Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   German judge rules child circumcision as child abuse.
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 391 of 410 (667173)
07-03-2012 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by onifre
07-03-2012 2:56 PM


Re: Summary
Oni writes:
Women love it.
I dare say, this single justification trumps ALL other concerns. With it, this thread should have been over at TWO posts.
(Thanks ma and pa for caring and loving me and giving me the GIFT of circumcision.)
Oni writes:
This thread is ridiculous.
This thread has been mutilated.
Edited by dronester, : appreciation message
Edited by dronester, : whoops.
Edited by dronester, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by onifre, posted 07-03-2012 2:56 PM onifre has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 392 of 410 (667175)
07-03-2012 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by ringo
07-03-2012 3:27 PM


Would trimming your child's fingernails without his permission be acceptable?
How is trimming your child's fingernails in any way "irrevocable"?
Something that they might miss in the future.
You lied about this before, remember? And I asked you what about the men who are trying to have their foreskins "restored", and you didn't reply? Remember that?
quote:
Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration.
Remember those? The forum rules?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by ringo, posted 07-03-2012 3:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by ringo, posted 07-03-2012 4:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 393 of 410 (667177)
07-03-2012 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Jon
07-03-2012 3:39 PM


Well then they aren't so much an adult, are they?
They are an adult, just not while they're an infant or child.
Then you should have nothing against allowing parents to exercise the same freedom over deciding what happens with their child's penis as they exercise in deciding what happens to their child's teeth, tonsils, birthmarks, extra toes, and so forth.
Absolutely. When parents opt to have a child's teeth, tonsils, birthmarks, extra toes, and so on amputated, it has to be for medically justifiable reasons that leave the child better off than he or she would have been absent the intervention. If the intervention would make the child worse off, it isn't allowed.
I'm absolutely in favor of having circumcision be subject to the same rationale. Can you explain why you're not?
If there's nothing special about penises, why should society care one way or the other?
For the same reason that society cares about vaginas, earlobes, pinky toes, and all the rest of a child's body parts which cannot be summarily amputated for solely religious, cultural, or cosmetic reasons; or no reason at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Jon, posted 07-03-2012 3:39 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Jon, posted 07-03-2012 4:26 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 394 of 410 (667179)
07-03-2012 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by crashfrog
07-03-2012 3:53 PM


crashfrog writes:
How is trimming your child's fingernails in any way "irrevocable"?
How is something that isn't even missed an irrevocable loss?
crashfrog writes:
You lied about this before, remember?
There's no need to make false accusatons. If you failed to understand something I said, feel free to ask again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by crashfrog, posted 07-03-2012 3:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by xongsmith, posted 07-03-2012 5:20 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 395 of 410 (667180)
07-03-2012 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by crashfrog
07-03-2012 3:57 PM


They are an adult, just not while they're an infant or child.
Well that's saying a lot.
When parents opt to have a child's teeth, tonsils, birthmarks, extra toes, and so on amputated, it has to be for medically justifiable reasons that leave the child better off than he or she would have been absent the intervention. If the intervention would make the child worse off, it isn't allowed.
Before performing any procedure on a child, should parents simply get in the habit of contacting CPS and their local community members to ensure that the procedure is okay with everyone else?
Or is it to the parent to decide whether tonsillectomies and braces make their child better off or not?
I'm absolutely in favor of having circumcision be subject to the same rationale.
What rationale? You simply said 'leave the child better off'. You didn't indicate who would be deciding what constitutes 'better off'. Most of the discussion in this thread has revolved around whether parents should make the call in what constitutes better off or whether someone else should be allowed to make that call.
You seem to think someone else should make the call. But what is your rationale for that?
Can you explain why you're not?
My rationale is that parents decide what is in the best interest of their children unless there is extremely good reason to legislate that power away from them. So I view circumcision as fitting perfectly within that view as something the parents have the right to make a decision about on behalf of the child.
For the same reason that society cares about vaginas, earlobes, pinky toes, and all the rest of a child's body parts which cannot be summarily amputated for solely religious, cultural, or cosmetic reasons; or no reason at all.
But those are all 'special circumstances'. If you want to admit circumcision to that list, then you'll have to concede that it is 'special' and prove as much to justify its placement on that list.
So why do you think circumcision is so special?
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by crashfrog, posted 07-03-2012 3:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(1)
Message 396 of 410 (667184)
07-03-2012 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Jon
07-03-2012 1:40 PM


Re: AAP on hygiene
Me... an asshole? And here is you labeling circumcised men who are perfectly happy with their body and who they are as 'mutilated' and 'disfigured'.
Well I was talking about your tendency to assign sick motives to people who disagree with you when you in the middle of loosing an argument.
Just because you can be perfectly happy with it doesn't make you any less mutilated. It has a definition you know, YOU abandoned that discussion.
Throw out 'FGM'; just stop using it, and stick to terms that have meaning. And then, go start a thread about those things, since they aren't the topic of this thread.
I didin't start using the term FGM, CS did, as far as I can tell looking back at the history.
So you tell me Jon, what words am I supposed to use? First you complain about me using the words female circumcision. I stopped doing that ON MY OWN ACCORD in the very post you complained about. NOW you seem to be complaining about the use of the term FGM.
Furthermore, I am consistently said in this thread that those things do in fact refer to a range of procedures all the way from the mildly disturbing to the truly horrifying.
Show me where I have been not clear on this issue. And if you think I am being off topic, stop replying to me. I wasn't talking to you I was talking to CS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Jon, posted 07-03-2012 1:40 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(2)
Message 397 of 410 (667185)
07-03-2012 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by New Cat's Eye
07-03-2012 2:42 PM


Re: AAP on hygiene
Are there any other things that we outlaw just because there isn't a good reason for people doing them?
My argument has never been just that there is no good reason. There is no good reason PLUS the risk of the surgical procedure. My argument has always been about risk versus reward.
We have, I hope, a virtue in this society where we think its not okay to cut off other people's body parts without their permission. We are even very explicit when it comes to certain body parts of female girls. I just think the exact same moral, logical, and scientific argument should apply to boys.
And I don't think my circumsicion harmed me, so that isn't really weighing in on my opinion either.
Well thats great for you. But you aren't bothered by the fact that you didn't get a say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-03-2012 2:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(2)
Message 398 of 410 (667186)
07-03-2012 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by onifre
07-03-2012 2:56 PM


Re: Summary
The voice from the Dark Side of the Moon still argues:
What about the BJ's? You get more BJ's!
Oni, you can believe all that on your personal experience - and I wouldn't doubt that, for you, it works. And when you reach the age of consent, you can have that procedure done to get more of your BJ's, along with any tattoos & pierced jewelry all through your penis you want. No one can stop you once you reach the age of consent. Your BJ argument does not address those still too young to consent. People too young to be able to consent are, probably by definition, too young to have BJ's. Maybe now we have the beginnings of a workable definition of that age, Y, ringo mentioned.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by onifre, posted 07-03-2012 2:56 PM onifre has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(2)
Message 399 of 410 (667187)
07-03-2012 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by New Cat's Eye
07-03-2012 11:34 AM


I don't have any children. When I asked my mother why I was circumcized, she said that my doctor recommended it for cleanliness. When you're wearing diapers all the time and shitting your pants, you can get bits of feces stuck under the foreskin and it can get infected.
Just a friendly FYI.
A baby boy's foreskin actually adheres to the top of the penis. Getting diaper gunk in there is pretty much a non-issue. The foreskin detaches somewhere in their toddler years.
One of the particularly painful parts of the procedure is not even necessarily the cutting, its ripping the foreskin off the shaft years and years before it is supposed to. Uncut boys who accidently rip it off (or have it ripped off by OCD parents) too soon can actually injure themselves pretty good.
Its easier to keep the penis clean if the foreskin is removed.
Not for babies. Its exactly the same. Kids maybe, but its a 5 second addition to a normal bathing routine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-03-2012 11:34 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 400 of 410 (667188)
07-03-2012 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by ringo
07-03-2012 4:06 PM


ringo asks:
How is something that isn't even missed an irrevocable loss?
...well, I, for one, would truly miss it now!
- nate

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by ringo, posted 07-03-2012 4:06 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(3)
Message 401 of 410 (667190)
07-03-2012 5:33 PM


Summary
I believe the decision of whether or not an infant male should be circumcised is best left with the child's parents and their doctors. The risks are relatively low, there is little evidence of any long term problems, and the benefits, particularly within certain cultures can be immense. The act of circumcision in the Orthodox Jewish culture as one example, is part of a contract, a covenant with no less than GOD.
Granted, there may well be those who do not yet believe in such a contract with GOD or have other objections to the practice and so they are free to not get circumcised.
But does male infant circumcision rise to the level that it warrants State intrusion?
I do not think so and so far no evidence that might convince me has been presented.
I would equally oppose any State mandate that infant males be circumcised.
The whole issue of infant male circumcision is simply none of my business.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(5)
Message 402 of 410 (667193)
07-03-2012 5:51 PM


Children are not the property of their parents and no one has suggested in this thread that parents should not remain in charge of their kid's well being with rather wide latitude. The only thing that has been suggested, is that ritual circumcision of boys be treated in exactly the same manner that have, correctly, treated the ritual circumcision and mutilation of girls. We outlawed it.
Why? The same reason why we do not allow parents to beat a child to within an inch of its life, give a child illegal drugs, lock a child in a basement for their entire lives, or force them to marry their uncle. Parental rights have limits which end at common sense boundaries that protects society as a whole.
Someone could have taken the banner of trying to claim that male circumcision has some benefit and if you look out at other debates and on the internet, you will see that there are many who have tried to argue this. It is telling that very few in this thread decided to try that line of argument. It is because there is no benefit for circumcision that can be identified that would make it worth the risk of doing it as has been shown by our many medical associations who have examined this issue.
Circumcision is genital mutilation, done for ritualistic purposes, embeded into our society from another age where people thought that masturbation was going to cause the collapse of civilization and could be treated with corn flakes.
Unfortunatly, it is probable that it won't be outlawed due to how prevasive it is. Its end will likely only come as parents realize that don't need to subject their baby boys to this barbarism.
Edited by Jazzns, : Finished the post.

BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 403 of 410 (667209)
07-04-2012 7:54 AM


Summary: Boundaries in Perspective
I think Jazzns has put the issue into perfect perspective:
quote:
Jazzns in Message 402:
Parental rights have limits which end at common sense boundaries that protects society as a whole.
So before intruding on parental rightsbefore setting 'limits' and delineating 'common sense boundaries', we must ask ourselves: does banning infant circumcision really protect 'society as a whole'?
Are societies with a high population of circumcised males (such as the U.S., for example) somehow disadvantaged compared to less circumcised groups simply because of their circumcision?
If they are, such a fact was never demonstrated in all the four hundred posts of this thread.
So where is the good reason for banning infant circumcision? What is the benefit to 'society as a whole'?
I ain't seen it.
Edited by Jon, : Clarity

Love your enemies!

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 404 of 410 (667220)
07-04-2012 11:49 AM


Infringing on the parents' rights also infringes on the child's rights. Some day, he'll be a parent too.
But it's easy to take somebody else's rights away, isn't it? It's easy to deny somebody else something you don't want for yourself, like gay marriage.
First they take away your religious rights but you're not religious so you don't say anything. Then they take away your political rights but you don't vote so you don't say anything.
Finally, they want to take away a right that you do care about but you've already given away your right to say anything.
This is not a time to be giving away rights that we already have, especially for such trivial reasons.
Edited by ringo, : Added smiley for people who take themselves too seriously.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(10)
Message 405 of 410 (667225)
07-04-2012 1:03 PM


Rights Of Parents, Rights Of Children
OK, let's talk about rights.
Here's the state of Virginia explaining their reasons for secession: "That these causes are to be mainly found in the denied equality of the rights of the slaveholder and the non-slaveholder [...] and by other acts importing a denial of our rights of property in our slaves".
See, they're having their rights taken away from them. In the name of liberty, these rights must be defended.
"First they came for the slave owners, and I did not speak out, for I was not a slave owner."
Some might have suggested that the enslaved had rights, such as not being slaves, but this is framing the issue all wrong --- clearly the real issue is "the rights of the slaveholder".
Likewise, husbands used to have marital rights -- to have sex with their wives whenever they (the husbands) chose. Alas for liberty, only a handful of crackpots protested when these rights were taken away.
"And then they came for the rapists, and I did not speak out, for I was not a rapist."
Next someone will will make a law saying that my right to swing my fist ends at your nose ... wait, they've already done so? Well, what about my right to steal your property?
What, is there no liberty left?
"And then they came for the muggers, and I did not speak out, for I was not a mugger."
At the bottom of the slippery slope, there lies what pusillanimous liberals and craven conservatives describe as "a decent society" --- one in which I have no right to own my own slaves, rape my own wife, or bust you in the snoot with my own fist. Tyranny, in other words.
Have we done enough sarcasm now? OK.
Clearly, to confer rights upon some (or all) people is to take away the rights of other people to infringe them; and vice versa.
Sometimes, this presents us with ethical difficulties. In the case of circumcision, there are none. Do we confer upon parents the right to perform a cruel, barbaric, unnecessary and irrevocable act of mutilation on their children, or do we confer on children the right not to have this done to them? It would seem to be a no-brainer, and so I can only suppose that certain people round here have less than no brains.
It is, as ringo remarks, easy to take away the rights of others. Yes, ringo, it is. It's particularly easy to take away the rights of children. You, after all, will never be a child again; and also there's absolutely nothing that children can do about it. So on this we're agreed: it is easy. It's also easy to shout about "parents' rights" while you're doing it. It's as easy as falling off a log. And about as dignified.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024