UTH....seriously? The mutilation that is circumcision? There is no solid evidence that circumcision does any harm at all, never mind any more harm than good. If it's for religion purposes, and based on its scientifically accepted neutrality, the connection to the family and a wider community is of overriding importance. I believe therefore, in most cases of circumcision, the child's trust has been rightly rewarded. Circumcision is clearly a right of passage and clearly in the child's best cultural interests.
Always respect your views Economisto, but if I may hand you a tissue you can wipe the dribble off now Clearly you have taken a rare leave of your senses and I will take that into consideration when I re-read the above piffle.
UTH....seriously? The mutilation that is circumcision? There is no solid evidence that circumcision does any harm at all, never mind any more harm than good. If it's for religion purposes, and based on its scientifically accepted neutrality, the connection to the family and a wider community is of overriding importance. I believe therefore, in most cases of circumcision, the child's trust has been rightly rewarded. Circumcision is clearly a right of passage and clearly in the child's best cultural interests.
What about all those children in America who are circumcised, despite not being a member of a religion that demands it? If you remove the religious purpose is the family and cultural case strong enough? I don't think so . . . it was promoted based on a faulty idea of its benefits . . . and that many in the US aren't circumcised shows that it not necessary for cultural identity.
I think the question of whether it does more harm than good is still open. However, even for religions where this is mandated, surely the child could make their own choice at 16 (or whenever) and that would remove the consent problem.
What about all those children in America who are circumcised, despite not being a member of a religion that demands it? If you remove the religious purpose is the family and cultural case strong enough? I don't think so . . . it was promoted based on a faulty idea of its benefits . . . and that many in the US aren't circumcised shows that it not necessary for cultural identity.
Yeah true. But at very worst it's a neutral procedure. There is some evidence both for harm and good. So to me, it's a big whatever, unless you're the tree hugger type who thinks the way we're born is perfect. I couldn't care less if I had my appendix removed at the age of 2 because my parents prayed to the God of spleens who has a continual war with the God of appendices. I'm here, I have a little scar, whatever.
However, even for religions where this is mandated, surely the child could make their own choice at 16 (or whenever) and that would remove the consent problem.
And surely Jews should make a decision on dietary laws after a quick chew on some Pata Negra. Nah, can't negotiate with religious doctrine. In any case, you're putting a lot of trust in the objectivity that child will have at 16. Children brought up in orthodoxy will always choose circumcision. Always.
I couldn't care less if I had my appendix removed at the age of 2 because my parents prayed to the God of spleens who has a continual war with the God of appendices.
Yeah true. But at very worst it's a neutral procedure. There is some evidence both for harm and good. So to me, it's a big whatever, unless you're the tree hugger type who thinks the way we're born is perfect. I couldn't care less if I had my appendix removed at the age of 2 because my parents prayed to the God of spleens who has a continual war with the God of appendices. I'm here, I have a little scar, whatever.
Nah . . . I couldn't care less about the purity of the body. It's a bogus notion. After vaccinations, drinking chlorinated water etc our bodies are far from the natural state. One could even argue that clothes and spectacles make us cyborgs.
I guess I'm just slightly on the other side of the line from you as to harm/benefit. I just can't see the benefits. At some point the medical profession decided they didn't need to whip out appendices either. There's really no point sticking with unnecessary practise, just because you can't see the harm.
Quote:
And surely Jews should make a decision on dietary laws after a quick chew on some Pata Negra. Nah, can't negotiate with religious doctrine. In any case, you're putting a lot of trust in the objectivity that child will have at 16. Children brought up in orthodoxy will always choose circumcision. Always.
The difference with the dietary restriction is that firstly it only affects yourself . . . my decision to attend a metzgete doesn't affect you. Secondly, parents bringing up their child within a certain dietary practice aren't making an irreversible choice.
I don't think there's much we can do about children following the dogma of their parents and community. However, for some less strict followers of the religion, this would introduce a notion of choice and start a discussion about change. Of course religion is dogmatic, but there's always the possibility of reform.
I dunno...what if you gave a kidney and found out it was both your legs and the left side of your brain. We can play the "logical conclusion" game all day.
As we can see, Circumcision is not something right or wrong, I believe it is a personal choice .
If it was indeed a personal choice, of the person owning the body part about to be cut, we would not have that many objections here.
Quite interesting actually to compare this and the elective c-section thread - there most people were of the opinion that we should keep things natural and not cut anything unless there is a medical need. Here, on the other hand, just because parents want, it is ok to cut?
As we can see, Circumcision is not something right or wrong, I believe it is a personal choice and no one should judge you for that.
This topic creates a lot of passion like the abortion.The most importsnt thing is to respect each other's religion/believe.
Everyone's personal choices should be respected? That's not true . . . some people will find other's choices wrong enough to argue with (and in some cases outlaw).
In addition, this isn't a personal choice . . . it's a personal choice by proxy. The parent is making the choice for the child. I believe that cases of irreversible alteration should be kept to an absolute minimum where children are concerned. Yes, parents have to make choices for their children, but where possible decisions can be delayed until adulthood.
Everyone's personal choices should be respected? That's not true . . . some people will find other's choices wrong enough to argue with (and in some cases outlaw).
In addition, this isn't a personal choice . . . it's a personal choice by proxy. The parent is making the choice for the child. I believe that cases of irreversible alteration should be kept to an absolute minimum where children are concerned. Yes, parents have to make choices for their children, but where possible decisions can be delayed until adulthood.
But all parental choices result in irreversible alteration.
i'm finding this discussion fascinating.
To say my part, i do feel that circumcision as a pointless procedure should NOT be done. Now with that being said, i don't consider religious reasons as pointless. For someone leading a religious life, a circumcision is not at all pointless. So i guess most of this debate is based on what value you place on religion.
Can parents make life altering decisions for their kids? Sure they can, and they do all the time. And it should be noted that skipping the circ is also something that will affect a child later in his life IF he stays within the religion. More so in fact than not circumcising would. All my views are based on the assumption that circ is not yet proven harmful. Sure countless studies were quoted here but i can quote just as many proving the contrary. So far there doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence either way, and i see it no different than parents who decide to tattoo their kids in the name of religion or pierce the kids ears for no reason at all.
Some would say it has nothing to do with circumcisison done on boys, but the idea behind is around the same.
If you can respect such things or such customs, i think you should think about your statement and hopefully you will respect people who are against such unnessesary saddistic customs.
Can parents make life altering decisions for their kids? Sure they can, and they do all the time. And it should be noted that skipping the circ is also something that will affect a child later in his life IF he stays within the religion.
Sure there could be worse things for the kid, but is a religion or a tradition realy an excuse to do such unnecessary things?
Some would say it has nothing to do with circumcisison done on boys, but the idea behind is around the same.
If you can respect such things or such customs, i think you should think about your statement and hopefully you will respect people who are against such unnessesary saddistic customs.
The article stated that some perform the ritual by pricking a bit of blood. If there is no actual harm done to the genitals, would you still call it sadistic?
I think we don`t need to debate about how much is cut of or if a needle is pushed into genital parts. The article also mentioned that some perform this custom in a more radical way.
The point is, why is there any value in sniping around the kids genitals. I think it is a sort of sadism when adults tie their kids onto a table and perform circumcision which is painful and complete unnecessary.
Clearly you have taken a rare leave of your senses and I will take that into consideration when I re-read the above piffle. 
Linear Mode
