no answer.

(ETA - if the word 'faith' is replaced with the word 'culture', then precisely the same arguments apply.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Neither do I. I recommend against it for ethical and moral reasons, not medical.

And you quote those who claim medical reasons as well.

 

[Lonewulf]

And you quote those who claim medical reasons as well.

Explain, please.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The strong implication is that the "cultural" reasons can trump a medical lack of justification.
If it was simply medically advisable, they'd say that.

ETA:
Here:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686



"Medically, there's no solid justification for this. But if you belong to some religion or ethnic group that requires it, then fine."

As I have said medicaly it is pretty much a wash, and so they go with the principle that inaction is preferable to action. Remember it is legal to watch someone die painfully by starving them to death than giving them an intentional overdose of morphine. That is also a dirrect effect of the view on inaction being preferable to action.

 

[fls]

And I agree. But some people here are just fine with that for "religious reasons".

I'm also fine with that for religious reasons. To elaborate, I do what I can not to cause pain, but sometimes it's not avoidable (e.g. to avoid the pain leads to greater harm). I consider Loss Leader's reasons for having his son circumcised to be reasonable. The pain should be avoided with the use of some form of anaesthesia, though.

That's just the problem, though. The parents are charged with consenting on behalf of their babies... for what? Not giving them medication that they desperately need? Inflicting gratuitous pain that they'll never remember? Injecting them with experimental drugs for the hell of it?

But you are choosing examples that are egregious. The point isn't that sometimes parents don't act in their child's best interest. We all recognize that sad fact. The point is whether or not this includes circumcision.

Parents do not get a "Get-Out-Of-Child-Abuse" card just because their children can't consent and need the parents to consent for them.

Exactly. So what does it tell you that circumcision is not a criminal activity, or an activity that requires the interference of Child and Family Services?

An individual here made a pretty big point of how their baby was not able to consent. He said that he tried his "hardest" to get the baby to consent, but the baby wouldn't. So, hey, that must have made it okay, right?

For him to consent in his place? Yes?

So circumcision isn't a religious ritual? Perhaps you should talk to Loss Leader about that one.

He inflicted a permanent body modification on his child because of religious principles.

People are allowed to think that religious principles have value, even if you don't agree. But the reason the other activities you mentioned weren't acceptable was because they were excessive, not because of the form of the justification.

Linda

 

[fls]

What about when the mothers think it's "cleaner" and "healthier" and that guys like it?

Under what circumstances do you envision this tradition starting?

Linda

 

[fls]

Aw, don't like being told that you're a fundie, or that you're part of a "camp"?

You're either with us or against us?

Linda

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm also fine with that for religious reasons. To elaborate, I do what I can not to cause pain, but sometimes it's not avoidable (e.g. to avoid the pain leads to greater harm). I consider Loss Leader's reasons for having his son circumcised to be reasonable. The pain should be avoided with the use of some form of anaesthesia, though.

And I have yet to be convinced that circumcision leads to a significant amount of "lesser harm" in the long harm.

But you are choosing examples that are egregious. The point isn't that sometimes parents don't act in their child's best interest. We all recognize that sad fact. The point is whether or not this includes circumcision.

Fair enough. My point was that "consenting for the child" isn't always justified. Let's move on...

Exactly. So what does it tell you that circumcision is not a criminal activity, or an activity that requires the interference of Child and Family Services?

That it's not a criminal activity, and it's not an activity that requires the interference of Child and Family Services.

Seriously, did you think that this would create a compelling argument? Citing, "Well, it's not questionable NOW" doesn't make it automatically correct. See my signature if you really want to pursue this line of logic.

For him to consent in his place? Yes?

I still don't think you get it. Oh well.

People are allowed to think that religious principles have value, even if you don't agree.

Doesn't mean I find it any less silly or disgusting when it's used to rationalize causing unnecessary pain to children.

But the reason the other activities you mentioned weren't acceptable was because they were excessive, not because of the form of the justification.

And disfiguring your child's penis isn't excessive because...?

 

[Lonewulf]

You're either with us or against us?

*Sigh* I guess I have to spell this out for you people, who obviously are so oblivious...

I didn't like being told that I was part of a "camp", which people like Linda and PonderingTurtle were just fine to point fingers at.

I did it in response, and seemed to get some offended remarks.

So apparently, you can do it to me, but I offend you when I do it to you.

Congrats, hypocrites.

 

[kellyb]

Under what circumstances do you envision this tradition starting?

Linda

They already give those reasons.
Do you need me to find a link on that?

 

[kellyb]

As I have said medicaly it is pretty much a wash, and so they go with the principle that inaction is preferable to action.

Do you personally disagree with that in this case?
If it's medically a wash, why do you think infants should be put in pain?

Somewhere deep down inside, doesn't the idea that maybe we shouldn't take knives to infant sex organs without good reason make sense?

 

[fls]

And I have yet to be convinced that circumcision leads to a significant amount of "lesser harm" in the long harm.

I know. It's hard to figure some of these things out.

Seriously, did you think that this would create a compelling argument? Citing, "Well, it's not questionable NOW" doesn't make it automatically correct. See my signature if you really want to pursue this line of logic.

The argument is that what we think is wrong or right is always changing, and that we have a reasonable process in place to deal with not having an absolute answer at any given time and place. It is likely that several of our currently acceptable practices will be looked upon as criminal in the future. Examples like slavery or not allowing women to vote serve to illustrate my point.

Doesn't mean I find it any less silly or disgusting when it's used to rationalize causing unnecessary pain to children.

But your characterization of "unnecessary" is due to the fact that you don't value religious principles. Finding value in religious principles also means that the pain would not be considered unnecessary (with qualification). Except that it is in this case because it can be avoided.

And disfiguring your child's penis isn't excessive because...?

Because you are assuming the characteristic under discussion.

Linda

 

[fls]

*Sigh* I guess I have to spell this out for you people, who obviously are so oblivious...

I didn't like being told that I was part of a "camp", which people like Linda and PonderingTurtle were just fine to point fingers at.

I did it in response, and seemed to get some offended remarks.

So apparently, you can do it to me, but I offend you when I do it to you.

Congrats, hypocrites.

I don't think anyone was offended. I was just pointing out that you put us into a camp, not based on our opinions, but based on not having the same reaction as you.

Linda

 

[Lonewulf]

But your characterization of "unnecessary" is due to the fact that you don't value religious principles.

Pretty much, yeah. That, and I don't think that religion gives you a license to hurt people -- any people, including children.

If you want to hurt yourself, alter yourself, or mess yourself up in the name of your religion, then please. Go ahead and do that. If you want to take drugs because it's part of your faith? Fine, whatever. Just clean up the mess when you're done.

But an infant born to a Jew does not believe in the Jewish faith. He doesn't believe in much at all; he's not mature or grown up enough to. He can't consent to the religion or the religious ideals, he can't consent to the activity, and he can't consent to the pain. He also cannot consent to the procedure that modifies his body permanently, for the rest of his life.

That is why I am opposed.

Finding value in religious principles also means that the pain would not be considered unnecessary (with qualification).

What qualifications are there? I heard Loss Leader hand wave something about it being bad to the Jewish race or somesuch, but I don't see anything quantifiable about that.

Because you are assuming the characteristic under discussion.

Please elaborate.

 

[fls]

They already give those reasons.
Do you need me to find a link on that?

Are you talking about countries where the practice continues but there has been a shift in where the daughters are taken to have it done? Since there (historically and presently) is a power-imbalance between the genders in these countries, I'm not sure women are really free to give consent or be free from coercion.

Linda

 

[fls]

What they really mean is "Excision of the clitoris most common. Excision of only the prepuce alone is not as frequent"?

What I'm saying is that it is not clear what they meant, given that their use of the term doesn't quite make sense there, whereas it does elsewhere. So I'd be inclined to pay more attention to the information that is not confusing.

Linda

 

[fls]

If we go with the idea that it removes all of the clitoris given the fact that the procedure doesn't have any significant affect on sexual activity and so on why does it matter if all or some it is removed? It's just after all a piece of tissue that has a high density of nerve endings (like the male foreskin).

I don't think either should be removed.

Linda

 

[kellyb]

What I'm saying is that it is not clear what they meant, given that their use of the term doesn't quite make sense there, whereas it does elsewhere. So I'd be inclined to pay more attention to the information that is not confusing.

Linda

How is this not clear???

In the majority of countries that have included
questions regarding type of FGM/C, excision
of the prepuce (Type 1) is found to be the most
common. Only in Burkina Faso is excision of the
clitoris (Type 2) found to be most frequent.

What am I missing?
That just seems extremely clear to me.

Do you think it was a misprint or something?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

...People are allowed to think that religious homeopathic principles have value, even if you don't agree. But the reason the other activities you mentioned weren't acceptable was because they were excessive, not because of the form of the justification.

Now obviously Linda, being the consistent person that you are, you are not going to insult homeopaths for their "values", are you?

Don't worry, when you do (again) I'm not going to accuse you of being intolerant and consider you scum not worthy of talking to.

 

[fls]

What qualifications are there? I heard Loss Leader hand wave something about it being bad to the Jewish race or somesuch, but I don't see anything quantifiable about that.

I would qualify my acceptance of how much pain could be considered necessary.

Please elaborate.

We are expected to have a negative reaction to abuse, multillation and disfigurement. These descriptions are applied to circumcision in order to indicate that we should be expected to have a negative reaction. The lack of a negative reaction isn't because we don't find abuse or mutillation or disfigurement bad, but because we don't associate those words with circumcision. To wonder why we don't find disfiguring a child's penis excessive is to ask us to assume it's disfiguring.

Linda