Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Circumcision banned

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 12:51pm

reaperbackinaction

reaperbackinaction

91 posts

i can't believe that i actually agree with HahiHa. lets not let this get in the way of our debating relationship. after all there are still plenty of things we disagree on. but like i said, i do agree with you on this. children, from the moment of birth on, are continuously learning how to be a functioning member of society. almost like a pseudo productive member in training. like pretty much any job, you can profit off of someone, and train them to make as much profit as possible, even fire them if you want to but in the end you cannot own them. there was a reason for the emancipation proclamation. if you all recall.


i dare say that we have reached a conclusion on the matter of law involving itself in the medical matters of anyone. although most of us seem to believe that a parent should not have the right to chop things off of their children, no matter how small, it also seems to be wrong for a government to step in and take direct control. anyone up for a compromise? maybe set an age of decision for any male child that wishes to choose for themselves. I would suggest 13 at the youngest. the only issue i can see is judaism, in which the removal of the prepuce is a commandment from god and has been done in infancy for thousands of years. i believe that the jews may be willing to compromise, but, being of jewish descent myself, i know personally that they have a bit of a problem being told what to do.

 

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 9:58pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,782 posts

Knight

It doesn't affect you if a baby in Switzerland or your nneighborhood gets circumcised.


It does impact me when I'm part of the culture that this is being done to.

Who are you to say what is harmful and what isn't? It is up to the parent to decide and not anyone other than that.


Okay, let's use an example. There are people in Africa who believe their children are witches. In response they have fed poison to these children abandoned them and worse. By your logic These parents are perfectly in their right and know that what they are doing is for the children's best interests.

Yes this is a more extreme example than just cutting off the end of a kids penis, but it does demonstrate parents don't' always do what's best for the child. This also demonstrates why religious freedom should have limits.

But you can't say that the removal of a leg is as bad.


Perhaps but there are plenty of other examples I can think of. The breast removal thing sure seemed to raise some uproar.

Outlawing practices that are common is not only not going to work, but it's immoral.


I would call doing unnecessary surgery on those who A) didn't consent and B) can't consent immoral.
 

Posted Jul 23, '12 at 3:07am

devsaupa

devsaupa

1,849 posts

Thinking about this a bit more, I thought of something. Should there be a law about breastfeeding? Some mothers just don't and there are facts that breastfeeding has health benefits. So are they going to outlaw baby formula because they did not have the consent of the child to breastfeed or not?

Don't forget about the other person who may suffer from all this. Women are less likely to develop cervical cancer from a snipped partner. And it has been proven that uncircumcised men are more at risk for cancers and STD's, this can't be denied. So if someone ends up getting a disease of this sort, does this mean they get to blame their parents for this too? Parents may not always know what's right, but religious or not, can't they have some control? Let's ban infant baptism too. The children don't get to choose so therefore they shouldn't partake. And they should choose whether they want to go to school. Parents have no right telling them to go, especially if it's a religious based school, god forbid. Children need to approve everything that happens to them. Actually, now that I think about it, we should ban the bar/bat mitzvah too. They aren't of proper age yet and are obviously just following their parents rules. What an immoral thing to do to a 13/12 year old. Parents should really just shut the hell up and let the child do what he/she wants. It's his/her life right?

 

Posted Jul 23, '12 at 3:25am

Kasic

Kasic

5,740 posts

So are they going to outlaw baby formula because they did not have the consent of the child to breastfeed or not?


There's multiple reasons for baby formula.

1) Feeding your baby in public places.
2) Twins+
3) Unable to produce enough.

Women are less likely to develop cervical cancer from a snipped partner


Source please. This sounds like a load.

And it has been proven that uncircumcised men are more at risk for cancers and STD's, this can't be denied.


No it hasn't, unless you wish to link a completed study? We've been over how the people who were apart of the study also received education in prevention/safety, which as we all know is effective.

Parents may not always know what's right, but religious or not, can't they have some control?


There's a difference between control and performing surgery which is at the moment unnecessary and permanent to the child without the child's consent.

Let's ban infant baptism too


Not harmful. You pour water on its head and say some words. You may as well be at a party outside and it rains.

The children don't get to choose so therefore they shouldn't partake.


That's not the issue.

The issue is that you're permanently changing the child's body for no immediate or necessary purpose without them consenting or even being able to. There is no reason not to wait until the child is say, 13, and let them decide. If such a reason does occur (like it being too tight or something) it can be done then for a medical purpose.

Parents have no right telling them to go, especially if it's a religious based school, god forbid.


Religious based schools are still required to teach certain curriculum.

I personally don't agree with religious schools, but they're not harmful (to the child at that time) so it's a freedom.

Children need to approve everything that happens to them.


You can argue ridiculous things and cite &quotarents lose their freedoms to children" all you want but it's simply not true. Parents are required to keep their children's well being and not harm them. That is all. No one is saying you can't feed your kid junk food. What people are saying is that you shouldn't be allowed to feed your kid only or mostly junk food (or that that makes you a bad parent if you do.)

Actually, now that I think about it, we should ban the bar/bat mitzvah too.


The child is old enough at that point to voice a nay/yay, and a bar mitzvah is non-harmful.
 

Posted Jul 23, '12 at 3:59am

devsaupa

devsaupa

1,849 posts

link 1

link 2

Sorry for the lack or creativity, but I'm too tired to think of much more to say.

Parents are required to keep their children's well being and not harm them.


And if they believe with all their heart that circumcision is the best thing for their child, why shouldn't they be able to?
 

Posted Jul 23, '12 at 4:00am

devsaupa

devsaupa

1,849 posts

link 1

link 2

Sorry for the lack or creativity, but I'm too tired to think of much more to say.

Parents are required to keep their children's well being and not harm them.


And if they believe with all their heart that circumcision is the best thing for their child, why shouldn't they be able to?
 

Posted Jul 23, '12 at 4:09am

Kasic

Kasic

5,740 posts

I'll get back to you on the sources, I want to read them all/check the studies they mention, but it's late and I'm about to head to bed.

And if they believe with all their heart that circumcision is the best thing for their child, why shouldn't they be able to?


Belief is not truth. Anyone could believe anything and do it for the best of intentions, that doesn't make their actions "right" or "good."
 

Posted Jul 23, '12 at 4:36am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,305 posts

Knight

i dare say that we have reached a conclusion on the matter of law involving itself in the medical matters of anyone. although most of us seem to believe that a parent should not have the right to chop things off of their children, no matter how small, it also seems to be wrong for a government to step in and take direct control. anyone up for a compromise? maybe set an age of decision for any male child that wishes to choose for themselves. I would suggest 13 at the youngest. the only issue i can see is judaism, in which the removal of the prepuce is a commandment from god and has been done in infancy for thousands of years. i believe that the jews may be willing to compromise, but, being of jewish descent myself, i know personally that they have a bit of a problem being told what to do.

Seems about right, except that the formulation "for any male child that wishes to choose for themselves" doesn't really solve the problem and is too vague. Just set an age of decision, point, end. Under that age, no circumcision shall be performed except for medical reasons.

And if they believe with all their heart that circumcision is the best thing for their child, why shouldn't they be able to?

Then they have to go consult a specialist who will say whether it makes sense or not. Because again, parents can't know everything.

And stop making shady comparisons; circumcision is an operation like any other, which implies risks of complications like any other. Would you really agree that parents should be able to let their baby (baby!) have a piercing only because they think it's cool? I wouldn't. Same with any other invasive operation.

The thing in Germany got started exactly because there have been post-operational complications after a circumcision. It didn't come out of the blue.

Women are less likely to develop cervical cancer from a snipped partner.

Is this mentioned in one of the two links you posted? In which case I will read it carefully. Until now I don't believe such a causation has been definitely proven.
 

Posted Jul 23, '12 at 4:43am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,782 posts

Knight

And if they believe with all their heart that circumcision is the best thing for their child, why shouldn't they be able to?


For the same reason those people who believe in their heart that their kids are witches and should drink poison.
 

Posted Jul 23, '12 at 4:48am

dair5

dair5

3,475 posts

Don't forget about the other person who may suffer from all this. Women are less likely to develop cervical cancer from a snipped partner. And it has been proven that uncircumcised men are more at risk for cancers and STD's, this can't be denied. So if someone ends up getting a disease of this sort, does this mean they get to blame their parents for this too?


Pretty much everything you mentioned would most affect a sexually active adult male. So why is not up to the sexually active adult male to decide. (or the sexually active teen). I can't see any benefit cicumcision could have on your child while they still are a child. This is something that affects them into their teen and adult life, so why don't they get to decide when they are actually teens or adults? I see no reason why a parent must decide for them, or why a parent has any right to decide for them. I found this link, and I thought it was intresting. It had positive and negative recations to circumcision in the comments, and supports a few claims from both sides.
 
Reply to Circumcision banned

You must be logged in to post a reply!