Circumcision

[Loss Leader]

Okay. So you're willing to remove body parts from your child because you want to, and you don't care if he would want that or not in the long term.

Got it.

No, I am willing to circumcise my son because he wants to be circumcised.

can abuse your children as long as you have religious justification. Got it.

Of course not. If it's not in your child's best interests, you can't do it no matter what it is.

get to choose what religion your son must believe?

Yup.

But I'm sure your preaching will have some effect. I'll go abuse my wife because Mohammad said I could, in the meantime.

Good luck with that, however it has nothing to do with circumcision. When I circumcise my child, I substitute my judgment for an incompetent loved one in his best interests. Maybe you can prove that your wife is a loved one, maybe you can even prove that abusing her is somehow in her best interests, however you cannot prove that your wife is incompetant to make her own decisions. Thus, you cannot impose your will on her without her explicit consent.

I'd like to see any purely religious ideas that have actually contributed to society.

What a foolish thing to say. Although, I have to admit that I like the way you dropped "purely" in there so that you can wriggle out of any answer I give by claiming it was not a "pure" religious idea, whatever that is. In any case, I never stated that a religious idea had to be "pure" to contribute to society. So, you have introduced a strawman and a subtle True Scotsman into the argument.

In any case, most of your better architectural developments came about in the building of temples (Parthanon), burial sites (Pryamids) and churches (Notre Dame). One of the first great examples of vanishing perspective in art was a religious painting of the last supper. And the largest centralized organization in the middle ages was a church.

Clear and convincing? People already cited studies that demonstrate that circumcision is painful, and that there is a function (no matter how slight) that is permanently removed.

I'm sorry, I fell asleep out of boredom.

One of my opinions is that you cannot force your religion on others.

You're doing that to your child. And you don't care.

I wouldn't like to live in your world of abuse excuse.

You claim that raising one's child in one's religion is equal to forcing one's religion on others. This claim is bizarre. It is at odds with the most fundamental principles of privacy and family on which this country was founded. It demonstrates a complete and utter lack of knowledge or appreciation for the very core principles of western civilization. It is almost fundamentalist in its pathetic insistance that your subjective beliefs are somehow objectively correct for all people.

I am very, very glad that you have absolutely no effect on the workings of this nation.

They don't care about anything except converting other people and choosing what religion they have to follow.

The people I'm "converting" are my own sons. The disconect with reality that is necessary for you to maintain this position is frightening.

 

[Darat]

Folks - remember we are in the science section, religious discussions elsewhere please.

 

[3point14]

LossLeader, I'd still loike, if you have the time, a response to my two posts below.

What you seem to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that it is simply a question of faith?

I can respect that without understanding it.

The trouble I have then is how far does the 'trump card' of 'faith' allow one to go in the treatment of one's offspring?

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.

Please?

 

[Lonewulf]

Okay, so people like Loss Leader can't use religious defenses for a barbaric practice.

So what scientific ones do we have to work with, again?

 

[Lonewulf]

No, I am willing to circumcise my son because he wants to be circumcised.

Lol. This is the funniest thing I've seen all day long.

Okay, Mr. Psychic.

Of course not. If it's not in your child's best interests, you can't do it no matter what it is.

Then I contend that choosing your child's faith for him is not in his best interests.

Yup.

Yeap, that's pretty much all I had to see before deciding on whether or not I should ignore you.

I am very, very glad that you have absolutely no effect on the workings of this nation.

Ditto.

The people I'm "converting" are my own sons. The disconect with reality that is necessary for you to maintain this position is frightening.

Ah, right. If it's your own children, you can choose what they think, what they believe, everything about them. Or you're psychic and can see the future, so you know exactly what they'll want later on in your life.

Dawkins was right on this topic. I'm just sorry that you're so close-minded, you'll never see it.

I'm out of this discussion now. Toodle-oo, enjoy deciding what people have to believe just because they were born to you. I'm glad I wasn't.

 

[Morrigan]

Neither, apparently, is circumcision... What a strange world we live in.

Umm, not quite. Foreskin regrowth is a very modern development, and it appears that it's never quite the same as the original. To claim it is not a permanent alteration is disingenuous.

Which is why I said 'alleged' increase.

That doesn't work.
Look, here's what you said again: Circumcised men also last longer - probably from the alleged reduced sensitivity - thereby providing more pleasure to their partners, from some studies, IIRC.

So, what do we have? Either: circumcised men last longer (benefit), or they don't (no benefit).
If they DO last longer, it's certainly because the lack of foreskin has an actual physical effect. It's, according to you, "probably because of the reduced sensitivity". If this reduced sensitivity is uncertain and only "alleged", well... then what DOES cause this effect? Maybe something else. But then, you would have to admit that the foreskin is not a useless piece of skin that does nothing, since removing it apparently has an effect. I repeat: can't have it both ways.

You could at least try to control your immature hostility, and read what was actually written.

I read what was written. I saw bias and inconsistency all over it and called you on it. This isn't "immature hostility", it's telling it like it is.

Nor did I claim that it was.

Okay, but then you used this anecdote for what, if not to support your position? If you were just doing idle chatter, fine. But it appeared that you wanted to use your anecdote to support your claims, and thus using the anecdote as evidence.

But, as usual, the anti-circ crowd immediately jumps to over-emotional attacks, ad-homs, and other fallacies, rather than simply discussing the issue reasonably.

Look who's talking. You overreact to a mere accusation of bias (over-emotional ) by not only putting me in some "crowd", but then painting the whole "crowd" with the same brush. Your hypocrisy is rather blatant...

Wait, did you just seriously claim that exposing children to elevated levels of UVA/B radiation is not a permanent, medical alteration that could cause deleterious effects in the future? I'm sure many medical doctors will strongly disagree with you on that.

No. Frequently taking the kids to the tanning salon might indeed have permanent effects, but taking them once a year is probably not a big deal. I could be wrong. In any case, if the parent is taking his child to the tanning salon frequently enough that it has permanent effects, against the child's will, then I would say it is indeed wrong, and child abuse.

Other potentially harmful things that parents do:
* Feed children too much fast food
* Give children sedatives
* Putting braces on children

I'm not saying I'm pro-circumcision, but frankly I haven't seen any evidence that doing so is more harmful to a child's physical and mental state than any of the above.

Are you serious with the example of braces? Braces serve a purpose, and are eventually removed. That's the whole point, the permanent damage. Hell, even a fat kid can (most of the time) become slim again, though I also very much dislike parents overfeeding their children.

Edited to add: my point is that parents make irreversible medical decisions for their children all the time, with potentially dangerous effects. Does this make them bad people or bad parents for not waiting until their children are 12 or older to decide anything? No, it's their job to make these sorts of decisions.

And it's not society's job to determine when these parents go too far. That's why there are no rules against various forms of child abuse and... oh wait.

This is my favorite straw-man. Traditionally, when males are circumcised, it's a rite of passage, or a step towards "Manhood" and all the rights that entails. In cultures where women are circumcised, it's to mark them as property, to prevent them from giving away their virginity before it can be sold, or to punish them for some infraction or another.

This is actually completely false. So, there is no strawman at all. Read the data that was provided, and please reconsider your position.

It is wrong to stick your nose into how other people treat their children, unless such treatment includes physical, mental, emotional, or sexual abuse, as defined by the prevalent culture. Since circumcision is not considered a form of abuse, the anti-circ crime is guilty of sticking their noses into other people's business, where it doesn't belong.

....

"My culture is acceptant of slavery, and defines it as normal and expected. Therefore, don't tell me to stop, because you are sticking your nose in my business."

 

[Lonewulf]

"My culture is acceptant of slavery, and defines it as normal and expected. Therefore, don't tell me to stop, because you are sticking your nose in my business."

Don't even try, Morrigan. It just doesn't work. They tend to ignore that line of argument.

 

[Darat]

Sorry for the messing about with the thread on review it's obvious this is a thread that should have been in the "Social issues..." section from the beginning, so I've moved it into this section and merged back in the posts I'd split to a new thread in the "Religious...." section.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Lonewulf]

Alright, to continue...

 

[Loss Leader]

Mr. Psychic.

I'm not a psychic. I substitute my loving judgement for my son in his best interests. What I want is what he wants.

Then I contend that choosing your child's faith for him is not in his best interests.

In making that contention, you stand almost comlpetely alone while the entire mass of western civilization, both past and present, disagrees with you. You will find absolutely no safe harbor in any statute or the decision of any tribunal since the founding of the US. And since determining what is in a child's best interests is, at heart, a social function, your contention is as meaningless as the weight a fly adds to Mt. Everest.

 

[Loss Leader]

"My culture is acceptant of slavery, and defines it as normal and expected. Therefore, don't tell me to stop, because you are sticking your nose in my business."

Once again, substituted judgement involves making decisions for an incompetent relative in his best interests.

Slavery is not in a slave's best interests.

And even if it were, the slave is not incompetent to make his own decisions.

And even if he were, the slaveholder is not the relative of the slave.

 

[3point14]

Once again, substituted judgement involves making decisions for an incompetent relative in his best interests.

Slavery is not in a slave's best interests.

And even if it were, the slave is not incompetent to make his own decisions.

And even if he were, the slaveholder is not the relative of the slave.

I think you're confusing the 'I choose what's best for my child' argument and the 'You may not intefere in my culture' argument.

 

[Lonewulf]

And I firmly believe that it is not in a child's best interest to decide what his religious beliefs are before he is of mind to choose for himself.

 

[Lonewulf]

I think you're confusing the 'I choose what's best for my child' argument and the 'You may not intefere in my culture' argument.

Looks like there's two of us that live in a dull and monolithic world, eh?

ETA: Woop! With Darat's post below, that's three of us now.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

In making that contention, you stand almost comlpetely alone while the entire mass of western civilization, both past and present, disagrees with you. You will find absolutely no safe harbor in any statute or the decision of any tribunal since the founding of the US. And since determining what is in a child's best interests is, at heart, a social function, your contention is as meaningless as the weight a fly adds to Mt. Everest.

That could have been said about pretty much every single thing we now consider a "right" that is enjoyed by the majority of people today. I suspect, even if it is not the case today, the USA will (like most countries in the EU already have done) move to a position of accepting a child has rights not arising from their parents and those rights are much more important that the so-called "rights" a parent can exercise over a child.

Put simply children, even babies who have to have decisions made on their behalf are not the property of the parent and the rights of that baby come before the "rights" of the parents.

 

[Loss Leader]

I suspect, even if it is not the case today, the USA will (like most countries in the EU already have done) move to a position of accepting a child has rights not arising from their parents and those rights are much more important that the so-called "rights" a parent can exercise over a child.

This is the current state of the law and has been for something on the order of two hundred years.

Children have all of the same rights as adults. They are not the property of their parents. They haven't been since sometime in the seventeen hundreds.

However, children are also incompetent. They cannot exercise their rights. They don't know how to do so and they certainly don't know how to do so responsibly. Many children are not even aware that they have rights. Many children cannot even pronounce the word "rights."

The rights of children (and all incompetent people) do not just disappear. Instead, they fall to their loved ones. One's parent (or spouse or even child) becomes the custodian of those rights. That person exercises the incompetent person's rights for him.

The state has an interest in protecting incompetent people, as well. Thus, the state will step in when it is clear that a person is not acting in the best interests of the incompetent. But this is very rare. The government has neither the time nor ability to take over the lives of every single incompetent person in the country. There are something like fifty million of them.

Put simply children, even babies who have to have decisions made on their behalf are not the property of the parent and the rights of that baby come before the "rights" of the parents.

Your statement adequately sets out the current state of the law. Adopting this philosophy would do nothing to change the question of circumcision because it is already the philosophy in place in the western world.

 

[Walrus32]

Some years ago I attended a bris in the nursery of a local hospital. As I recall, the mohel used a butterfly clamp through which he pulled the foreskin, obviously leaving a considerable amount of foreskin still covering the glans penis. After the family had left the room, the mohel pulled out a couple of cotton balls and a bottle of epinephrine solution. As he dabbed the wound, he winked at me and said, "As you know, this is handy for stopping bleeding".

It seems that the usual impression of the goyim about Jewish ritual circumcision may be inaccurate, since most newborn circumcisions of gentiles are done using a Gomko clamp, which removes essentially all of the foreskin (and sadly, sometimes a lot more).

A final thought - this argument has been raging as long as I can remember ( a very long time) and for a very long time before that, with no clear resolution as to the benefits or lack thereof - at least not from a medical point of view. That probably means it's a toss-up.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Your statement adequately sets out the current state of the law. Adopting this philosophy would do nothing to change the question of circumcision because it is already the philosophy in place in the western world.

Yes it would. For example in the UK and most EU countries parents can no longer refuse on behalf of their child required medical treatment for any reason whether that be religious or not because society no longer accepts that a parent has such a right.

 

[3point14]

Loss Leader,

Could I please have some sort of response to my post no. 363 above.

Even if it's just to tell me that my logic is stupid, or my point isn't relevant, or that you just think that it's a point that's not worth responding to.

Kindly,

Pi.

 

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader,

Could I please have some sort of response to my post no. 363 above.

Even if it's just to tell me that my logic is stupid, or my point isn't relevant, or that you just think that it's a point that's not worth responding to.

Kindly,

Pi.

I have adequately addressed you questions throughout this thread. The state's interest in the best interests of children means that interventions with dubious benefit but clear drawbacks will not generally be tolerated. Though foot binding might provide some social benefit, its obvious deleterious effects on the physical abilities of the hobbled girls would probably make it unacceptable. You may apply this test to the other practices you mentioned and try to guess what a court might do if faced with the situation.