posted
*sigh* Well it doesn't seem there's much I can do about that, rivka. But it really is my sincerely felt fundamental objection: lack of consent. In my opinion, what should be necessary for this sort of surgery is consent or a clear medical need. The latter doesn't exist in infants, and the former cannot exist in infants.
I haven't heard anyone explain why consent ought not be relevant for this question, when it would be for any other sort of surgery of offset medical benefits. In fact two of what I would have said would be two of the best speakers in its defense, you and Rabbit, specifically said you wouldn't discuss it.
So I plainly stated the core objection and didn't go into detail because for some reason, I didn't think there would be a point. I'm not sure what I've said or done to you that would evoke that sort of reply, either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: By the time assent could be given it becomes much more risky and life altering. In some parts of Malaysia circumcisions is done at the age of 10 as part of a rite of passage.
I just haven't seen any compelling evidence there is any lasting damage if one is circumcised. I've seen reports of less sensitivity but I find them very flimsy. I don't even know how you'd ever do an effective comparison.
Further, we already have made circumcision non-mandatory. Medicaid in Utah does not cover it. I just don't see it as a practice we can force the religious to abstain from. Any more than we would let a religious majority force people to circumcize the uncircumcised if they believed all should be circumcised, and btw some hypothetical study found it prevents STD transmission by 40%.
When my son was born we were given literature explaining both situations. My wife wanted to circumcise our son I was not sure. Ultimately I found the literature for to be just a titch more compelling so snip snip.
But for Jews there's no ifs about it. They believe they have already committed to circumcising their male children. To not do so out of fear of man's laws is a serious conundrum. They will essentially be forced under ground if we pass similar laws. I think overall I think the status quo is the best we can do. Everything else introduces bigger problems.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he is an anti-Semite then lets get it out in the open. If he isn't, then he deserves a chance to defend himself.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In principle, I'm a bit bothered by the consent issue. If I have kids, I don't plan to pierce their ears and I would likely not circumcise (it would depend on the evidence available at the time regarding benefits and drawbacks).*
Assuming that adult circumcision has a higher complication rate, banning infant circumcision might cause more harm than good. If most Jewish males are going to be circumcised anyway, it's probably best for it to be done at birth. Yes, some men resent their parents for circumcising them, but I bet there would be a lot of resentment among Jewish men if their parents didn't.
It seems to me that the best way to balance consent and harm is to not routinely circumcise for non-medical, non-religious reasons, or even gently discourage it. What you want is for most who would probably end up not choosing circumcision as adults to not be circumcised, and those who probably would choose it as adults to be circumcised.
*This is all contingent on working any disagreements out with my hypothetical husband, of course.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The rate of complications and degree of pain are both significantly higher in adults.
Not to be snarky, but so is the rate of consent.
Parents are allowed to consent on behalf of infant children for many kinds of elective medical procedures such as plastic surgery or participation in a research study. Parent are allowed consent on behalf of infants for ear piercing.
Should all of that be banned? If not, where should the line be drawn?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But it really is my sincerely felt fundamental objection: lack of consent.
Which you have made exceedingly clear, repeatedly. Therefore, I can see no reason for you to state it again, except to snarkily score cleverness points.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* You and others have made your statements about the various difficulties later in life several times too. Was that merely an attempt to score points, or because you felt it was important to your position and ought to be said?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like all of the arguments have been presented and we now are reviewing them again.
It seems to me that it does more harm than good to a child by not circumcising him and leaving him to make the painful decision later in life.
I can personally attest that out of all of the Jewish men I know, (me included), none of them are unhappy with their parents' choice to circumcise.
There is no lack of consent because an infant cannot reason for itself. Therefore, most judicial systems,(up to this point), have deemed it appropriate to delegate decision-making responsibility to the parents. A rule that I agree with wholeheartedly.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you might be being a little too harsh, Rivka.
Even if someone has stated their opinion on an issue in the past, if the issue comes up again, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for them to reiterate their position. Doing so in a short, clever post makes sense since he's probably made the longer point before, and the short snark is just a reminder of his position.
(Also, yes, I suppose you were right not to believe him, he was trying to be a little snarky. But let's face it, this is Hatrack, everyone here gets snarky about everything. I mean, you yourself got snarky about this issue, right? The crack about mutilating your girls ears by piercing them, and it being a wonder you hadn't been hauled away yet, seemed pretty heavy on the snark. I chuckled.)
Anyway, I can especially relate to where Rakeesh was coming from. Sa'eed's involvement in the issue makes it one where any reasonable person needs to side with circumcision to some extent. That is, in a battle between Jews and anti-semites, I think Rakeesh agrees with me that it's not really acceptable to take the anti-semite's side.
And he didn't. He clearly and strongly voiced his disapproval of Sa'eed and his motives, in fact. And once he'd done that, he slipped in a brief reminder that, all that being said, he's still not a very big fan of circumcision.
I dunno. I think I can see exactly why Rakeesh did what he did, and I don't think it was intended in any way to be malicious towards those who support circumcision. Just reiterating an honest disagreement.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Absolutely not malicious. I can understand why it might be viewed as snarky, but I meant my statement very literally. I knew it would sound snarky to point out that for me the most important thing to make circumcision a just decision was only present in adulthood, and not at all present in infancy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
When a boy child is born, hop in the way way forward machine with the appropriate forms, and if they come back signed by the adult version of the baby, snip snip away.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Until a few years ago, the only time anyone had ever -- even jokingly -- accused me of mutilating any of my children was in regards to my piercing my daughters' ears.
But yeah, that was a snarky post.
And so was Rakeesh's. If he hadn't added "Not to be snarky", I would not have said a word in response. It's that attempt to don a halo that irritated me, and still does.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This discussion seems to have degenrated into something resembling a glorified cat fight. Argue on! Please I implore you!
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: This discussion seems to have degenrated into something resembling a glorified cat fight. Argue on! Please I implore you!
Good thing you're here to elevate the discourse, then.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to have an argument here, but people won't even contradict me, let alone argue. This is the right room for an argument, isn't it?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In any argument where people are offering and advancing competing opinions, the accusation that the other person is just trying to "score" "points" is completely meaningless. Yes. They are, and they should. So are you. Even bringing up that the other person must "just be trying to score points" is a pretty bald attempt to score a "point" against them. "Quotation" "marks." Anyway. Tally up your points some day and see who won. Back to our circumcision thread.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Parent are allowed consent on behalf of infants for ear piercing."
Perhaps they shouldn't be: that position certainly exists. After all keep in mind that in many jurisdictions it's indeed currently illegal to *tattoo* your infants. Do you think tattooing infants should be legal?
If both ear-piercing and tattoing is okay, how about navel-piercing, tongue-piercing, and other such body modifications?
At some point we make compromises. We say such-and-such procedure is harmless enough to be left to parental discretion; such-and-such procedure is beneficial enough that it should be obligatory for all children (e.g. inoculations); such-and-such procedure is violation enough that it shouldn't be allowed without consent.
Trying to argue *everything* from first principles eventually leads to slippery slope arguments in both directions -- ludicrous propositions that effectively mean that unless you allow parents to circumcise, full-body tattoo and ear-navel-and-tongue pierce their children, you should not allow them any parental decisionmaking at all.
But there's always the concept of compromise according to the democratic decision process. It's always possible for a democratic society to say "okay to tattoos and piercings, but no to circumcisions" or "okay to ear-piercings and circumcisions, but no to tattoos", or "okay to ear-piercings, but no to either tattoos or circumcisions".
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Do you think tattooing infants should be legal?
If the alternative was cultural genocide, of for example the Maori who have something similar, yes.
IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, there's a discussion with hundreds of comments in that link: in that discussion there's several proponents of the position I mentioned (and the opposite position too) -- that's why I offered it as proof that the position exists.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Generally speaking, when someone posts a link I assume they are referring to the content of the article/blogpost/whatever, NOT the comments. Comments are frequently a cesspool. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I hold the position, albeit not very strongly. I do kind of cringe at infant ear piercings, but I'm not exactly planning a protest march. My girls were given the option to choose to have their ears pierced after they turned eight years old.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My wife and I refrained from piercing our daughter's ears, and will let her decide when she is old enough to handle the decision.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: My wife and I refrained from piercing our daughter's ears, and will let her decide when she is old enough to handle the decision.
So what will you do when she comes home and her and her friends all pierced their own ears?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We will take her to have it done (if she wants it) before she is roaming freely with packs of needle happy girlfriends.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: My wife and I refrained from piercing our daughter's ears, and will let her decide when she is old enough to handle the decision.
So what will you do when she comes home and her and her friends all pierced their own ears?
In most states, any reputable piercing place requires parental permission for minors.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: My wife and I refrained from piercing our daughter's ears, and will let her decide when she is old enough to handle the decision.
So what will you do when she comes home and her and her friends all pierced their own ears?
In most states, any reputable piercing place requires parental permission for minors.
That's all well and good until they decide they can also do it themselves with a needle.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's possible you know more about prepubescent girls than I, but how many 6-10 year old girls just decide, "Heck, even though Mommy and Daddy said they would take me to have it done by a professional and pick out my own ear rings at the mall, I'll just randomly shove a needle in my ear."
Of all the possible things to worry about as my children grow, this had never crossed my mind.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW: It's more, "My stupid parents want me to wait until X years old. I want earrings now, because this girl got her earrings already. All my friends are doing it today too and I don't want to be left out."
Several of my cousins followed this reasoning.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
My wife and I haven't set an arbitrary age, if she can communicate that she wants them, she pretty much can have them. We just didn't want to choose for her at birth.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: In most states, any reputable piercing place requires parental permission for minors.
That's all well and good until they decide they can also do it themselves with a needle.
Sure. Or go to a skeezy place. Short of locking them up, there's no guarantee teenagers won't do all kinds of loony stuff. Ear piercing is the least of it. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: 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?
Nonsense.
Well, I think convincing those who are willing to violate the bodily integrity of males in this fashion for religious reasons (i.e, billions of people) represent a greater challenge compared to those who do it other reasons. The aim isn't just to discourage coercive circumcision but to ban it all together no matter what the reason proffered for it is.
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?
You are removing a part of the male sexual organ. You are making a person less, in 99% of the time, without their consent. And we need to stop just using the phrase "circumcision." The matter at hand is coercive circumcision. It is the lack of consent that is the true travesty.
quote:Really? Most have come from a coalition of Jewish and Muslim groups, and also from many Muslims not part of a coalition.
At last, Muslims and Jews come together over their right to perpetually violate the bodily integrity of their male infants.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I think convincing those who are willing to violate the bodily integrity of males in this fashion for religious reasons (i.e, billions of people) represent a greater challenge compared to those who do it other reasons. The aim isn't just to discourage coercive circumcision but to ban it all together no matter what the reason proffered for it is.
The places where you're most likely to have an impact on what you said your goal was-involuntary male circumcision-is in the Western world. The religious motive for most circumcisions there is not the real driving force. Therefore, attacking the religious on this subject wouldn't be your first movement, but then there is a reason that in spite of Jews being a tiny minority of the whole on this matter, you made this about them initially, now isn't there.
quote:You are removing a part of the male sexual organ. You are making a person less, in 99% of the time, without their consent. And we need to stop just using the phrase "circumcision." The matter at hand is coercive circumcision. It is the lack of consent that is the true travesty.
Well at least you're scaling down your language somewhat, travesty being closer to the truth than other things you've said. But while I do believe infant circumcision is wrong, and it's a violation of rights, the truth is that for nearly everyone it's a case of assumed consent that turns out to be correct. Of course it's only correct because they're taught it's correct, but since almost no one grows up to resent it in the terms you describe, it's not a universal human catastrophe as you would make it out to be. It's just wrong, that's all.
quote:At last, Muslims and Jews come together over their right to perpetually violate the bodily integrity of their male infants.
I don't know, do you expect people to just forget what rivka's post was in response to? You claimed 'it's the Jews (again)!'. Rivka pointed out you were flat-out wrong. Do you think people are stupid, or that your anti-Semitism shouldn't be held to account for its own claims, or are you simply that chicken*#it even online?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: This is mature material but I recommend the Penn & Tiller "BS" episode on coercive circumcision.
Who are both Libertarian members of the CATO institute, also if you have watched though the entirety of the episode the most they ever say if your strip out the appeal to emotion and the opinionation behind most of that episodes content (and that they are skeptics and don't care about religious freedom) they never say anything more concrete than "It is unnessasary and shouldn't be done without a good reason."
Again, avoiding cultural genocide seems a good reason to me.
IP: Logged |
posted
Cultural genocide is an imprecise term and is loaded with, well, loaded language. There are plenty of elements of past cultures that we have happily eliminated and think ourselves the better for it. Something isn't valuable just because it has cultural elements, nor is it necessarily bad to discontinue a practice that reflect cultural identity if there are other factors that justify its discontinuation.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said. The term steals emotional weight from the word genocide its actual concept doesn't receive.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [qb] [QUOTE]The places where you're most likely to have an impact on what you said your goal was-involuntary male circumcision-is in the Western world. The religious motive for most circumcisions there is not the real driving force. Therefore, attacking the religious on this subject wouldn't be your first movement, but then there is a reason that in spite of Jews being a tiny minority of the whole on this matter, you made this about them initially, now isn't there.
No, I posted a link to a Guardian article. Your hysteric accusations of anti-semetism brought up the Jew thing. You want it to be about Jews, for whatever reason.
quote:Well at least you're scaling down your language somewhat, travesty being closer to the truth than other things you've said. But while I do believe infant circumcision is wrong, and it's a violation of rights, the truth is that for nearly everyone it's a case of assumed consent that turns out to be correct. Of course it's only correct because they're taught it's correct, but since almost no one grows up to resent it in the terms you describe, it's not a universal human catastrophe as you would make it out to be. It's just wrong, that's all.
A lot of women in Sub-Saharan Africa are taught that FGM is okay and don't grow to resent it. They are the ones who, in fact, continue the practice upon their daughters. Therefore, FGM is not a universal human catastrophe, it just wrong, that's all.
quote: I don't know, do you expect people to just forget what rivka's post was in response to? You claimed 'it's the Jews (again)!'. Rivka pointed out you were flat-out wrong. Do you think people are stupid, or that your anti-Semitism shouldn't be held to account for its own claims, or are you simply that chicken*#it even online?
Well I think you guys are being petty. Here's what I said: "As it stands, the most vociferous objections to the German court ruling have been coming from Jewish circles." Let's look at an example.
Can you find U.S Muslim groups taking a stand on this issue or even commenting on it? Muslims outside of Germany don't seem to care whereas worldwide Jewry does.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: I'm not yet acting in my capacity as moderator, but your recent posts to Sa'eed are making me uncomfortable. I understand there's a history that colors your responses to him, but if I take your words and apply them to hypothetical poster X it's a personal attack and I would suggest you tread lightly.
If you want to flesh out Sa'eeds racism there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But calling him a coward and insulting him so as to get a rise is not in the spirit of these forums. Again I'm leaving everyone's posts alone for now, but this thread is getting warm, I don't want it to burst into flames.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
