|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Circumcision vs FGM - the ethics?
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
So today I found myself browsing the BBC news website when I come across a story about how a region in Germany is seeking to ban male circumcision. The story is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18833145
For me it raises some interesting questions. I had never, being female, given circumscision a second thought. It's part of my cultural furniture as something that Muslim and Jewish cultures practice and I never once questioned it.
However the attempt by the regional German court to ban it made me think about things in a new light. On many levels the basic act of circucision on young boys is similar if not identical to the practice of female genital mutilation on young girls. I am aware that it causes much less physical damage long term but it still remains a permanent physical alteration given to a baby or child who is not capable of giving informed consent.
What do other shipmates think? Was the court over-reacting or was it seeing something new in a long accepted practise? Can we make arguments for circumsicion on young boys while at the same time maintaining arguments against FGM?
[ 02. November 2012, 20:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
Can we make arguments for circumsicion on young boys while at the same time maintaining arguments against FGM?
Yes. Male circumcision can be done for legitimate medical reasons (e.x. it seems to reduce the transmission of HIV). FGM has no such purpose.
Also, it doesn't have any effect on your sex life. Just trust me on that one. The entire purpose of FGM, on the other hand, is to make sex painful and pleasureless for women.
[ 13. July 2012, 18:49: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Circumcision should not be routine practice, should have some reason other than preference or "to look like dad", and is a serious medical procedure. It has be deinsured in most Canadian jurisdictions, and is recommended not to be routinely done by the various physician groups.
There is infirm evidence about disease such as HIV, and others. It is not good enough data to support the operation.
It seems to me that it is very justified to discourage circumcision for any purpose other than medical, or firm religious conviction (Judaism, Islam). Some who wants to have one on their child needs to justify this.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
No, they shouldn't. Why allow Jews and Muslims to submit their children to elective medical procedures deemed to dangerous for other children simply because their religion demands it? If you aren't prepared to say the procedure should be banned regardless of religion, then kindly mind your own damn business.
[ 13. July 2012, 19:15: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
For our friends from across the pond, it is important to note that routine circumcision of male neonates is still extremely common in America and used to be almost universal, certainly amongst Americans of European origin. It was only less likely amongst persons living in isolated and impoverished areas, unassimilated immigrant communities, or amongst African-American or Latino populations.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
Hmmm @ BA - well it's been a major cultural/religious marker for these groups for millennia and to ban it would have the effect of alienating those religious populations even more. To answer the OP - perhaps it would be better to leave the decision to the child when he comes of age - an argument that can also be applied to Christian baptism; however, there can be absolutely NO comparison between male circumcision and FGM ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
FGM is a VERY different thing to male circumcision.
As has been stated there are no clear benefits to male circumcision.
Some people say it's more hygienic but I say poppycock to that. It's unhealthy to let any part of your body go unwashed. We don't remove the armpits or feet from children we just teach them how to use a bar of soap.
Speaking personally I have found that while sex is still as enjoyable as before, (I use condoms so maybe no real difference there?) foreplay isn't as enjoyable as it was before I had to get it done.
For those who don't remember or missed it: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=70;t=014180
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If you aren't prepared to say the procedure should be banned regardless of religion, then kindly mind your own damn business.
That's just daft.
It is obviously sensible to require a reason for any medical procedure. How good that reason needs to be depends on the seriousness and risk of the procedure.
Since the overwhelming majority of men suffer no noticeable detriment from being either circumcised or uncircumcised, it is quite arguable that "my religion requires it" counts as a good reason for male circumcision. "Mind your own damn business" on the other hand, isn't a reason at all, so it is entirely sensible not to circumcise boys where no remotely cogent reason is proferred.
"My religion requires it" is obviously not a good enough reason for FGM, as that has far more severe consequences than male circumcision. The idea that they are equivalent is absurd.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Seeing as circumcision doesn't really cause any detriment to boys, and I don't put any stock in the "Let them make up their own minds" argument, I think "my religion requires it" is a perfectly reasonable argument.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Zach82 said: quote:
I don't put any stock in the "Let them make up their own minds" argument
Would you mind unpacking that a little?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Zach82 said: quote:
I don't put any stock in the "Let them make up their own minds" argument
Would you mind unpacking that a little?
What's to unpack? It's a parent's job to teach their children what's right. I think being a member of the Church is for the best, so I will, when I have little Zachs, have them become members of the Church through baptism.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Seeing as circumcision doesn't really cause any detriment to boys ...
Maybe you're cool with it, but I've known more than one guy who wished his parents hadn't needlessly had part of his body cut off.
If circumcision is a matter of religious freedom, how about the religious freedom of the boy who may decide not to embrace his parents' faith as an adult?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Seeing as circumcision doesn't really cause any detriment to boys ...
Maybe you're cool with it, but I've known more than one guy who wished his parents hadn't needlessly had part of his body cut off.
If circumcision is a matter of religious freedom, how about the religious freedom of the boy who may decide not to embrace his parents' faith as an adult?
So are you against infant baptism, too, then?
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
The problem with that is, who is the 'me' in 'my religion'. It's the parents. Generally, we don't say now that a child is their parents' property, to do with as they please. What is different in this case? I resisted all pressures to have our children baptised until they could understand what it meant, and see no reason why circumcision should be different.
It's absolutely the case that male circumcision isn't as awful as female genital mutilation (please let's spell that out, not just FGM). Though I read one account from a jewish father, not a believer, who had reluctantly bowed to family pressure to have his son circumcised. He said he would never forget his child's scream. But regardless of what harm may or may not result, what of an adult, circumcised man who simply wishes that it hadn't been done? He was given no choice in the matter.
I suspect that if a faith required that the little toe or pinkie of a child - and we could all manage without either - be snipped off, without a by your leave from the child at an age where this could be meaningful, we'd scream no way! And yet removing part of an infant boy's penis is apparently, to many, acceptable. Forget that it's a thousands of years' tradition. We challenge enough of those before breakfast.
--------------------
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Danny DeVito
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
]Maybe you're cool with it, but I've known more than one guy who wished his parents hadn't needlessly had part of his body cut off.
Since the sensations in question are purely a matter of speculation on his part, he should probably just get over it.
quote:
If circumcision is a matter of religious freedom, how about the religious freedom of the boy who may decide not to embrace his parents' faith as an adult?
Until he's an adult, he hasn't got any.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Zach82 said: quote:
Until he's an adult, he hasn't got any [religious freedom].
None? At sixteen (eighteen? twenty-one?) he magically gains the religious freedom?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
One may argue that male circumcision should not be done without consent, but to equate it with FGM is ridiculous.
Rather like comparing a tattoo with amputation.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
circumcised guys DO look better tho ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Zach82 said: quote:
Until he's an adult, he hasn't got any [religious freedom].
None? At sixteen (eighteen? twenty-one?) he magically gains the religious freedom?
Not magically- legally.
Not that the age of accountability is necessarily the same as the age of legal majority. We're talking about infants here, who don't know better. So the parents are supposed to know what's best for him. Whether that child grows up to reject his parents' faith is another matter.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
I doubt this guy agrees, Jahlove.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Seeing as circumcision doesn't really cause any detriment to boys ...
Maybe you're cool with it, but I've known more than one guy who wished his parents hadn't needlessly had part of his body cut off.
I also know someone whose genitals were mutilated as a child. He's also not happy about it now.
[ 13. July 2012, 20:48: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
The problem with that is, who is the 'me' in 'my religion'. It's the parents. Generally, we don't say now that a child is their parents' property, to do with as they please. What is different in this case? I resisted all pressures to have our children baptised until they could understand what it meant, and see no reason why circumcision should be different.
So...taking your logic a step further, would you want infant baptism banned by law? How about laws forbidding any religious instruction to children at all?
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Zach82 said: quote:
Not magically- legally
Which is all that concerns us, obviously...
Though I accept your point that during infancy someone is going to have to make decisions for the little blighters...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]]What's to unpack? It's a parent's job to teach their children what's right. I think being a member of the Church is for the best, so I will, when I have little Zachs, have them become members of the Church through baptism.
Baptism is one thing. Cutting off part of a persons body is another thing.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]]What's to unpack? It's a parent's job to teach their children what's right. I think being a member of the Church is for the best, so I will, when I have little Zachs, have them become members of the Church through baptism.
Baptism is one thing. Cutting off part of a persons body is another thing.
If the argument against circumcision is "parents don't have the right to decide their child's religion" then no, it's not another thing. It's quite the same thing.
[ 13. July 2012, 21:04: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Seeing as circumcision doesn't really cause any detriment to boys ...
Maybe you're cool with it, but I've known more than one guy who wished his parents hadn't needlessly had part of his body cut off.
If circumcision is a matter of religious freedom, how about the religious freedom of the boy who may decide not to embrace his parents' faith as an adult?
So are you against infant baptism, too, then?
I mean, baptism doesn't cause an irreversible anatomical change. So there's that difference. I'm not aware of any minister accidentally causing hemorrhage or infection during a baptism.
This is a tough one. My Christian parents had me circumcised because that was somewhat common medical practice for infants when I was born. I don't have any comparison for sensation, so I can't say I was robbed of anything. I can understand the argument of men who resent having had the decision made for them, but I think it is largely harmless.
FGM causes horrible pain and disfigurement and, as far as I know, is not a good faith religious practice. If circumcision were substantially riskier or more disfiguring, I wonder if we'd be having a different conversation.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
I mean, baptism doesn't cause an irreversible anatomical change. So there's that difference. I'm not aware of any minister accidentally causing hemorrhage or infection during a baptism.
If THAT is the argument, then infant baptism is something quite different. But I keep hearing some variation of "parents don't have any right to choose their child's religion" on this thread, and its implications are really disturbing.
Sorry, but children don't get to choose the language they speak, either. Or the cultural traditions they inherit. Or any other number of things, starting with who their parents are!
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]]What's to unpack? It's a parent's job to teach their children what's right. I think being a member of the Church is for the best, so I will, when I have little Zachs, have them become members of the Church through baptism.
Baptism is one thing. Cutting off part of a persons body is another thing.
If the argument against circumcision is "parents don't have the right to decide their child's religion" then no, it's not another thing. It's quite the same thing.
Ok let me put it another way. Arguing that if it's ok for parents to baptise children then it should be ok to circumcise them is a stupid comparison. In one you are splashing some water on their head. In another you are ripping a piece of their body off.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]]What's to unpack? It's a parent's job to teach their children what's right. I think being a member of the Church is for the best, so I will, when I have little Zachs, have them become members of the Church through baptism.
Baptism is one thing. Cutting off part of a persons body is another thing.
If the argument against circumcision is "parents don't have the right to decide their child's religion" then no, it's not another thing. It's quite the same thing.
I believe the argument is that it's an elective surgery that provides no health benefits and arguably alters sexual sensation.
Also, it's not unheard-of for a mishap to occur during circumcision, leaving the child (or adult) permanently dis"member"ed.
It's not as simple as choosing a religious upbringing for a child and putting them through the usual religious initiation. Baptism and confirmation involve no surgery or risk of serious injury and have no lasting outward effects if he reaches adulthood and no longer wishes to associate with the religion.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]]What's to unpack? It's a parent's job to teach their children what's right. I think being a member of the Church is for the best, so I will, when I have little Zachs, have them become members of the Church through baptism.
Baptism is one thing. Cutting off part of a persons body is another thing.
If the argument against circumcision is "parents don't have the right to decide their child's religion" then no, it's not another thing. It's quite the same thing.
Ok let me put it another way. Arguing that if it's ok for parents to baptise children then it should be ok to circumcise them is a stupid comparison. In one you are splashing some water on their head. In another you are ripping a piece of their body off.
Read my post again. I am saying if (IF!) your argument against circumcision is that parents don't get to decide their child's religion, then the same argument can be used against infant baptism. Or even Sunday School. But if your argument is that it causes physical harm, then yes, infant baptism can be safely left alone.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
The "parental choice" trail is a dead end. Everything in an infant's life is decided by their parents w/o the child's consent. The baby has no say in baptism or circumcision-- or in nutrition or sleep position or a host of other things that have great impact on their future health and well-being. Circumcision is simply one of a myriad of decisions parents must make for their children that will indeed impact the rest of their lives. That's the fearsome nature of parenting.
The question then simply becomes "is it abusive?"-- which is really the only point at which society should intervene in that parental responsibility. Quite unlike FGM, the risks/benefits are debatable, which I think argues with the majority here to stay out of it.
I find the comparison to FGM, btw, to be at best superficial and at worst cruelly insensitive. They are related only by the crude fact that they both involve genitalia.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
The "parental choice" trail is a dead end. Everything in an infant's life is decided by their parents w/o the child's consent
Not a dead end, just a very nasty and sordid end, when it comes to religion. Follow the trail all the way, and you'll have laws saying that its child abuse to send a kid to Sunday school.
[ 13. July 2012, 21:32: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
@Unreformed Yes I should never ignore the if.
I was posting while still thinking of Zach82's post rather than paying full attention to yours.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
@Unreformed Yes I should never ignore the if.
I was posting while still thinking of Zach82's post rather than paying full attention to yours.
My mistake. Sorry.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
It isn't often that I agree 100% with cliffdweller. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
AIUI, the circumcision of a Jewish boy when he is eight days old makes him part of the Jewish community. If he is not circumcised then, he never totally belongs. (The Bible makes an exception for boys born into families where hemophilia is present.)
Christianity does not require that a person be baptized at a certain time. This is an important difference.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The question then simply becomes "is it abusive?"--
Is it abusive to cut off a childs forskin for non medical reasons? On reflection I think it is.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Circumcision is simply one of a myriad of decisions parents must make for their children that will indeed impact the rest of their lives.
That's clearly not true.
There's no "must" about it. There is a very obvious default option which automatically applies if no one thinks to make such a decision.
I didn't make a decision not to cut off my foreskin today. I didn't make a decision not to cut off my son's foreskin when he was born. I can go for, what, whole weeks at a time without it ever ocurring to me to make a decision not to cut off anyone's foreskin at all.
I can't help but think it is reasonable for Jewish parents to have their sons circumcised, since it is such an important part of the cultural identity in which they will grow up. It seems to me that on balance more harm would be done forbidding the practice than allowing it. That doesn't make the routine circumcision of infants for no discernable reason at all any less odd or wrong.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Circumcision is simply one of a myriad of decisions parents must make for their children that will indeed impact the rest of their lives.
That's clearly not true.
There's no "must" about it. There is a very obvious default option which automatically applies if no one thinks to make such a decision.
I didn't make a decision not to cut off my foreskin today. I didn't make a decision not to cut off my son's foreskin when he was born. I can go for, what, whole weeks at a time without it ever ocurring to me to make a decision not to cut off anyone's foreskin at all.
I can't help but think it is reasonable for Jewish parents to have their sons circumcised, since it is such an important part of the cultural identity in which they will grow up. It seems to me that on balance more harm would be done forbidding the practice than allowing it. That doesn't make the routine circumcision of infants for no discernable reason at all any less odd or wrong.
quite so. However, there is still no comparison between the removal of foreskin of the penis and the removal of the clitoris/labia minor/major and stitching up of the vulva which all come under the heading of female (so-called) circumcision
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
quite so. However, there is still no comparison between the removal of foreskin of the penis and the removal of the clitoris/labia minor/major and stitching up of the vulva which all come under the heading of female (so-called) circumcision
Absolutly. This cannot be emphasize enough.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Should all of us circumcised American non-Jewish/non-Muslim males just assume that the fact we don't feel ourselves to have been abused by the involuntary loss of our foreskins is an artifact of an insightless identification with the aggressor and thus get us into analysis at the earliest opportunity ("Run, don't walk...)?
Seriously, apart from a few disturbed dudes and excessively hippy dippy tree huggers, I don't think any circumcised males in this country are bemoaning the loss of a bit of skin. I got my tonsils out as well -- that was more of a castration anxiety provoking event, let me tell you...
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Should all of us circumcised American non-Jewish/non-Muslim males just assume that the fact we don't feel ourselves to have been abused by the involuntary loss of our foreskins is an artifact of an insightless identification with the aggressor and thus get us into analysis at the earliest opportunity ("Run, don't walk...)?
Seriously, apart from a few disturbed dudes and excessively hippy dippy tree huggers, I don't think any circumcised males in this country are bemoaning the loss of a bit of skin. I got my tonsils out as well -- that was more of a castration anxiety provoking event, let me tell you...
Not at all. I'm happy it worked out well for you. I still don't presume it's a good idea to cut off a piece of someone's body for non medical reasons without their consent.
[ 13. July 2012, 23:18: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Should all of us circumcised American non-Jewish/non-Muslim males just assume that the fact we don't feel ourselves to have been abused by the involuntary loss of our foreskins is an artifact of an insightless identification with the aggressor and thus get us into analysis at the earliest opportunity ("Run, don't walk...)?
No. Why should you? If it doesn't bother you and has no detrimental effect on your life, what's the problem?
In the scale of odd and wrong, unnecessary medical procedures on superfluous bits of penis that carry little risk for no benefit rank pretty low next to all the other odd and wrong things human beings do. But it is still a bizarre thing to thing to want to do at all, given that there's not the ghost of a need for it, and therefore, equally obviously, a wrong thing to do to someone else for no good reason and without their consent. Unlike the truly horrible practice of female genital mutilation, it's not shocking. It's not a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. It's not something that I can say especially bothers me. But it is still odd and wrong.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Am I the only one who finds this conversation mildly weird in a culture where people are getting multiple holes in their anatomy for the sake of fashion right, left and (shudder) center? Many of them minors. And tattoos up the wazoo (well, maybe not there...)
In a lot of cultures, little girls get their ears pierced at a month old, by Mom, using a (hopefully) clean needle. No religious reason, just "pretty."
Unlike these things, circumcision is a major religious rite for many people, and has the added minor advantage of mostly eliminating any chance of balanitis or penile cancer. It also apparently benefits the kid's future wife with less chance of cervical cancer. Granted, these are minor advantages; but the procedure itself is minor in comparison to something like tonsillectomy or etc. Let alone FGM.
Can things go wrong? Obviously, which is why you choose your doctor/mohel very very carefully. But it's not rocket surgery. (sorry, had to use that line once in my life)
Now somebody flame me for commenting on a subject I do not possess the anatomy for.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Circumcision is simply one of a myriad of decisions parents must make for their children that will indeed impact the rest of their lives.
That's clearly not true.
There's no "must" about it. There is a very obvious default option which automatically applies if no one thinks to make such a decision.
I didn't make a decision not to cut off my foreskin today. I didn't make a decision not to cut off my son's foreskin when he was born. I can go for, what, whole weeks at a time without it ever ocurring to me to make a decision not to cut off anyone's foreskin at all.
Obviously my point was more general than that-- that everything that happens in an infants life happens because the parents, not the child, chose it. If you didn't choose/not choose circumcision, then you chose breast or bottle, or crib or co-sleeping, stroller or infant sling.
However, in many parts of the US, if you have a hospital birth you WILL have to choose, one way or the other. You will be asked, and an answer will be expected.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Am I the only one who finds this conversation mildly weird in a culture where people are getting multiple holes in their anatomy for the sake of fashion right, left and (shudder) center? Many of them minors. And tattoos up the wazoo (well, maybe not there...)
In a lot of cultures, little girls get their ears pierced at a month old, by Mom, using a (hopefully) clean needle. No religious reason, just "pretty."
Where I live you have to be 18 to get a tattoo, and while I've seen a lot of body modification, outside of the pierced ears for girls, I've never seen it on a minor.
quote:
Unlike these things, circumcision is a major religious rite for many people, and has the added minor advantage of mostly eliminating any chance of balanitis or penile cancer. It also apparently benefits the kid's future wife with less chance of cervical cancer. Granted, these are minor advantages; but the procedure itself is minor in comparison to something like tonsillectomy or etc. Let alone FGM.
Can things go wrong? Obviously, which is why you choose your doctor/mohel very very carefully. But it's not rocket surgery. (sorry, had to use that line once in my life)
It's a minor procedure, sure, with very little chance of things going wrong, but when things do go wrong, the guy without a penis doesn't think it's minor.
quote:
Now somebody flame me for commenting on a subject I do not possess the anatomy for.
None of the other women who already posted were flamed, so I don't know why you think you will be.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I have a hard time seeing how a practice that is an intrinsic religious rite of Jews and Muslims can be declared "very, very wrong". These aren't eccentric little cults, and Christianity of course can't even exist without the historical reality of Judaism. What shall we Anglicans do about the Feast of the Circumcision of OL&S JC? FGM, besides being gross mutilation and a crime against the girls who are its victims, isn't a religious rite intrinsic to Islam or any other ethical religious system, so you can't equate male circumcision and FGM on any grounds at all.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Am I the only one who finds this conversation mildly weird in a culture where people are getting multiple holes in their anatomy for the sake of fashion right, left and (shudder) center? Many of them minors. And tattoos up the wazoo (well, maybe not there...)
Well unless you think it's fine to put multiple holes in a babies anatomy for the sake of fashion... dare I say yet again on this thread that it's not the same thing?
In a lot of cultures, little girls get their ears pierced at a month old, by Mom, using a (hopefully) clean needle. No religious reason, just "pretty."
And if they wish they have the option of taking the earing out and letting the hole heal up if they choose to when they are older.
Unlike these things, circumcision is a major religious rite for many people, and has the added minor advantage of mostly eliminating any chance of balanitis or penile cancer.
It also apparently benefits the kid's future wife with less chance of cervical cancer. Granted, these are minor advantages; but the procedure itself is minor in comparison to something like tonsillectomy or etc. Let alone FGM.
I'll leave the medical stuff aside for now as I'm not a Dr and I'd need to read up on it. Maybe someone else will chip in?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Can things go wrong? Obviously, which is why you choose your doctor/mohel very very carefully. But it's not rocket surgery. (sorry, had to use that line once in my life)
Now somebody flame me for commenting on a subject I do not possess the anatomy for.
No, I'll flame you for screwing up a stock phrase and turning it into a malapropism. It's rocket science, not rocket surgery.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angel Wrestler
Ship's Hipster
# 13673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
There can be a comparison, namely, the lack of choice. If people want to mutilate their genitals, fine, but let them chose.
The same argument could be made about infant baptism, though baptism doesn't make a physical scar.
--------------------
The fact that no one understands you does not make you an artist.
(unknown)
Posts: 2767 | From: half-way up the ladder | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
