|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religious Special Pleading | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
There's no clear line between "medically necessary" and "a good idea". There are doctors doing it, so let's let them decide.
Non-therapeutic circumcision is, by definition, not medically necessary. Modulous writes:
On the contrary, banning something because its risky has justified nothing. Crossing the street is risky but we don't ban it.
ringo writes:
A sentiment which has justified precisely nothing, ever. Everything is risky. Modulous writes:
That's a self-serving definition of damage. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
ringo writes: It isn't up to you do decide what's unnecessary. Is conversation restricted to those who make laws now?
And there are doctors doing it for medical reasons, not religious. You do love your repetitions don't you? All here agree that circumcision for medical reasons is perfectly fine. No need to bring it up again, eh?
It isn't banned. You lose. If it was banned, we wouldn't be haven't this discussion would we? Raising the consciousness of bad practices in the minds of others is how bad practices are stopped. It's already changing.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Making laws is restricted to those who make laws. Is conversation restricted to those who make laws now? You're entitled to blather whatever you want but if you claim something "is" harmful you can expect to be challenged.
Tangle writes:
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.
All here agree that circumcision for medical reasons is perfectly fine. Tangle writes:
See above. It's changing in the direction of not banning things. Raising the consciousness of bad practices in the minds of others is how bad practices are stopped. It's already changing.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
There's no clear line between "medically necessary" and "a good idea". There are doctors doing it, so let's let them decide. Doctors have done a lot of things. Let's also bring in the ethics and legal professions and of course, the people.
On the contrary, banning something because its risky has justified nothing. Crossing the street is risky but we don't ban it. Then we agree. Since I am not suggesting we ban something just because it is risky we can move on.
That's a self-serving definition of damage. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Those factors are already in there.
Doctors have done a lot of things. Let's also bring in the ethics and legal professions and of course, the people. Modulous writes:
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. It's the 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Those factors are already in there. Yup. And this thread is part of that.
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. First point: A circumcised foreskin does not self-repair.Second point:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: ... if you claim something "is" harmful you can expect to be challenged. I do claim it is harmful 200+ unnecessary deaths in the US alone. I am waiting to be challenged on this. As I am on the other tests I've rised. What I'm getting in response is your usual divertionary nonsens. No attempt to challenge fact or bring your own evidence. Just flat contradiction.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Sure it does. The child wouldn't even know anything happened if nobody told him.
First point: A circumcised foreskin does not self-repair. Modulous writes:
Babies cry about a lot of things.
Babies do know about it, that's why they cry.... Modulous writes:
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.
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? Modulous writes:
Up to 18 years old, the decision is up to the parent. It could be argued that, after infancy, psychological damage is done.
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? Modulous writes:
First, I haven't crafted any legal system; I'm just going with the one we have. 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? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
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. I do claim it is harmful 200+ unnecessary deaths in the US alone.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: That's a bogus argument. It's the equivalent of saying that cars are harmful because some people die in cars. No it isn't. Circumcision is unnecessary surgery which carries with it a risk of direct harm. Using transport is a necessary part of modern life.
We don't ban something because it's harmful to a minority. Of course we do, female circumcision is banned.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I don't have a car. Neither do either of my circumcised brothers. Apparently their doctor thought circumcision had its value.
Circumcision is unnecessary surgery which carries with it a risk of direct harm. Using transport is a necessary part of modern life. Tangle writes:
It shouldn't be. That's discrimination against women. A woman should be able to choose. ringo writes:
Of course we do, female circumcision is banned. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: I don't have a car. Neither do either of my circumcised brothers. Apparently their doctor thought circumcision had its value. Right, you and your brothers do not use any kind of transport...I think not. You're sqirming.
It shouldn't be. That's discrimination against women. A woman should be able to choose. Exactly. So should a man. So we're agreed, let them choose when they're of an age to be able to. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
We were talking about cars. Broadening that to all transport is like broadening circumcision to all elective surgery.
Right you and you brothers do not use any kind of transport...I think not. Tangle writes:
They can. And until they're of age, their parents choose for them. So we're agreed, let them choose when they're of an age to be able to.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Sure it does. The child wouldn't even know anything happened if nobody told him. 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.
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.
Babies cry about a lot of things. So that justifies inflicting pain on babies in your view?
Morality is a separate issue. What we're talking about here is damage. 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.
Try suing for damages in a court of law when you can't remember any "damage" happening. 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.
Up to 18 years old, the decision is up to the parent. It could be argued that, after infancy, psychological damage is done. 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 etc But 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: Boyle et al:
quote: Gemmel and Boyle:
quote: {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: Hammond:
quote: quote: First, I haven't crafted any legal system; I'm just going with the one we have. 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.
Second, nothing I've said is about morality. 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.
Third, it's the Muslims and Jews that I'm defending. 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?
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Ringo writes: We were talking about cars. You attempted a contrived, fake and restricted argument - I didn't fall for it, tough. Transport by motorbike, bus, train, taxi, bicycle, foot, plane, tram, horse - whatever, carries a risk. But not using it is impossible.
Broadening that to all transport is like broadening circumcision to all elective surgery. Self-evidently it is not. Circumcision is unnecessary surgery which carries with it a risk of direct harm. Using transport is a necessary part of modern life.
They can. Not if they're 7 days old.
And until they're of age, their parents choose for them. Which is the core of the argument. Their parents harm them. They need to be stopped. Just like we do for female circumcision. If you're just going to repeat stuff, from here you're talking to yourself. If you have any facts or evidence instead of this circular waffle, feel free to provide them.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024