Religious Special Pleading

Special pleading hinges on whether or not the act is justifiable. Circumcision is justifiable on the grounds of religious freedom.

On the contrary, society considers the "net" effect of good and bad effects. In the case of circumcision, most modern societies seem to conclude that the "harm" caused by circumcision is less harmful in the long term than the harm caused by trampling on individual freedoms. Good luck with that. I have no axe to grind here. I'm not in favour of circumcision, just like I'm not in favour of abortion. But I am in favour of preventing self-appointed do-gooders from meddling with individual freedoms. I'm just pointing out why your argument doesn't work.

And yet people clearly do have that right, so the justice systems must not be using the same definitions as you are. There's no need to challenge that. You might even be right about that. There's a first time for everything.But we can't undo the past based on what we probably would do in the future. There's a long history of the consequences of trampling on individual rights - in the case of Jews, a particularly horrendous history.Future religious sects have not been persecuted yet. If the Jews had never been persecuted, you might be able to get away with predicting that the slope will not be slippery. But we do remember history.

That's what I'm sayng. in fact, it has little to do with religion at all. It's about individual rights. I doubt that. I certainly will not live to be proven wrong. I'm not arguing for circumcision. I'm arguing for individual freedom. For one thing, as I have already mentioned, we have learned that prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition of abortions didn't stop abortions from happening but it probably increased the bad effects. Same with prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of drugs, etc. And sensible people question whether the effect of prohibiting sugar or fat would be any different. We are prepared to recognize that it isn't very "harmful" if the Jews could survive the persecution and, Mother of Mercy!, survive the circumcisions too. I was thinking that might be your position.My position remains more or less consistent: individual freedom.

It isn't "other people's genitals". It's the freedom to make decisions for people who are dependent on them.

Jewish religion is also religious - but circumcision is not. As long as doctors do circumcisions for non-religious reasons, circumcision is not a religious issue. I haven't done that; society has. Society has the sense to understand that children can not make their own decisions. And society also has the sense not to let you dictate to them what is "superstition". They should. The reality is that I'm in the same position as the justice systems of most modern democracies. Your position may become tenable some day but now it is not.

A child is not an independent person. If we agreed on that, what have we been talking about?

You should try reading what I wrote: "As long as doctors do circumcisions for non-religious reasons, circumcision is not a religious issue." You could say that slavery was a historical anomaly. One or two changes don't necessarily indicate a trend. History ain't over yet. It's premature to predict a final outcome. There is no "correct position", Mr. Absolute. I don't think it will change. I think - and hope - that freedom will prevail.

I did. The legal weight is on the side of the parents making the decision because the child is not capable - i.e. the child is not independent. Prohibition of scarification is cultural and, for practical purposes, racial oppression. It should be the

I think it should be an individual decision. Denying a woman the right to make her own decision is the same as denying her the right to make her own decision about abortion. It's the same kind of oppression as forcing her to be circumcised or forcing her to have an abortion or forcibly sterilizing her.

Don't be silly.If doctors do it for non-religious reasons, how can it be a religious issue? Abortion, prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of drugs.... The list of ending government interference in individual freedoms is also long. Are you being deliberately dishonest or did the goalposts wander off on their own volition? We were talking about male circumcision specifically.

That's a pretty broad statement. There's no such thing as "the law" which applies in all jurisdictions. Prohibition is a part of our culture that doesn't work, which is why we need special pleading for 15-year-olds having sex with other 15-year-olds. I don't follow your logic. Please elaborate. As I have said, my argument is not a religious one. Those examples, with the exception of employment, are not cultural practices in our society that we need to concern ourselves with.

You can't divorce childhood circumcision, either male or female, from adult circumcision, either male or female. In all cases, it's the adult who makes the decision - because the child can't. It doesn't matter if you think it's "unnecessary". It's the decision of the individual involved that should count.

A few centuries ago, the question was whether the decisions regarding the child are best left up to the parent or to the king. Then we invented democracy.Thomas Paine said something to the effect that locally-made decisions tend to be better than decisions made by some goober on the other side of the ocean. I would suggest that issues about the "best interests of the child" are best understood by those who are closest to the child.

Are you claiming that doctors perform circumcisions for religious reasons? If they don't, then it is not a religious issue. It really is that simple.Are you aiming to ban only religious circumcisions? Talk about doubling the height of the religious freedom barrier. Doctors don't remove hearts; they sometimes replace them. Don't confuse "we" with "you". No. I'm arguing that in the case of circumcision in general the parents have the right and responsibility to make decisions for their children, who can not. I am not discriminating either for or against Jews. Nothing I have said would change if there were no such thing as Jews. Nothing I have said would change if there was no such thing as religion. There go the goalposts again. There quite obviously isn't. You can't equivocate deliberate murder with a relatively minor procedure that the child is unlikely to remember. There's a continuum of "harm" from none at all up to murder. It's ridiculous to pretend that you can assign an absolute value to every point on the scale.