Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[KWED]

Be aware that any article or video that claims "THE TRUTH...!" about anything is almost certainly talking rubbish.
A simple life hack to avoid later embarrassment.
You're welcome.

 

[KWED]

I guess you had no 'old Western days'.

No idea what you are talking about or how it relates to my point.

Please provide a source stating this consensus.
You would not want me to think you lied again, would you.

Spoiler

NHS Circumcision - IMC Circumcision Clinic London
The National Health Service (NHS) took the decision not to offer circumcision for religious, cultural, social or personal reasons – also known as non-therapeutic – in 1949, very soon after its inception. This is because circumcision is not a medical necessity. Their decision led to a decline in the number of individuals undergoing circumcision in the United Kingdom.

A number of NHS hospitals did re-start offering offer a free circumcision service locally to parents, especially during the 1980s, however this is this is now rare or non-existent.

The situation may be changing in light of recent data showing that the impact of circumcision on HIV prevention is greater than what was previously thought. For this reason, the United States Public Health Department (the CDC) have recently change their stance on circumcision and state that the the benefits now outweigh the risks and recommend circumcision. In the last decade, many organisations fighting HIV, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, have launched circumcision promotion campaigns in Africa to prevent HIV.

You saved me the bother as your quote says that the NHS do not provide non-medical circumcisions.
Even when there is a medical issue, circumcision is the last resort...
"circumcision will only be recommended when other, less invasive and less risky treatments have been tried and haven't worked." (www.nhs.uk)

So not only does the NHS consider routine circumcision to have no appreciable health benefits, it considers even medical circumcision to be a risky treatment to be avoided if possible.

There is clearly no good reason for the routine circumcision of infants. I think that puts the issue to bed, yes?

Why do you think twin babies are born conjoined,

Very few are. It is because of incomplete fission of a single zygote.

Or... I'm sorry, but if I listed all the health issues known to be associated with man's sinful actions, as well as defects he passes down, I would need a library.

****

Do you genuinely believe that conjoined twins are because of someone's "sinful actions"?
****
There are no words...

Besides, you think growing old and wrinkly. with worn out bones and failed vision is natural.

Of course it is. What are you on about?
I suppose you believe that a person free of sin will never age.

No. That's according to you.
Keep up this lying, and I have nothing more to say to you. Okay?

You claim that circumcision is necessary to avoid serious health problems, and that foreskin removal has no negative effects.
Therefore the inclusion of the foreskin on the human body was a mistake, a design fault.

So once again, why did god design the human body with a design fault? Was it deliberate (if so why), or was god just incompetent?
(And once again, you will avoid addressing this key issue, because you have no response)

 

[Koldo]

Yeah, but there is no one definition of suffering in non-subjective terms. So I use another understanding of suffering and other social and cultural terms and we end with different understandings. And you can't solve that with external sensory observation, rationality and all those other words. We individually think/feel differently. That is where it ends.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if we use different definitions for any given term as long as we are able to explain what our definitions are to each other.

It is not the finger pointing to the moon (the word) that matters but rather the moon itself (what meaning the word is intended to convey).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if we use different definitions for any given term as long as we are able to explain what our definitions are to each other.

It is not the finger pointing to the moon (the word) that matters but rather the moon itself (what meaning the word is intended to convey).

Yes, that is indeed irrelevant, because I can't cause suffering in you, because my definition means, you can't be suffering. Or in reverse.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Ok. So you admit that we don't need to understand Hebrew or Koine Greek or Classical Arabic to understand ancient scripture - we just need to understand basic philosophical concepts and historical context.

Yeah, I kinda agree with you there.

I can't speak for Greek, but one can definately understand incorrectly a text without knowing the language it was written in.

If one wants to understand "correctly" the text as the author intented one would defiantely need to understand how the language (which a part of the philosophical concepts and historical context) they wrote it in works.

I.e. the only way ancient Hebrew as used by Jews is understood modernly because of how it was described in the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Geonim, the Rishonim, etc. and of course people who know all of these and read the language have the proper tools to understand it and investigate elements of it not found or covered by those who try to translate the "philosophical concepts and historical context."

Everyone else is simply using what those translate modernly what they are able to try and "help" a preson who is illeterate in said language to under the "philosophical concepts and historical context." Of course the illterate in said language are at the mercy of whether or not those they rely on got the "philosophical concepts and historical context" correct.

So, we can definately agree on that. Great comment.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can't speak for Greek, but one can definately understand incorrectly a text without knowing the language it was written in.

If one wants to understand "correctly" the text as the author intented one would defiantely need to understand how the language (which a part of the philosophical concepts and historical context) they wrote it in works.

I.e. the only way ancient Hebrew as used by Jews is understood modernly because of how it was described in the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Geonim, the Rishonim, etc. and of course people who know all of these and read the language have the proper tools to understand it and investigate elements of it not found or covered by those who try to translate the "philosophical concepts and historical context."

Everyone else is simply using what those translate modernly what they are able to try and "help" a preson who is illeterate in said language to under the "philosophical concepts and historical context." Of course the illterate in said language are at the mercy of whether or not those they rely on got the "philosophical concepts and historical context" correct.

So, we can definately agree on that. Great comment.

Let me give a simple example of that: Protagoras - "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." The key word is measure and that has several definitions and it was apparently used in a Greek context, where some modern Western people use another, because measure belongs to science and its instruments.

 

[Sheldon]

I can't speak for Greek, but one can definately understand incorrectly a text without knowing the language it was written in.

If one wants to understand "correctly" the text as the author intented one would defiantely need to understand how the language (which a part of the philosophical concepts and historical context) they wrote it in works.

I.e. the only way ancient Hebrew as used by Jews is understood modernly because of how it was described in the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Geonim, the Rishonim, etc. and of course people who know all of these and read the language have the proper tools to understand it and investigate elements of it not found or covered by those who try to translate the "philosophical concepts and historical context."

Everyone else is simply using what those translate modernly what they are able to try and "help" a preson who is illeterate in said language to under the "philosophical concepts and historical context." Of course the illterate in said language are at the mercy of whether or not those they rely on got the "philosophical concepts and historical context" correct.

So, we can definately agree on that. Great comment.

An omniscient omnipotent deity, whose message is hampered by being able to communicate only as a monoglot? That doesn't make much sense now does it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

An omniscient omnipotent deity, whose message is hampered by being able to communicate only as a monoglot? That doesn't make much sense now does it.

Well, off course you are special, because you are so unique in your brain, that you can observe as per empical what makes sense.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

An omniscient omnipotent deity, whose message is hampered by being able to communicate only as a monoglot? That doesn't make much sense now does it.

Don't know. You would have to ask something or someone that/who identifies himself/herself/itself that way and meets that description.

 

[Sheldon]

Don't know. You would have to ask something or someone that/who identifies himself/herself/itself that way and meets that description.

So you're saying you don't believe in an omniscient omnipotent deity?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you're saying you don't believe in an omniscient omnipotent deity?

That is what matters to yo? To me it is whether someone claims objective and/or rational authority over the everyday world, however they do it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So you're saying you don't believe in an omniscient omnipotent deity?

Nope.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

What is your proof and evidence that dictatorships are bad?
If you say none, but it is your opinion, I will stop.

Heaven is a dictatorship and God couldn’t even rule THAT without problems.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Heaven is a dictatorship and God couldn’t even rule THAT without problems.

Okay. Is that a fact or your personal opinion?

 

[Sheldon]

Nope.

So not one of the Abrahamic deities then?

 

[Sheldon]

Heaven is a dictatorship and God couldn’t even rule THAT without problems.

Well the deity of the bible couldn't even put a forbidden tree out of harms way.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

There is no we. There are people who have agendas. That is a reality. You have an agenda in life, your family has an agenda, your country has an angenda, etc. I also have an agenda, my family has an agenda, and my nation has an agenda, etc. I may see your agenda as a pattern that me and mine should avoid, because we have experienced what your agenda, and while you may see mine as something to be broken

My agenda is to live in a country that respects basic human rights. Kids should not suffer for religion. Killing kids is fine in the Bible. We would be monsters if we made religious accommodations for it.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jim Crow was like that, Eugenics was like that, etc.

Israel doesn’t get to lecture anyone on apartheid and genocide.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, that is indeed irrelevant, because I can't cause suffering in you, because my definition means, you can't be suffering. Or in reverse.

What does that have to do with what I am saying?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Okay. Is that a fact or your personal opinion?

It is a fact that it is how the story goes.