Male Circumcision - why still legal?

[Austupaio]

Huh. Crazy.

 

[Mage246]

Not crazy - a cohesive and coherent belief system that fails to confirm with your own.

 

[Austupaio]

I think telling me it's okay to tattoo penises on my infant child is crazy, yes.

This from someone who doesn't really care one way or the other regarding circumcision.

 

[Tibertus]

The issue of men who have been circumcised and don't want it correlates strongly with the set of men who have parents that they don't want.

Yeah how dare I not want part of my penis numb and have to deal with unnecessary cosmetic damage.

 

[rebelsquirrell]

Feel free, though you leave yourself open to a lawsuit if you can supply no rationale for doing so.

God told me to do it!

We thought it would help him attract mates!

DATS SIM REASINS *****E


I've heard some wacky libertarian-ey **** before but damn, I had know idea about my god given to right to emotionally torment children!

 

[Fierce Headmaster]

I don't believe that infants have any rights, beyond the right not to be terminated for no good reason. Later rights are not retroactively applied.

 

[user1324865215]

That image strangely works really well.

 

[Devercia]

Devercia doesn't seem familiar with the concept of underwear, and thinks he's making some clever point.

I was referring to the contribution foreskin makes to lubrication...if that's even the right word, and the maintenance of sensitivity.

Shar pei impersonation?

Let me look that up....

 

[Adorno]

Why does this feel very, very much like the cut people defending their penises because they just happen to be cut? And the other way around, for that matter.

I am not circumcised, nor a religious man.
But I am really not impressed by moral crusades waged by western democracies. Is it some leftover catholic streak that makes people want to pry into other families' and even cultures' private business and hate those who believe in different things? This messianic mood is observed even in atheists (especially in modern western atheists, to think of it).

I know you're not addressing me, but let me reply.
When you let a child undergo needless surgery without consent and with risks it's not a private matter and you need to justify it with arguments.
Simply saying cultural traditions should not be debated, or otherwise it comes off as a 'crusade' is dangerously close to totalitarian thinking.
If traditions were not debated and challenged we could still see some horrible things in our societies, as JHessail so hyperbolically puts it:

Obviously everyone should just be left in peace! Whether it's stoning, foot binding, circumcision (male or female), pogroms, segregation - heck, the list is long! ...

That's an extreme argument.
I'm personally more pragmatic and even propose a compromise: what's so wrong with waiting for the child to decide for himself?
I tolerate all religious/traditional practice that doesn't involve harming or forcing others, or instill hatred etc.
Surely we can all agree religious practice can be debated and criticised with proper arguments no matter what.

 

[kurczak]

Devercia doesn't seem familiar with the concept of underwear, and thinks he's making some clever point.

I was referring to the contribution foreskin makes to lubrication...if that's even the right word, and the maintenance of sensitivity.

Shar pei impersonation?

Let me look that up....

Not my joke though http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlgQx5gJzik#t=04m15s

 

[Overlord-]

When ethical values of one group (which were considered perfectly valid until recently) are invalidated by ethical values of another group, can we still call such society free?

Ritual human sacfrices were perfectly valid until recently too. Too bad we canceled them at some point, I would so love to get killed by my religious peers.

Comparing circumcision, which has health benefits, to human sacrifice 

I'm pointing out why his logic is flawed, not comparing anything.

 

[Varalir]

What possible benefits does circumcision have? It's unnatural to cut a part of it off. Besides I believe babies do have a right to keep every part of their body until they have the ability to say no to this disgusting monotheist tradition.

 

[Weaver]

I know you're not addressing me, but let me reply.
When you let a child undergo needless surgery without consent and with risks it's not a private matter and you need to justify it with arguments.

For some reason people here are sceptical of moral relativism, but it is a reality.
I am not arguing that children shouldn't be protected from harm, but rather at what point the society should intervene. Human sacrifice and **** tattoos are obvious calls. But there is gray area too.
For instance, western liberals think child obesity is not a sufficient reason for an outside intervention, while circumcision is. In my opinion it's the other way around.

Simply saying cultural traditions should not be debated, or otherwise it comes off as a 'crusade' is dangerously close to totalitarian thinking.

On the contrary.
Totalitarianism is against all forms of individuality. In Soviet Union, for instance, all religions and religious traditions were forbidden. Totalitarian states also have the history of world-wide messianism and cultural intolerance.
Letting groups of people excercise their beliefs is exactly the opposite of totalitarianism.

If traditions were not debated and challenged we could still see some horrible things in our societies

I very much agree with this, in fact.
But here we are talking not about a dialogue inside (or between) cultures, but about a ban on a tradition excercised by one group because another group doesn't approve of it. Such unilateral actions can not be considered a result of a debate.
Especially if we're talking about countries where the overwhelming majority of population are pro-circumcision (Israel, muslim world).

Live and let live, Weaver demands! South-Africa should have kept the Apartheid going, it was their prerogative as a sovereign nation state! Sudan should have just kept killing South-Sudanese, for the same reason! Nobody should react when Thailand jails people for ten or twenty years for the horrible, horrible crime of insulting their monarch! Why should anyone care if some African pygmies and albinos are burned on the stake as witches? Their culture, their country, their right!

It's weird you mentioned Sudan, because the civil war there lasted for 20 years and western democracies mostly just sold them weapons.
But once again, you people compare circumcision to war crimes, human sacrifice, basic human rights abuse and claim that my logic is flawed?

 

[Jhessail]

Any of these issues would be, by your logic, untouchable. That's your logic. You claim that you're fed up with the West interfering with others, yet if the West never interfered with such things, South-Africa would still have Apartheid, and so on and so forth. Which makes your stance not an admirably neutral one but an apathetic approval of evil, in the name of national sovereignty or "culture" or whatever.

 

[Weaver]

Any of these issues would be, by your logic, untouchable. That's your logic.

No, it is not.

To elaborate, I too perceive slavery and apartheid as unambiguous crimes against humanity.
Circumcision can not be compared to the things you listed.

Not to mention that ban on circumcision will create more problems in traditional communities than it solves.

 

[Sir Saladin]

Any of these issues would be, by your logic, untouchable. That's your logic.

No, it is not.

To elaborate, I too perceive slavery and apartheid as unambiguous crimes against humanity.
Circumcision can not be compared to the things you listed.

Not to mention that ban on circumcision will create more problems in traditional communities than it solves.

And yet removing fat children from their homes and placing them in internment camps would be perfectly reasonable and cause no problems. Interesting.

 

[Weaver]

Maybe you should stop putting words into my mouth and address things I actually said.

 

[Sir Saladin]

OK, the turmoil that will be created in traditional communities will be horrible but how do you think headshrinkers and cannibals felt when they were forced to stop their time honored religious traditions? Don't their feeling count?

 

[Weaver]

OK, the turmoil that will be created in traditional communities will be horrible but how do you think headshrinkers and cannibals felt when they were forced to stop their time honored religious traditions? Don't their feeling count?

We're talking about saving human lives here. I would say it's well justified.
In case of circumcision benefits will be quite vague. For example, soviet jews still circumcised their children in secret despite the ban. And these children did the same when they grew up. The only thing that was achieved was jews feeling even more oppressed.

 

[Ambalon]

What possible benefits does circumcision have? It's unnatural to cut a part of it off. Besides I believe babies do have a right to keep every part of their body until they have the ability to say no to this disgusting monotheist tradition.

Aw yeaah!