Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[nPeace]

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.

Okay Please give a detailed elaboration, on how that "environment would be make circumcision very risky".

@Koldo ...and by the way, you are the one who said this... " when there isn't access to proper means to clean onelself."
I didn't say that. What's proper to you here, anyway?

 

[Koldo]

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.

I don't really buy that considering that even nowadays infections are not out of the table.
Perhaps under quite specific circumstances? Maybe.

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.

Sure. I have no qualms with any adult that wants to get onelself circumcised.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

I acknowledge everyone's crap stinks equally. Because it does. You are claiming Christians have rose scented crap.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't really buy that considering that even nowadays infections are not out of the table.
Perhaps under quite specific circumstances? Maybe.

I am not saying that there never is a need for a circumcision today. There are times that there may be. But int he past one could at least argue for a general need. That general need is gone today.

Sure. I have no qualms with any adult that wants to get onelself circumcised.

Thank you. I hope that @nPeace corrects his former claim. To me it seems that the person forcing circumcisions on others is that one that demands that everyone to be like him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I acknowledge everyone's crap stinks equally. Because it does. You are claiming Christians have rose scented crap.

Mine smells like lavender:

https://www.google.com/search?q=lav...i10i22i30l3.4055j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just for fun, let's have another go at answering the question in the OP -- is circumcision without consent wrong.

Think of it this way -- somebody waylays you on the way home from enjoying a Big Mac, tosses you into the back of a van, ties you down and whacks a bit off of your willy! Is there any question left? Is it wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just for fun, let's have another go at answering the question in the OP -- is circumcision without consent wrong.

Think of it this way -- somebody waylays you on the way home from enjoying a Big Mac, tosses you into the back of a van, ties you down and whacks a bit off of your willy! Is there any question left? Is it wrong?

Hmmm, tough question. Did he do it for religious reasons?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hmmm, tough question. Did he do it for religious reasons?

And you suspect that would make a difference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you suspect that would make a difference?

Not me, I hear that it matters from others on the thread., I guess it allows one to refute easily solved moral questions. I am still working on that part.

 

[Sheldon]

Just for fun, let's have another go at answering the question in the OP -- is circumcision without consent wrong.

Think of it this way -- somebody waylays you on the way home from enjoying a Big Mac, tosses you into the back of a van, ties you down and whacks a bit off of your willy! Is there any question left? Is it wrong?

Well the arguments presented have not convinced me there is any moral justification.

That it helps prevent certain diseases fails, because one could argue that amputating the toes of a child prevents gangrene from an ingrowing toenail. The simple fact is that we can easily prevent such diseases and infections now, without an unnecessary mutilation of a child's genitals.

The argument it would prevent certain std's fails as well, since an adult can have the procedure and give informed consent, and of course unlike the biblical era a condom can also help prevent many of these.

The argument it is harder to perform on an adult fails, since an adult would not be obliged to have the procedure, but can of course give informed consent, which a child cannot.

The funniest and least compelling argument, was the idea of retrospective consent, paraphrased as an adult saying they grew up and were happy to give consent to the procedure now, which of course defeats the idea it needed to be forced onto an child that can't give informed consent, as that adult has shown they would still want the procedure when they have grown up, and are able to give informed consent.

So no, I see no moral justification in any of the arguments presented.

 

[KWED]

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.

Wait. So you are claiming that circumcision under non-sterile conditions is less risky than no circumcision?

Utter nonsense!

 

[KWED]

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?

If it is "reasonable" to remove the foreskin to avoid the slight chance of health problems, then it is obviously more "reasonable" to create male humans without a foreskin in the first place.

So, why did your "expert" deliberately create a faulty product ?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Just for fun, let's have another go at answering the question in the OP -- is circumcision without consent wrong.

Maybe the real questions are:

1. What constitutes an absolute answer to the OP's question?
2. How far are people on either side willing to go to try enforce their view in reality, outside of a forum discussion?

I ask this because, as a Jew, various new-Jewish nations/people have already gone through this topic with us Jews before. Historically speaking the success rate speaks for itself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe the real questions are:

1. What constitutes an absolute answer to the OP's question?
2. How far are people on either side willing to go to try enforce their view in reality, outside of a forum discussion?

I ask this because, as a Jew, various new-Jewish nations/people have already gone through this topic with us Jews before. Historically speaking the success rate speaks for itself.

Well, I can't give an absolute answer to that. My answer is relative, I accept that you do it if you can, but if you are under a secular law in a country that forbids it, I would like that you follow that law; move or take the punishment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe the real questions are:

1. What constitutes an absolute answer to the OP's question?
2. How far are people on either side willing to go to try enforce their view in reality, outside of a forum discussion?

I ask this because, as a Jew, various new-Jewish nations/people have already gone through this topic with us Jews before. Historically speaking the success rate speaks for itself.

Historically there may have been a valid reason to do this. But our medical capabilities have improved. Our hygiene levels have improved by orders of magnitude. The historical need for this operation do not seem to exist any longer.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, I can't give an absolute answer to that. My answer is relative, I accept that you do it if you can, but if you are under a secular law in a country that forbids it, I would like that you follow that law; move or take the punishment.

Historically speaking when Torath Mosheh Jews see these kinds of laws being added to the books we get out of the country that proposes them - especially given since we are not really nationals to begin with. Unfortunately for us Jews, historically speaking, even when we move there are those who tried to bring their laws to us no matter how far we go. It is exactly what is happening in places like France. Thus, there has been a recent influx of French Jews moving to Israel.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Historically there may have been a valid reason to do this. But our medical capabilities have improved. Our hygiene levels have improved by orders of magnitude. The historical need for this operation do not seem to exist any longer.

The Torath Mosheh reason for Brith Milah has nothing to do with a medical reason or hygiene. in reality, there has never been a Torath Mosheh Jew who connected a Brith Milah with medicine and hygeine as the reason for a Brith Milah. Even the name of it denotes what it really is.

Our historical reason hasn't been addressed in this thread at all so we still, and will always have a reaosn for Brith Milah. Again, that is why I ask how far those who want to outlaw it it in thier own countries are willing to go with that. I.e. in the past there were nations that tried to bring such a thing across international borders.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

move or take the punishment.

One thing that is interesting is that there have been points in Jewish history where Jews were trying to leave and were not allowed to escape. Thus, it was more like "No you can't move or escape so take this punishment. Fine, you already did what what we require so take this punishment anyway. You took the punishment and that isn't good enough we need to chase you across various borders to punish you some more."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Historically speaking when Torath Mosheh Jews see these kinds of laws being added to the books we get out of the country that proposes them - especially given since we are not really nationals to begin with. Unfortunately for us Jews, historically speaking, even when we move there are those who tried to bring their laws to us no matter how far we go. It is exactly what is happening in places like France. There has been a recent influx of French Jews moving to Israel.

Yes, I know. And I don't wrote it to mean that I am right and you are wrong. I just don't like make laws based on specific individual religious customs. But I get what you are saying.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One thing that is interesting is that there have been points in Jewish history where Jews were trying to leave and were not allowed to escape. Thus, it was more like "No you can't move or escape so take this punishment. Fine, you already did what what we require so take this punishment anyway. You took the punishment and that isn't good enough we need to chase you across various borders to punish you some more."

Yeah, to me that is wrong.