Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religious Special Pleading
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 75 of 357 (829605)
03-10-2018 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Tangle
03-10-2018 11:09 AM


Tangle writes:
They don't need consent, according to you they're doing it to themselves.
Really, think it through. A child can not consent to a medical procedure. A parent must consent to any medical procedure performed on his/her child.
Tangle writes:
We allowed surgical abortion because it as deemed by society that women should have the right to it.
It was deemed by society that women should have the right to choose, to give consent. That's what I'm saying. A person should have control over his/her own body. No law should prevent a person from treating his/her body as he/she chooses. And if the person is under age - i.e. incapable of making an informed choice - then the choice is made by the parent or guardian.
Tangle writes:
We have laws which we change when we know more about harm and benefit. Circumcision is one of those things that is causing unnecessary harm to children....
According to you it is causing unnecessary harm. Few legal jurisdictions agree with you.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Tangle, posted 03-10-2018 11:09 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Tangle, posted 03-10-2018 3:10 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 78 of 357 (829648)
03-11-2018 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Modulous
03-10-2018 1:04 PM


Modulous writes:
If you can show me the harm for doing it to an 8 day old child I'd be interested to see it. I'd be fascinated to see that applying pressure with lips and tongue is harmful but applying pressure with a wetwipe is not harmful....
Psychological harm.
Modulous writes:
... and slicing bits off is not harmful.
Granted, my brothers are crazy but not half as crazy as I am, so there doesn't seem to be a correlation.
Modulous writes:
I was questioning why your comment - "What I'm against is the government telling me not to harm myself." was relevant in a discussion about doing things to other people who cannot consent.
In the case of somebody who can not give consent, "myself' refers to somebody who can. Harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent.
Modulous writes:
But as has been established in this very thread, people are talking about this problem.
Only a very small minority. More people are talking about UFOs but I wouldn't call them a problem.
Modulous writes:
There are legal avenues to sue in some countries because of this problem.
As there should be.
But if it is a problem for a minority, that's no reason to ban it for the majority.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Modulous, posted 03-10-2018 1:04 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 03-11-2018 6:36 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 79 of 357 (829649)
03-11-2018 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Tangle
03-10-2018 3:10 PM


Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
Slavery was banned because it was harmful to the slaves. A was banned from owning B because it was harmful to B. What we're talking about here is banning B from doing something that is harmful to B.
I guess when you said this, you actually meant A not B....
No. I meant what I said. Let's try it again: We banned A from owning slave B because it was harmful to B. You're advocating banning B from doing something that you deem harmful to B. It's the difference between harming yourself and harming something else. Thus, the comparison to slavery doesn't work.
Tangle writes:
You tried to say that A should not be able harm B.
What part of "consent" do you not understand?
Tangle writes:
... let's wait until he can give his consent eh?
Why not wait until he can give consent to education? Why not start kindergarten at age 18?

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Tangle, posted 03-10-2018 3:10 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Tangle, posted 03-11-2018 2:28 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 81 of 357 (829653)
03-11-2018 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Tangle
03-11-2018 2:28 PM


Tangle writes:
Baby B has not and can not give his consent.
Exactly. He requires his parents' consent for any medical procedure.
Tangle writes:
You're attempting an equivalence between education and penile mutilation?
Consent is consent. How do you think they differ in terms of consent?

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Tangle, posted 03-11-2018 2:28 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Tangle, posted 03-11-2018 2:49 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 83 of 357 (829659)
03-11-2018 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Tangle
03-11-2018 2:49 PM


Tangle writes:
So, as I said, you entire A and B argument is total bollox, give it up.
No. it was your attempt to compare circumcision to slavery that was bollox.
Tangle writes:
In the first (circumcision), consent is necessary because it involves only harm and risk. In the second (education) it is unnecessary because it is only beneficial.
That claim depends on circumcision being harmful. Medical practitioners and lawmakers don't agree with you.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Tangle, posted 03-11-2018 2:49 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Tangle, posted 03-11-2018 3:05 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 86 of 357 (829698)
03-12-2018 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Tangle
03-11-2018 3:05 PM


Tangle writes:
I have provided the evidence - from medical practitioners - that it is harmful. 200+ deaths per year in the USA alone, directly attributable to circumcision.
There are risks to any form of elective surgery. Medical practitioners and lawmakers do not agree with you that circumcision should be banned.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Tangle, posted 03-11-2018 3:05 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Tangle, posted 03-12-2018 1:54 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 87 of 357 (829699)
03-12-2018 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Modulous
03-11-2018 6:36 PM


Modulous writes:
The reason is that it's unnecessary, risky, damaging and there's an absence of consent.
1. The necessity is a matter of opinion.
2. Everything is risky.
3. Damage is a matter of opinion.
4. Children can not consent.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 03-11-2018 6:36 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2018 2:38 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 90 of 357 (829756)
03-13-2018 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Tangle
03-12-2018 1:54 PM


Tangle writes:
It's an unnecessary risk that adults are exposing 7 day old babies to for superstitious reasons.
It isn't up to you do decide what's unnecessary.
And there are doctors doing it for medical reasons, not religious.
Tangle writes:
Many medical and lawmakers do agree with me. Now what?
It isn't banned. You lose.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Tangle, posted 03-12-2018 1:54 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Tangle, posted 03-13-2018 1:05 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 91 of 357 (829758)
03-13-2018 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Modulous
03-12-2018 2:38 PM


Modulous writes:
Non-therapeutic circumcision is, by definition, not medically necessary.
There's no clear line between "medically necessary" and "a good idea". There are doctors doing it, so let's let them decide.
Modulous writes:
ringo writes:
Everything is risky.
A sentiment which has justified precisely nothing, ever.
On the contrary, banning something because its risky has justified nothing. Crossing the street is risky but we don't ban it.
Modulous writes:
Not really - one has to cause damage in order to complete a circumcision. If you fail to damage the skin, it won't come off.
That's a self-serving definition of damage.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2018 2:38 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2018 1:28 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 93 of 357 (829763)
03-13-2018 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Tangle
03-13-2018 1:05 PM


Tangle writes:
Is conversation restricted to those who make laws now?
Making laws is restricted to those who make laws.
You're entitled to blather whatever you want but if you claim something "is" harmful you can expect to be challenged.
Tangle writes:
All here agree that circumcision for medical reasons is perfectly fine.
We're already having the same problems with medical marijuana. There's no clear distinction between "medical reasons" and other reasons, which is one reason why the ban is being lifted.
Tangle writes:
Raising the consciousness of bad practices in the minds of others is how bad practices are stopped. It's already changing.
See above. It's changing in the direction of not banning things.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Tangle, posted 03-13-2018 1:05 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Tangle, posted 03-13-2018 2:26 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 95 of 357 (829766)
03-13-2018 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Modulous
03-13-2018 1:28 PM


Modulous writes:
Doctors have done a lot of things. Let's also bring in the ethics and legal professions and of course, the people.
Those factors are already in there.
Modulous writes:
It's the definition of damage.
Since the human body is self-repairing, there's no such thing as "the" definition of damage. "Damage" that the child doesn't even know about shouldn't be counted as damage.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2018 1:28 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2018 2:07 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 98 of 357 (829815)
03-14-2018 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Modulous
03-13-2018 2:07 PM


Modulous writes:
First point: A circumcised foreskin does not self-repair.
Sure it does. The child wouldn't even know anything happened if nobody told him.
Modulous writes:
Babies do know about it, that's why they cry....
Babies cry about a lot of things.
Modulous writes:
So if I painfully pinch a baby constantly for two weeks is that morally OK if it grows up not remembering I did it? Is it even legally acceptable to torture a child...heck is legally or morally acceptable to inflict pain on anybody as long as they subsequently forget it happened?
Morality is a separate issue. What we're talking about here is damage. Try suing for damages in a court of law when you can't remember any "damage" happening.
Modulous writes:
Are you going to argue that circumcising should only be done on the 2 year olds and younger or 18 year olds and older - but should be considered immoral or illegal for, say, a 12 year old?
Up to 18 years old, the decision is up to the parent. It could be argued that, after infancy, psychological damage is done.
Modulous writes:
If so - how do you avoid charges that you have crafted a legal/moral system that criminalises/demonizes Muslims (some of whom may circumcise early, but many wait until later) while allowing Jews to continue their practice as-is?
First, I haven't crafted any legal system; I'm just going with the one we have.
Second, nothing I've said is about morality.
Third, it's the Muslims and Jews that I'm defending. They make decisions for their children and if those decisions are actually harmful for their children, our existing legal system is capable of handling them equally.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2018 2:07 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Modulous, posted 03-14-2018 5:14 PM ringo has replied
 Message 134 by Astrophile, posted 03-19-2018 7:23 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 99 of 357 (829817)
03-14-2018 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Tangle
03-13-2018 2:26 PM


Tangle writes:
I do claim it is harmful 200+ unnecessary deaths in the US alone.
That's a bogus argument. It's the equivalent of saying that cars are harmful because some people die in cars. We don't ban something because it's harmful to a minority.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Tangle, posted 03-13-2018 2:26 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 3:48 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 101 of 357 (829833)
03-14-2018 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Tangle
03-14-2018 3:48 PM


Tangle writes:
Circumcision is unnecessary surgery which carries with it a risk of direct harm. Using transport is a necessary part of modern life.
I don't have a car. Neither do either of my circumcised brothers. Apparently their doctor thought circumcision had its value.
Tangle writes:
ringo writes:
We don't ban something because it's harmful to a minority.
Of course we do, female circumcision is banned.
It shouldn't be. That's discrimination against women. A woman should be able to choose.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 3:48 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 4:29 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 103 of 357 (829835)
03-14-2018 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Tangle
03-14-2018 4:29 PM


Tangle writes:
Right you and you brothers do not use any kind of transport...I think not.
We were talking about cars. Broadening that to all transport is like broadening circumcision to all elective surgery.
Tangle writes:
So we're agreed, let them choose when they're of an age to be able to.
They can. And until they're of age, their parents choose for them.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 4:29 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 5:18 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024