Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[Wildswanderer]

As has already been explained, with data, that is not generally the case. And where it is the case it is usually due to extreme clinical necessity.
Would you prohibit late-stage abortion even when doctors insist it is vital?

It's more often the case than you claim. And it's not always necessary for the mother's survival.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It is actual foolish to have late term abortions illegal. There are almost no late term abortions that are abortions of convenience. The vast majority are medically necessary. Some states are rather cruel in that they will force a woman to carry to term a fetus that will die anyway.

Do you know why optional late term abortions occur extremely rarely? First off very few doctors will do them. Second they are very expensive. Since it has to be done surgically it is going to be more expensive than most pregnancies. And last most insurance will not cover the process. The only reason that states advocate for keeping them legal is because immoral states such as Texas will use any excuse they can to delay or ban an abortion. It does not matter how negatively it affects the mother or fetus. And yes, it is cruel to give birth to a baby that will die in a day or two in pain. That does happen and it is one of the forms of abortion not allowed by late term abortion laws.

My mother had two children who only lived for a few weeks. She never regretted taking care of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My mother had two children who only lived for a few weeks. She never regretted taking care of them.

Fine. That may have been her choice. You do not have the right to enforce that choice on others.

And that ignores the question of how much pain those children were in. I doubt if their short lives were painless.

 

[nPeace]

Because a religionist's morality often requires moral acceptance of things like slavery and torture in principle.

I think having jails where criminals are locked up, and in some cases have to work to repay society for their crime, or simply to eat, rather than sit on their backside and eat, is very much acceptable.
That's worst than the slavery that God allowed, where the slaves had meals with the families, and could enjoy festive occasion.
How is your morality superior? I don't see it. Explain please.

Then there are the contradictions like being "pro-life" and "pro-death" at the same time.

Huh? What do you mean?
Do you mean like not being against executing people like "Jack the Ripper"?
While at the same time being against ripping apart a life bit by bit?

'Animals' who delight in killing are put down, because they are a threat to society - deserving of death... if truly guilty.
The life ripped apart bit by bit is not found guilty of death, and thus, deserves a chance at opening its eyes and smiling for the first time.

How is that a contradiction? Please explain.

And the hypocrisy of demanding tolerance for their own beliefs and practices whilst preaching intolerance against those who don't subscribe to them.

Do you have an example? This assertion can simply be an opinionated bias.

You know, stuff like that.

I don't know, but I am listening.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think having jails where criminals are locked up, and in some cases have to work to repay society for their crime, or simply to eat, rather than sit on their backside and eat, is very much acceptable.
That's worst than the slavery that God allowed, where the slaves had meals with the families, and could enjoy festive occasion.
How is your morality superior? I don't see it. Explain please.


Huh? What do you mean?
Do you mean like not being against executing people like "Jack the Ripper"?
While at the same time being against ripping apart a life bit by bit?

'Animals' who delight in killing are put down, because they are a threat to society - deserving of death... if truly guilty.
The life ripped apart bit by bit is not found guilty of death, and thus, deserves a chance at opening its eyes and smiling for the first time.

How is that a contradiction? Please explain.


Do you have an example? This assertion can simply be an opinionated bias.


I don't know, but I am listening.

It is easy to misinterpret facial expressions. What you see there is probably not a smile. A smile is one of the first learned reactions and they begin at six to eight weeks:

Baby Milestone: First Smile -- When Do Babies Smile?.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think having jails where criminals are locked up, and in some cases have to work to repay society for their crime, or simply to eat, rather than sit on their backside and eat, is very much acceptable.
That's worst than the slavery that God allowed, where the slaves had meals with the families, and could enjoy festive occasion.
How is your morality superior? I don't see it. Explain please.

Slavery isn't okay just because you treat slaves well. And I'm absolutely against treating criminals like slaves as well.

 

[nPeace]

Slavery isn't okay just because you treat slaves well. And I'm absolutely against treating criminals like slaves as well.

Okay. Your opinion is acknowledged.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Okay. Your opinion is acknowledged.

To add to that, 'well treated' was apologetics used by slavers all throughout history. Justifying their forced ownership of individuals by saying that they provide food, shelter and jobs and thus they're 'better off' than the alternative: conquring and killing anyone who is not deemed worthy enough of basic human autonomy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Slavery isn't okay just because you treat slaves well. And I'm absolutely against treating criminals like slaves as well.

And when one considers the Bible standards for treating a slave "well" it becomes even worse. Ask @nPeace if he would be your slave according to Bible standards. If you are not satisfied with him you could beat him to the point where he has to spend two days in bed recovering. As long as you do not take out an eye or tooth you should be good.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Those who are circumcised are often circumcised when they are just a few days old, like me. Can an 8 day old baby consent to such a procedure? Of course not.
In the Protestant church my parents were going to when I was born, it was common practice for the Christians there to circumcise their children. So that’s what my mom did. We aren’t Jewish. It’s not required of us Christians. When I realized I was circumcised (whilst in high school) I was quite quite mad.
Circumcision has permanent effects on the male who is at the receiving end. At the very least shouldn’t they get a say in it? Imagine if a female got an equivalent to a male circumcision. That would F up their capacity to be intimate at least in some degree.
If you feel circumcision is wrong without consent, do you also feel that way for the Jewish people? Their religion demands that they do this, right? Is it wrong for a Jewish person to circumcise their baby?
I feel like Moses had some reservations about circumcision. He didn’t circumcise his kids, even at the threat of God killing him. It was his wife who cut the foreskins off their sons when God was chasing them.

I don't believe I'm reading this!
What a shortsighted and quite frankly, insulting question.
Are you also going to propose no baby should be immunised because they cannot consent to it?

 

[an anarchist]

I don't believe I'm reading this!
What a shortsighted and quite frankly, insulting question.

Are you also going to propose no baby should be immunised because they cannot consent to it?

Slicing a little bit off the top for religious dogmatic reasons is different than immunizing your baby for health reasons. I know I didn’t get snipped for health reasons, it was because of ,y parents religious beliefs.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I don't believe I'm reading this!
What a shortsighted and quite frankly, insulting question.
Are you also going to propose no baby should be immunised because they cannot consent to it?

Not sure what's so shocking about this. Outside the US and developing nations routine circumcision is rarely done. And there are and have been debates about eliminating it except where medically necessary (which vaccinations fall under.)

 

[nPeace]

To add to that, 'well treated' was apologetics used by slavers all throughout history. Justifying their forced ownership of individuals by saying that they provide food, shelter and jobs and thus they're 'better off' than the alternative: conquring and killing anyone who is not deemed worthy enough of basic human autonomy.

War is not something that the creator planned.
However, becase it exists, men decide what to do with their enemies.
Wipe them out. Capture them. Feed them to the crocks...
Or put them to work.
Actually most choose to surrender and be put to work. Joshua 9:3-27 Wise men, I say.

Now consider the Atheist who doesn't believe God made anything, but we are just all animals, with some being more savage than others, and war is natural.
When men act out their nature... why does the Atheist complain?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

War is not something that the creator planned.
However, becase it exists, men decide what to do with their enemies.
Wipe them out. Capture them. Feed them to the crocks...
Or put them to work.
Actually most choose to surrender and be put to work. Joshua 9:3-27 Wise men, I say.

Now consider the Atheist who doesn't believe God made anything, but we are just all animals, with some being more savage than others, and war is natural.
When men act out their nature... why does the Atheist complain?

I can think of a lot better things to do with POW then make them into slaves. Being told that you can 'choose' between slavery or execution isn't really a choice. It's coercion. Like 'rape or execution, your choice.'

You keep going on about atheists as if they cannot possibly formulate any morals and ethics. What a wild view that you seem to be putting forward. That if you weren't being told otherwise, you would do all manner of destructive things.

If it takes a security camera in the sky to keep you from hurting others, that says more about you than me.

I want society, myself and others to thrive, and so I look critically at what helps and hurts people and make decisions based on what I see, not what I'm told.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe I'm reading this!
What a shortsighted and quite frankly, insulting question.
Are you also going to propose no baby should be immunised because they cannot consent to it?

The problem is that one would need to show a real need for circumcision. About the only valid one is the one that I found which is "women tend to prefer it". I have rather strong doubts that a beauty treatment for a baby's penis is a valid reason to do it.

 

[nPeace]

I can think of a lot better things to do with POW then make them into slaves. Being told that you can 'choose' between slavery or execution isn't really a choice. It's coercion. Like 'rape or execution, your choice.'

I'm curious to know what you would do 3,000 BC, that's "better".

You keep going on about atheists as if they cannot possibly formulate any morals and ethics. What a wild view that you seem to be putting forward. That if you weren't being told otherwise, you would do all manner of destructive things.

If I weren't talking to Atheists, I would mention those I am addressing... and Atheists.
Actually I just realized who I am talking to. I took you for someone else.

If it takes a security camera in the sky to keep you from hurting others, that says more about you than me.

Well. I am not all wise. So I don't do what is wise in my own eyes.
Too many people... especially today, are finding this out...
(Proverbs 14:12) 12 There is a way that seems right to a man, But in the end it leads to death.
...but a little too late.

So I am grateful for the "security camera in the sky", which guides my step.
Actually, I believe it's the reason I am alive today... and not hurting others, but helping them.

I want society, myself and others to thrive, and so I look critically at what helps and hurts people and make decisions based on what I see, not what I'm told.

Are we not glad we can make choices.
People do try their best. Sadly, their best oftentimes are lacking... but at least they try right? That's what counts right? Trying.
I don't think so.
What count to me is accurate knowledge or truth, because then, that serves well, even in the long term.

Adios.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm curious to know what you would do 3,000 BC, that's "better".


If I weren't talking to Atheists, I would mention those I am addressing... and Atheists.
Actually I just realized who I am talking to. I took you for someone else.


Well. I am not all wise. So I don't do what is wise in my own eyes.
Too many people... especially today, are finding this out...
(Proverbs 14:12) 12 There is a way that seems right to a man, But in the end it leads to death.
...but a little too late.

So I am grateful for the "security camera in the sky", which guides my step.
Actually, I believe it's the reason I am alive today... and not hurting others, but helping them.


Are we not glad we can make choices.
People do try their best. Sadly, their best oftentimes are lacking... but at least they try right? That's what counts right? Trying.
I don't think so.
What count to me is accurate knowledge or truth, because then, that serves well, even in the long term.

Adios.

This is such a bad argument. You are the one claiming that these people were following an all powerful God. Why couldn't God have included don't rape and enslave the people that you defeat in his rules and used his super powers to protect his people when they did the right thing? Instead, according to your Bible, it was find and dandy with God if those people enslaved and raped their victims. What good is a God if he cannot support what you claim his morality to be?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The problem is that one would need to show a real need for circumcision. About the only valid one is the one that I found which is "women tend to prefer it". I have rather strong doubts that a beauty treatment for a baby's penis is a valid reason to do it.

Unfortunately, I can't answer this the way it needs answering...suffice to say, my wife is very happy and I'm glad my mum made the choice for me as a baby.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unfortunately, I can't answer this the way it needs answering...suffice to say, my wife is very happy and I'm glad my mum made the choice for me as a baby.

Yes, what is done is done. I did not imply that we should undo this. And since one of the female arguments appears to be "tastes better" who am I to disagree. I too thank my parents. But there are negatives associated with it. And it appears that overall the negatives may be greater than the positives. The question is should we go on doing this just because it is the preference of women?

 

[QuestioningMind]

He may enjoy more time, but it can also mean the giver's jaw gets sore and tired which becomes unpleasurable for the giver.

That may well be true in some situations. But that's really beside the point I've been trying to make, that being that you can't automatically assume that someone who is uncircumcised experiences more pleasurable sex than someone who isn't. There are simply too many factors involved to make such a blanket statement.