Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[Sheldon]

More like what they want their child to want them to do. So, you know, an adult taking advantage of their power over a minor.

The best time to circumcise is at infancy.

NIH.gov - A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?

Completely, 100%, false.

It looks 100% true, but I find flat bare denials a bit facile, so I won't labour the point. I will just say I don't believe you.

 

[nPeace]

An unnecessary medical procedure.
It is not the same situation, but it is the same underlying reasoning.
The issue is whether we should allow for 'retroactive' consent. If you are going to call it valid for circumcision, why not for statutory rape?

Sorry to butt in.
Why do you say it is "an unnecessary medical procedure"... how do you know it is unnecessary?

 

[Sheldon]

I can say from experience that this is not why my wife and I chose to have my son circumcised. We did it to make it easier for him; we thought we were doing him a favor having it done when he was an infant. It had nothing to do with indoctrination.

Is that why you didn't wait, until he could make the decision himself?

 

[nPeace]

It is not so simple to place that argument into a cultural debate...it's not going to meet the burden of proof.
I would never let my child access a firearm in the hope that education in the future might teach them how to use it safely. In the same manner circumcision is a manner for parents to choose just like immunization is.

Some people apparently think that one has no right to educate their child. I think that is sad.
Or maybe they don't want them to educate them in anything they wouldn't educate their child in. Still sad.

 

[nPeace]

Parents do tend to indoctrinate their
kids into their particular religion.
So not 100% false.

What do you mean by "indoctrinate their kids into their particular religion"?
Do you mean like teaching them that stealing is wrong, and so forth, and basing that not on, "because I think so", but basing it on showing love and respect for the most high, who shows love for them?

 

[nPeace]

I can say from experience that this is not why my wife and I chose to have my son circumcised. We did it to make it easier for him; we thought we were doing him a favor having it done when he was an infant. It had nothing to do with indoctrination.

I'm not sure if you did explain before, but was your decision based on the health benefits mentioned in the article you linked, or was it just a religious ritual?

 

[Sheldon]

What do you mean by "indoctrinate their kids into their particular religion"?
Do you mean like teaching them that stealing is wrong, and so forth, and basing that not on, "because I think so", but basing it on showing love and respect for the most high, who shows love for them?

You don't think stealing is wrong? You have to be told not to do it by divine diktat? Maybe explain to your children that certain actions are pernicious, and they wouldn't want to have their things stolen, for example. Or just fill their heads with superstitious fear of hell and damnation, that is a parent's call, sadly.

 

[Koldo]

Sorry to butt in.
Why do you say it is "an unnecessary medical procedure"... how do you know it is unnecessary?

We are talking about circumcision outside the scope of medical necessity, right?
Therefore, unnecessary.

 

[nPeace]

We are talking about circumcision outside the scope of medical necessity, right?
Therefore, unnecessary.

So you are saying circumcision is not necessary unless medical experts deem it necessary. Right?
So I am asking why do you say it is "an unnecessary medical procedure"... how do you know it is unnecessary?
In other words, who decides when it is necessary, and how do you know that it's not necessary otherwise?

Have I confused you?

 

[Koldo]

So you are saying circumcision is not necessary unless medical experts deem it necessary. Right?
So I am asking why do you say it is "an unnecessary medical procedure"... how do you know it is unnecessary?
In other words, who decides when it is necessary, and how do you know that it's not necessary otherwise?

Have I confused you?

There are certain cases where circumcision is necessary to handle health problems. The most typical example is severe cases of paraphimosis, a medical emergency. If left untreated, grangrene is a consequence.

In other words, I know circumcision is necessary when the outcome of not doing it brings about a clearly worse outcome in the health aspect.

 

[nPeace]

I'm just clarifying...

There are certain cases where circumcision is necessary to handle health problems.

So you are saying it's only necessary in such cases. Thanks.

The most typical example is severe cases of paraphimosis, a medical emergency. If left untreated, grangrene is a consequence.

So you are saying this is one of those necessary cases. Thanks.

In other words, I know circumcision is necessary when the outcome of not doing it brings about a clearly worse outcome in the health aspect.

So you are saying once the outcome is not adverse, circumcision is necessary only in cases where it is necessary.

That last statement sounds crazy... Of course I wrote it , so could you correct it to reflect what you are saying. Thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm just clarifying...


So you are saying it's only necessary in such cases. Thanks.


So you are saying this is one of those necessary cases. Thanks.


So you are saying once the outcome is not adverse, circumcision is necessary only in cases where it is necessary.

That last statement sounds crazy... Of course I wrote it , so could you correct it to reflect what you are saying. Thanks.

I see that you still appear to prefer strawman arguments.

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you mean by "indoctrinate their kids into their particular religion"?
Do you mean like teaching them that stealing is wrong, and so forth, and basing that not on, "because I think so", but basing it on showing love and respect for the most high, who shows love for them?

Learning ethics & legal behavior are different from
imposing a religion upon the little tykes. Jews raise
Jews. Baptists raise Baptists, Muslims raise Muslims.
And so on.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sorry, you misunderstood... perhaps because I was vague.
It's not his control, but his authority - meaning, they exist because of his authority - allowing them to exist, and carry out their law(s).
How they carry out their law(s) depends on some factors.
Some of these you do not accept, so I don't think you would be interested in hearing those.

That sounds more like a cop out to say that no matter what it's Jehovah behind it all.

 

[Koldo]

So you are saying once the outcome is not adverse, circumcision is necessary only in cases where it is necessary.

That last statement sounds crazy... Of course I wrote it , so could you correct it to reflect what you are saying. Thanks.

I was saying that if the parents have to choose between the child losing his penis due to gangrene or asking a doctor to perform the circumcision, the latter is clearly the better alternative.

 

[nPeace]

Learning ethics & legal behavior are different from
imposing a religion upon the little tykes. Jews raise
Jews. Baptists raise Baptists, Muslims raise Muslims.
And so on.

Those "ethics and legal behavior" are 1) always changing; 2) oftentimes not in keeping with justice, and more importantly 3) often against a higher source of wisdom.

So to decide that every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, etc., should learn and abide by these, is to say that these are supreme.
Imagine one of those groups telling you God is supreme, and all should abide by his "ethics & legal behavior".
Are you willing to?

 

[nPeace]

That sounds more like a cop out to say that no matter what it's Jehovah behind it all.

That's not what I am saying at all. Quite far from actually.
Satan controls this system.
Do you understand what authority God has in that?

 

[nPeace]

I was saying that if the parents have to choose between the child losing his penis due to gangrene or asking a doctor to perform the circumcision, the latter is clearly the better alternative.

You aren't answering my question though.
Okay, over three thousand years ago, it was required that parents circumcise all the males - children from eight days old include. Not girls. Males only.

I want to know, how do you know this was unnecessary? No one had gangrene, or the other things you mentioned.

 

[Koldo]

You aren't answering my question though.
Okay, over three thousand years ago, it was required that parents circumcise all the males - children from eight days old include. Not girls. Males only.

I want to know, how do you know this was unnecessary? No one had gangrene, or the other things you mentioned.

Because we know for a fact that boys in general don't die or lose their penises if their foreskin is intact. In other words, it is and was never necessary.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Because we know for a fact that boys in general don't die or lose their penises if their foreskin is intact. In other words, it is and was never necessary.

And yet God demanded it anyway.
I don't think we should always look at theological reasons as purely religious rituals...I'm sure that the variety of reasons we know today we're also the case back then. It may have been that non circumcised tribes used their penises for an evil that circumcised males were not able to or, perhaps males evolved a foreskin sometime after the fall? Perhaps a foreskin became part of the mark of Cain...who knows?
I just know personally...better without and I do not in any way feel violated having had the decision made for me. In fact, I feel (and always have felt even before Christianity came anywhere near my life as a teenager) cleaner and superior being circumcised to be honest.
I will admit however, if one always went naked, it would be an advantage for ones knob to be protected from sunburn.