We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Circumcision banned
| 139 | 15962 |
- 139 Replies
It should probably be noted now that this law only counts for infants, as soon as the kid is old enough to give consent, they can get the operation if they wish to.
314d1 is right, circumcision isn't really harmless especially when considering it is often ritually done in regular localities by regular unprofessional people, instead of a clean clinical operation. Slightly decreasing the risks of a HIV infection is a cold comfort and certainly no reason to keep doing this.
Wouldn't this make that even worse? After all, if people still may want the ritual done to their child, wouldn't it act much like people say abortion does? The people who want it will still get it, but if it is banned it will have worse conditions.
But the fact that all you have to do is wait a few years under this makes that far less likely.
Wouldn't this make that even worse? After all, if people still may want the ritual done to their child, wouldn't it act much like people say abortion does? The people who want it will still get it, but if it is banned it will have worse conditions.
This is actually a good point. Though how many circumcisions are generally being done under clinical conditions instead of "at home"? I don't think the number is so high, compared to abortions. It's probably due to it being a ritual, so maybe it won't change a lot.
But the fact that all you have to do is wait a few years under this makes that far less likely.
That's why I don't think it violates any religious freedom, the practice itself isn't even banned.
The results showed that circumcision reduced vaginal-to-penile transmission of HIV by 60%, 53%, and 51%, respectively.
You know what works better than incomplete trials showing genital mutilation has some sort of effect? Condoms...
"The evidence for the effectiveness of condoms is clearest in studies of couples in which one person is infected with HIV and the other not (discordant couples). In a study of discordant couples in Europe, among 123 couples who reported consistently using condoms, none of the uninfected partners became infected. In contrast, among the 122 couples who used condoms inconsistently, 12 of the uninfected partners became infected. A recent review of 14 studies involving discordant couples concluded that consistent use of condoms led to an 80% reduction in HIV incidence."
http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm
The Circumcision Debate
How do you even compare a child to a computer?
Property rights.
If a child no longer wants to be owned, he can run away. A child is, in essence, a slave because another person claims ownership over him.
No matter what laws you put to protect this slave, the child is still a slave.
I propose that children be viewed as property. The idea that children cannot consent is ludicrous. Children consent all the time. By calling his owners mother and father, he is consenting to being owned. If he wants to leave, then he should have every right to do so because he no longer consenting to being owned. In a voluntary society, nobody should be coerced into doing anything. Coercion, by definition, is the use of force against another's will. If a child consents to being owned, then how is he being coerced? He isn't. He can leave any time he wants.
My idea is considered immoral to many, but many are shortsighted as well.
To address the question, a baby who gets circumcised is not wrong at all even though he cannot "consent." Aside from the actual consent question, I've never heard of any child condemning his parents for circumcision, and most of my friends have been circumcised.
I propose that children be viewed as property. The idea that children cannot consent is ludicrous. Children consent all the time. By calling his owners mother and father, he is consenting to being owned. If he wants to leave, then he should have every right to do so because he no longer consenting to being owned. In a voluntary society, nobody should be coerced into doing anything. Coercion, by definition, is the use of force against another's will. If a child consents to being owned, then how is he being coerced? He isn't. He can leave any time he wants.
Children are often ill equipped to make such choices.
I've never heard of any child condemning his parents for circumcision, and most of my friends have been circumcised.
"I have learned to deal with it by talking it out with my parents and letting them know that I was not happy about this and I want to be the way I was born."
"Dude, I feel your pain. I resent being circumcised myself (or at least not having the opportunity to decide that for myself) but at this point there is really nothing much to do about it."
"I have been angry my entire life over being circumcised against my will, and I know there are a lot of others who feel the same."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090128062936AAhcYJd
Penn and Teller's Bull****! had an episode on this. I do always recommend taking this show with a grain of salt, but it does make good points. Also if the name of the show isn't enough of a give away (NSFW) and has graphic depictions.
Penn & Teller on Circumcision (1 of 2)
Penn & Teller on Circumcision (2 of 2)
I will just say this,
"they must not mess with the religious rights
and parents have a right to choose religion for their children, if they choose islam or jew they should be allowed to follow it too"
"they must not mess with the religious rights
There's a large difference between rights to your own religion and causing someone harm which they did not consent to.
and parents have a right to choose religion for their children,
Bull****. No one has the right to determine another's beliefs like that.
if they choose islam or jew they should be allowed to follow it too"
Yes, if the person chooses it then there is no problem.
The problem is the mutilation of a non-consenting party.
I'm glad Germany decided to ban circumcision. I like my body just the way it is and I would have been upset if I found someone had decided to chop off a piece without my permission. If the person wants to be circumcised later on when they're older and can decide for themselves nothing is stopping them. But if it's already done as a baby they'll never have the oprotunity to make that choice.
Bull****. No one has the right to determine another's beliefs like that.
did'nt your parents wrote your religion on birth certificate and/or other documents coming with it.
Bull****. No one has the right to determine another's beliefs like that.
didn't ur parents wrote your religion on your birth certificate and/or other documents assompnaying it
did'nt your parents wrote your religion on birth certificate and/or other documents coming with it.
Uh, not as far as I'm aware. I can't say I've ever really looked over my birth certificate though and lacking it in my hands at this very moment...no.
It would be incredibly stupid to require that though. Not only do people change religions, the parents aren't the ones who decide that their child believes something, and how do you claim a newborn believes anything when they can only cry, puke, crap, and eat?
Yeah they did, but calling one a Christian from birth just because it says so
On his birth certificate doesn't necessarily make one one. They have no say in their religion and IMO shouldn't be needed to automatically follow such dogmatic rules.
"they must not mess with the religious rights
Just because a religion has a ritual doesn't mean it should be allowed. Some religious rituals call for human sacrifice, we wouldn't allow those. Of course I'm not saying the circumcision is comparable to killing someone. But it is doing physical harm to an individual who not only did not give consent, but is unable to do so.
Yeah they did, but calling one a Christian from birth just because it says so On his birth certificate doesn't necessarily make one one.
I would contest that all babies are atheists due to lack of belief from lack of exposure to the concept of a deity.
I would contest that all babies are atheists due to lack of belief from lack of exposure to the concept of a deity.
Actually, if anything, they are polytheists, because they have no explanation in the workings in the world, and because we know that lack of knowledge tends to lead people to theism, babies could be considered really primitive theists.
Circumcision does no harm to a person, whatsoever. The foreskin is not needed. A person does not feel any less "whole" without it. I do not have a foreskin. I am Jewish. I do not feel like any less of a male without it. I was circumcised when I was 8 days old. I can assure all of you that I do not feel any chronic pain, nor do I remember any pain whatsoever. I challenge all of you to try and remember anything from the first year of your life, much less your first year.
Actually, if anything, they are polytheists, because they have no explanation in the workings in the world, and because we know that lack of knowledge tends to lead people to theism, babies could be considered really primitive theists.
If anything, you're mixing theism with naivety here. They lack explanations but they ask for them, instead of trying to explain everything by deities. I'd stick with the notion of a lack of faith from birth.
Circumcision does no harm to a person, whatsoever. The foreskin is not needed. A person does not feel any less "whole" without it. I do not have a foreskin. I am Jewish. I do not feel like any less of a male without it. I was circumcised when I was 8 days old. I can assure all of you that I do not feel any chronic pain, nor do I remember any pain whatsoever. I challenge all of you to try and remember anything from the first year of your life, much less your first year.
That's very good for you. Now read the posts on the second page, especially Mages, to see it's not always like that. The foreskin is not really needed but that does not mean that the operation itself isn't automatically painless.
You must be logged in to post a reply!