Advice Needed: Circumcised vs Uncircumcised

Really a message to JazzNs, but ... If it's for the purpose of involving a child in a loving culture and tradition, I'm all for it.If it's out of fear of the unknown, I'm against it. I almost agree. But by the time they're of age to give informed consent, a lot of the issues will be resolved (whether they "fit in" and have been accepted, etc). Parents need to make these calls for kids. In this case, a "no call" is equivalent to a choice "no", and carries all the same consequences. As a parent in this choice, there is no "abstain" position.I don't see that I would get any of my kids circumcised. Within my life and lifestyle, I just don't see any need for it whatsoever.

For my reference:
Foot binding - Wikipedia
Female genital mutilation - Wikipedia Then why would I consider it child abuse?It is up to the parents to figure out how they want thier kids to fit into a society / culture. That's the parents job. If it's an accepted social practice, then I don't see how it can be considered abuse.That would require me to use my own social values to judge someone else's situation. That's why I think JazzNs needs to examine his own situation, and his community. If uncircumcised kids would be rejected, I think it's worth considering. If not, and if there's no ideaological push, then I don't see any reason to go for it.Just as a note, I don't want to take away from Jazzns' thought... if we're going to talk more ideaologically about stuff like this, it might be useful to take it somewhere else. I found this thread which might be an appropriate home.

I don't really "do" 'should'. Rather, I would say that the term "human rights" is itself relative and is defined culturally.What do you think of praying mantis mating habits?

For my reference:
Moloch - Wikipedia What does this mean? Who is "we"? How are "we" "not allowing it"? What's I would say it's up to the culture. I don't see any reason why a culture would be unstable due to ownership of children issues. I think whether children own themselves, parents own children, or if groups own children, in any case there's an overtone of love, care, and possession that allows the group to survive.Current American culture puts a high emphasis on the individual. Seems to me that many people here think that is "right" in some absolute sense. I don't see it. For the same reasons I argued in another thread that I don't see punishment of children for the acts of parents as necessarily wrong. I don't even know where to start addressing this. If you really want me to address this, let me know and I'll do my best. It doesn't make it right or wrong. What is the purpose in calling it so? What is the purpose behind the questions?

Such a demonstration is immaterial. Seems to me that looking for such things is really just fishing for an excuse to continue a practised cultural habit. And? Without reading between the lines, I don't see the purpose of this paragraph.Reading between the lines, it seems to be an ad-hominem attack on cultures that practice circumcision. Using words like "prehistoric" and "retrograde" Define unnecessary. Anticipating a possible answer... since when was meaning and value in life just about "being alive"? There's nothing wrong with pulling kid's teeth just because you think it looks nice.Sorry, I just wanted to practice making assertions without any reasoning, just because it's what I felt.But I was subjected to braces. And I did have teeth pulled in order to make that happen. It really put a cramp on my style with the ladies.

Just depends what you mean by "trouble." It's just as hard for me to see people suffer as it is for others. But I don't think a knee-jerk guttoral reaction to it is necessarily the right thing. Why? I wouldn't say "logically consistent". I think a better phrase is "self-sustaining". We're at a forum where we discuss evolution and survival; I think it applies well here.By the way, this answer is really just a cop-out. You just don't feel like thinking through why you think that way (or maybe you just dont' feel like expounding upon it). But I'll ask. Why do you feel that a culture defining meaning, value, and rights at the level of the individual is superior than others? Or that doing so doesn't lead to issues of state, royalty, nobility, etc. that you speak down upon? You need to learn more apt uses of the word "barbaric".

Mod,I agree. I'm not arguing that circumcision is "right" or "wrong". Only standing by my statement that Jazzns should weight the views of the local community when making his decision.Everything beyond that is ideaolical discussion stemming from some questions that schraf asked. oops i got confused. Did you mean to say "does revolve around absolute morality" or "doesn't revolve around relativistic morality"? That would make sense; what you typed didn't make so much sense to me.By the way, holmes, where are you on this one? I have to assume you're bored with making the same arguments over and over? I gotta say, this "relativistic morality" gig is kind of rote. And the comments from this point of view tend to look very bigoted and close-minded. Not a good feeling.Maybe I'll adopt a more close-minded thinking. How about postmodern Americanism? Yes I have no idea what that means.

Just to make sure you know, I responded to you here:
http://EvC Forum: Human Rights vs Cultural Diversity -->EvC Forum: Human Rights vs Cultural DiversityNot sure if you had noticed or not. Hope to see you there.