Time to end circumcision?
- Thread starter Tmy
- Start date
Smalso
Unregistered
S
I disagree. They do not have any such "right." They have the power.
And many do not.
Keerect! And about time, too.
Sure they do. They are beaten, starved, sexually abused, kidnapped, murdered.... Just because they are helpless and dependent on adults does not make these things right; and it doesn't make the mutilation of their genitals--or any other part of their bodies--right.
Absolutely no judicial system in the world agrees with this view
Well, I don't see any sense in rushing headlong into the 19th century.
Smalso
Unregistered
S
So children have no rights because they have no power. And the poor and unfortunate have no rights as human beings because the state gives them no power. The people of Iraq have no rights as human beings because the state, under Saddam's regime, does not empower them. Interesting point of view.
Smalso wrote:
So children have no rights because they have no power. And the poor and unfortunate have no rights as human beings because the state gives them no power. The people of Iraq have no rights as human beings because the state, under Saddam's regime, does not empower them. Interesting point of view.
You are erecting strawmen left and right here, creating false dichotomies, as well.
I think I'm at the end of this discussion, if want to jump into a discussion of children's rights, State authority over citizens, etc. go ahead and create a thread on them, if you wish. I will contribute, if I can.
So children have no rights because they have no power. And the poor and unfortunate have no rights as human beings because the state gives them no power. The people of Iraq have no rights as human beings because the state, under Saddam's regime, does not empower them. Interesting point of view.
You are erecting strawmen left and right here, creating false dichotomies, as well.
I think I'm at the end of this discussion, if want to jump into a discussion of children's rights, State authority over citizens, etc. go ahead and create a thread on them, if you wish. I will contribute, if I can.
Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
Christian
Thinbk about it; just draw the parallel with FGM, which we aren't acculturated to accept unquestioningly. Maybe you will realize what a barbarous practice circumcision is.
Some reasoning! They have other things done without permission, so circumcision is OK as well. You know, if I mug you, then me breaking your legs will be OK as well... as long as i am mugging you anyway, you see...
In USA, any form of female genital mutilation is illegal; this includes removal of clitoral hood, which procedure is anatomically equivalent to male circumcision. In fact, the language of the law on this matter is pretty strong... it surely wouldn't be enough to make minor FGM legal on infants, if it was found to have some minor eventual health benefits to adults.
Thinbk about it; just draw the parallel with FGM, which we aren't acculturated to accept unquestioningly. Maybe you will realize what a barbarous practice circumcision is.
yes, and if it's something non-trivial and irreversible, they should get mad at their parents fo rit. had my parents tattooed me, i would be mad too!
Some reasoning! They have other things done without permission, so circumcision is OK as well. You know, if I mug you, then me breaking your legs will be OK as well... as long as i am mugging you anyway, you see...
And many don't. The point is that, absent clear and compelling medical reason to the contrary, child's rights should take precedence over parents' whims.
Smalso
Unregistered
S
Christian:
Nope. Just carrying your reasoning to its logical (to me) conclusion. If you wish to refute my viewpoint, feel free. If not, that's fine, too. As for quitting this discussion, I think I will, too. You are not going to change my opinion, nor I yours. You may have the last word if you wish.
Nope. Just carrying your reasoning to its logical (to me) conclusion. If you wish to refute my viewpoint, feel free. If not, that's fine, too. As for quitting this discussion, I think I will, too. You are not going to change my opinion, nor I yours. You may have the last word if you wish.
Victor Danilchenko said:
Absolutely agree Victor.
In the UK only a small minority of children are circumcised, mostly I think by religous wierdo's.
I cannot recall a whisper of a suggestion that failure to circumcise carries any health risk for males. Our son was born in Belgium and the paedaetrician(sp?) never raised the issue. It's just never mentioned.
A priori the foreskin is unlikely to come as standard equipment without a good reason. That benefit may only be physical protection but perhaps research will establish other benefits in the future.
As regards those guys who say "I haven't got one and I'm OK". How can they possibly know what they are missing?
blackpriester
Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 226
Hazelip said:
The secret is to use it properly, so the foreskin gets aired out in regular intervals
. To get serious again: If it were so dangerous and urethral infections would occur so much more, we should see that in the medical statistics of, let's say Germany, where next to nobody gets circumsized (or anywhere else in Europe for that matter). Does anybody have information on how Germany compares with the US regarding UIs?Ove
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 2,945
Just to add my opinion here. In Denmark like in the rest of Europe children are NOT circumsized unless the parents (religious) beliefs demands this. To the best of my knowledge there are not any difference in the occurrence of penile and other types of cancer in Europe compared to USA.
To the best of my knowledge the wawe of circumsizion was started by some (greedy) American surgeons who wanted to make a fast buck. They succeded in convincing people that uncircumsized faired higher risks of disease.
Christian you MIGHT have a point that it could be preferrable to carry on chopping in countries where hygeine standards are low but really it sounds loke a hollow argument to me. There are at least a dozen other things you could use the same money to, that would save considerable more lives. Clean drinking water f.inst. or better sanitasion.
Kick out the Catolics and get people to use condoms, BOY would that save lives (and misery in the over populated citicies). I get sick every time i see poor people faithfully coming to their church every Sunday with their 8 to 10 children.
I am circumsized myself. I had it done a couple of years ago because my foreskin "crept", basically i couldnt retract the foreskin without great pain. I had only a partial circumsition though and boy am i happy. I still have enough foreskin to cover the head (at least in relaxed mode) and that is fine.
I tried the other situation in the weeks after the surgery and it was sheer hell. Not just the woonds but the exposed head rubbing against my shorts. I wore the LARGEST pair of boxer shorts i could find and still it was irritating.
IT IS a violation of childrens rights. IF you use your arguments i would also have the right to tattoo my children or have children sterilized if they had mental defects f.inst. You are on a slippery slope there. True, parents have rights but they have at least as many responsibilities.
To the best of my knowledge the wawe of circumsizion was started by some (greedy) American surgeons who wanted to make a fast buck. They succeded in convincing people that uncircumsized faired higher risks of disease.
Christian you MIGHT have a point that it could be preferrable to carry on chopping in countries where hygeine standards are low but really it sounds loke a hollow argument to me. There are at least a dozen other things you could use the same money to, that would save considerable more lives. Clean drinking water f.inst. or better sanitasion.
Kick out the Catolics and get people to use condoms, BOY would that save lives (and misery in the over populated citicies). I get sick every time i see poor people faithfully coming to their church every Sunday with their 8 to 10 children.
I am circumsized myself. I had it done a couple of years ago because my foreskin "crept", basically i couldnt retract the foreskin without great pain. I had only a partial circumsition though and boy am i happy. I still have enough foreskin to cover the head (at least in relaxed mode) and that is fine.
I tried the other situation in the weeks after the surgery and it was sheer hell. Not just the woonds but the exposed head rubbing against my shorts. I wore the LARGEST pair of boxer shorts i could find and still it was irritating.
IT IS a violation of childrens rights. IF you use your arguments i would also have the right to tattoo my children or have children sterilized if they had mental defects f.inst. You are on a slippery slope there. True, parents have rights but they have at least as many responsibilities.
GovtSlave
Unregistered
G
Didn't see this posted yet (may have just missed it):
http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZ6HG9QE8C&sub_cat=4
American Academy of Pediatrics says: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."
This is a hard issue for me because the man I want to marry thinks circumcision should be done. I'm not sure why he thinks this, except that he had it done, and thinks everything is fine, and views my criticism of circumcision as a criticism of him.
My only experiences that can be used as arguments...
Neither of my brothers were circumsized- not for any good reason but just because there father wasn't. Neither of them have had any problems, mom showed them how to clean it early, and it's been no problem at all for either of them.
I've dated both circ'd and uncirc'd men. Though my current SO is circumsized, and I'd never consider it a huge issue, I definitely enjoyed relations more with the uncirc'd man. Absolutely no contest in that department.
My biggest reason for being opposed to it is simply that I don't think I should decide for anyone to remove parts of their body. It may be "harmless" and not cause any real "problems"- but if it were me I'd want to decide that for myself. I also believe that removing body parts of babies is a way of criticizing God. IF you believe that God made people, cutting off the foreskin is like saying "God made people wrong" and that he made a mistake or is imperfect. I know, I'm supposed to be a skeptic and all, but I do believe in God (just not religion, LOL)
I don't know what's going to happen when/if we have children, because I really feel strongly about this. And apparently he does too.
http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZ6HG9QE8C&sub_cat=4
American Academy of Pediatrics says: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."
This is a hard issue for me because the man I want to marry thinks circumcision should be done. I'm not sure why he thinks this, except that he had it done, and thinks everything is fine, and views my criticism of circumcision as a criticism of him.
My only experiences that can be used as arguments...
Neither of my brothers were circumsized- not for any good reason but just because there father wasn't. Neither of them have had any problems, mom showed them how to clean it early, and it's been no problem at all for either of them.
I've dated both circ'd and uncirc'd men. Though my current SO is circumsized, and I'd never consider it a huge issue, I definitely enjoyed relations more with the uncirc'd man. Absolutely no contest in that department.
My biggest reason for being opposed to it is simply that I don't think I should decide for anyone to remove parts of their body. It may be "harmless" and not cause any real "problems"- but if it were me I'd want to decide that for myself. I also believe that removing body parts of babies is a way of criticizing God. IF you believe that God made people, cutting off the foreskin is like saying "God made people wrong" and that he made a mistake or is imperfect. I know, I'm supposed to be a skeptic and all, but I do believe in God (just not religion, LOL)
I don't know what's going to happen when/if we have children, because I really feel strongly about this. And apparently he does too.
Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
GovtSlave
Don't criticize circumcision, criticize parents' right to do it to an infant; criticize the fact that the infant is denied his own choice at a later date.
really? interesting. What made the difference for you?
Exactly. make it very clear that it's not circumcision that you are criticizing. Comapre it to a tatoo -- tatoos are perfectly OK, but not when they are done without the subject's choice.
Victor wrote:
In USA, any form of female genital mutilation is illegal; this includes removal of clitoral hood, which procedure is anatomically equivalent to male circumcision. In fact, the language of the law on this matter is pretty strong... it surely wouldn't be enough to make minor FGM legal on infants, if it was found to have some minor eventual health benefits to adults.
Yes, of course. I have not spoken about female circumcision, only male.
Now, on male circumcision is legal in every single State in the world.
Thinbk about it; just draw the parallel with FGM, which we aren't acculturated to accept unquestioningly. Maybe you will realize what a barbarous practice circumcision is.
Your view and parallel is not accepted anywhere in any judicial system in the world. Think about that. There isn't a single body of legislators in the world that agrees with you.
yes, and if it's something non-trivial and irreversible, they should get mad at their parents fo rit. had my parents tattooed me, i would be mad too!
Again, these comparisons are not warranted.
Parents have to make many important decisions for their children that can/wil affect their lives in multiples ways in the future. Three obvious examples.
1. The school(s) that our parents chooses for us is a crucial decision.
2. If we are injured, what type of treatment, surgery, etc. is decided by them
3. Where we will live is chosen by our parents (our environment)
This decision and many others, I think, have much more impact.
All States in the world recognize these responsibilties and parents right to decide. The same with circumcision.
Some reasoning! They have other things done without permission, so circumcision is OK as well. You know, if I mug you, then me breaking your legs will be OK as well... as long as i am mugging you anyway, you see...
The logic does not follow here at all because absolutely no legal system considers circumcision an infringment on the dignity of a child.
And many don't. The point is that, absent clear and compelling medical reason to the contrary, child's rights should take precedence over parents' whims.
This is your opinion and I respect it. It is not the opinion, not of the mayority, of all legal systems in the world.
According to *all* of them, parents have the right to decide whether their male children will be circumcised or not. This choice to decide is universal.
So think about that.
Nikk wrote:
In the UK only a small minority of children are circumcised, mostly I think by religous wierdo's.
And it is a legal right in the UK for parents to decide.
Yes, the wierdo's and all who profess Judaism.
Ove wrote:
IT IS a violation of childrens rights. IF you use your arguments i would also have the right to tattoo my children or have children sterilized if they had mental defects f.inst. You are on a slippery slope there. True, parents have rights but they have at least as many responsibilities.
No, you are *factually* wrong. Circumcision does not violate children's rights. There is not one single law in the world that gives them this protection. No slippery slope here.
Parents universally have the right to choose this, children do not. If you want to argue that they should have the right, then that is a whole different thing. But, currently they do not, anywhere in the world.
In USA, any form of female genital mutilation is illegal; this includes removal of clitoral hood, which procedure is anatomically equivalent to male circumcision. In fact, the language of the law on this matter is pretty strong... it surely wouldn't be enough to make minor FGM legal on infants, if it was found to have some minor eventual health benefits to adults.
Yes, of course. I have not spoken about female circumcision, only male.
Now, on male circumcision is legal in every single State in the world.
Thinbk about it; just draw the parallel with FGM, which we aren't acculturated to accept unquestioningly. Maybe you will realize what a barbarous practice circumcision is.
Your view and parallel is not accepted anywhere in any judicial system in the world. Think about that. There isn't a single body of legislators in the world that agrees with you.
yes, and if it's something non-trivial and irreversible, they should get mad at their parents fo rit. had my parents tattooed me, i would be mad too!
Again, these comparisons are not warranted.
Parents have to make many important decisions for their children that can/wil affect their lives in multiples ways in the future. Three obvious examples.
1. The school(s) that our parents chooses for us is a crucial decision.
2. If we are injured, what type of treatment, surgery, etc. is decided by them
3. Where we will live is chosen by our parents (our environment)
This decision and many others, I think, have much more impact.
All States in the world recognize these responsibilties and parents right to decide. The same with circumcision.
Some reasoning! They have other things done without permission, so circumcision is OK as well. You know, if I mug you, then me breaking your legs will be OK as well... as long as i am mugging you anyway, you see...
The logic does not follow here at all because absolutely no legal system considers circumcision an infringment on the dignity of a child.
And many don't. The point is that, absent clear and compelling medical reason to the contrary, child's rights should take precedence over parents' whims.
This is your opinion and I respect it. It is not the opinion, not of the mayority, of all legal systems in the world.
According to *all* of them, parents have the right to decide whether their male children will be circumcised or not. This choice to decide is universal.
So think about that.
Nikk wrote:
In the UK only a small minority of children are circumcised, mostly I think by religous wierdo's.
And it is a legal right in the UK for parents to decide.
Yes, the wierdo's and all who profess Judaism.
Ove wrote:
IT IS a violation of childrens rights. IF you use your arguments i would also have the right to tattoo my children or have children sterilized if they had mental defects f.inst. You are on a slippery slope there. True, parents have rights but they have at least as many responsibilities.
No, you are *factually* wrong. Circumcision does not violate children's rights. There is not one single law in the world that gives them this protection. No slippery slope here.
Parents universally have the right to choose this, children do not. If you want to argue that they should have the right, then that is a whole different thing. But, currently they do not, anywhere in the world.
Kuorama wrote:
This means nothing. The number of people who believe something is so has no bearing on wether or not it is so.
Oh, but this is not simply numbers. This is all the legal minds in the world.
A parallel, if all scientists were to agree on a particular conclusion, don't you think it would be foolish to conclude it means nothing?
clearly
Yes, ironic
This means nothing. The number of people who believe something is so has no bearing on wether or not it is so.
Oh, but this is not simply numbers. This is all the legal minds in the world.
A parallel, if all scientists were to agree on a particular conclusion, don't you think it would be foolish to conclude it means nothing?
clearly
Yes, ironic
Christian said:
Do you believe that females are more worthy of legal protection than males?
And at one time there were no laws against slavery anywhere in the world. Did that make it right?
There is a serious difference here. If a child is injured, the choice of treatment cannot be put off until the child is old enough to make his own decision. Same for school and environment. With circumcision this is not the case. The child can and should be allowed to choose for himself when he is an adult.
That depends on whether you believe in natural rights or that all rights are granted by the government. If the latter, then you are right, but then you basically are assuming the government is always right and the concept of a government violating anyone's rights is meaningless.
Christian said:
I think the reason it is not made illegal is because there would be civil unrest if it were to be recognized as the ugliness that it is.
All the legal minds of the world at one time determined that females weren't capable of electing a government (OK, that's a hyperbole, but the point is still correct). Most scientists in the world at one point concluded it was flat.
In any case, I'm not saying it means nothing, but what does it mean? Well, there's the civil unrest business I mentioned, the political clout of religions, the general attitude towards it...
There's not enough political power in the hands of groups like NOHARMM to change the law, but it really should be changed IMO.
Advocate wrote:
Do you believe that females are more worthy of legal protection than males?
I believe legal protection depends on the circumstances of individuals or groups. Females, in many instances, have more protection than males. Just think of children's custody cases.
Blacks in the US have more legal protection than whites. Illegal immigrants have less protection than residents.
Protection of the law is based on circumstances.
And at one time there were no laws against slavery anywhere in the world. Did that make it right?
So, are you willing to argue that there has been no progression in jurisprudence as to compare both moments in history?
There is a serious difference here. If a child is injured, the choice of treatment cannot be put off until the child is old enough to make his own decision. Same for school and environment. With circumcision this is not the case. The child can and should be allowed to choose for himself when he is an adult.
Yes, I understand completely the reasoning. What I'm saying is that this reasoning is not shared by the legal system in regards to parental rights.
That depends on whether you believe in natural rights or that all rights are granted by the government. If the latter, then you are right, but then you basically are assuming the government is always right and the concept of a government violating anyone's rights is meaningless.
It is not a matter of believing or not. As it stands today, most States are governed by the rule of law. The only rights we have are those that the State grants. We might not like to hear that, but it is the truth.
Now, your conclusion is erroneos, the fact that the State grants rights in no way means I believe in the infallibility of the State. To believe that would be naive.
The key thing to remember is that most governments have come to a progression where natural rights have been incorporated into the fundamental prescription of law.
If someone wants to argue that sooner or later legislator will come to their senses on circumcision, that is fine. But, then, they would have to explain why, at this stage the development of justice and its branches, they have not.
To me, that is a dificult sell.
Do you believe that females are more worthy of legal protection than males?
I believe legal protection depends on the circumstances of individuals or groups. Females, in many instances, have more protection than males. Just think of children's custody cases.
Blacks in the US have more legal protection than whites. Illegal immigrants have less protection than residents.
Protection of the law is based on circumstances.
And at one time there were no laws against slavery anywhere in the world. Did that make it right?
So, are you willing to argue that there has been no progression in jurisprudence as to compare both moments in history?
There is a serious difference here. If a child is injured, the choice of treatment cannot be put off until the child is old enough to make his own decision. Same for school and environment. With circumcision this is not the case. The child can and should be allowed to choose for himself when he is an adult.
Yes, I understand completely the reasoning. What I'm saying is that this reasoning is not shared by the legal system in regards to parental rights.
That depends on whether you believe in natural rights or that all rights are granted by the government. If the latter, then you are right, but then you basically are assuming the government is always right and the concept of a government violating anyone's rights is meaningless.
It is not a matter of believing or not. As it stands today, most States are governed by the rule of law. The only rights we have are those that the State grants. We might not like to hear that, but it is the truth.
Now, your conclusion is erroneos, the fact that the State grants rights in no way means I believe in the infallibility of the State. To believe that would be naive.
The key thing to remember is that most governments have come to a progression where natural rights have been incorporated into the fundamental prescription of law.
If someone wants to argue that sooner or later legislator will come to their senses on circumcision, that is fine. But, then, they would have to explain why, at this stage the development of justice and its branches, they have not.
To me, that is a dificult sell.
Kuorama wrote:
I think the reason it is not made illegal is because there would be civil unrest if it were to be recognized as the ugliness that it is.
This is an interesting theory. But, in every State? Don't you think that there would be at least one place in the world where most everyone would agree with your view.
Remember the poster from the UK, this person said the mayority don't do it. I'm sure this is how it is in most of Europe. So, in those places it is the reverse of what you think. The legislators are protecting the minority. The *weirdos* the poster said.
All the legal minds of the world at one time determined that females weren't capable of electing a government (OK, that's a hyperbole, but the point is still correct). Most scientists in the world at one point concluded it was flat.
Yes, they did and now they don't. Clearly a progression has occurred. Please give the legal minds that benefit of the doubt that they have progressed as well.
There's not enough political power in the hands of groups like NOHARMM to change the law, but it really should be changed IMO.
As I said, most government in Europe are secular. What explanation can there be in these countries?
I think the reason it is not made illegal is because there would be civil unrest if it were to be recognized as the ugliness that it is.
This is an interesting theory. But, in every State? Don't you think that there would be at least one place in the world where most everyone would agree with your view.
Remember the poster from the UK, this person said the mayority don't do it. I'm sure this is how it is in most of Europe. So, in those places it is the reverse of what you think. The legislators are protecting the minority. The *weirdos* the poster said.
All the legal minds of the world at one time determined that females weren't capable of electing a government (OK, that's a hyperbole, but the point is still correct). Most scientists in the world at one point concluded it was flat.
Yes, they did and now they don't. Clearly a progression has occurred. Please give the legal minds that benefit of the doubt that they have progressed as well.
There's not enough political power in the hands of groups like NOHARMM to change the law, but it really should be changed IMO.
As I said, most government in Europe are secular. What explanation can there be in these countries?