quote:RT.com A German court has ruled that parents can’t have their sons circumcised on religious grounds in a move which has angered Muslim and Jewish groups in the country.
The court in Cologne decided that a legal guardian’s authority over a child does not allow them to subject them to the procedure, which the court called minor bodily harm, reports The Financial Times Deutschland.
Neither does religious freedom, which is protected by law in Germany, give grounds for such decisions to be taken for the children, the ruling says.
The court was considering a case against a Muslim doctor, who performed circumcision on a four-year-old boy at his parents’ request. Two days after the procedure bleeding started, after which the boy had to be taken to hospital.
German authorities learned about the incident and launched a criminal investigation against the doctor. The initial court trial ruled that there was no violation of the law, but the prosecutor’s office took the case to the Cologne district court.
The decision sets a precedent, which may affect medical practice across the country. The possible ban on circumcision provoked outrage among Jewish and Muslim organizations in Germany, where every year thousands of boys are circumcised in their early years at the request of parents. They regard the ban as a "serious interference in the right to freedom of religion." But none of the organizations so far has commented on the verdict, explaining they first need to study thoroughly the reasoning of the judges.
Some experts however don’t rule out that the right for religiously motivated circumcision will be considered by the Federal Constitutional Court.
I figured I post this before you know who does.
I am against this practice but I find this ruling very uncomfortable, in germany of all places to boot. I think the focus should be on getting non-religious for "hygiene" circumcisions to stop first as that's simply a matter of ignorance.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Tell that to my painfully serious surgery at age 12. Ignorance my bleeding penis!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That's a proper medical reason, not the "Let's have our child circumcised because otherwise the other boys will make fun of him." that happens.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Other boys did make fun of my penis!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I keep trying to tell you, having two of them isn't something that's normal man!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Wow!
No.
Really.
[ June 27, 2012, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Good.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Prepare for the rematch of the century, rivka v. Synesthesia!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Ugh. All of this arguing about circumcision LITERALLY nearly made me soil myself out in society because I have stress related stomach problems. I need to try to not argue about it, but dang it, babies really should have the right to make that decision when they grow up.
That is not unreasonable.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
But the surgery SUCKS for non-babies, and isn't that bad for babies...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Watch a video of it being done to an infant.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Eh, I'm circumcised and feel no grudge. No skin off my back.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
*DING DING*
Round 54257 of the Hatrack Circumcision Debate begins!
Remember, fight fair, no direct insults and no hitting below the belt unless they have had ample time to heal since the procedure.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Watch a video of it being done to an infant.
I held my son's hand as he had it done. He slept through it peacefully. And no, he didn't pass out.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Maasai circumcise at puberty as a rite of passage to manhood. No anesthetic, just a big (not always clean) knife wielded by an elder. Takes them several weeks to heal.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Since I was circumcised at puberty, I am glad my parents were Episcopalian and not Maasai, as I had a general anesthetic, and (I assume) a very clean scalpel.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Prepare for the rematch of the century, rivka v. Synesthesia!
I'll pass.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Color me surprised.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
SCANDAL IN THE RING
RIVKESTHESIA MMXII CIRCUMCAGEMATCH THROWN?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
today i described Metzitzeh B'peh to someone today and he really seriously thought i was having him on and he refused to believe it
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I feel sick, reading about metziteh b'peh made me ill. I am not joking.
Why... what... I don't even...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yea, they shouldn't do that.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
So apparently religion can give a baby herpes. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's horrible. The cutting shouldn't be done and definitely NOT metziteh B'peh. UGH! Why can't there be a tradition of being kind and gentle and buying a baby an awesome guitar or something?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Religion? No.
quote:Thus, it became quite common in the Jewish world to perform metzitzah via a safe method, such as a sterilized glass tube. This removes all risk and is almost the universal practice today, although some ultra-Orthodox communities, most notably Hassidic Jews and some communities in Israel, continue to use the oral method.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Color me surprised.
Why on earth should I want to go through all of the same arguments again?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Because she hasn't stopped being wrong yet?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And if I repeat myself she'll magically change her mind?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Damn you and your filthy logic! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Ugh. All of this arguing about circumcision LITERALLY nearly made me soil myself out in society because I have stress related stomach problems. I need to try to not argue about it,
Look, is there really any reasonable indication, either on your or our end that you will ACTUALLY stop arguing about even the stuff you admit you should not be arguing about?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why am I the wrong one here? I'm stating DON'T cut babies. Leave the choice up to him. That's really not that unreasonable when you start to think about it.
Plus there are still folks who insist on the oral suction and don't bother using the pipette. If children are dying from herpes as a result of oral suction, you'd think they'd stop doing this, but it would be nice if people stopped cutting the genitals of babies in general. There's science and several millions of years of evolution to consider too... Why should i change my mind about cutting infant's genitals?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Right now, literally no one is telling you to, Syn.
Hobbes Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Given the tacit threat that she will literally crap her pants if you argue with her, who would?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Considering the fact that over the internet no one but her actually has to deal with it?
I would.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I feel like I'm doing a service to humanity by choosing to leave well enough alone.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Why am I the wrong one here? I'm stating DON'T cut babies. Leave the choice up to him. That's really not that unreasonable when you start to think about it.
Plus there are still folks who insist on the oral suction and don't bother using the pipette. If children are dying from herpes as a result of oral suction, you'd think they'd stop doing this, but it would be nice if people stopped cutting the genitals of babies in general. There's science and several millions of years of evolution to consider too... Why should i change my mind about cutting infant's genitals?
The thing is that you have spent approximately forever stating that you know you shouldn't be arguing these things and that all these bad things and bad feelings result from it and you really don't want to think about it and shouldn't even discuss the subject, but then you pretty much never actually stop arguing about it.
You've had it recommended to you pretty much constantly that yes, you should indeed follow through with the whole not-arguing part, but barring that you should probably at least stop constantly bringing up how much this terribly distresses you to end up arguing about it anyway or constantly mentioning that you shouldn't be arguing about it anyway, if you're just going to keep arguing about these things that unreasonably distress you pretty much no matter what.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Sir knight! I have just crapped my pants, and nobody can do anything about it!
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
If you believe that God insists you circumcise your child, I won't try to stop you.
If you choose to be circumcised yourself, hey, go for it. I have no problem with circumciscion, only circumcision-without-consent.
If you circumcise someone without their consent for any other reason other than valid medical reason ("it helps prevent AIDS!" is not a valid medical reason), then I have a problem with you.
Your son may grow up like me: he may resent his parents permanently altering his body for no good reason. Whatever you think the benefits are, do they really outweigh the possibility that your son resents you later? That, not every day, but frequently, for the rest of his life, will be angry that you did this to him?
Let him choose. There's a reason why countries in Europe don't have a circumcised adult population. People mostly *don't* choose to do it when given the choice. That should tell you something.
Please be prepared to look your son in the eye, when he is 23 and talks to you about this, to say, "I knew you might grow up to be anti-circumcision, and resent me for doing this to you without your consent, but I felt the benefits were more important. I made the right decision, and even though you're upset with me, I'm not sorry. I am sorry you are upset, but I'm still not sorry I did it. It was the right choice."
How do you think that will make him feel? Perhaps that his feelings don't matter? That is a very unpleasant feeling, let me tell you.
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Sir knight! I have just crapped my pants, and nobody can do anything about it!
Followed by an echoing gunshot?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My parents thought along the same lines, which is why I was uncircumcised at age 12 when I got a nasty infection, and needed to have a very painful and serious (general anesthesia) surgery with weeks of down time and a lot of pain, right when I was just starting to figure out what my little friend was for.
So, yea, I wouldn't have had a problem if they had nipped me as a babe. Even after all that I did research before deciding with my wife what to do for our son. And we did decide, after talking with his MD.
If he has a problem with that as an adult, then I say "Great!" because that means his life will be in such a good place that a painless (local anesthesia) out patient surgery which was doctor recommended twenty plus years ago is a current problem for him.
I hope that being circumcised as an infant is the biggest problem he will have to deal with in his adult life! That would be awesome!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I am against the practice and feel that aside from medical reasons you should never circumcise your children unless its for *important* religious or cultural reasons, just in case.
People doing it for purely aestetic reasons disturb me, my rational is this:
If your community is such that no matter where you are in the world, hypothetically lets call you the Seiyoujins, know at sight that because of a special earing you got when you were pierced as a child; that you are a member of this community; with its shared history, culture, practices, and sense of shared suffering in a world of oppression; then I think a non lethal minor injuring in the ear to be a small price to pay as the price of entry into that community.
From what I know medically of circumcision, it's not much different from trimming your fingernails... Where your fingernails never grow back...
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I am against the practice and feel that aside from medical reasons you should never circumcise your children unless its for *important* religious or cultural reasons, just in case.
Why would the parents' religious or cultural reasons trump their son's medical rights?!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Price of entry into 6000 years of history.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Sorry, I was asking for rational reasons. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No, circumcision is more like someone peeling off the nail, cutting around the tip of your finger and peeling the skin off. Look, it's the child's body, ok? A person's genitals are THEIR jurisdiction. No one has the right to alter them without the consent of the person who owns them. It doesn't matter if it's religion or culture. People don't have the right to even prick a girl's clitoris for religious reasons, yet an entire foreskin can be cut off. It really isn't right. A person's right to having a whole body should trump everything, I think.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No, not really.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think it should... I'd up and move to another culture, but I don't really give much of a flying pig about cultures to a certain extent if 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.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
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?
Hobbes Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: Sorry, I was asking for rational reasons.
You are asking for rational reasons of religion? I think that makes you irrational.
Religion requires the belief of something beyond mere fact. Might as well demand that apples taste like oranges.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You don't have to ask a rational reason of religion; instead, you can state that practitioners of this particular cultural habit have to provide a reason for its permission that succeeds a secular test.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Does "because God told us to" pass a secular test?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
nope, neither does pointing to a practice being allowed historically or having been commonplace in the country.
Don't care either way though, I already explained how to get rid of circumcision, so we'll just see if it happens across the next couple of generations.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Then your argument that all it has to do is pass a secular test isn't valid.
We have freedom of religion in this country, and circumcision is a very large part of Judaism. And that's all it needs to be.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Some Jews don't circumcise. In fact, that's a growing movement. There's hope. But I shall still find a way to move to Europe out in the middle of nowhere where no one will bother me ever...
But first... to get filthy dirty stinky rich.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Rivka, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the matter. Can you point me to a post where you recall summarizing them?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't think there was a single post. It was an 11-page thread, and I posted several times.
(CT's posts in that thread are definitely worth a read. But with CT, that's to be expected.)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Do folks ever think maybe there's advantages to keeping foreskin? For most of the men in the world it really isn't a ticking time bomb of doom.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As a former owner of one, I can say with confidence, no, there is no advantage to having one, but, there are several disadvantages.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that sex is less pleasurable without one, but I don't know if there's any real data. I'm not sure if it's even possible to get real data for something as subjective as that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Few men have reason to complain in that department.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
There was a study done in Denmark. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.short?rss=1 There's BILLIONS of men who do not have problems with their foreskins. I'm not even sure if the low risk of having a problem (which could be avoided if folks in this country understood it will retract on its own and to leave it alone until it does) is worth cutting it off. Keeping breast buds might be a bit more risky, actually.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Perhaps that is the angle of approach for you...people need more education about proper handling instructions for the uncircumcised penis to avoid infection.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah if you don't get circumcised you don't have to worry about the risk of having a circumcision which will reduce pleasure doing sex, but generally I guess you can do just fine with or without according to both?
I don't know I have a lot of strange knowledge about the subject which would certainly bring an interesting perspective to the matter but might not be appropriate for this forum.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Watch a video of it being done to an infant.
I've been in the room while it happened, multiple times. YOU have spent far more time "traumatized" for them then they have been.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: Eh, I'm circumcised and feel no grudge. No skin off my back.
That is not where the skin comes off.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well, no. As he said, he has been circumcised, so he can't very well say "no skin off my penis," now can he?
I assume he's just letting us know that when he was circumcised nothing went awry and no extra skin was lost. Or at least, if something did go wrong, the skin on his back was, at the least, unaffected.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I started to get upset that the German court did that, but then I realized I actually can't argue with the idea that a child should have a right to no permanent body modifications until he comes of age and can decide for himself.
It seems like a reasonable thing to me. I certainly wouldn't argue with anyone doing anything to himself (to his own body) for religious reasons, though I think it's perhaps not wise to perform painful permanent procedures that aren't medically indicated. I wouldn't think it ought to be illegal, provided it's decided by the person himself, the one whose body is being modified. But there does seem to be a good reason not to do it to others against their will. So I agree with the German court.
Could the religious communities perform the operation on adults instead? It might be more meaningful that way, mightn't it?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The point is, really, the vast majority of those who had it done, don't really care. And I've never had a sex partner who cared either.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
My concern with this ruling is that it primarily falls upon the observant Jewish population of Germany, as it directly contradicts a basic tenet of their religion. With the historic anti-Semitism in Europe, it gives rise to concerns that this is more of the same, just masked better than your average pogrom.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It should also be noted that when done to an infant it is s minor procedure, but is major surgery for an adult.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
My favorite argument came from my mom.
"Son, even though you consider yourself an atheist, and your wife isn't Jewish, you should have your son circumcised in case he decides he wants to be Jewish."
My Catholic aunt actually used the same logic for her son. "I accept that you don't actually believe in the Catholic faith, but lets go through with all of the confirmation stuff in case you decide you want to marry a Catholic girl one day."
Apparently we should just have all children go through all religious practices "just in case".
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Judaism is the LEAST able to compromise on this issue than virtually any other faith, it's like banning Catholics from Mass; someone tried to tell me that being forced to use birth control is about on par "and thus because catholics are fine in places, this should be fine too" I call BS on that though, it's a negative vs a positive action.
As far as I know, you *cannot* have any or participate in any of the various jewish activities and customs until it's done, which is supposed to be within the first week of birth as it is the physical representation of the Covenant.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I've considered that having a husband who takes longer to reach orgasm might be a benefit. Since I like sex and all. I'm weighing that with the small possibility of getting an infection from contact with an uncircumcised penis and it's about even.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not sure either of those things is a given.
A uncircumcised penis is -more- sensitive, not less.
Plus I've never seen a medical study (not saying they don't exist) which suggests that uncircumcised penis' are more likely to transfer an infection through sex then a circumcised one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can't speak to the sensitivity issue, but I've read in many places that uncircumcised penises are more likely to transmit infection, and frankly, it makes sense. The underside of the foreskin is a breeding ground for germs, that's why being so fastidious about cleaning it is so important.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Apparently we should just have all children go through all religious practices "just in case".
For some mysterious reason, this doesn't work in reverse. "Son, I know my grandson is probably going to (be raised to) want to be a Baptist in his adult life, but just in case, don't send him to church before, say, mid-teens."
The medical justifications for circumcision seem to be a wash-potential of risk of infection barring appropriate sanitation later in life if not done, potential for complications or lessened sexual pleasure (and there are very, very few people outside actual medical professionals who can remark intelligently on that, one way or another--'It feels great to me!' not having the needed perspective).
The truth is, though, without the cultural weight from inertia circumcision carries, most people would probably look quite askance at the idea of permanently altering an infant's body for the slim medical reasons offered.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: Sorry, I was asking for rational reasons.
You are asking for rational reasons of religion? I think that makes you irrational.
Religion requires the belief of something beyond mere fact. Might as well demand that apples taste like oranges.
I was asking for a rational reason for this: "Why would the parents' religious or cultural reasons trump their son's medical rights?!" As far as anyone knows the son has no religion when he is born, despite what the parents, grandparents, priest, rabbi, etc. would want to make you believe. So arguments like "We have freedom of religion in this country" fall flat when you consider the son's "religion". Which religion should you respect?!
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: I was asking for a rational reason for this: "Why would the parents' religious or cultural reasons trump their son's medical rights?!" As far as anyone knows the son has no religion when he is born, despite what the parents, grandparents, priest, rabbi, etc. would want to make you believe. So arguments like "We have freedom of religion in this country" fall flat when you consider the son's "religion". Which religion should you respect?!
Except that according to Judaism (AFAIK, as I'm not Jewish...) the infant IS Jewish provided the mother was.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
And that makes it true why?
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: And that makes it true why?
And thus I direct you back to Stone_Wolf_s statement which you quoted.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm not sure either of those things is a given.
A uncircumcised penis is -more- sensitive, not less.
I think she was saying an uncircumcised penis would be more sensitive and so more likely to orgasm early.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by just_me:
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: And that makes it true why?
And thus I direct you back to Stone_Wolf_s statement which you quoted.
Which misses my point. Why should secular law take into account what some religion or another says about people who are not able to have an informed opinion about religion? I agree that in most cases we cannot and should not block parents from teaching their children their points of view; there's just too much possibility of abuse from whoever's in power in these kinds of situations. But in the case of circumcision this is not teaching, it's (at least from my point of view) a violation of the son's medical rights.
I'm not gonna talk about adopted sons, since I don't know much about adoption and circumcision in Judaism or Islam.
[ July 02, 2012, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: And that makes it true why?
God says so according to them saying that god says according to some texts that are what god says or what they know god to have said and/or wanted according to the texts about what god says god says.
quote:Why should secular law take into account what some religion or another says about people who are not able to have an informed opinion about religion?
That is a much more interesting question!
The answer is in the case of snipping off foreskins: probably no good reason but whatever.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm not sure either of those things is a given.
A uncircumcised penis is -more- sensitive, not less.
I think she was saying an uncircumcised penis would be more sensitive and so more likely to orgasm early.
I have not found this to be true. In fact, using the unscientific poll (heh) of my recollection, the uncircumcised men I have been with have, on average, taken longer to climax.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think she was saying an uncircumcised penis would be more sensitive and so more likely to orgasm early.
I think you are misreading her...from my reading she was saying that uncircumcised penis would last longer as a trade off for the risk of infection...but since it is more not less sensitive...
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: But in the case of circumcision this is not teaching, it's (at least from my point of view) a violation of the son's medical rights.
First off the parents of a child hold the medical decision making power. Second, a circumcision is quite often medically recommended. When my wife and I were discussing whether or not to snip our boy with his MD, the MD said basically, "There are a few risks, but generally, the rewards outweigh them. I recommend you do it." Just to be clear, we had asked her, she wasn't volunteering the recommendation. Considering my personal history of needing a circumcision at age 12, which sucked, it was a no brainer. I was worried they would not give him a local, as they sometimes just let them cry with no pain killer, but they were going to anyway. They gave him a pacifier with sugar syrup, and he loved it! He was happy and fine, and half way through the procedure he fell asleep. Just for the record, neither my wife nor I follow any formalized religion.
quote:Why should secular law take into account what some religion or another says about people who are not able to have an informed opinion about religion?
Pretending your kids have the same religion as you and then indoctrinating them into it is a time honored tradition. But seriously, an infant is incapable of making -any- choices, so all choices fall on the parents. And can you imagine what would happen if the government declared that all children where nonreligious until they could decide on their own? No baptisms, no nameday blessings, no bris, etc. Yea, ain't gunna happen.
And seriously who cares if people want to pretend that their kids are part of an organized religion? It's pretty durn harmless. The newborn doesn't care. Why should we?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It's pretty durn harmless. The newborn doesn't care. Why should we?
Erm, uh .. medical ethics doesn't get to make an exception for a religious test? I mean the comment you just made could be just as readily applied to like ... infant clitoridectomy or something, doesn't matter if you are part of a religion that says "THIS MUST BE DONE EVERYTIME ALWAYS GOD SAYS Clitorieuteronomy 66:15" it is an issue of secular medical ethics (for a secular government of course, it would be different elsewhere necessarily)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My argument was for allowing people to claim infants as part of their religion, sprinkle some water on them, maybe chant a little, light a candle or two, a medically safe/recommended circumcision...NOT to do harmful, sexist, evil, dangerous genital mutilation on babies...because they don't mind.
Circumcision is often medically recommended, and while a very small portion of adult males seem to mind that this was done to them as a baby, the huge majority couldn't care less.
None of those things can be said for FGM. It is fundamentally an unfair comparison.
Were people castrating their boys, that would be a fair comparison. And it would be equally rejected and prosecuted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, no, that's not a fair comparison. FGM is a terrible thing, to understate things, but it's not castration. Type III comes closest, and is also the least common-really have to cast about for 'good' news on this subject.
As for male circumcision, though, outside of religious factors the benefits and drawbacks are most often pretty close to a draw-the risk of infection is there, but safely dealt with by careful, non-arduous hygiene. The sexual drawback is pretty easy to see, but men don't tend to complain that sex is unpleasant even when they've been circumcised, so not much of a big drawback here.
What we're still left with is cultural inertia for most of the men who are circumcised. If a sect should crop up proclaiming it was a commandment from God that infants have one of the middle toes cropped or removed as a sign of a covenant with God, well, people would probably get a little squeamish even though you don't much *need* that toe. We would probably be a little hesitant at just shrugging it off and saying, "Well, parents have medical rights over their children."
Because they don't, or rather this isn't an unqualified right. They have that right basically only up to the point we decide they're hurting their children, and no further. Fortunately when done in as humane a way as possible (that is to say, not as initially described), this harm if it exists is pretty low key.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: But in the case of circumcision this is not teaching, it's (at least from my point of view) a violation of the son's medical rights.
First off the parents of a child hold the medical decision making power.
But there are ways to stop them from making potentially harmful medical (and other) decisions concerning their children.
quote:Second, a circumcision is quite often medically recommended.
In the US. How come European penises resist so much better the dangers of being uncircumcised? It's like the presence of openly gay people in the military, or the presence of women on submarines: it's so dangerous in the US, despite other countries showing that both have no effects. Doctors are people, and as such also prone to cultural bias.
quote:Considering my personal history of needing a circumcision at age 12, which sucked, it was a no brainer.
I might need an appendectomy at 40, doesn't mean that any child of mine would also need an appendectomy. Does not follow.
quote:Just for the record, neither my wife nor I follow any formalized religion.
But you do grow in a culture that views circumcision as normal. Religion is not the only form of cultural bias, it's *a* form.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: Why should secular law take into account what some religion or another says about people who are not able to have an informed opinion about religion?
Pretending your kids have the same religion as you and then indoctrinating them into it is a time honored tradition. But seriously, an infant is incapable of making -any- choices, so all choices fall on the parents. And can you imagine what would happen if the government declared that all children where nonreligious until they could decide on their own? No baptisms, no nameday blessings, no bris, etc. Yea, ain't gunna happen.
As I said, when this involves ideas or harmless rituals, by all means, go ahead. There's no way to "police" this that isn't open to abuse. But in the follow-up I specifically made a difference between these and medical decisions.
quote:And seriously who cares if people want to pretend that their kids are part of an organized religion? It's pretty durn harmless. The newborn doesn't care. Why should we?
First of all, it's not harmless if you view religions as false and are pissed off at things like insistence of teaching creationism alongside evolution for example, or when seeing people donate money to build churches but become very squeamish when asked to do anything for the school their children go to. And it's not harmless if a male child has a botched circumcision or complications because of it, or simply will at one point in life resent his parents for mutilating his body.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I guess I'm repeating some of what Rakeesh, Samp and others said, but I'm trying to clear up my ideas about this so I'm writing it all down. Sorry if I make you guys read the same thing twice. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: But there are ways to stop them from making potentially harmful medical (and other) decisions concerning their children.
Are circumcisions harmful, medically speaking?
quote: How come European penises resist so much better the dangers of being uncircumcised?
Better hygiene? They aren't? Haven't looked up the stats...have you?
quote:I might need an appendectomy at 40, doesn't mean that any child of mine would also need an appendectomy.
If there was a huge medical advantage to getting it done at birth instead of as an adult...as it is with circumcisions...then yes.
quote:As I said, when this involves ideas or harmless rituals, by all means, go ahead. There's no way to "police" this that isn't open to abuse. But in the follow-up I specifically made a difference between these and medical decisions.
As a principal, I agree, but when it comes to this, as I feel it is medically sound, I don't mind, much as if your religion called for you to be kind to strangers or floss daily. Since it's already a good idea, I don't mind a bit.
quote:First of all, it's not harmless if you view religions as false...
This is not a good argument. If one views religions as false, they are free, in America, to raise their child that way. This is not a good reason to repress people's religions.
quote:...and are pissed off at things like insistence of teaching creationism alongside evolution for example...
This is an entirely different argument. What people claim for the religion of their children and teach them at home is utterly unrelated to what schools which receive public funds teach.
quote:...or when seeing people donate money to build churches but become very squeamish when asked to do anything for the school their children go to.
And this is yet another separate argument. Honestly, it isn't anyone's business how people spend their money, as long as they are not depriving their children of basic need stuff.
quote:And it's not harmless if a male child has a botched circumcision or complications because of it...
Now this argument might hold some water.
quote:...or simply will at one point in life resent his parents for mutilating his body.
Super rare, and again, please please please let this be the biggest thing my son has to deal with in his adult life, that would be such a blessing.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Just to clarify, this part:
quote:First of all, it's not harmless if you view religions as false and are pissed off at things like insistence of teaching creationism alongside evolution for example, or when seeing people donate money to build churches but become very squeamish when asked to do anything for the school their children go to.
was just about whether raising children in your own religion and thus helping perpetuate religions is harmful or harmless. Not about whether we could or should do something about it other than try to educate people.
About the studies, I've mostly looked at stuff on the WHO website. I'll try to get some quotes from there tomorrow.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Circumcision Ruling Is 'a Shameful Farce for Germany'
German religious leaders claim that Jewish life will not be possible in the country if a court ruling on circumcision sets a legal precedent.
A controversial German court ruling on circumcision has outraged Muslim and Jewish groups in Germany and abroad. German commentators say the decision was misguided and could have devastating consequences.
The ruling came nearly two weeks ago, but the reaction is getting increasingly vocal. At a meeting of the orthodox Conference of European Rabbis in Berlin on Thursday, the group's head warned that a June 26 court decision making a case of circumcision a crime had been the "worst attack on Jewish life since the Holocaust". Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt also threatened that Jews might leave Germany if the country doesn't move to provide legal certainty that the tradition of circumcision can continue.
In a case involving a Muslim boy, the Cologne regional court ruled that the doctor performing the circumcision had committed bodily injury to a child, thus criminalizing the act. The ruling has no legal bearing on other cases, but some fear it could be used as a precedent by other courts.
The ruling has outraged not only the Muslim community, but also Jewish groups. In the postwar years, the Jewish community in Germany has painstakingly rebuilt itself to the point that it has been flourishing recently. But many view the ruling as a direct attack on their religious freedom.
Germany's leading Jewish body, the Central Council of Jews in Germany, has called for a clarification of the country's confusing legal situation. "Circumcision is absolutely elementary for every Jew," the organization's president, Dieter Graumann, said in an interview with the Rheinische Post newspaper. He warned that if the Cologne ruling were to become the legal basis, that "Jewish life in Germany might ultimately no longer be possible."
Germany's parliament is currently on summer recess, but politicians are already discussing the possibility of making changes to German law to ensure that the religious rite of circumcision can continue here.
'Circumcisions Must Be Possible without Punishment'
"We know that a swift solution is necessary and that it can't be put off," said Steffen Seibert, Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman. "Circumcisions that are carried out responsibly must be possible in this country without punishment." However, Seibert did not comment to reporters on whether a new law would be created ensuring the legality of circumcision, something that has been demanded by the opposition Greens and center-left Social Democratic Party. A spokeswoman for Germany's Justice Ministry also declined to comment.
In addition to Jewish and Muslim groups in Germany, the ruling has also drawn strong condemnation from the state of Israel. Germany's ambassador to the country, Andreas Michaelis, recently sought to ease concerns by writing a letter to Knesset President Reuven Rivlin. In it, he stated: "The decision is an isolated case that is not legally binding for other courts."
In recent days, the ruling has drawn nearly universal criticism in the press. On editorial pages on Friday, most newspapers writing on the topic call for the German government to move to provide clarity for religious groups that their freedoms will be protected.
Center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
"It is understandable when religious leaders protest because they feel their faith and their rituals are being ridiculed. The ruling puts circumcision in a category that also includes beatings. The circumcised child is put on the same level as one who has been beaten up. Beatings belittle people and make a child the object of anger of the person beating it. But circumcision is an act of recognition: It makes the child the member of a faith and represents entry into a community. Some Christians and atheists may smirk over that, but Christians also don't have to celebrate the 'Feast of the Circumcision of Christ' on Jan. 1 if they don't want to. … The Cologne court's ruling was rash and the loud outcry is justified."
The regional Saarbrücker Zeitung writes:
"Under no circumstances can the circumcision ritual … of Judaism be reduced to an inherited, archaic religious law. To an overwhelming majority of secular Jews, it is viewed as much more of a foundation that is indispensable for establishing identity. Viewed in this context, there is no exaggeration in the objection that this legal decision makes Jewish -- as well as Muslim -- life in Germany impossible. … Another court, presumably (the Federal Constitutional Court in) Karlsruhe, will have to re-weigh the issues. If it affirms the (lower court's) ban, it would be unique in the entire world. It would do so in the full awareness that it risks triggering an exodus of Jews and Muslims (from Germany). One can't imagine what the consequences of this would be for Germany."
Conservative Die Welt writes:
"The circumcision of Jewish boys on the eighth day after their birth is a foundation of the Jewish religion. If it is suspended through disregard for freedom of religion, then Jewish life in Germany will no longer be possible. For the first time since the end of the Third Reich, Jews would be forced to leave the country in order to be able to adhere to this mandate of the scriptures. If that happens, it would send out a message with disastrous political consequences."
"There are also other reasons that legal certainty in the interests of freedom of religion and faith under Article 4 of the German constitution be created. A ban on circumcision, be it Muslim or Jewish, is a manifestation of the increasing intolerance shown towards religious groups in the world. It has been almost palpable since 9/11. ... Intolerance can swell like a flood: If you don't dam it up, it will continue."
"The reference (in the ruling) to the bodily integrity of the child is also only a pretext. No judge would seek to take action against the vaccinations given to infants -- an action that, statistically, can lead to greater complications than circumcision. And the 'castration trauma' that some dinner table psychologists have dreamt up cannot be taken seriously either. It certainly can't be any greater than the emotional burden faced by an adolescent who cannot take part in Jewish festivities and be consecrated because he is not circumcised. The Cologne judges didn't think about that and they issued a ruling that is unprecedented in the Western world. It is a shameful farce for Germany."
The left-leaning Frankfurter Rundschau writes:
"The rabbis' worries are justified. As long as German jurisprudence is concerned with finding a balance between the legally protected right of religious freedom and the right of physical integrity, religious Jews and Muslims will see themselves as confronted by a climate of defamation. In these emotionally charged debates, there is more at play than just investigating a position of legal positivism. Jews and Muslims don't need any advice or cultural-historical treatises on their rituals. What they need is legal certainty. And establishing this is also the job of politicians."
The regional Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"The decision of the Cologne-based court shouldn't be allowed to stand in this way, and there needs to be another judicial review. What is the signal that Cologne was sending out? Should religious Jews who want to circumcise their boys now use quack doctors or even go abroad? One would already like to see a trace of historical or cultural sensitivity from the courts. The decision offers the kind of material that could trigger cultural warfare, if it hasn't already begun."
It looks like this problem was *puts on sunglasses* nipped in the bud.
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Except it's still a problem.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Then your argument that all it has to do is pass a secular test isn't valid.
We have freedom of religion in this country, and circumcision is a very large part of Judaism. And that's all it needs to be.
Ok, let's try this on some other cases.
"Eating babies is a very large part of atheism. And that's all it needs to be."
"Peyote is a very large part of shamanism. And that's all it needs to be."
"Not paying for abortions (or insurance that pays for it) is a very large part of Catholicism. And that's all it needs to be."
"Human sacrifice is a very large part of the worship of Hualotl. And that's all it needs to be."
Perhaps you would like to rephrase your argument in a way that doesn't utterly privilege custom you approve of and the status quo?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I use the analogy of if ear piercing as being a mark of ethnic inclusiveness for a people some 5000 or so years of custom and history behind the tradition and since piercing an ear cannot be shown to have significant long term harm than it is an "allowable" level of harm as the "price of entry" into an ethnic group, or risk cultural genocide.
Male Circumcision strikes me as being little different from trimming your fingernails a little too deeply, you still have useable fingers.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I can understand the argument that circumcision is invasive, but still, it doesn't harm the baby in any way. This tradition is harmless, and as I've heard, even beneficial for health and hygiene and stuff.
This ritual is thousands years old. I believe it is one of the things that make Jews Jewish. I'm afraid I don't know about how important circumcision is to Muslims, but I imagine just as much.
On the other hand we have the fact, that the baby has no right to decide. It's like baptism in Christianity or other sacraments in other religions that I do not know of. It is irreversible. I think it could be compared to having a word "Jew" tattooed on your buttock.
I think the first two points combined are much stronger than the third one. That's why I think this ruling is outrageous, extremely abusive, intolerant and I hate it.
If Jews and Muslims circumcised girls, it would be a completely different issue. In such case, I think, they should be given choice and such tradition should be banned.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I can understand the argument that circumcision is invasive, but still, it doesn't harm the baby in any way. This tradition is harmless, and as I've heard, even beneficial for health and hygiene and stuff.
Well, there are drawbacks to being circumcised. They're certainly not major, but because of the weight of tradition it often gets put forward as an unmitigated benefit, with people who question it somehow cast-though it's not always stated openly-as less concerned with a child's welfare. But in any event, let's be clear, it is invasive, at least in the way the term is used. A part of a human body that isn't defective is removed. The response to that isn't ever that it's not, but only that it's good medically, therefore permission after the fact should be assumed. The benefits it offers to adult men of reliable, good hygiene are...less overwhelming, I'm afraid. It seems to me that all of the talk of infection would be much less compelling if it were being proposed as a new thing now.
quote:This ritual is thousands years old. I believe it is one of the things that make Jews Jewish. I'm afraid I don't know about how important circumcision is to Muslims, but I imagine just as much.
Frankly, this doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how old this ritual is-as has been noted, there are other rituals with an even longer history that we are perfectly willing to ignore. As for being what makes Jews Jewish and Muslims Muslim, the state frankly shouldn't have any business in protecting the 'Jewishness' of infant children, who cannot outside of their religion be considered 'Jewish' as a question of identity. Setting aside the intersection of culture and religion that is pretty strong among Jewish communities, you can't be a member of a religion unless you pick it-and I fail to see how being born to Jewish parents makes one a Jew anymore than being born to Hindu parents makes one a Hindu. I realize this will seem pretty unconvincing to many people, but it seems to me true. Infants don't belong to any religion, even if any of the religions were true, unless they can be members without choosing to be such.
Anyway, the state doesn't have an interest and shouldn't be involved in protecting the religious identity of anyone, only in their ability to choose their own identity without compulsion from others. Permitting parents to permanently alter the bodies of infants, even if we accept that it is totally harmless, seems at odds with that.
quote:I think the first two points combined are much stronger than the third one. That's why I think this ruling is outrageous, extremely abusive, intolerant and I hate it.
Given that you liken it to a tattoo (which can, actually, be removed) I'm not sure how you would characterize prohibiting infant circumcision, unless it's for this specific ruling, and not the idea in general.
If today, I were to announce myself the new prophet of the One God and detail how as a sign of faith and identity, I would have the last knuckle of my future male infant's middle toes removed-something which if done properly in a hospital would pose very little risk, and down the line in life offer almost no drawbacks to my son-I think people would look at me a bit crosswise, and maybe even try to stop me. Without that weight of tradition, I wouldn't be able to just brush off challenges, as is appropriate. I would have to try and show why, before I have surgery done on my children, it is medically necessary.
Things are made complicated, of course, by the fact that for many such efforts, the motives really are plainly racist, anti-Semitic, hateful, etc. It's also more complicated because, if done properly, very very few children in our culture will mind, nor will they be hurt in an easily defined way. So the easy impulse is to go with the butt out instinct.
The problem there is that it actually is our business what we permit done to infant humans. We have a decision to make.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
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 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 guess what I'm trying to say is- the state now has way too much power. I can't believe something like this happened in Germany. Wars and insurections broke out for lesser reasons.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The argument I would use is that since banning circumcision would in effect, be a de facto ban of Judaism that would force those wishing to be practicing Jews to leave Germany to be worrisome. The "pros" of protecting the child I feel are vastly outweighed by the law of unintended consequences.
That and the leading legal arguments for its ban seem to rely on a notion of humans rights that for much of the world aren't even guaranteed for adults I just find silly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
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.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
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.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
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?
Hobbes
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Oh, I have no doubt it happens. I was just really surprised it had happened to Syn.
Hobbes Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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 ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't consider the two equivalent. And I have zero interest in discussing hypotheticals.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And I have zero interest in discussing hypotheticals.
Is there any other way to discuss a question of ethics?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Would explaining why the two aren't equivalent constitute discussing a hypothetical?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm with rivka. I don't think the two are remotely equivalent.
There are plenty of ways to discuss questions of ethics without using contrived hypotheticals.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wait, I'm lost too; why is the hypothetical not even remotely equivalent?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
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.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
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?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
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.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
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.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Not clicking link, sa'eed posted it, someone tell me what it has to do with the jews.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
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.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
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?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Muslims are wrong, wrong WRONG to copy Jews in the matter of circumcision. It should be a sin to harm boys in this fashion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
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.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
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.
[ July 23, 2012, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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?
Nonsense.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yea, why is it so barbaric when medically speaking it is advantageous?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
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?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: why do so few adults (comparatively) choose to do it
The rate of complications and degree of pain are both significantly higher in adults.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not to be snarky
Funny, I don't believe you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: why do so few adults (comparatively) choose to do it
The rate of complications and degree of pain are both significantly higher in adults.
And recovery time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
shrieking butchers of male penises, barbarous mutilators, addendum: jews
WHY IT MUST BE A CIRCUMCISION THREAD
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I am an anti-semite in so far I find certain thingss Jews do to be objectionable, yes.
Okay, let's assume for the sake of discussion that Jews no longer preformed circumcisions.
What else would you find objectionable?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I am an anti-semite in so far I find certain thingss Jews do to be objectionable, yes.
Okay, let's assume for the sake of discussion that Jews no longer preformed circumcisions.
What else would you find objectionable?
Let's please not go there.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
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.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I thought it was already pretty out in the open.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Forgive me wanting to hear it from the horse's mouth. Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
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?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Forgive me wanting to hear it from the horse's mouth.
we have been down this road at least 13 times before.
Wow Sa'eed. Thats some pretty intense stuff.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*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?
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rakeesh, I was directly responding to a question posed two posts before mine.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*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.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Simple answer...time travel.
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
This discussion seems to have degenrated into something resembling a glorified cat fight. Argue on! Please I implore you!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
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.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
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?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Are puns worth negative or positive points? Is there a combo multiplier for having more than one type of argument in a single post?
How much do I get if I manage to derail the thread? Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
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".
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:"Parent are allowed consent on behalf of infants for ear piercing."
You are misrepresenting the content of that link.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
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.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
We will take her to have it done (if she wants it) before she is roaming freely with packs of needle happy girlfriends.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
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.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
At what age?
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ah, well nvm then.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
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. Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
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.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
This is mature material but I recommend the Penn & Tiller "BS" episode on coercive circumcision.
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?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well said. The term steals emotional weight from the word genocide its actual concept doesn't receive.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, by all means, in a thread where Sa'eed uses phrases such as, just recently, 'worldwide Jewry', that's what makes you uncomfortable. I guess we really are supposed, for whatever damn reason, to pretend Sa'eed is just another poster on these subjects.
I don't like to be irritated or upset with you in your moderator role, because almost invariably I think your decision making is solid and fair, and on the rare occasions I don't, I still appreciate it. If you feel like it's important Sa'eed get full measure of respect and consideration on this particular topic, given his undeniable history of anti-Semitism...well to be truthful I likely will react along similar lines if be continues to espouse his contemptible, hateful politics-or play this little game of his that no one, even you I expect, doubts he is doing. If that merits a moderator response, I don't doubt it will be to the letter of the rules. But not, I expect, to the spirit.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: Sa'eed has already stated several times that he finds the Muslim view on circumcision no less wrong. Maybe his biases cause him to hone in on the Jewish aspect of the opposition, but then again, pretty much every Western news outlet I've read glosses over Muslim opposition in Germany and focuses on Jewish aspect of it as well.
I'm not trying to give Sa'eed any more respect than I would give any other poster here. But I am getting the vibe that I am being more permissible in this instance because it is Sa'eed, which immediately causes me to reevaluate the situation as if I don't know the poster at all.
History is important, but only as a gauge of a poster's behavior, and how their posts should be interpreted, *not* as a means of deciding whether other posters should be permitted to get away with certain comments made against them.
I recognize that for many posters just about anything Sa'eed says needs to be filtered for anti-semitism, and you feel he's shown that color already so you're going after it. Fine. But don't do it by bullying him into that conversation, as if it's somehow better for everybody if he just gives in to those beliefs and starts honestly expressing those terrible ideas.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
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...
Gasp! The horror!
If we were talking about a Bullshit episode on, say, global warming, or the bank bailouts, this sort of scattershot guilt-by-association game might be halfway sensible. But what was the point of it here?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It matters because of their libertarian values regarding personal liberty in this case of 'the child's right to consent' and personal involution trumps the parents right to raise them in their religion and community which they feel is best for the child.
That and as I explained they're skeptics, so obviously they aren't going to buy into the importance of religious or cultural values.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: It matters because of their libertarian values regarding personal liberty in this case of 'the child's right to consent' and personal involution trumps the parents right to raise them in their religion and community which they feel is best for the child.
That and as I explained they're skeptics, so obviously they aren't going to buy into the importance of religious or cultural values.
Lots of libertarians (including libertarian favorite and all around terrible crackpot Rothbard) think that parental rights are far more important than anything as silly as child autonomy. So saying it's because they're libertarians, again, is a total non sequitur.
For someone who cries "ad hom" at the drop of a hat, I just want to point out this delicious irony: This is ad hominem. Ad hominem doesn't require mean words. It just means that you say someone should be dismissed because of who they are or what they believe, instead of addressing what they actually said.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You do realize your nitpicking over the use of the word 'libertarian' and whether its relevant to the discussion rather than addressing the content of the post itself right? Which you obviously didn't read.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Of course I read your post. Your assertion that their opinions didn't matter because they were libertarian and affiliated with Cato was part of that post. It was part of the content of your post. It was the content I chose to respond to. If you didn't want responses to that part, you should have left it out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:That and as I explained they're skeptics, so obviously they aren't going to buy into the importance of religious or cultural values.
Yes, they are. They're just not going to give any practice a free pass or pedestal of preference just because it's been grandfathered in under a prejudiced or superstitious legacy of thought.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Right, which is the whole point of their show; they find and take anything that we as a society "take for granted" when we go about it and call it out. Their mindset is "Their culture makes it important to commit MGM to children; F-em!", being skeptics make it obvious what the end result will be.
Nevertheless, as I said in my post to The Somalian about their show, the episode linked if watched in its totality (which I did a long time ago) it never at any point makes any substantiative argument beyond "It is a needless and unnecessary surgical procedure for limited medical reasons." That they spend the good deal of 40 minutes of airtime dressing up with a lot of swearing and appeal to emotion in order to pad it out.
*That* is the principle point of my original post, the rest is essentially window dressing and you Dan are wasting a lot of time complaining about whether or not said window dressing may or may not be pertinent or valid, it's pointlessly pedantic.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:*That* is the principle point of my original post, the rest is essentially window dressing and you Dan are wasting a lot of time complaining about whether or not said window dressing may or may not be pertinent or valid, it's pointlessly pedantic.
If you think dan's comment is 'pointlessly pedantic' 'window dressing' you simply don't understand what dan's point was and should go back and re-read it.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Color me surprised. ![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)