Circumcision.

[Curious George]

When I kick you in the balls there are fewer signs of harm than with a circumcision which can be easily identified.
So me kicking you in the balls is not assault? You wouldn't sue me?

Just thought I would note (as “harm” keeps getting discussed): cruelty to a child, assault and other criminal statutes are governed by state law in most instances in the US. While the statutes are different, you can rely on there being some wording which in effect distinguishes harm and justifiable harm. I imagine a similar distinction is found in most other countries. Any cut, mark, abrasion, contusion, or loss would be considered harm. The question of whether that harm was justified is more important.

 

[dybmh]

When I kick you in the balls there are fewer signs of harm than with a circumcision which can be easily identified.
So me kicking you in the balls is not assault? You wouldn't sue me?

It depends on whether or not I consider it harmful what you did and why you did it. The choice is mine to decide if I was harmed by it.

Do you want to gamble on those odds? Then you should accept my proposal of a law that would allow an adult to sue a Mohel (or doctor) for damages if he decides that he didn't want the procedure be done.
Deal?

Not the the Mohel. The Mohel isn't gambling. I'm gambling. Sue me. Yes, the adult child should be able to sue the parent.

Do you think of a foreskin as something like an atavism, a thing that shouldn't be there?

I think *my* foreskin needed to be removed. My son thinks *his* foreskin needed to be removed. I think any Jewish person or convert who wants to participate in the commandment would see it as something that "should be removed".

You only have to think about anesthesia after you decided that you want to cut of a piece of your sons dick.
We haven't yet decided why it is necessary to do it in the first place.

The logic begins with: Does the child want it removed? If yes, it is necessary to remove it as an infant to get the best results with the fastest recovery.

 

[dybmh]

Even less painful: not doing cosmetic surgery on a baby at all.

Even more painful, forcing the child to do it later, because I didn't have the courage to do what they would have wanted me to do.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

Parents are stewards of their children, not their owners. Children don't have any fewer rights than adults; it's just that their parents have been entrusted to exercise those rights on the child's behalf while the child is too young to exercise them competently for themselves. This stewardship is predicated on the idea that the parent has the child's best interests at heart.

Saying that children's rights are the same as that of adults simply isn't true, regardless whether one euphemistically likes to call the parent a steward or bluntly the owner of a child.
Children have rights on a legal level, but these rights are not the same as that of adults.
Where I live, children can't vote, can't buy tobacco products or booze, nor can their parent do it on their behalf.
This goes also for the things that aren't determined on a legal level, such as parents forbidding their children to cross a high-traffic road on their own, to step inside a stranger's car, or to watch violent or erotic movies.

There can be a range of valid parenting approaches. For instance, it's not like there's only one choice about what to feed your child that's "proper parenting" and all other choices are wrong.

Sure, but different people belonging to the same religion don't all raise their children the exact same way, and aren't inherently incapable of learning from mistakes. You make it sound as if they are all so much different from you or me.

It's not just a matter of "not seeing the usefulness of it"; it's that there's an inherent hypocrisy in a parent imposing their religion on their child.

The whole idea of religious freedom is rooted in the idea that people should be free to follow the dictates of their beliefs and conscience. It's incoherent and absurd to say that granting this right and freedom generally could ever justify a parent trying to rob their child of the very same right and freedom.

This is very much a "your right to swing your fists ends at the tip of someone else's nose" issue.

Just because someone has been raised as a Muslim, doesn't necessarily mean their parents deny them the freedom to become something else.

I personally don't think in the spectrum of religious vs non-religious much, because I see when people do that, even the "non-religious" mindset can develop a group identity with common ways of thinking that are very similar, if not identical to what could be called indoctrination imo. It seems to me that because such people consider themselves free from the yokes of religion, they tend to be unaware of their own biases and tendencies to impose their values upon others, just like "religious" people do.

That's the point I was trying to make in my initial post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even more painful, forcing the child to do it later, because I didn't have the courage to do what they would have wanted me to do.

If you don't do anything, there's no "forcing."

And it's not a matter of your courage; it's a matter of your ego. A week-old baby doesn't have the capacity to enter into any sort of covenant, regardless of what body parts you slice off of them. Your son's circumcision is a sign of your faith, not his.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

I'm not really against this, but more wanting less of it in schools (as being of one denomination or another) and where a more diverse approach to this area would probably benefit all, even if the religion came into their lives at home and where there is not much we can do about that or should. All parents are arrogant in many ways as to how they bring up their children, and wanting the best for them, but I think many do rather ignore the basics as to rights when thinking about their own children.

Taking risks is inevitable for a parent, regardless whether they assume their child will be grateful (or think their child should be grateful) for the choices they make or not.
My parents made some mistakes in the way they raised me which they acknowledge, and there are areas they feel they did well but where I feel they shoudn't have done that.
Despite these differences we get along fine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because someone has been raised as a Muslim, doesn't necessarily mean their parents deny them the freedom to become something else.

Indeed. There's a big difference between "I'm going to take my child to my church/mosque/synagogue/temple and have them participate because I think it's a good way to instill proper values" and "I'm going to try to force my child to be in my religion for life through permanent body modification/rules about death for apostasy/inculcating them with the idea that baptism is 'permanent.'"

It's the second approach I'm taking issue with.