Religious Special Pleading

I'm not stopping you, please show me. I remain persuaded that your family life is not going to provide us with any insights. Huh? About 10% of circumcised men. It's not that small. It also disproves the concept that 'nobody' is talking about it. The reason is that it's unnecessary, risky, damaging and there's an absence of consent.

Non-therapeutic circumcision is, by definition, not medically necessary. Even for those that believe the prophylactic argument, they wouldn't argue it was necessary. A sentiment which has justified precisely nothing, ever. 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. Exactly my point.

Doctors have done a lot of things. Let's also bring in the ethics and legal professions and of course, the people. Then we agree. Since I am not suggesting we ban something just because it is risky we can move on. It's the definition of damage. That it supports my position can hardly be used against my point. Feel free to put forward an alternative.

Yup. And this thread is part of that. First point: A circumcised foreskin does not self-repair.
Second point:

1. Babies do know about it, that's why they cry and why it is recommended to use localised anaesthesia during the process, which everyone agrees does not eradicate the pain.
2. If you mean that the child doesn't remember then
   1. 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?
   2. Not all circumcisions happen at an age that results in memory loss. 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?
      ​
      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?

A healed wound (often with a scar) is not a self-repaired foreskin. Foreskins don't grow back, you remove it - no human self-repair mechanisms are going to cause its return. So that justifies inflicting pain on babies in your view? The thread is about the morality of causing that damage. But if we're talking about damage alone then in that case it is not defined by the state of knowledge of the one damaged. If you shoot somebody in the head and they survive but they are in a persistent vegetative state - it is still called brain damage. Again - this justifies doing all manner of things to babies that most people would regard as immoral or illegal. So it must fail as an argument. Continuing the theme of being able to do many things to babies such as sexually abusing them, amputating body parts, inflicting pain through extended pinching, letting them sit in dirty diapers for hours etc etcBut hey - it turns out that things that happen to babies can influence them, almost as if their brains are keyed in to learning at a tremendous rate. And well let's take a look at some evidence Taddio et al conclude

quote:

---

Circumcised infants showed a stronger pain response to subsequent routine vaccination than uncircumcised infants.

---

Boyle et al:

quote:

---

The body of empirical evidence reviewed here suggests that there is severe pain at the time of circumcision and shortly thereafter in unanaesthetised boys, as well as heightened pain sensitivity for some considerable period of time afterwards. Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well. A variety of forces are converging from fields as diverse as psychology, medicine, law, medical ethics, and human rights, all questioning the advisability of circumcision which originated millenia ago and was promoted in the Victorian era. As Chamberlain (1998) pointed out, "parents are not warned that their infants will endure severe pain and will be deprived of a functional part of their sexual anatomy for life." Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is now being questioned by legal and ethics scholars in an unprecedented way. The mental health community can play an important role in the growing debate about circumcision. We encourage closer examination of this issue and even more empirical research into the psychosexual sequelae associated with circumcision.

---

Gemmel and Boyle:

quote:

---

Compared to intact men, circumcised respondents were
significantly more likely to be unhappy about being circumcised...

---

{This sounds trivially obvious but the question this conclusion is drawn from asks uncircumcised men about their state of happiness regarding their not being circumcised...}

quote:

---

...expressed feelings of anger ... sadness ...being incomplete... and cheated... Other emotions more common among circumcised respondents included feeling hurt, concerned, frustrated, abnormal
, and violated

---

Hammond:

quote:

---

More than 60% of respondents who had gained knowledge about the functions of intact male genitalia recognized that circumcision had harmed them.

---

quote:

---

The results of this survey demonstrate that neonatal circumcision has profound psychological and sexual consequences for a significant number of men. The types of physical harm caused by neonatal circumcision remain largely unrecognized by the general population of non-intact males due to society-wide ignorance of the normal anatomy and functions of the intact human penis. Becoming aware of normal human male genital anatomy and function was the most important factor in recognizing the types of physical harm caused by neonatal circumcision. From this survey, it appears that subsequent to this recognition it is common for circumcised men to acknowledge that family members and respected people in the community, for example, doctors or religious leaders, are responsible for permitting this harm to occur. Many circumcised men fail to seek professional assistance because of their well-found mistrust of the medical profession, or because they are unaware of the existence of the many peer resources now available. Others are reluctant to verbalize their feelings for fear of ridicule. Some non-intact men who have sought psychological counseling have been subjected to ridicule or misunderstanding from mental health workers. Until recently, men who understood that they had been psychologically and sexually damaged by circumcision suffered in silence. Those who have verbalized their dissatisfaction with circumcision have risked violating cultural taboos about discussing the penis or questioning their society's traditional practices. The psychological impact of recognizing one's harm, as well as the potential social disapproval from disclosing one's feelings, can be managed successfully through personal foreskin restoration, peer support groups, and altruistic activism to end the practice of neonatal circumcision and spare future generations of males from experiencing the same types of harm.

---

So if the current legal system permits people to circumcise their 10 year old child for non-therapeutic reasons are you for or against that? The question in this thread isn't about describing what is, it is about what should be. We're talking about harm. This thread is about the morality of circumcision. If you merely wanted to discuss what the present state of affairs is, this is not the thread for that. Yet the Muslims regularly wait until later in a child's life to circumcise. your argument has primarily hinged on points that only apply to neonatal circumcision - you have said "It could be argued that, after infancy, psychological damage is done." - and thus I asked you - what do you think should be the case...should this be something we should re-examine as legally or morally acceptable behaviour? As it turns out, this is not true - except in a trivial interpretation. If it were proven today without any doubt that circumcision was harmful - the existing legal system would not handle them at all. So in that case it would be 'equally' but there would be no criminal consequences for the harm caused. If the case were proven - religious special pleading is likely to impede legislative reform or the will to prosecute in this matter as it has other situations in the past and present.

Sure - but you could cut off a baby's ears and say the same thing.It's still causing damage regardless of the memories of the possessor of the body part. But you just tried to justify why its nobody else's business. So yes, it is about justifying things. This thread is about acceptable justifications for circumcising - and possibly other acts that would otherwise be considered immoral = and whether religious exemptions are acceptable special pleading or not.What you've said can be used to justify a wide range of unpleasant things to children that our current laws forbid.So are the current laws wrong - or is your argument? I'm talking about physical damage. But stealing a penny from a billionaire is illegal and he can sue for those damages so I'm still at a loss as to how your analogy is better. That's not really relevant to the point. You just justified sexually abusing or otherwise torturing babies - that isn't defended or even addressed by a discussion of the tyranny of the majority. Reynolds v. United States (1878) already covered this, as I said to you back in Message 22. The government cannot make being Jewish illegal just like they could not make being a Mormon illegal in that case. They can however, make actions illegal - even ones associated with a religion - so bigamy can be illegal even if it is permitted or encouraged in Momonism or Islam. Human sacrifice can be made illegal even if some religions have had it as an essential part of their practices. Non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision is also an activity not a belief.

quote:

---

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?

---

So we are in agreement that the principle used in these statements:

quote:

---

If the parents and the doctor agree on it and the baby doesn't remember it, it's nobody else's business.

---

quote:

---

Try suing for damages in a court of law when you can't remember any "damage" happening.

---

quote:

---

The child wouldn't even know anything happened if nobody told him.

---

quote:

---

"Damage" that the child doesn't even know about shouldn't be counted as damage.

---

Summarised as 'if you aren't aware of damage, then no damage has been done, therefore the government should not be intervening' is specious? Because we both agree that child sexual abuse or cutting a child's ears off is still harmful and/or damaging even if the child forgets the harm or damage as it grows older. Are the Nazis our forefathers who emphasized the freedom of religion? If not, this response misses the point. Circumcision does not belong to one or two specific groups. But even if it did the fear of appearing to target a group should not be a reason to tolerate practices by that group if it is shown those practices are harmful.Let's take a look at arguments so far you've put to me

• Trying to ban something that is "harmful" causes more problems than it solves This is not universally true, unless you want to argue banning child sexual abuse has caused more problems than it has solved or torture or...
  
• Our institutions and our parents don't agree with you Tyranny of the majority?
  
• I'm not banned from murdering because it's harmful to me. Non therapeutic neonatal circumcision is something done to other people, not oneself.
  
• if nobody talks about a problem, it's hard to establish that there is a problem. People do talk about circumcision as a problem
  
• Harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent. Nonsense
  
• Damage is a matter of opinion. It's pretty well defined
  
• There are doctors doing it, so let's let them decide. Doctors are capable of doing harm - See Mengele since Nazis are on the table
  
• the human body is self-repairing Just because amputation wounds heal it does not mean amputation is not damage, particularly amputation of a healthy body part
  
• The child wouldn't even know anything happened if nobody told him. Damage doesn't become not-damage if you forget that it happened.
  
• If you can make circumcision illegal, you can also make it illegal to be Jewish, Muslim, etc. Belief should not be a defence against something being criminalised. This would be religious special pleading. It's the only argument I've seen that has ever had traction in court - but it doesn't justify all actions and the line seems to be drawn arbitrarily.

Although some percent of people say they don't know their circumcision status - most people do know. But no, the Nazis were not who you were referring to when you spoke of our forefathers who emphasized the freedom of religion. And if it was? No. 'Willy-nilly' is an unfortunate choice of words. But no, I'm not proposing we ban things willy-nilly. So parents are the minority? Yep, but that doesn't address the fact that it is still doing something to somebody else so arguments about harming ones self are irrelevant. It still defeats the argument that nobody is talking about the problem. So they're not equivalent. What people consider themselves is not a relevant consideration when it comes to whether the foreskin is damaged by circumcision. Thus you agree that just because doctors do it, doesn't mean it is not harm. Why would a car rolling down the street be considered damaged in my view? Again, not so. But as I have shown - there are plenty of penis owners that do consider it damage, and they were never given the choice. I'm just arguing that there is no reason to not give them the choice.If only 30% of child sexual abuse victims considered it harmful - would that justify its continuing practice - in your view? Why? I still say you are free to your opinions. But not free to carry out any action you like.

Well I don't see it as persecutory, but I think any harm to a child should be prevented if the only justification is 'but my religion insists upon it'. Exactly. So using the majority position against the minority would seem to be the tyranny of the majority. Harming a child is not harming the parent. It might harm the parent, or it might not. Thus they are not equivalent. That's exactly what I'm proposing. And since children cannot consent, they cannot make this decision. Wait until they can consent, and they can make that decision. It sounds like a 'yes' to me. You did say doctors are capable of harm, after all. And that being the case 'Doctors do it' is not an argument against it being harmful. But you can't replace a foreskin like you can replace tyres. The healing of the body, only heals the wounds caused by circumcision - not the body part that was amputated. I think amputating body parts is very different from educating someone. Circumcision is not usually required, and it can thus be delayed until adulthood. Even with children who are too young to remember it? So tyranny of the majority then? Why not allow the 70% to circumcise when they are adults and thus the 30% don't have a lifetime of being unhappy about their genitals? If it were 51% rather than 30% would it then be justified?

And you are arguing that the views of the majority should be imposed on the minority. I see - so those parents that beat their children, rape them, murder them, neglect them, etc etc etc are only harming themselves - so it should be permissible? There is utility in educating children that is lacking in the circumcision discussion. That's fine - but the argument 'if Doctors do it, it is not harmful' is still defeated. The argument 'the human body is self-repairing' is still defeated as a justification for the practice. So if a parent consents to amputating a child's ears, legs, nose etc - where there is no medical need to do so -- that's cool with you?

Then they aren't equivalent. They can try to argue that the specific religious practice of circumcision has as much utility as education but I've never seen them try, and I'm pretty sure they'd fail. Well what you said was

quote:

---

There are doctors doing it, so let's let them decide.

---

I pointed out that doctors doing it is insufficient. If you agree, then we can move on.I've never made the argument that one should 'override' the medical professionals on the grounds that in my opinion it is yucky. You'll note I've included ethical, legal and medical opinion as to why non-therapeutic circumcision is problematic. But the recipient can tell the difference, so... As does circumcision. One of the reasons adults give for getting non-therapeutic circumcision (and the reason some parents give for imposing it on children) is that it looks better. I prefer the look of a circumcised penis, personally - if you can't tell the difference that's your affair - but the fact is that just about everybody else can.

quote:

---

Harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent.

---

Message 78Nah, I think it's best if we include ethics and legal professionals among other stakeholders - including penis-owners.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm glad we can agree that you did say that harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent. Harming a child is not harming the parent. It might harm the parent, or it might not. Thus they are not equivalent. Message 130It can be shown they are not equivalent by referencing cases where children are harmed by parents, who themselves are not harmed. Further - killing a child causes more harm to the child than it does to the parent. We do consult the stakeholders, and I support that.

I called your claim 'nonsense', yes. You later denied making the claim. I showed that you made that claim. You then confirmed you had made that claim. I stated I was glad we agree that you did make the claim.I'm not sure how that merits the word 'but'. Were you trying to make a point or were you just confused?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

You said harming a child was equivalent to harming the parent. I used the example of parents who commit child molestation and other things to show that this was not true.