Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[nPeace]

You only need to wash the little guy if what you are looking for is cleanliness. It is that simple.

They could have brought some Jeyes Fuel, and disinfected the tent they set up as a toilet in the camp too... suggests peple like Koldo.

Actually, in ancient times, there were many things that were not as available, as there are today.
The Israelites dwelt in the wilderness, and did not have a house like Koldo does, equipped with bacterial soap, and running water.

No. It was not as simple as that.
That's why specific laws were given, and required strict obedience.

 

[Koldo]

I truly don't understand that logic. It makes no sense to me. Perhaps you'd better explain, and try to make sense of it.

He said that since abortion, which is killing, doesn't require consent from the fetus that it doesn't make sense to require consent for circumcision, something less impactful than getting killed.

 

[Koldo]

They could have brought some Jeyes Fuel, and disinfected the tent they set up as a toilet in the camp too... suggests peple like Koldo.

Actually, in ancient times, there were many things that were not as available, as there are today.
The Israelites dwelt in the wilderness, and did not have a house like Koldo does, equipped with bacterial soap, and running water.

No. It was not as simple as that.
That's why specific laws were given, and required strict obedience.

Do you mean that doing a circumcision under those conditions was a good idea? What were the odds of something going wrong?

 

[nPeace]

He said that since abortion, which is killing, doesn't require consent from the fetus that it doesn't make sense to require consent for circumcision, something less impactful than getting killed.

I edited the post a tad too late. There was a mix up, on my part.

 

[nPeace]

Do you mean that doing a circumcision under those conditions was a good idea? What were the odds of something going wrong?

What do you mean "something going wrong"?
It's a given. Hygiene was absolutely necessary.
With circumcision and hygiene under the available circumstances, the problem would not occur. Problem solved.

 

[Koldo]

What do you mean "something going wrong"?
It's a given. Hygiene was absolutely necessary.
With circumcision and hygiene under the available circumstances, the problem would not occur. Problem solved.

As in infections.
If you are living in an environment where you don't even have access to the proper means to wash a penis, why would you assume sterile conditions to perform a circumcision and thus avoid infections?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As in infections.
If you are living in an environment where you don't even have access to the proper means to wash a penis, why would you assume sterile conditions to perform a circumcision and thus avoid infections?

The Hebrews used the most sterile and safe operating procedures known to man at that time. It is not as if an infant could catch a deadly venereal disease from the process and die . . . oh wait:

Baby Dies of Herpes in Ritual Circumcision By Orthodox Jews

Also if one has a premature baby following one's religious rules does not seem to be a good idea either:


Neonatal circumcision and prematurity are associated with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

 

[nPeace]

As in infections.
If you are living in an environment where you don't even have access to the proper means to wash a penis, why would you assume sterile conditions to perform a circumcision and thus avoid infections?

Sounds like you are questioning the 'expert'. Call Heaven.

Seems to me your argument is not whether it has anything to do with medical, health, or what any 'medical expert' deems necessary... especially as the procedure is both safe and effective, but you seem to just want to quarrel with God about what he does.

You are most certainly free to quarrel with him, but you are asking me to take the witness stand, and give you more than what I have given.
What I have given is enough for the reasonable, imo.
You are now asking me questions as though I am the expert who made the decision.
It's better for you to talk with the expert. Call heaven.
God has all the facts. Not me.

Why don't you tell me what's wrong with male circumcision... other than your opinion, which you have already given me... because the way it looks to me, is that you seem to want everyone to conform to what you deem to be right, but you don't want to conform to what others deem as right.

So, on the one hand, it's okay to do X, because no one has the right to deny people from X, but on the other hand, Y is not okay, and you guys have the right to deny people from Y.
Have I nailed it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Mirror mirror on the wall. I think that is what you are seeing as you wrote this.

No, I am thinking of all those Christians who are holier than thou arselings. They just think they're better. And the Bible does prime people to assume Christians are better people with it's claims Christians are changed and made better. But numerous Biblical claims are wrong, and this idea of Christians being better people is one of them.
My own anecdotal evidence begins when I left the Church, when these "good Christians" I thought were friends disowned me, with one even calling me demonically possessed. Turns out religious persecution wasn't aimed at Christians but coming from Christians.

 

[Koldo]

Sounds like you are questioning the 'expert'. Call Heaven.

Seems to me your argument is not whether it has anything to do with medical, health, or what any 'medical expert' deems necessary... especially as the procedure is both safe and effective, but you seem to just want to quarrel with God about what he does.

You are most certainly free to quarrel with him, but you are asking me to take the witness stand, and give you more than what I have given.
What I have given is enough for the reasonable, imo.
You are now asking me questions as though I am the expert who made the decision.
It's better for you to talk with the expert. Call heaven.
God has all the facts. Not me.

Why don't you tell me what's wrong with male circumcision... other than your opinion, which you have already given me... because the way it looks to me, is that you seem to want everyone to conform to what you deem to be right, but you don't want to conform to what others deem as right.

So, on the one hand, it's okay to do X, because no one has the right to deny people from X, but on the other hand, Y is not okay, and you guys have the right to deny people from Y.
Have I nailed it?

I am not sure what is the deal here.
I mean, if you are going to claim that whatever God commands is right regardless of whether it is, then why would the reason for commanding it matter? What is even there to debate?

 

[Sheldon]

Nonsense?
...and you say this because you can, or you have evidence to support that outburst?

Balanitis: Causes, Symptoms, and Diagnosis
What is balanitis?
Balanitis is inflammation of the glans penis, also known as the head of the penis. While fairly common, and not typically serious, the inflammation is often accompanied by other uncomfortable symptoms.

It can occur in anyone who has a penis, but it mostly affects those who are uncircumcised, often also causing inflammation of the foreskin (posthitis).

Who’s at risk for balanitis?
People of any age with penises can develop balanitis, but those at highest risk are children under the age of 4 and uncircumcised, middle-aged adults.

Edit @9-10ths_Penguin
PS.
It was God who gave the instructions. Hence why many instructions were ahead of the antibiotics era.

Ingrowing toenails can turn gangrenous, which can be fatal. Luckily these only occur in people with toes, so we can chop these off, it's a huge benefit for those who might otherwise be unlucky enough to die of gangrene.

 

[Sheldon]

They could have brought some Jeyes Fuel, and disinfected the tent they set up as a toilet in the camp too... suggests peple like Koldo.

Actually, in ancient times, there were many things that were not as available, as there are today.
The Israelites dwelt in the wilderness, and did not have a house like Koldo does, equipped with bacterial soap, and running water.

No. It was not as simple as that.
That's why specific laws were given, and required strict obedience.

...and why such archaic superstition no longer makes sense.

 

[Sheldon]

As in infections.
If you are living in an environment where you don't even have access to the proper means to wash a penis, why would you assume sterile conditions to perform a circumcision and thus avoid infections?

Good point, also why would a deity with limitless knowledge and power suggest lopping off the end of an infant's penis, rather than explain about infections and how to avoid them? Hell, why create infections at all, come to that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you tell me what's wrong with male circumcision... other than your opinion, which you have already given me... because the way it looks to me, is that you seem to want everyone to conform to what you deem to be right, but you don't want to conform to what others deem as right.

No, he is not asking for everyone to conform. That is more in line with those advocating infant circumcision since the child has no choice in the matter. I am betting that he is fine with circumcision. Providing it is an adult's decision for himself. If you want to cut the tip of your dick off go ahead. Feel free. Heck, take off an extra inch or two. It is your penis after all. Simply do not do it to someone else's dick that did not ask for such a service.

 

[nPeace]

No, I am thinking of all those Christians who are holier than thou arselings. They just think they're better. And the Bible does prime people to assume Christians are better people with it's claims Christians are changed and made better. But numerous Biblical claims are wrong, and this idea of Christians being better people is one of them.
My own anecdotal evidence begins when I left the Church, when these "good Christians" I thought were friends disowned me, with one even calling me demonically possessed. Turns out religious persecution wasn't aimed at Christians but coming from Christians.

Still your lens, isn't it? ...and your lens is not some kind of 'clearer than thine', is it?
I am not the one who is biased.
Consider that you are putting all labelled Christians in the same basket, as though everyone who professes to be Christian, really is.
It's foggy lenses that makes one think that true Christianity is what it's labeled as today.
It's not.
I'm seeing all sides. You are focused on a rotten egg, while refusing to look away.

 

[nPeace]

I am not sure what is the deal here.
I mean, if you are going to claim that whatever God commands is right regardless of whether it is, then why would the reason for commanding it matter? What is even there to debate?

I provided evidence showing the reasonableness for the command.
You on the other hand, gave your opinion against it.
What's t the use of an opinionated bias against reason?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still your lens, isn't it? ...and your lens is not some kind of 'clearer than thine', is it?
I am not the one who is biased.
Consider that you are putting all labelled Christians in the same basket, as though everyone who professes to be Christian, really is.
It's foggy lenses that makes one think that true Christianity is what it's labeled as today.
It's not.
I'm seeing all sides. You are focused on a rotten egg, while refusing to look away.

No, you really are not since you are defending an operation that is indefensible at this time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I provided evidence showing the reasonableness for the command.
You on the other hand, gave your opinion against it.
What's t the use of an opinionated bias against reason?

It may have been reasonable in the past. That does not mean that it is reasonable in the present. That is an error that very few Christians make since they try to claim that slavery was reasonable in the past to excuse their Bible's immoral stance on the topic. Are you claiming that slavery is reasonable today? If so I am interested. I am sure I can pay your family a reasonable price.

 

[Koldo]

I provided evidence showing the reasonableness for the command.
You on the other hand, gave your opinion against it.
What's t the use of an opinionated bias against reason?

What evidence exactly?
An evidence that leads to what conclusion?
I don't remember you presenting any evidence.

What I remember is you presenting an argument in favor of circumcision for health reasons when there isn't access to proper means to clean onelself. And I refuting on the grounds that such an environment would be make circumcision very risky thus making your entire point redundant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence exactly?
An evidence that leads to what conclusion?
I don't remember you presenting any evidence.

What I remember is you presenting an argument in favor of circumcision for health reasons when there isn't access to proper means to clean onelself. And I refuting on the grounds that such an environment would be make circumcision very risky thus making your entire point redundant.

In all fairness people at that time could keep things clean enough to make a circumcision safer than the hazards one could meet when one is out tending one's flocks days and weeks at a time away from sources of water for cleaning oneself. It may have been a benefit once. That does not make it a benefit today. Just as back then slavery may have been a valid alternative to killing prisoners of war (please note that "may" is a very weak one). Of course that even that goes away if the people doing so are the supposed chosen ones of a triple omni God. But the supposed need for slavery back then is long gone today and so slavery today is clearly immoral. Today the need for circumcision no longer exists so doing it to an unwilling infant is also incredibly immoral.


By the way, just checking, if an adult male wanted a doctor to perform a circumcision on him would you support him? I am asking because @nPeace seems to think that you would not want to allow that.