Circumcision should be banned

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Big or small, why should you decide which langauge they speak? It should be the children, if you think parents cannot decide on circumcising them.

Great - this again. I notice that you never responded to any of my points when you raised this ridiculous comparison the first time.

BTW - how would you expect someone who has no language ability to tell you which language he wants to speak?

OTOH, having a foreskin doesn't stop a person from expressing a desire to be circumcised.

 

[J2hapydna]

Because the two subjects are quite different and not analogous.

These changes are initiated by parents to make their children religiously and culturally similar to themselves. Both changes are irreversible and take place without consent from the children. Do you not recognize the close link between culture, language and religion? Do you not see that as Jews and Muslims we have an ethnic and cultural link to a circumcised man known as Abraham?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Do you not recognize the close link between culture and religion? Do you not see that as Jews and Muslims we have an ethnic and cultural link to a circumcised man known as Abraham?

I do recognise that...but it is of secondary importance to the issue of the freedom of religious choice.

Religion may be important to you or me but that hardly matters...what matters is the observance of the fact that everyone including children should have the right to be protected from religiously motivated and unnecessary surgery (and of course given no religious choice either) if they live in a secular nation...in which religion is not of greatest importance...nor has any power to dictate terms.
You assimilate into your nation...and its culture, if you cannot accept the responsibilites of the secular government then you should leave and find somewhere more conducive for your beliefs to inhabit...or face legal sanctions...why should I put up with them and your refusal to comply?

Keep in my mind I would only suppress circumcision for children under 18..adults can do what they like to their penises.

In a theocracy?
Do what you like.

 

[J2hapydna]

I do recognise that...but it is of secondary importance to the issue of the freedom of religious choice.

Religion may be important to you or me but that hardly matters...what matters is the observance of the fact that everyone including children should have the right to be protected from religiously motivated and unnecessary surgery if they live in a secular nation...in which religion is not of greatest importance.
You assimilate into your nation...and its culture or you should leave and find somewhere mre conducive for your beliefs...why should I put up with them?

In a theocracy?
Do what you like.

How does circumcision prevent people from converting to other religions? Religion language and culture are more closely related to each other than you seem to recognize, in my opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

These changes are initiated by parents to make their children religiously and culturally similar to themselves. Both changes are irreversible and take place without consent from the children.

And one is a free choice, while the other isn't. Children will unavoidably learn some form of language without the parents doing anything.

If, in some crazy hypothetical world, any uncircumcised boy will go find himself a knife and do something with it to his penis, then sure - the null option isn't available, so circumcision may very well be the best option available. But this isn't the case in the real world.

Do you not recognize the close link between culture, language and religion? Do you not see that as Jews and Muslims we have an ethnic and cultural link to a circumcised man known as Abraham?

You mean the same Abraham who was not circumcised until after he had freely accepted his covenant with God?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

How does circumcision prevent people from converting to other religions? Religion language and culture are more closely related to each other than you seem to recognize, in my opinion.

Everything is closely related if you look for the links J2.

Once circumcised always circumcised...you can convert but you will still be 'branded' with the circumcision...it will be a constant reminder of the choice you were denied.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

You mean the same Abraham who was not circumcised until after he had freely accepted his covenant with God?

So if it is good enough for Abe then it should be good enough for everyone else surely?

 

[J2hapydna]

BTW - how would you expect someone who has no language ability to tell you which language he wants to speak?

OTOH, having a foreskin doesn't stop a person from expressing a desire to be circumcised.

I dont expect children to tell me which language they want to speak or whether they want to be circumcised. Therefore, I expect the parents to choose for them. It is you who is saying parents should choose a child's language but not whether they should be circumcised. I am asking why the hypocrisy?

I have explained several times that Muslim and Jewish children learn their language and dvelop a sense of ethics thru stories in their religious texts, the Quran and Jewish Bible, in which their heroes are circumcised. This is how our children learn about what is good and bad, right and wrong, religious holidays and customs, as well as their language etc.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I have explained several times that Muslim and Jewish children learn their language and dvelop a sense of ethics thru stories in their religious texts, the Quran and Jewish Bible, in which their heroes are circumcised. This is how our children learn about what is good and bad, right and wrong, religious holidays and customs, as well as their language etc.

Children do not need their penises to be circumcised to learn what is good or bad and what is the difference, nor is it necessary for them to be circumcised to learn about their faith.
Circumcision is entirely a religious observance like wearing a veil or sacrificing chickens...it is a parochial consideration...however it is one that it is physcially practiced on voiceless children...that is not acceptable to a secularist that does not accord religious parochialism any undue credence or extraordinary powers to religious 'authority'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dont expect children to tell me which language they want to speak or whether they want to be circumcised. Therefore, I expect the parents to choose for them. It is you who is saying parents should choose a child's language but not whether they should be circumcised. I am asking why the hypocrisy?

It's not hipocrisy:

- language is absolutely necessary to function in society. If you do not know the language being used around you, you will not be able to interact with the people around you. It's a matter of clear need. Religion is not a matter of clear need - whether a person is raised in a religion will not stop him from being a full member of society; neither will the choice of religion, except in extreme cases.

- a child's primary language is not a matter of choice of the parent. If a child hears English, he'll learn English... even without the parents consciously deciding to teach the child English. If the child hears some other language, he'll learn that. If a set of parents, for some bizarre reason, decide to keep their child from hearing any language at all, the child will invent his own language. Second languages may be a matter of parental choice, but parents can't actually choose to stop a child from learning a language that he's surrounded with. It's out of their control.

I have explained several times that Muslim and Jewish children learn their language and dvelop a sense of ethics thru stories in their religious texts, the Quran and Jewish Bible, in which their heroes are circumcised. This is how our children learn about what is good and bad, right and wrong, religious holidays and customs, as well as their language etc.

It's not like a person can't learn Hebrew if he has a foreskin. If you want to teach your kids language, culture, ethics and religion all in one setting, that's your choice, but don't pretend that it has to be done this way.

A person can learn the Hebrew language in ways that don't involve Jewish religion. A person can be circumcised and never learn to speak a word of Hebrew. All of these things are separate issues and each can be looked at on its own merits.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Religion has no rightful authority to impose religious observances on anyone.

 

[J2hapydna]

Circumcision is entirely a religious observance like wearing a veil or sacrificing chickens...it is a parochial consideration...however it is one that it is physcially practiced on voiceless children...that is not acceptable to a secularist that does not accord religious parochialism any undue credence or extraordinary powers to religious 'authority'.

You are trying to separate religion from language and culture, when they are not separate things.

 

[J2hapydna]

It's not hipocrisy:

- language is absolutely necessary to function in society.

So are ethics and imagination (absolutely necessary). Which language, yours? Teach your children chinese, what is necessary. We want to teach our children our languages and our sense of ethics, our holidays and the best books in these languages are religious in which the heroes are circumcised, and we look upon them as our ancestors/ friends of our ancestors and teachers.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

You are trying to separate religion from language and culture, when they are not separate things.

Of course they are different things..thats why they have different names

 

[iholdit]

I do recognise that...but it is of secondary importance to the issue of the freedom of religious choice.

Religion may be important to you or me but that hardly matters...what matters is the observance of the fact that everyone including children should have the right to be protected from religiously motivated and unnecessary surgery (and of course given no religious choice either) if they live in a secular nation...in which religion is not of greatest importance...nor has any power to dictate terms.
You assimilate into your nation...and its culture, if you cannot accept the responsibilites of the secular government then you should leave and find somewhere more conducive for your beliefs to inhabit...or face legal sanctions...why should I put up with them and your refusal to comply?

Keep in my mind I would only suppress circumcision for children under 18..adults can do what they like to their penises.

In a theocracy?
Do what you like.

You say that the surgery is not needed but i have already said the cdc says it prevents urinary tract infections.

You mentioned that children should be able to sue their parents for having them circumcised. So lets say an uncircumcised child has a urinary tract infection and it caused them to have kidney failure, should the child also be able to sue their parents for not having them circumcised?

What if the child dies from the urinary tract infection causing kidney failure etc., should the parents have charges pressed against them and be put in jail because they didnt have their child circumcised?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So are ethics and imagination (absolutely necessary). Which language, yours?

If I don't teach my children English, they'll be taught it when they go off to school anyhow.

Teach your children chinese, what is necessary.

Could you re-phrase this so it's coherent?

We want to teach our children our languages and our sense of ethics, our holidays and the best books in these languages are religious in which the heroes are circumcised, and we look upon them as our ancestors/ friends of our ancestors and teachers.

Well, if you think it's a good thing, argue for it on that basis.

Again: I'm not looking to take away your right to circumcise your kids. I have ethical issues with the practice (but not just circumcision - I've got problems with any practice that tries to induct a child too young for free, informed consent into a religion), and I wouldn't mind hearing some sort of proper justification for the practice, but I'm not out to stop it.

Your right to circumcise your kids does not imply that I have no right to find the practice distateful.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So are ethics and imagination (absolutely necessary). Which language, yours? Teach your children chinese, what is necessary. We want to teach our children our languages and our sense of ethics, our holidays and the best books in these languages are religious in which the heroes are circumcised, and we look upon them as our ancestors/ friends of our ancestors and teachers.

Minus the literature reference, the same could be said of female clitoral circumcision.
Does cultural history make it ethically correct?

 

[ninerbuff]

It is a horribly painful procedure that likely ruins one's infancy.

It removes the vast majority of nerve endings which are highly specialialised from the penis. It leaves the glans bare and open to keritanization which furthers the loss of sensitivity. In addition, it ruins the gliding action of the foreskin and the mechanical functioning of sex.

It should be banned worldwide and all practicioners should be tried for assualt and torture of an infant (it's not like they can't tell the baby is in pain). Okay I'll admit that might be taking it too far, since this is basically a cultural evil.

It should be up to the parents. There are other cultures that have rituals that seem outrageous (like slicing skin with razor blades to mimic alligator skin, neck rings that elongate the neck) but it's their culture and to ban something like circumcision would step on the toes that do it for religious reasons. The more important thing to do is educate people of today on why it's not necessary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You say that the surgery is not needed but i have already said the cdc says it prevents urinary tract infections.

Source, please? All the current medical sources that I can find say that routine circumcision gives no net medical benefit.

And this source says that ritual circumcisions performed at 8 days of age have associated with them a significantly high incidence of urinary tract infections:

Effect of timing of circumcision

An epidemiological study of UTI during the first year of life involving 169 children born in Israel found that 48% (27/56) of the male infants presented with UTI within 12 days after ritual circumcision.51 The incidence of UTI among male infants was significantly higher just after circumcision (from 9 to 20 days of life) than during the rest of the first month of life and significantly higher in the first month of life than during the rest of the year. After the immediate postcircumcision period, the incidence rate of UTI dropped to a level comparable to that reported among circumcised male infants in the United States. Among the 113 female infants, the episodes of infection were evenly distributed throughout the first year of life, except that the incidence was lower during the first month. This study suggests that the method and the timing of circumcision also may be important factors to consider.

Neonatal Circumcision Revisited

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

You say that the surgery is not needed but i have already said the cdc says it prevents urinary tract infections.

It (Circumcison procedure) also carries a risk of death...you have to ask is that worth improving the odds very slightly of not getting a urinary tract infection?

You mentioned that children should be able to sue their parents for having them circumcised. So lets say an uncircumcised child has a urinary tract infection and it caused them to have kidney failure, should the child also be able to sue their parents for not having them circumcised?

Not really because of my above point.

What if the child dies from the urinary tract infection causing kidney failure etc., should the parents have charges pressed against them and be put in jail because they didnt have their child circumcised?

Again that is just illogical nonsense....you may as well sue a parent for not having a cure for cancer.

The hospitals of the gentiles and non muslims are not heaving with corpses produced from urinary tract infections.