Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[Wildswanderer]

It's not a baby, it's an insentient embryo, blastocyst or foetus, and a termination is never undertaken during birth, what a spectacularly stupid thing to claim.



Straw man fallacy.



You have bodily autonomy don't you? Why should you have the right to take that away from women?

You know California just passed a bill that allows you to kill a baby up to 28 days after birth?

 

[KWED]

Good lord, have you actually read my posts? I DO NOT advocate for circumcision. I think it is WRONG to force a procedure on someone without their consent. My ONLY argument is that having a MORE sensitive penis is not ALWAYS an advantage.

If you bring up the argument "but circumcised men can last longer" in a debate about the rights and wrongs of circucision, then expect people to see that apologetics for circumcision.
If you were in a debate about the Holocaust and said, "well, Hitler did improve the social infrastructure", a few eyebrows would be raised, don't you think?

 

[KWED]

I have AGREED that it makes the penis less sensitive. My ONLY argument is that reduced sensitivity does not NECESARRILY equate to less ultimate pleasure. And it IS subjective, which has been my point all along. You can't just AUTOMATICALLY assume that more sensitivity is ALWAYS better.

I think we can safely leave the sensitivity issue behind as a bit of a red herring. I certainly don't see it as an important issue in the circumcision problem. I only object when others claim there is no reduction, which you seemed to do earlier on. I accept that it is not your position.

 

[KWED]

It has religious value to me.

So no practical reason.
Why do you think god wants you to have no foreskin? If he sees it as a problem, why do you think he designed you with it, and gave it purpose? Why not create humans without it?

 

[KWED]

I'm just curious how many Jewish men regret their circumcision.

Well, cognitive dissonance and post hoc rationalisation will play a part here. Even without the religious significance (which you highlighted), people will be understandably reluctant to admit they are unhappy with what their parents did to them, especially in such an intimate context. Men are quite attached to their penises and aren't usually keen to publicly denigrate them.

If it was addressed legally, that would be a good way to measure it.

Huh?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you bring up the argument "but circumcised men can last longer" in a debate about the rights and wrongs of circucision, then expect people to see that apologetics for circumcision.
If you were in a debate about the Holocaust and said, "well, Hitler did improve the social infrastructure", a few eyebrows would be raised, don't you think?

I did support the claim that women do tend to prefer circumcised penises. That is not a valid excuse to do it to a child. People sometimes do weird things to their bodies, and as adults they have that right. But one does not get to decide to do that to one's children.

The phrases " my son" or "my daughter", in English and other languages may be part of the problem. They convey a sense of ownership where it does not exist.

Look on the bright side. We can no longer sell our daughters into slavery (and it was probably sex slavery).

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know California just passed a bill that allows you to kill a baby up to 28 days after birth?

If you are serious it tells us that you will believe almost anything.

 

[KWED]

You know California just passed a bill that allows you to kill a baby up to 28 days after birth?

No it hasn't. That's just you reading deliberately false headlines in anti-abortion shock media.
If you had taken the time to read the bill you would have found that it does no such thing. But then, you aren't bothered about the facts, are you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it hasn't. That's just you reading deliberately false headlines in anti-abortion shock media.
If you had taken the time to read the bill you would have found that it does no such thing. But then, you aren't bothered about the facts, are you?

Really? Rats.

Hey honey! Cancel the trip to California.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know California just passed a bill that allows you to kill a baby up to 28 days after birth?

No, a California bill doesn’t allow people to kill their babies up to 7 days after birth - News Nation USA

 

[dybmh]

So no practical reason.
Why do you think god wants you to have no foreskin? If he sees it as a problem, why do you think he designed you with it, and gave it purpose? Why not create humans without it?

Why not create humans perfected? God already has that in the realm of angels. Instead God created imperfect beings and gave them the opportunity to improve.

Well, cognitive dissonance and post hoc rationalisation will play a part here. Even without the religious significance (which you highlighted), people will be understandably reluctant to admit they are unhappy with what their parents did to them, especially in such an intimate context. Men are quite attached to their penises and aren't usually keen to publicly denigrate them.

Huh?

I'd like to know how many Jewish men regret their circumcision. Do you have any ideas for how to measure that? Or do you think that it can't be measured do to the reasons you mentioned?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why not?

Suing one's own parents?
One could at best win what would be inheritance anyway.
And without statutory damages, actual damages would
vary wildly. In short only lawyers win.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No it hasn't. That's just you reading deliberately false headlines in anti-abortion shock media.
If you had taken the time to read the bill you would have found that it does no such thing. But then, you aren't bothered about the facts, are you?

I did read it. It would take a lawyer to interpret what it actually means.

 

[Koldo]

I'd like to know how many Jewish men regret their circumcision. Do you have any ideas for how to measure that? Or do you think that it can't be measured do to the reasons you mentioned?

Why would it even matter? If even a single man regrets that's enough to justify not doing it on anyone against their consent. Particularly because it can be done later on.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If you are serious it tells us that you will believe almost anything.

Stabbing a baby in the head as it comes into the birth canal is no different than doing it 7 days after birth.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You have bodily autonomy don't you? Why should you have the right to take that away from women?

You are seriously suggesting that killing a fully functional child is a basic human right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stabbing a baby in the head as it comes into the birth canal is no different than doing it 7 days after birth.

As long as you can't use the right terminology you lose. And just as you used an article that lied about the California law, I am betting that you cannot find an honest source that supports this claim of yours.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No we haven't. You have merely asserted it with no backup.
I gave you hard data showing that 96% of abortions are carried out within the first 12 weeks. A foetus cannot survive at 12 weeks, even with intensive medical intervention.

Lots of babies are aborted after 21 weeks... babies that young have survived birth.

 

[Wildswanderer]

As long as you can't use the right terminology you lose. And just as you used an article that lied about the California law, I am betting that you cannot find an honest source that supports this claim of yours.

Lol, because actually saying what really happens in partial birth abortion is too honest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lots of babies are aborted after 21 weeks... babies that young have survived birth.

He just explained to you why this claim of yours was wrong. And guess what would probably happen if they banned abortion? The number of legal late term abortions would almost certainly go up.

Can you figure out why?