Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[Father Heathen]

Viagra is a medication that treats that. However, do we really want aging people (males and females) to sire kids?

Siring kids isn't a prerequisite for enjoying sex.

 

[nPeace]

That too is wrong. Unnecessary body modifications should NEVER be performed on those who are not consenting.

Says the Atheist... who sets all morals for us.

 

[Kenny]

Those who are circumcised are often circumcised when they are just a few days old, like me. Can an 8 day old baby consent to such a procedure? Of course not.
In the Protestant church my parents were going to when I was born, it was common practice for the Christians there to circumcise their children. So that’s what my mom did. We aren’t Jewish. It’s not required of us Christians. When I realized I was circumcised (whilst in high school) I was quite quite mad.
Circumcision has permanent effects on the male who is at the receiving end. At the very least shouldn’t they get a say in it? Imagine if a female got an equivalent to a male circumcision. That would F up their capacity to be intimate at least in some degree.
If you feel circumcision is wrong without consent, do you also feel that way for the Jewish people? Their religion demands that they do this, right? Is it wrong for a Jewish person to circumcise their baby?
I feel like Moses had some reservations about circumcision. He didn’t circumcise his kids, even at the threat of God killing him. It was his wife who cut the foreskins off their sons when God was chasing them.

I don't see male circumcision as the same as female mutilation.

As far as what effects it had on me... it made me 5 times more intelligent and 2 times as wise.

I now can beat up @metis because it made him shorter.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you can remove the fetus from the uterus and placenta, and it can breathe and suck and swallow formula on its own, then it could be the same as a baby. And of course, at 22 weeks, there's a 0-10% chance of survival; at 24 weeks the survival rate is 40-70%.

That is why Roe vs Wade tied state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester (up to 14 weeks), governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester (up to 27 weeks), governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

This decision still seems eminently sensible to me.

I agree that it's a complex compromise of
competing interests & diverse opinions.

 

[nPeace]

Correct.

That is also wrong.
However, it is a poor analogy as ear piercing is not permanent. Giving your child a tattoo would be better. And that is illegal.

Sorry, but are you are an Atheist? You don't get to tell me what's wrong. Decide that for yourself and your kids.. if you want.

 

[Revoltingest]

Says the Atheist... who sets all morals for us.

We atheists are needed to set morals for all.
This avoids Christians, Muslims, Cthulhuians,
Jews, Hindus, Scientologists etc from lording
their mythologies over the unwilling.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't see male circumcision as the same as female mutilation.

As far as what effects it had on me... it made me 5 times more intelligent and 2 times as wise.

I now can beat up @metis because it made him shorter.

Same goes for me. Unfortunately it could only be done once.

 

[Father Heathen]

You guys get to decide that? Based on what? Morals? Who's?

The ethics of logic and compassion; real world consequences, etc.

Whatever happened to evolution? Is there a set path to follow?

What does a primate species mutilating it's own genitals for superstitious and arbitrary reason have to do with evolution? Evolution is about genetic advantage to increase the chance to survive and reproduce (thus spreading said genes.)

Then let's not do any operations, extractions, injections, or cause emotional pain by giving them things they don't want to eat, or set rules they don't want to follow... etc.

Those are health necessities that don't cause permanent damage.

 

[nPeace]

We atheists are needed to set morals for all.
This avoids Christians, Muslims, Cthulhuians,
Jews, Hindus, Scientologists etc from lording
their mythologies over the unwilling.

I would rate this funny, but I don't want to abuse the "funny" rating.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would rate this funny, but I don't want to abuse the "funny" rating.

A <funny> rating would be fine with me.
(I never complain about getting frubals, no matter what the intent.)
After all, the post obviously had elements of mirth.
Some people around here are just to two sensitive & fragile.
I'm obtuse.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I admit wondering once what it would be like to have a foreskin. Is it like flying in an airplane?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You guys get to decide that? Based on what? Morals? Who's? Don't make laugh Penguin.

Based on the rights we've collectively agreed on as a society.

Each person has the right to freedom of religion. Trying to dictate the life-long religion of a person by performing rituals on them as a baby - be it baptism, circumcision, or anything else - is an attempt to deny this right to the adult the child will become.

... so we have two options:

- we decide to honour freedom of religion. In that case, infant baptism and religious circumcision are wrong.

- we decide not to honour freedom of religion. In that case, I have no reason to support allowing you to exercise the dictates of your religion, including your desire to baptize your children.

Whatever happened to evolution? Is there a set path to follow?

What are you on about?

Then let's not do any operations, extractions, injections, or cause emotional pain by giving them things they don't want to eat, or set rules they don't want to follow... etc.
Oh wait. There are good reason... which only Atheist gets to set.

No, we set it based on our best guess of the views of the adult that the child will become.

It's almost certain that someone would appreciate not dying of measles or starvation as a baby. It's far from certain that someone would appreciate having their penis surgically altered or having their religion dictated to them.

... so on those points, we leave it up to the child to decide for themselves when they're old enough.

 

[nPeace]

A <funny> rating would be fine with me.
(I never complain about getting frubals, no matter what the intent.)
After all, the post obviously had elements of mirth.

It's risky. I never know... especially with opponents I clobber.

Some people around here are just to sensitive & fragile.
I'm obtuse.

Who? Don't answer that.
... but yeah. Lots of pented up anger too.

 

[nPeace]

Based on the rights we've collectively agreed on as a society.

Each person has the right to freedom of religion. Trying to dictate the life-long religion of a person by performing rituals on them as a baby - be it baptism, circumcision, or anything else - is an attempt to deny this right to the adult the child will become.

... so we have two options:

- we decide to honour freedom of religion. In that case, infant baptism and religious circumcision are wrong.

- we decide not to honour freedom of religion. In that case, I have no reason to support allowing you to exercise the dictates of your religion, including your desire to baptize your children.


What are you on about?


No, we set it based on our best guess of the views of the adult that the child will become.

It's almost certain that someone would appreciate not dying of measles or starvation as a baby. It's far from certain that someone would appreciate having their penis surgically altered or having their religion dictated to them.

... so on those points, we leave it up to the child to decide for themselves when they're old enough.

Which society?
Don't twist the law though.
Responsibility towards one's children belongs to the parent.
If they commit a crime, or break the law, then it becomes an issue for law to deal with.
Which law outlaws male circumcision?

How about the Islamic State society? Do you accept their right to religious freedom?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's risky. I never know... especially with opponents I clobber.


Who? Don't answer that.
... but yeah. Lots of pented up anger too.

You've always been pleasant towards me.
I assume this isn't just the result of fading memory.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Viagra is a medication that treats that. However, do we really want aging people (males and females) to sire kids?

Continuing to enjoy sexual intimacy later in life does not necessarily entail procreation. And it is emotionally very good for people.

 

[Sheldon]

Viagra is a medication that treats that. However, do we really want aging people (males and females) to sire kids?

You win this weeks non-sequitur of the month award.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I agree that it's a complex compromise of
competing interests & diverse opinions.

And it does one more thing, too -- it doesn't force anything on anybody. Any person who does not desire an abortion is not obliged by anything in Roe to submit to one.

On the other hand, there's a lot of people who dearly wish to exercise control over what other people may do with their own bodies. I object to that.

 

[Sheldon]

That too is wrong. Unnecessary body modifications should NEVER be performed on those who are not consenting.

Says the Atheist... who sets all morals for us.

Says the butt hurt theist, who clearly doesn't think uppity atheists should be allowed to express opinions on morality. Maybe atheists should build churches everywhere, and preach to everyone the way religions have done for millennia, and burn them at the stake when they won't do as they're told, then you'd have something to b**** about.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Says the Atheist... who sets all morals for us.

I'm not an atheist.
Or are you jealous that others have achieved greater morality than what the Bible advocates?
And why can't atheists speak of morality? Unlike theists who are typically told what to do and instructed on how to behave the atheists has had to ponder this and sort out what is good and pro-social and what is bad and anti-social.
Amd theists certainly have no grounds to speak on themselves. They are some of the absolute worst at following "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not judge."