quote:I think that banning circumcision is a much greater violation of human rights than circumcising a child.
Comparison, a little weird maybe. It's a tradition to eat meat on certain Holidays. I can imagine that in perceivable future there could be a ruling that forbids to kill/eat animals.
I'm not aware that circumcision has been banned, or attempted to be banned. Circumcision performed on someone who cannot consent, however...well, when you put it that way (which is actually the truth) the rhetoric loses a bit of its pizazz, yes? As for the comparison, it's not weird, it's just a bad comparison. Are you seriously claiming that we should be concerned a court somewhere will outlaw omnivorous human eating?
quote:I would rebel against a state that forbids me to eat meat. Animal rights aside - no government has the right to tell me what is right and what is wrong.
I'm beginning to think you're hysterical, dude-as in having hysterics. Of course government has some right to decide what is right and wrong. Government tells you murder is wrong, along with so many other things, and doesn't ask your opinion as an individual-and you don't think you have a right to offer one, because it never occurs to you-of course murder is wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hysterical! Rakeesh, cut my some slack. I just think that stopping a thousands year long tradition over something so trivial (in comparison) is not only wrong, but it is also a great blow for world culture and heritage. Like, kids learning in 2112: Circumcision was there since forever and then bam! in 2012 it is no more, after one ruling.
I like tradition and old stuff. I like to go to a pub that I know that's been open for business for four hundred years. We should preserve what little is left of the old stuff, even if it's a little weird or controversial. What I like about Judaism is how little changed.
Another comparison, maybe better, this time. It's like women priests in Catholic church. I wouldn't mind if it weren't for tradition. Or priests getting married- I think they could even be better priests as a group- without all that sexual tension, knowing everyday human problems from autopsy and so on and so forth. But still- they shouldn't get married. For tradition's sake.
The circumcision thing is obviously something a little different, I know, because everyone should definitely have the right to decide whether or not have a piece of his penis cut off. But still, I want my world to have thousand-year-long traditions that are interesting/odd/funny and represent things that were important to people in ancient times and still are, after so long.
My meat comparison sucked, I give you that.
And the government sure has the duty to tell what's right and wrong, but they went well over the line here.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Perhaps you would like to rephrase your argument in a way that doesn't utterly privilege custom you approve of and the status quo?
Okay, that isn't -all- it has to be. Tiny exaggeration. Speaking of exaggerations...
I'm assuming that you are not actually comparing eating babies with circumcision.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone asked me to circumcise my child. Repeatedly.
In fact, my Dad just mentioned it again last weekend. (My son is EIGHT now, btw.)
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:...they are asking me to do something to a child that makes me go, really? Why is this necessary? It's not like you'll even SEE it. No thanks. There's other communities that would welcome someone without cutting off part of them.
This has actually happened to you? Someone asked you to circumcise your child?
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Oh, I have no doubt it happens. I was just really surprised it had happened to Syn.
Hobbes
Last I heard, Syn had no children so I'm fairly confident it hasn't happened to her.
It's quite common for grandparents and other members of extended families to pressure parents to do all kinds of things to, for and on behalf of their young children. Circumcision is hardly unique in this regard.
I've browsed the medical literature on the subject and I haven't found any evidence for either a significant harm or benefit for infant circumcision. Serious complications resulting from circumcision and serious urological problems associated with an uncircumcised foreskin are roughly equally common.
Nothing in the scientific or medical literature indicates a problem that would even remotely justify criminalizing an observance required by two major world religions.
[ July 16, 2012, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not aware that circumcision has been banned, or attempted to be banned.
The current legal situation in Germany is essentially a de-facto ban of circumcision within that country.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For consenting adults, or even minors in say the double digits? Does this ban apply even to people who actually consent to have it done, on their own bodies? If so, that's of course a problem.
Like I said, very very few people will grow up and much care that their parents had them circumcised as infants, and even though I believe that's clearly a cultural thong it remains true, so I'm not clamoring for it to be restricted or banned elsewhere. But if what Rabbit says is true, then the medical reasons for circumcision are basically a wash-and that means it is-setting religion aside-permanent, irreversible cosmetic surgery performed on someone who cannot consent.
I think that's a problem. It's not a serious problem because almost every single person who ever has it done will consent after the fact by being unconcerned by it. But I'll pose my question to you directly: if I were to declare that God commanded me as a sign of faith between Him and myself and descendants, that I must have the last knuckle of my son's middle toes removed soon after birth, should I be permitted to do so? If so, why or if not why not? It's not intended as a zinger or gotcha question, either, but a very serious one since the situation seems very similar to me.
Someone with medical expertise can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the long term medical consequences to such a surgery if performed professionally would likely be nil in an overwhelming number of cases. Likewise I think very few people would ever notice or care about the what I suspect would be a trivial impact on balance. That leaves the situation effectively identical: cosmetic surgery performed on someone who cannot consent, when they could have consented or declined later if asked.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems entirely analogous to me, in the morally relevant respects.
As far as the broader question about hypotheticals, in the absence of a complete theory of right and wrong, it seems to me that the best way to answer a tough-looking ethical question is:
-Find a hypothetical case that is similar to the tough case in every morally relevant respect.
-Answer the ethical question as it applies to the hypothetical case.
-Carry over your answer about the hypothetical case to the one you were concerned about in the first place.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the hypothetical is contrived if taken literally. But the reason I made it wasn't because I thought it was outlandish or absurd, but because I can't think of a situation that is comparable: minor cosmetic surgery irreversibly performed on an infant. I could be wrong about that, there could be an obvious or even many comparable practices that I'm unaware of or simply forgetting. I'm happy to be corrected on that.
I realize the scenario sounds contrived, but that's because I'm trying to draw a comparison that places supporters of circumcision performed on infants in the same position with respect to it that opponents are-that is, outsiders who have no religious or cultural investment in supporting it. I'm operating on the assumption here that what Rabbit said is correct-that medically speaking, circumcision is a push. If the medical justification is a wash either for or against, we're left with 'minor irreversible cosmetic surgery performed on an infant for religious or cultural reasons.'
Taking into account how I came to make that comparison, I still don't see how it can be said to be 'contrived' (except literally) or unfair. If anyone doesn't want to talk about it because it's a personal, religious matter, fair enough, but no one should feel as though their position has been defended if they do so. Realistically speaking, infant circumcision will continue, obviously. That's not the same thing as having demonstrated it should continue, though.
Anyway, as to what you said, Rabbit. That it's an observance required by religious groups doesn't matter. We prohibit observances of religious groups all the time. That it's an observance by two major religious groups is especially irrelevant. We're not supposed to make decisions like this on the basis of numbers, and I think as a member of a religion often considered a dangerous cult by many members of one of those major world religions, you're probably aware of the risks of that. You and everyone else can-have probably already-imagined many religious observances critical to their religion that are prohibited by law, not because the religion itself is being attacked, buy because the specific action of the observance is considered objectionable-and when that happens, it's nearly always about doing or refraining from doing something to another human being-not one's own person. That's why I don't claim to have a problem with circumcision-but infant circumcision. It's none of my business or anyone else's what a grown man does to the foreskin of his penis, but when someone else decides for a human being 'you'll have this done', the rest of the humans ought to consider things. And do, when it's not a culturally and religiously privileged position. It's not, to me, about parental rights. If someone wants to explain why it is, I'm all ears.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could be wrong about that, there could be an obvious or even many comparable practices that I'm unaware of or simply forgetting.
Infant ear piercings are pretty common and I'm sure some of the tribes that do other types of body modification do it before the child is old enough to reasonably consent (though many do it at puberty as an explicit recognition of assent to adulthood).
Maybe a better example would be cutting the webbing between fingers or snipping off or notching the earlobe, or perhaps a brand or tattoo of some sort?
As for something that might be more of a wash medically, what about removing the appendix at birth? The complication rate for that procedure is substantially lower than the rate of appendicitis.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Wait, I'm lost too; why is the hypothetical not even remotely equivalent?
Cutting off a toe has zero medical benefit. Circumcision has an (arguably) medical benefit.
Does the medical benefit argued, assuming it even provides enough to offset the risk of complications as a universal practice within a group, have literally anything at all to do with the religious/cultural beliefs that are used to justify its continued legality?
Like assume tomorrow that proof came out showing that absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, circumcision caused more problems (and even deaths0 than it could possibly help with unless specified and recommended for an individual with a medical abnormality. Would this change even 0.00000001% of Muslim or Jewish beliefs or practices in regards to circumcision?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa said multiple times that trying to reverse engineer Mosaic law to determine health benefits (i.e. pork has parasites) was sacrilege because it presumed to know the mind of God. But I don't know how well that represents the views of the larger Jewish/Orthodox communities.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, both my and my son's circumcision was purely medical, and has nothing to do with religious/cultural beliefs.
As to Samp's question: I speak for neither the Jewish nor Muslim communities, but I suspect that if circumcision was shown to be clearly medically harmful, that the traditions would change. Likely not overnight. Sure, people love their traditions...but they love their babies more.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... That it's an observance required by religious groups doesn't matter. We prohibit observances of religious groups all the time. That it's an observance by two major religious groups is especially irrelevant. We're not supposed to make decisions like this on the basis of numbers ...
Nitpick: Assuming that we're talking about Jews and Muslims, it wouldn't even really be a good use of numbers given that we *actually* have one major religion and a religion that's as "major" numerically speaking as the state religion of North Korea.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, it's another of those lovely attempts to equate FGM with circumcision.
The author of the linked article is quoting all over the place, but only cites sources for about half her quotes. It's a bizarrely ranting "article", even for the Guardian.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's Sa'eed's style, to carefully carefully toe the line. Even back before he was finally tamped down, that was still his style-several threads and posts of provocative, clearly but not overtly anti-Semitic discussion, peppered with some really over the top stuff.
-------
Even among people who believe the worst of infant male circumcision, and I wouldn't count myself among their number, likening it to FGM is profoundly stupid. Even if you believe the medical benefits are largely a wash in male circumcision, which I do-what are the medical benefits offered by FGM? Serious question-I'm aware of none.
Then there's the reasoning for it. Particularly among Americans, it's mostly cultural inertia. There's a vague notion that it's safer, plus a less vague notion that being uncircumcised is simply strange, and it's almost always done quickly and painlessly, so why not if you and every male in your family did as well?
The same can't be said about FGM. The reasons as they're practiced now are at best flagrantly misogynistic. When you factor in the added complexity (horror) of some of the more severe types, and that the medical conditions of the procedure are let's just say often lacking...you get another transparent effort at anti-Semitism by Sa'eed that doesn't even stand up under its own lights.
Well done! Stay true to form, buddy. You're doing good work in associating anti-Semtism with profoundly stupid arguments.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Not as flagrantly anti-Jew as I expected it to be, though!
I mean, it's there. But it's not too in-your-face.
The article is full of very, very British bigotry. Those kinds of people, you know. They're perfectly fine, of course, but we just don't associate with them, dear.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Not as flagrantly anti-Jew as I expected it to be, though!
I mean, it's there. But it's not too in-your-face.
The article is full of very, very British bigotry. Those kinds of people, you know. They're perfectly fine, of course, but we just don't associate with them, dear.
Ah, yeah, I think I scrolled through the article too quickly to pick up on that. I was skimming for blatant bigotry.
Bleh. I'm nominally against circumcision on principle, but stuff like this is just despicable. Makes me totally uninterested in supporting any anti-circumcision causes.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Not as flagrantly anti-Jew as I expected it to be, though!
I mean, it's there. But it's not too in-your-face.
The article is full of very, very British bigotry. Those kinds of people, you know. They're perfectly fine, of course, but we just don't associate with them, dear.
It's a crime against humanity to mutilate the penises of infants.
What if some new religion cropped up demanding the right to disfigure the left ear of every female? The only reason circumcision gets a pass is because it is a barbarity that has been in continuance since ancient times. People are inured to it, like they were inured to hundreds of other injustices throughout history.
I am pro-choice in this matter. Let a person choose to be circumcised. Do not choose for them.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a crime against humanity to mutilate the penises of infants.
Oh, I'm not a fan, but I prefer to reserve 'crime against humanity' for things that aren't carefully performed surgeries that very few (whether it's because they're taught to or not) grow up to mind or even notice, much. But then I don't have a poorly concealed agenda against Jews either, so this difference of opinion is hardly surprising.
Quick question: is it a 'crime against humanity' for a parent to get their child's ears pierced? Just wondering.
quote:What if some new religion cropped up demanding the right to disfigure the left ear of every female? The only reason circumcision gets a pass is because it is a barbarity that has been in continuance since ancient times. People are inured to it, like they were inured to hundreds of other injustices throughout history.
No, that's not why. Part of it is of course cultural inertia, but also vital to its continued acceptance is the fact that the method has changed.
quote:I am pro-choice in this matter. Let a person choose to be circumcised. Do not choose for them.
No, you're anti-Semitic in this matter, as in so many others. The claims of rational humanism are just a convenient smoke screen. But quick question: isn't it strange how you chose rivka's post to respond to? How very odd. One might almost think that wasn't an accident.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am an equal-opportunity infant mutilator. All my male children were circumcised at 8 days of age, and all my female children had their ears pierced at a few months of age.
Gosh, I don't know how the cops have held off on hauling me away for this long.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an interesting problem. On the one hand, being one of those Jewish type ladies I've heard so much about, nearly everything you do except renouncing your faith and/or culture is objectionable.
On the OTHER hand, that makes it difficult to avoid labeling the many hundreds of thousands or millions of other parents who have their children's ears pierced barbarous infant mutilators. Tricky. I suppose that could be considered a virtue of anti-Semitism, that it applies constraints that can require careful mental gymnastics.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a crime against humanity to mutilate the penises of infants.
Oh, I'm not a fan, but I prefer to reserve 'crime against humanity' for things that aren't carefully performed surgeries that very few (whether it's because they're taught to or not) grow up to mind or even notice, much. But then I don't have a poorly concealed agenda against Jews either, so this difference of opinion is hardly surprising.
Quick question: is it a 'crime against humanity' for a parent to get their child's ears pierced? Just wondering.
quote:What if some new religion cropped up demanding the right to disfigure the left ear of every female? The only reason circumcision gets a pass is because it is a barbarity that has been in continuance since ancient times. People are inured to it, like they were inured to hundreds of other injustices throughout history.
No, that's not why. Part of it is of course cultural inertia, but also vital to its continued acceptance is the fact that the method has changed.
quote:I am pro-choice in this matter. Let a person choose to be circumcised. Do not choose for them.
No, you're anti-Semitic in this matter, as in so many others. The claims of rational humanism are just a convenient smoke screen. But quick question: isn't it strange how you chose rivka's post to respond to? How very odd. One might almost think that wasn't an accident.
1. You can conduct all sorts of careful surgeries that, ultimately, are needless violations of the human body. Like, what if some new crazy religious sect carefully conducted surgeries that mutilated the left ears of their female children at age 9. At the hospital no less under the supervision of a proper MD! Would that be okay? Would religion make that okay?
2. I am an anti-semite in so far as I think Jews are wrong to circumcise their boys and insofar as they are strangulating the Palestinians.
3. An ear piercing is not the same thing as removing a whole part of a human male's penis.
4. At least ear piercings can close. Can penis foreskins grow back after removal?
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Muslims are wrong, wrong WRONG to copy Jews in the matter of circumcision. It should be a sin to harm boys in this fashion.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. You can conduct all sorts of careful surgeries that, ultimately, are needless violations of the human body. Like, what if some new crazy religious sect carefully conducted surgeries that mutilated the left ears of their female children at age 9. At the hospital no less under the supervision of a proper MD! Would that be okay? Would religion make that okay?
Asking the same question again doesn't make it more relevant or compelling. Anyway, you weren't listening. I disapprove of involuntary circumcision as well, but I was ridiculing your hyperbolic rhetoric about it.
quote:2. I am an anti-semite in so far as I think Jews are wrong to circumcise their boys and insofar as they are strangulating the Palestinians.
Nah, you're just an anti-Semite.
quote:3. An ear piercing is not the same thing as removing a whole part of a human male's penis.
It's a minor, involuntary, safe cosmetic practice, though. Lots of similarities.
quote:4. At least ear piercings can close. Can penis foreskins grow back after removal?
I want to be very clear about this, and hopefully your careful cowardly line-watching on this topic will permit you to answer: is what takes circumcision past 'bad and objectionable' into 'barbarous crime against humanity' the fact that a foreskin won't grow back on its own?
Because then, of course, the easy question is: is it barbarous for a parent to pierce and then raise them such that they won't want to let it grow back?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neither Jews nor Christians are 'copying Jews' when circumcising. Each are perfectly capable, and do, pick and choose which aspects of Judaism to follow, for their own reasons. Nice try, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. You can conduct all sorts of careful surgeries that, ultimately, are needless violations of the human body. Like, what if some new crazy religious sect carefully conducted surgeries that mutilated the left ears of their female children at age 9. At the hospital no less under the supervision of a proper MD! Would that be okay? Would religion make that okay?
Asking the same question again doesn't make it more relevant or compelling. Anyway, you weren't listening. I disapprove of involuntary circumcision as well, but I was ridiculing your hyperbolic rhetoric about it.
quote:2. I am an anti-semite in so far as I think Jews are wrong to circumcise their boys and insofar as they are strangulating the Palestinians.
Nah, you're just an anti-Semite.
quote:3. An ear piercing is not the same thing as removing a whole part of a human male's penis.
It's a minor, involuntary, safe cosmetic practice, though. Lots of similarities.
quote:4. At least ear piercings can close. Can penis foreskins grow back after removal?
I want to be very clear about this, and hopefully your careful cowardly line-watching on this topic will permit you to answer: is what takes circumcision past 'bad and objectionable' into 'barbarous crime against humanity' the fact that a foreskin won't grow back on its own?
Because then, of course, the easy question is: is it barbarous for a parent to pierce and then raise them such that they won't want to let it grow back?
1. I'm glad we agree involuntarily circumcision is bad. Civilized countries should ban involuntarily circumcision.
2. I am an anti-semite in so far I find certain thingss Jews do to be objectionable, yes.
3. But it isn't. It's the removal of a portion of the male sexual organ. That cannot reasonably be compared to piercing a hole into the tip of an ear. An ear piecing is not as bad a thing as circumcision so your whole comparison fails. And many sensible enlightened parents in the U.S let their daughters decide when to get their ears pierced. On the other hand, many U.S Jews who consider themselves to be enlightened are butchering the penises of their infant male babies. Shame on them.
4. Your trap fails. See above.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, many U.S Jews who consider themselves to be enlightened are butchering the penises of their infant male babies.
The vast majority of infant circumcisions in America are not done by Jews. Neither is the vast majority of infant circumcisions in the world done by either Americans or Jews.
As such it's a significant error on your part to focus on Jew-performed circumcisions: believing Jews at least have the excuse of thinking that an invisible omnipotent creature asked them to do it, so it's understandable that they're afraid of pissing off said omnipotent creature.
If nations banned all the circumcisions that are *not* a religious necessity, you'd still probably end up outlawing >95% of currently peformed circumcisions. And the majority of the remaining ones would probably be Shia, not Jewish ones.
Jewish circumcisions are really a *tiny* portion of the whole, only famous because for *them* it's a religious commandment.
posted
Aris, I acknowledge your correction. As it stands, the most vociferous objections to the German court ruling have been coming from Jewish circles. But involuntary circumcision is wrong no matter which group chooses to practice it for casual or religious regions.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aris, I acknowledge your correction. As it stands, the most vociferous objections to the German court ruling have been coming from Jewish circles. But involuntary circumcision is wrong no matter which group chooses to practice it for casual or religious regions.
Wait a second, if it's an inhuman barbarity, and Jews are only a tiny minority of its practitioners, your excuse as to why you made this about Jews is because they're getting the most press as opposition?
Is it about Jews, or about the inhuman barbarity for you? You don't have to answer-we know the answer, and you'd lie anyway.
quote:3. But it isn't. It's the removal of a portion of the male sexual organ. That cannot reasonably be compared to piercing a hole into the tip of an ear. An ear piecing is not as bad a thing as circumcision so your whole comparison fails. And many sensible enlightened parents in the U.S let their daughters decide when to get their ears pierced. On the other hand, many U.S Jews who consider themselves to be enlightened are butchering the penises of their infant male babies. Shame on them.
I didn't say it was as bad, just that there were many similarities. But anyway, I just want to be clear: what exactly is it that makes it so awful? Is it the involuntary surgery part, or the portion of a male's sex organ part?
Aris has noted in detail how you focus on Jews, even though if your problem is actually with circumcision, they're not the problem. But yeah, you're only anti-Semitic in that you have a problem with some things Jews do or something.
Except...if infant male circumcision is really this terrible calamitous human barbarism, then if that was actually what motivated you, Jews would be a sidenote to your outrage. But strangely they're not. Another compelling sign of anti-Semitism. Silence on this supposed terrible inhumanity to infants that will be practiced hundreds of millions of times this very week-outrage when Jews get some press about it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yikes, I didn't make anything about Jews, but we headed in that direction once you started shrieking "anti-semite!"
quote:Wait a second, if it's an inhuman barbarity, and Jews are only a tiny minority of its practitioners, your excuse as to why you made this about Jews is because they're getting the most press as opposition?
Those who religiously practice this barbarity should be the primary targets for shaming as they're the loudest defenders of it. Once these butchers of male penises are shamed out of their sickening practice, I expect the practice to gradually wane to low levels much as it has in Europe, when then it can be appropriately outlawed. The biggest obstacle is the shrieking of those who irrationally cling to the horrid practice as a matter of identity.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: As it stands, the most vociferous objections to the German court ruling have been coming from Jewish circles.
Really? Most have come from a coalition of Jewish and Muslim groups, and also from many Muslims not part of a coalition.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yikes, I didn't make anything about Jews, but we headed in that direction once you started shrieking "anti-semite!"
Yeah, you did. Witness your plainly anti-Semitic link. I'm not sure if you expect to be believed, or it's just for deniability that you pretend it's not.
quote:Those who religiously practice this barbarity should be the primary targets for shaming as they're the loudest defenders of it. Once these butchers of male penises are shamed out of their sickening practice, I expect the practice to gradually wane to low levels much as it has in Europe, when then it can be appropriately outlawed. The biggest obstacle is the shrieking of those who irrationally cling to the horrid practice as a matter of identity.
You've also had it explained to you that even if you could by magic stop all Jews everywhere from the practice, it's far from clear you'd have dealt with the religious practitioners. But even then, your premise that to stop the widespread practice, you need to put a stop to the practice among a tiny religious minority, because the wider group takes its cues from the Jews?
quote:Those who religiously practice this barbarity should be the primary targets for shaming as they're the loudest defenders of it.
Other than the fact that it offends your sensibilities, what demonstrable harm is done by circumcision that justifies restricting both religious freedom and parental rights?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it's so medically advantageous and so non-barbaric, why do so few adults (comparatively) choose to do it, and why is it instead done mostly on those people (babies) who are too weak to resist it and can't voice their protest?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Other than the fact that it offends your sensibilities, what demonstrable harm is done by circumcision that justifies restricting both religious freedom and parental rights?
Well there is the fact that it's a medically unnecessary surgery performed on someone who cannot consent, but could get it later if they wanted to. If parents ought to have a 'right' to do that, I suppose it would be a restriction on parental rights
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
