|
| Thread: The Male Genital Mutilation Bill.... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
MacMasterMC
Known Hero
Resurrected Loreweaver
|
posted May 28, 2011 12:36 AM |
|
|
Sadly, debates like this will have no resolution.
If one side were simply wrong then that point could be reached.
There is nothing inherently wrong with either of the following statements.
Everyone should be permitted to live what faith they choose within whatever they feel constitutes a family. Otherwise would be a grave sin of tampering with the agency of others, and even attempting to control it.
Any damage done to a child is reprehensible. There is never any acceptable reason to physically harm a child.
What this comes down to is not whether either statement is true or false, which both of those two statements are true.
It is rather in what we consider under the umbrella of either.
It seems too many involved in this debate are forgetting that our perceptions are shaped by our beliefs AND our morals. (Responding to something Mvass said in another thread.)
We cannot but help that our morals in a very large way determine what we see and even how we see it. To get beyond that is not only incredibly difficult, but sheerly impossible for every living human currently in existence barring those our Father has transfigured (see John the beloved, new testament).
We can never be free of our morals. But while they may shape us, we are quite mistaken if we begin to think our perception of something is equal to reality, unless we have a witness of the truth of it.
I understand I have jumped into quite a deep point of the discussion here, but I had a feeling this was not something people were seeing, and needed to consider.
I can but hope.
____________
...a shimmer in the woods, with
an expectant feel to the air...
...a figure takes shape...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 12:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Otherwise would be a grave sin of tampering with the agency of others, and even attempting to control it.
Doesn't circumcising an infant interfere with its agency?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 12:47 AM |
|
|
Umm, does still anyone think such issues can be analyzed from only a moral point of view? Wake up. Circumcision, religion, politics, foreign interference, [insert_here_anything], all are issued from same basic instinct. Profit.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 12:48 AM |
|
|
@ Mac: The thing about the OSM is that, generally, there are multiple good or correct answers to each question or topic. In theory, we post them here to discuss which ones make the most sense, or to derive the best solution from the good solutions. In practice, we make posts, have stubborn posters on all sides point out flaws on all other sides and then break down into the same old bickering and old arguments.
It's almost enough to make a grown gnome cry. 
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
MacMasterMC
Known Hero
Resurrected Loreweaver
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 12:48 AM |
|
|
Do you honestly think that parents are not stewards for their children, to teach, nurture, and provide for them, and help them to learn things like morals, and that includes their faiths? Or are you saying that parents do not have that responsibility, that it is society's, and woe be to the parents who actually think to parent and rear their children the best way they know how?
I truly hope you do not think that parents teaching their children to go to church even when the four, five, and six year olds may misbehave, and bringing them there, is not child abuse, or taking away their agency.
Did I miss somewhere that children are fully cognizant out of the womb? I don't think that is so.
Edit:
[To Gnomes] Well, I guess that clears things up for me. Guess I thought we were seeking a better understanding. Perhaps I should stick to the tavern and make believe, seeing as the real stuff is only argument fodder, not the kind of things that actually better our own understanding.
____________
...a shimmer in the woods, with
an expectant feel to the air...
...a figure takes shape...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 01:18 AM |
|
|
I hope you don't think bringing a child to church is the same as cutting part of that child off. Most forms of inflicting physical harm to children are illegal, whether for religious purposes or not. Why should this be any different.
Teaching a child and physically harming them are not the same, right?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
MacMasterMC
Known Hero
Resurrected Loreweaver
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 01:20 AM |
|
|
Either you are baiting me or do not realize that even two people of the same faith could disagree on that one.
____________
...a shimmer in the woods, with
an expectant feel to the air...
...a figure takes shape...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 01:55 AM |
|
|
I will ask you the same question I asked Elodin, then. Where do you draw the line, and by what standard? According to you, it's okay if the foreskin is cut off for religious reasons. Suppose there was a religion similar to Judaism, only it required cutting off half of the penis, not just the foreskin. Would you let them do that in the name of religious freedom?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
MacMasterMC
Known Hero
Resurrected Loreweaver
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 03:07 AM |
|
|
Supposing=what iffing.
We are talking about the law attempting to ban all circumcision, and since female circumcision is already illegal here, we are not talking about cutting off the male anatomy.
If you want to talk about that, Mvass, then you should make another thread.
If, however, you want to discuss the circumcision of baby boys, then perhaps we can continue this. Otherwise you are derailing the thread, and not actually talking about the topic.
If so, there isn't really any reason to continue this.
____________
...a shimmer in the woods, with
an expectant feel to the air...
...a figure takes shape...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 03:23 AM |
|
|
Is the foreskin not a part of the male anatomy? So circumcision - cutting off the foreskin - is, whether you like it or not, cutting off part of the anatomy. You can't talk about circumcision without talking about what circumcision actually is. What I'm trying to find out is how much of the male anatomy it's okay to cut off for religious reasons.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheBaron
Promising
Known Hero
dreamer of dreams
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 04:04 AM |
|
|
secular western democratic governments adopt a few philosophies into their legal system, and does not strictly adhere to any particular religion or allow certain religious practises for a few reasons.
there is a deontological element to governance and law; there are certain things that are true (person-hood is inherently good and worth having) and certain actions are absolutely morally wrong and should be avoided - killing is wrong.
there is a utilitarian aspect; to maximise the greatest possible amount of good for the greatest number of people.
and there is a libertarian aspect; an individual should be autonomous as long as they do not interfere with another person's rights.
--
Circumcision is problematic because it is not utilitarian:
there are many religious denominations, many of which have a vast number of churches, sects and rules of observance within them. there is also a large population of people who have no religious denomination, and philosophies vary greatly between them.
Is circumcision favoured by the majority? and if so, does it create the greatest amount of good? This is hard to say because as we have seen in the previous posts, people among the heroes community can't agree let alone in the broader community.
Circumcision is problematic because it violates a person's right to be free from harm:
It is not culturally relativistic to say that circumcision does actual harm to a person. People who say that they should be allowed to do it because it is a valuable part of their culture are not arguing against harm, they are arguing for a perceived good. Under this rights based philosophy our medical practitioners adopt a certain stance when looking at medical procedures. This is evidenced in the UN statement on medical care: "Every patient shall have the right to receive
such health and social care as appropriate to his or her
health needs . . ." and "Every patient shall be protected from
harm including unjustified medication, abuse by other
patients, staff or others or other acts causing mental distress
or physical discomfort." Because circumcision is not argued that it is NOT harming, and it is causing mental distress and physical harm it is therefore an unjustified medical action. This applies to all forms of circumcision, and to all forms of religious practice that harm other individuals.
Any one religion will say "But [insert godhead] demands that we do this, so it can't be wrong!" and this is religiously relativistic. You might say I'm bigoted because I'm an atheist and I don't support circumcision, but many other religions might not support it either. You're religion does not hold any more weight than anyone else's, that is evident in the laws of many countries including American law.
A baby at 8 days old is currently considered a person, so to intentionally bring them to physical harm is considered morally wrong, irrespective of the parents intentions (so long as they are not precipitating a greater harm by doing nothing). The argument for when person-hood begins should be kept to another thread.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 05:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin:
Quote:
There is a difference between cutting off a little skin and killing a child.
Only a difference of magnitude, not of kind of action. You say killing a child for religious reasons should not be allowed. Okay, then, how about ritual beatings that leave permanent marks? That don't leave permanent marks? How about religious amputation? Cutting off a finger? Cutting off a fingertip?
It's okay to cut off the foreskin, you say. If a religion required it, how much of the penis would it be okay to cut off before you'd object?
Circumcision is cutting off skin, not lopping off the penis. Circumcision is not harmful to the child and there are in fact health benefits to it. Circumcision has been around for the known history of mankind.
Spanking a child for discipline is ok. Beating a child is not. Spanking a child is beneficial to the child.
"Ritual beatings" in witchcraft and Satanism are abusive and should not be allowed. Ritual beatings do not benefit the child.
I've never heard of religious amputation. Is that an atheist thing? Cutting off fingers, arms, legs, ect is harmful to a child and should not be allowed.
Opposition to circumcision seems driven almost purely by fanatical emotionalism or authoritarianism from anti-theists and the left who seek to impose their own will on all others. It lacks perspective, tolerance, a sense of balance, consideration of the rights of others, and utilizes rhetoric that demeans and dehumanizes those whose religious practices require circumcision. They see no value in tradition or religion and seek to impose their own values on everyone else. They seek to substitute their judgment about child rearing and religion for those of the child's parents. They want to be the gods of society that everyone must bow down to and follow.
Circumcision is a minor elective procedure. It has deep religious roots in various religions and cultures and provides modest benefits. I reject the argument that circumcision is child abuse and find calling it mutilation repulsive. As for parents not having control of their minor child's body, abortionists don't seem to mind if parents chose to kill their unborn child but then call circumcision abuse. Hmmmmmm. As caretakers, the parents to have control of the bodies of their children, though that control should not be unlimited. But such control includes includes the right to require the child to exercise, to play soccer, to play the saxophone, to go to school and sit for 7-8 hours listening to lectures from teachers, to do chores, to eat their vegetables, to go to bed at a certain time, ect. It includes the right to make religious and health decisions and other decisions the parents think are beneficial to their children. Such decisions are part of parenting, something the left knows little of. Such decisions are a part of loving one's child and bringing him up in the way he should go. Everybody should not be required to raise their children in the way of the left or intolerant anti-theism.
Remember that the parents love their children and have the best interests of the child at heart. Loony leftists who seek to impose their will on others don't love the child or have the best interests of the child at heart. They have an agenda to push.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 05:08 AM |
|
|
Will you answer my question? How much is it okay to damage a child before it becomes abuse, in your view? You think it's okay to circumcise - then, is it okay to peel off all the skin of the penis, if some religion wanted that? I want to know where you draw the line, and by what standard.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 05:22 AM |
|
|
The health benefits that come form circumcision come from the removal of a part of yor body that has the potential to cause you harm (much like the removal of the appendix). Circumcision prevents multiple types of cancers and infections that can only exist or originate in the foreskin. Like the removal of the appendix, there is an amount of pain involved, but (also like the removing of the appendix), circumcised males no longer have the potential of getting these diseases. Therefore, since there is a benefit (unlike the removal of an arm, leg, limb or large graft of skin) there should be no ban. If the parents, child or individual wants a circumcision, then more power to them! There should be no ban.
Edit: PS, that is my line. Ultimately, is more good or harm caused?
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 05:35 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 05:38, 28 May 2011.
|
Elodin, I think we're arguing in perpendicular directions. You deflect when asked simple questions and you also keep moving the goalposts.
Your contention seems to be that (male) circumcision is moral/permissible because religious people should be allowed to do what they believe they're commanded to do by their religion.
Many people also believe that females should be circumcised, that their female children should have their entire clitoris removed and their labia sewn shut save for an opening small enough to urinate through. I ask - should they be allowed to do this?
If you answer no, your position is not internally consistent so there must be some other criterion that determines why male circumcision should be allowed but female shouldn't.
If you answer yes, then your position is internally consistent and we can move on.
Later on, you indicated that it might have something to do with what is beneficial to the child. You have moved the goalposts here but that's ok - maybe you forgot to mention this earlier. Fine, we can ask another question - some parents withhold medical treatment from their children for religious reasons. Children have died and been permanently disfigured because of it, like this child. So I ask - should the parents be allowed to do this?
If you answer no, your position is not internally consistent because the parents clearly think what they are doing is in their child's best interests, even though it clearly isn't. How can letting a child go blind be in its best interests? Maybe "best interests" depends on who you're asking, in which you need to clarify your position.
If you answer yes, then we can move on.
We can also ask some hypothetical questions. The purpose here is not to compare male circumcision to some extreme mutilation as you've contended. It's a style of rhetoric which tries to show an inconsistency by extrapolating a position to an absurd end. For instance, we ask: if a certain religion requires you to kill and eat your child, should this be allowed?
My guess is that you would say no, of course not. But this would contradict your original point that a person should be allowed to do what their religion tells them. It would be consistent with your position that only religious activities which are in the best interest of the child should be allowed. Fine, what if the person's religion believes that only through being digested can a child enter heaven? It sounds absurd, but there have been religions in the past that demanded human sacrifice as being beneficial to society. If an enclave of Aztecs were discovered in Mexico and they legally immigrated to the US and wanted to start practicing their religion, should they be allowed to sacrifice humans? No? Why not?
The purpose of questions like this Elodin is not to ridicule your position or to compare Christians who circumcize their children to cannibals or murderers. It's to better understand your position. It's to help ME understand where YOU draw the line. There are obviously some activities that you think are ok. There are some that you think aren't. I'm trying to find what your criteria to separate one from the other. Especially I want to know about the female circumcision, becuase this is a real practice that happens here in the US. The "it doesn't benefit the child" argument doesn't really work for me, because most people think their religious practices are somehow beneficial. People usually don't do things they think aren't beneficial at some level. Thus we're left with a matter of perspective - in which case you have to ask "whose perspective is the right one?" Which brings us full circle to the faith healers.
See how I'm having difficulty here?
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 08:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
1) Every man is born with a foreskin. Whether you believe in Evolution or Creation, doesn't matter: it would NOT be there if it were harmfull. It -literally- doesn't hurt to have a foreskin.
This is actually a good point that I'd never considered before. Why would God put a foreskin on people if he was just going to tell them to take it off when they were born?
Just another example of old testament stupidness.
|
|
TheBaron
Promising
Known Hero
dreamer of dreams
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 08:26 AM |
|
Edited by TheBaron at 08:28, 28 May 2011.
|
Quote:
Everyone should be permitted to live what faith they choose within whatever they feel constitutes a family. Otherwise would be a grave sin of tampering with the agency of others, and even attempting to control it.
Any damage done to a child is reprehensible. There is never any acceptable reason to physically harm a child.
What this comes down to is not whether either statement is true or false, which both of those two statements are true.
These two statements are true except that you said family rather than individual. There is no law that says a family member may intentionally inflict physical or emotional harm on another family member. You're real dispute here is with how people define 'harm'. Here are a couple of arguments of why it is not wrong to circumcise:
* A baby is not a person until [x] time and therefore harming it before this time is not a violation of human rights.
* Circumcision is not remembered and has no lasting psychological impact on a person, and is therefore not harm.
* All people are allowed to inflict a certain amount of harm to others and it is not morally wrong.
* The good that arises from circumcision outweighs the bad of keeping a foreskin intact. In this case, family and cultural acceptance might be considered a good.
Quote:
We can never be free of our morals. But while they may shape us, we are quite mistaken if we begin to think our perception of something is equal to reality, unless we have a witness of the truth of it.
This is not true. That is why we have the word amoral. This word applies to people who do not have morals. Some pure nihilists and existentialists do not believe in morals.
That we are mistaken about our perception equalling reality is simply your opinion. Many philosophies believe our perception is the ultimate reality because we have no ability to concretely experience anything else.
Quote:
I can but only hope.
There are plenty of other things you can do. Why do you think your God gave you free-will?
|
|
Insanity
Known Hero
Brain cells killa
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 08:37 AM |
|
Edited by Insanity at 08:38, 28 May 2011.
|
Quote:
Quote:
1) Every man is born with a foreskin. Whether you believe in Evolution or Creation, doesn't matter: it would NOT be there if it were harmfull. It -literally- doesn't hurt to have a foreskin.
This is actually a good point that I'd never considered before. Why would God put a foreskin on people if he was just going to tell them to take it off when they were born?
Just another example of old testament stupidness.
it iz meant 2 b a special agreement between god and men, by cuttin the foreskin they sign the contract - divine bureaucracy LOLzzzz
anywayzzz it iz barbarizzium !!!!! people talk about freedom of religion but religion exists just 2 limit us by rules and regulationz
me comes here to create insanity but some of you already insane me useless now.
people act like those books were words of god like god spent 3 months with his private secretary dictating her 1000 pages of torah all those books were created by men, they mean nothing, just like religion was created by man, if god exists he has nothing to do with all the insane laws in those books.
men existed before most of the religions so what happened to them ? all gone to hell coz they still didnt get informed that heaven exists ?
god creates gay people so he can send them to hell ? if he creates them its not their fault, books are useless and not god, stop with the insane babaric laws  puffff
____________
|
|
TheBaron
Promising
Known Hero
dreamer of dreams
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 08:40 AM |
|
|
best troll ever! 
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted May 28, 2011 10:39 AM |
bonus applied by Corribus on 20 Aug 2011. |
Edited by Smithey at 10:43, 28 May 2011.
|
Circumcision is performed because it has many health benefits VS it has no health benefits and is performed for cosmetic, social reasons.
Circumcision has no proven health benefits, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) acknowledges that there are potential health benefits meaning it can help prevent cancer, STD’s, HIV and various infections, however the emphasize is on the phrase “potential benefits” as such The considers circumcision to be a cosmetic social custom rather than a necessary surgery.
Simplified – not performing circumcision on a baby doesn’t mean the baby will contract such disease.
Circumcision is not painful VS it is painful.
While an infant's foreskin is considerably smaller than an adult foreskin, studies show that the procedure is more painful for infants. One reason for this is that the foreskin on an infant is fused to the glans of the penis and must be torn free in order to be removed. In adults, the foreskin is no longer fused. Also, adults may use stronger painkillers during and after the procedure, which infants do not receive due to the risks of anesthesia on infants. Studies indicate that only 4% of infants actually receive anesthesia because the risks it brings.
Circumcision lessens the chance of urinary tract infections VS it can be treated with antibiotics.
Indeed circumcision decreases the risk of UTIs in the first year of life, however, studies show little or no statistical difference also, the risk of UTIs in males is extremely low and can be treated safely with antibiotics.
Circumcised males are more visually appealing ?
Indeed in America, circumcised males are more common, and studies show that among women, cut men were viewed as more appealing, however in the rest of the world this isn’t true.
Circumcision lowers STD rates and the rate of cervical cancer in women ?
Studies are very conflicting on these issues. Both can be prevented with safe sex or abstinence.
Circumcision lowers the risk of penile cancer ?
In America, circumcision is correlated with a lower risk of penile cancer. However, in many countries it is associated with a higher risk, indicating that circumcision has little to do with penile cancer rates and that factors such as smoking and sexual habits are the important issues. Also, if an intact man has penile cancer on his foreskin, he will be circumcised as treatment. If a cut man gets penile cancer, his penis will be partially or completely amputated.
The benefits or circumcision outweigh the risks ?
There are no proven benefits of circumcision. Some possible benefits, such as protection from infection or from penile cancer are counteracted by the risks: a child is just as likely to get an infection from a circumcision wound as there are from a UTI, and is just as likely to die from penile cancer as he is from circumcision complications.
Circumcision does not affect sexual function VS hinders sexual function ?
While one study suggests that there is no sensitivity difference, circumcision removes the thousands of nerves, including the frenulum, which is the most sensitive part of the male body. Also, without the protection of the foreskin, the glans kernatises over the years to protect from abrasion, burying nerves under up to 10 layers of lightly callused skin. The foreskin's gliding mechanism during intercourse is lost upon circumcision.
Doctors would not support if it wasn't necessary or healthy VS Doctors support it for the money that they make from it ?
Most doctors do not support it and all admit it is not medically necessary; America is the only country that routinely circumcises infants. Whether these doctors do it for monetary reasons is debatable; most claim that they do it because there is a demand to circumcision for social reasons.
Infants will not remember being circumcised ?
Infants will not remember being circumcised, but there is no way of knowing whether it has any lasting effect on an infant’s mind.
What about the choice ?
Most intact men do NOT choose to get cut later; the circumcision rate among intact men is less than .5% percent in America. In other countries, it is even lower.
What about religion and interfering with the parenting ?
It is indeed a major part of Muslim/Hebrew customs.
Can we really interfere with parent’s decisions to raise their children according to their religion ?
Can we even interfere with parent’s decisions to do so only for cosmetic reasons ?
If we enforce this law will it not open many other doors which will directly interfere with parenting and the freedom of religion ?
I don’t think it’s a positive thing, I will let my kids make their own decisions, I however do believe that when it comes to others and their kids, we shouldn’t be interfering, as after all it is their decision.
|
| |
|
|
