The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Yes, unless it's objectively unjustifiable. Luckily, circumcision has significant health benefits while the dangers and harms when practiced at birth are negligible.
There is no compelling medical rationale for the procedure in healthy boys
Now let's see your source, Bagginses.
At some point you're going to have to admit that anecdotes and traditions aren't enough reason to continue a practice that involves genital mutilation. Yes, there are cases where the procedure should be performed, such as conditions like Phimosis. But to prescribe it to all healthy boys at birth defies reason.
Let's not forget that this is a practice whose biggest promoter in the United States pushed it for the express purpose of preventing boys from masturbating.
Kellogg worked on the rehabilitation of masturbators, often employing extreme measures, even mutilation, on both sexes. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying phenol (carbolic acid) to a young woman's clitoris.
Glyph on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Are we really going to ignore that this is a German court attempting to outlaw a pillar of Jewish identity and tradition? I'm not religious at all, but I absolutely feel that this is an attack on the Jewish identity.
When your 'identity' is forcefully removing pieces of another person without their consent, you really need to reconsider whether that's the most important aspect of your ethnicity.
Believe me, the Jewish 'identity' has been quite happy to forfeit a number of Hassidic practices by and large. Indeed, only actually Hassidic Jews (or certain other Orthodox Jew denominations) - who most Jews acknowledge as batshit insane - practice the literal interpretation of all the social aspects of the 'Jewish identity'.
Should we shut down every church and temple that allows children to drink a sip of wine as part of services?
Children are allowed alcohol if accompanied by a parent in a large number of countries. The expectation is that a reasonable parent will prevent the child from abusing the alcohol.
So not even close.
It's the first covenant with god. It is a requirement to be a Jewish man. If you outlaw it, you are going to have to arrest mohels, parents, family members, etc. just for practicing their religion. To be clear, we are literally talking about the Germans rounding up groups of Jews and arresting them for practicing Judiasm. Is this really a route people think we should be pursuing?
Does this apply to all religions and practices, or only the ones you personally approve of? Do I get to sacrifice my firstborn to the Great Juju at the Bottom of the Sea?
No, and that's not a logical extention. You might be okay with sacrificing TenektheSecond's tonsils to the GJatBotS or possibly removing one fingernail or something semi-comparable. Luckily, human sacrifice isn't the issue here.
The point is that a line must be drawn somewhere. And tradition is the worst argument for where to draw a line. We should use reason instead.
How can we use reason to determine our attitude towards an act of faith? By that rational, no one should be allowed to force their children to observe any religious traditions, since they are rarely rational.
Drawing the line at irrational religious practices that cause irreparable physical bodily harm might be a good start.
I think drawing the line at things that "cause bodily harm" in certain peoples' opinions is probably not something we want to do, either.
Taking off a piece of someone's genitalia is objectively irreparable physical bodily harm.
Are we really going to ignore that this is a German court attempting to outlaw a pillar of Jewish identity and tradition? I'm not religious at all, but I absolutely feel that this is an attack on the Jewish identity.
When your 'identity' is forcefully removing pieces of another person without their consent, you really need to reconsider whether that's the most important aspect of your ethnicity.
Believe me, the Jewish 'identity' has been quite happy to forfeit a number of Hassidic practices by and large. Indeed, only actually Hassidic Jews (or certain other Orthodox Jew denominations) - who most Jews acknowledge as batshit insane - practice the literal interpretation of all the social aspects of the 'Jewish identity'.
Should we shut down every church and temple that allows children to drink a sip of wine as part of services?
Children are allowed alcohol if accompanied by a parent in a large number of countries. The expectation is that a reasonable parent will prevent the child from abusing the alcohol.
So not even close.
It's the first covenant with god. It is a requirement to be a Jewish man. If you outlaw it, you are going to have to arrest mohels, parents, family members, etc. just for practicing their religion. To be clear, we are literally talking about the Germans rounding up groups of Jews and arresting them for practicing Judiasm. Is this really a route people think we should be pursuing?
Does this apply to all religions and practices, or only the ones you personally approve of? Do I get to sacrifice my firstborn to the Great Juju at the Bottom of the Sea?
No, and that's not a logical extention. You might be okay with sacrificing TenektheSecond's tonsils to the GJatBotS or possibly removing one fingernail or something semi-comparable. Luckily, human sacrifice isn't the issue here.
The point is that a line must be drawn somewhere. And tradition is the worst argument for where to draw a line. We should use reason instead.
How can we use reason to determine our attitude towards an act of faith? By that rational, no one should be allowed to force their children to observe any religious traditions, since they are rarely rational.
Drawing the line at irrational religious practices that cause irreparable physical bodily harm might be a good start.
I think drawing the line at things that "cause bodily harm" in certain peoples' opinions is probably not something we want to do, either.
Taking off a piece of someone's genitalia is objectively irreparable physical bodily harm.
... in your opinion.
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Yes, unless it's objectively unjustifiable. Luckily, circumcision has significant health benefits while the dangers and harms when practiced at birth are negligible.
Out of interest, do you think we should also perform, for example, tonsillectomies and appendectomies as soon as the harm is negligible?
All possibly beneficial-only medical procedures should be performed asap, in the event that a child might get the problem?
Probably, depending on cost and possible repercussions. Isn't there something about the mortality rate/age being worse for those without appendices for unknown reasons? Preventative medicine is the best medicine.
I also plan on installing a backup hard drive and laser cannon.
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Are we really going to ignore that this is a German court attempting to outlaw a pillar of Jewish identity and tradition? I'm not religious at all, but I absolutely feel that this is an attack on the Jewish identity.
When your 'identity' is forcefully removing pieces of another person without their consent, you really need to reconsider whether that's the most important aspect of your ethnicity.
Believe me, the Jewish 'identity' has been quite happy to forfeit a number of Hassidic practices by and large. Indeed, only actually Hassidic Jews (or certain other Orthodox Jew denominations) - who most Jews acknowledge as batshit insane - practice the literal interpretation of all the social aspects of the 'Jewish identity'.
Should we shut down every church and temple that allows children to drink a sip of wine as part of services?
Children are allowed alcohol if accompanied by a parent in a large number of countries. The expectation is that a reasonable parent will prevent the child from abusing the alcohol.
So not even close.
It's the first covenant with god. It is a requirement to be a Jewish man. If you outlaw it, you are going to have to arrest mohels, parents, family members, etc. just for practicing their religion. To be clear, we are literally talking about the Germans rounding up groups of Jews and arresting them for practicing Judiasm. Is this really a route people think we should be pursuing?
Does this apply to all religions and practices, or only the ones you personally approve of? Do I get to sacrifice my firstborn to the Great Juju at the Bottom of the Sea?
No, and that's not a logical extention. You might be okay with sacrificing TenektheSecond's tonsils to the GJatBotS or possibly removing one fingernail or something semi-comparable. Luckily, human sacrifice isn't the issue here.
The point is that a line must be drawn somewhere. And tradition is the worst argument for where to draw a line. We should use reason instead.
How can we use reason to determine our attitude towards an act of faith? By that rational, no one should be allowed to force their children to observe any religious traditions, since they are rarely rational.
Drawing the line at irrational religious practices that cause irreparable physical bodily harm might be a good start.
I think drawing the line at things that "cause bodily harm" in certain peoples' opinions is probably not something we want to do, either.
Taking off a piece of someone's genitalia is objectively irreparable physical bodily harm.
... in your opinion.
I like The Dude as much as the next man, but do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion, or can we just assume that all of your posts will consist of "yeah, well, that's just like... your opinion, man..."?
Yes that certainly seems preferable to simply letting the child keep his a foreskin and waiting until adulthood to decide whether or not he wants to be circumcised.
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Yes that certainly seems preferable to simply letting the child keep his a foreskin and waiting until adulthood to decide whether or not he wants to be circumcised.
It's not a part of that debate (and I suggest reading my previous posts).
Are we really going to ignore that this is a German court attempting to outlaw a pillar of Jewish identity and tradition? I'm not religious at all, but I absolutely feel that this is an attack on the Jewish identity.
When your 'identity' is forcefully removing pieces of another person without their consent, you really need to reconsider whether that's the most important aspect of your ethnicity.
Believe me, the Jewish 'identity' has been quite happy to forfeit a number of Hassidic practices by and large. Indeed, only actually Hassidic Jews (or certain other Orthodox Jew denominations) - who most Jews acknowledge as batshit insane - practice the literal interpretation of all the social aspects of the 'Jewish identity'.
Should we shut down every church and temple that allows children to drink a sip of wine as part of services?
Children are allowed alcohol if accompanied by a parent in a large number of countries. The expectation is that a reasonable parent will prevent the child from abusing the alcohol.
So not even close.
It's the first covenant with god. It is a requirement to be a Jewish man. If you outlaw it, you are going to have to arrest mohels, parents, family members, etc. just for practicing their religion. To be clear, we are literally talking about the Germans rounding up groups of Jews and arresting them for practicing Judiasm. Is this really a route people think we should be pursuing?
Does this apply to all religions and practices, or only the ones you personally approve of? Do I get to sacrifice my firstborn to the Great Juju at the Bottom of the Sea?
No, and that's not a logical extention. You might be okay with sacrificing TenektheSecond's tonsils to the GJatBotS or possibly removing one fingernail or something semi-comparable. Luckily, human sacrifice isn't the issue here.
The point is that a line must be drawn somewhere. And tradition is the worst argument for where to draw a line. We should use reason instead.
How can we use reason to determine our attitude towards an act of faith? By that rational, no one should be allowed to force their children to observe any religious traditions, since they are rarely rational.
Drawing the line at irrational religious practices that cause irreparable physical bodily harm might be a good start.
I think drawing the line at things that "cause bodily harm" in certain peoples' opinions is probably not something we want to do, either.
Taking off a piece of someone's genitalia is objectively irreparable physical bodily harm.
... in your opinion.
I like The Dude as much as the next man, but do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion, or can we just assume that all of your posts will consist of "yeah, well, that's just like... your opinion, man..."?
Well, I could take your approach and make sweeping statements assuming people will accept it as gospel because I said it, and then get uptight when people call me out on it, but I think you've sufficiently got that market covered.
Yes that certainly seems preferable to simply letting the child keep his a foreskin and waiting until adulthood to decide whether or not he wants to be circumcised.
It's not a part of that debate (and I suggest reading my previous posts).
I'm just pointing out that it's not irreparable.
Results of surgical foreskin restoration are much faster, but are often described as unsatisfactory, and most restoration groups advise against them.
Results of non-surgical methods vary widely, and depend on such factors as the amount of skin present at the start of the restoration, degree of commitment, technique, and the individual's body. Foreskin restoration only creates the appearance of a natural foreskin; certain parts of the natural foreskin cannot be reformed. In particular, the ridged band, a nerve-bearing tissue structure extending around the penis just inside the tip of the foreskin,[13][14] which helps to contract the tip of the foreskin so that it remains positioned over the glans, cannot be recreated. Restored foreskins can appear much looser at the tip and some men report difficulty in keeping the glans covered.[citation needed] Surgical "touch-up" procedures exist to reduce the orifice of the restored foreskin, recreating the tightening function of the band of muscle fibers near the tip of the foreskin, though they have not proven successful in every case.[15] A loose effect can also be alleviated by creating increased length, but requires a longer commitment to the restoration program. In addition, several websites claim that the use of O-rings during the restoration program can train the skin to maintain a puckered shape.
Having read about it in a bit more detail and having some 'personal' experience (circumcised a bit later in life so I do vaguely remember before/after, I think I was ~4) I'm going to come down solidly in the 'Urinary tract infections are super painful, and circumcision effectively does nothing bad' camp.
I didn't even know that it requires 'additional maintenance' if it isn't done. What an enormous waste of time!
Previously I was of the opinion that it just did nothing either way and was just silly, but now this thread has made me aware that it does actually have minor benefits. I'd probably still not have it done to any kids I had, although I'm going to curse the moral majority whenever I had to supervise any cleaning. And with the first UTI I'd let them know that there is a way to pretty much guarantee that the horrible burning pain will not come back until they start doing other 'activities' later in life which had no downside.
Yes that certainly seems preferable to simply letting the child keep his a foreskin and waiting until adulthood to decide whether or not he wants to be circumcised.
It's not a part of that debate (and I suggest reading my previous posts).
I'm just pointing out that it's not irreparable.
No, I know what you're saying but until the process involves the actual regrowth of lost nerve receptors, suggesting that complete restoration is possible is disingenuous at best. We're not replacing lost car keys here.
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Well, I could take your approach and make sweeping statements assuming people will accept it as gospel because I said it, and then get uptight when people call me out on it, but I think you've sufficiently got that market covered.
So rather than respond with anything that enhances your case, you're going to downgrade your argument to be even less convincing?
Yes, unless it's objectively unjustifiable. Luckily, circumcision has significant health benefits while the dangers and harms when practiced at birth are negligible.
Out of interest, do you think we should also perform, for example, tonsillectomies and appendectomies as soon as the harm is negligible?
All possibly beneficial-only medical procedures should be performed asap, in the event that a child might get the problem?
Probably, depending on cost and possible repercussions. Isn't there something about the mortality rate/age being worse for those without appendices for unknown reasons? Preventative medicine is the best medicine.
Doctors have largely stopped preventative operations as a general practice because (and this is very important) every operation carries risks.
Also, in the case of a tonsillectomy (and with appendices too actually) we discovered that they do actually have a function so we're kinda leaning away from just cutting shit out we think is useless.
0
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
Yes that certainly seems preferable to simply letting the child keep his a foreskin and waiting until adulthood to decide whether or not he wants to be circumcised.
It's not a part of that debate (and I suggest reading my previous posts).
I'm just pointing out that it's not irreparable.
No, I know what you're saying but until the process involves the actual regrowth of lost nerve receptors, suggesting that complete restoration is possible is disingenuous at best. We're not replacing lost car keys here.
But you're also acting as if those nerve receptors are the only one that a man has below his waist. Why aren't you up in arms about how the poor serving staff has lost quite a bit of sensation in their hands (which we use a little more frequently; most of us at least) from handling hot dishes? That seems much more impactful (and less widely known?) than some receptors on your business.
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Are we really going to ignore that this is a German court attempting to outlaw a pillar of Jewish identity and tradition? I'm not religious at all, but I absolutely feel that this is an attack on the Jewish identity.
When your 'identity' is forcefully removing pieces of another person without their consent, you really need to reconsider whether that's the most important aspect of your ethnicity.
Believe me, the Jewish 'identity' has been quite happy to forfeit a number of Hassidic practices by and large. Indeed, only actually Hassidic Jews (or certain other Orthodox Jew denominations) - who most Jews acknowledge as batshit insane - practice the literal interpretation of all the social aspects of the 'Jewish identity'.
Should we shut down every church and temple that allows children to drink a sip of wine as part of services?
Children are allowed alcohol if accompanied by a parent in a large number of countries. The expectation is that a reasonable parent will prevent the child from abusing the alcohol.
So not even close.
It's the first covenant with god. It is a requirement to be a Jewish man. If you outlaw it, you are going to have to arrest mohels, parents, family members, etc. just for practicing their religion. To be clear, we are literally talking about the Germans rounding up groups of Jews and arresting them for practicing Judiasm. Is this really a route people think we should be pursuing?
Does this apply to all religions and practices, or only the ones you personally approve of? Do I get to sacrifice my firstborn to the Great Juju at the Bottom of the Sea?
No, and that's not a logical extention. You might be okay with sacrificing TenektheSecond's tonsils to the GJatBotS or possibly removing one fingernail or something semi-comparable. Luckily, human sacrifice isn't the issue here.
The point is that a line must be drawn somewhere. And tradition is the worst argument for where to draw a line. We should use reason instead.
How can we use reason to determine our attitude towards an act of faith? By that rational, no one should be allowed to force their children to observe any religious traditions, since they are rarely rational.
I fully understand that there is a slippery slope here, but I don't think we need to come to a satisfying normative rule that is generally applicable. In this case we are talking about an exceedingly important and clearly mandated act of faith prescribed under one of the world's oldest religions, the practicing of which does not seem to have substantial negative impacts on people, and which the majority of men in the US undergo regardless of religion. We don't need to talk about cutting off a baby's arm to conclude that ritual circumcise isn't a problem.
I would like to state for the record that a number of people in this thread, including myself, do not give a flying fuck about the religious implications of banning circumcision. Hence the human sacrifice example: something that is not acceptable does not magically become so just because of it's part of somebody's religion.
0
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Yes, unless it's objectively unjustifiable. Luckily, circumcision has significant health benefits while the dangers and harms when practiced at birth are negligible.
There is no compelling medical rationale for the procedure in healthy boys
Now let's see your source, Bagginses.
Just a heads up, that might read like "there's no point" but what they're actually saying is that the potential for benefit does not outweigh the potential for harm as a routine operation, that's all. You can (and the NHS does) apply the same logic to kids suffering tonsillitis.
Yes that certainly seems preferable to simply letting the child keep his a foreskin and waiting until adulthood to decide whether or not he wants to be circumcised.
It's not a part of that debate (and I suggest reading my previous posts).
I'm just pointing out that it's not irreparable.
No, I know what you're saying but until the process involves the actual regrowth of lost nerve receptors, suggesting that complete restoration is possible is disingenuous at best. We're not replacing lost car keys here.
But you're also acting as if those nerve receptors are the only one that a man has below his waist. Why aren't you up in arms about how the poor serving staff has lost quite a bit of sensation in their hands (which we use a little more frequently; most of us at least) from handling hot dishes? That seems much more impactful (and less widely known?) than some receptors on your business.
Well if you want to start a thread on that too, be my guest. But at least those serving staff made a conscious choice as adults (one would hope) to desensitize their hands through prolonged usage. And last I checked, losing a bit of sensation in the hands doesn't reduce sexual pleasure. But don't quote me on that.
Yes, unless it's objectively unjustifiable. Luckily, circumcision has significant health benefits while the dangers and harms when practiced at birth are negligible.
There is no compelling medical rationale for the procedure in healthy boys
Now let's see your source, Bagginses.
Just a heads up, that might read like "there's no point" but what they're actually saying is that the potential for benefit does not outweigh the potential for harm as a routine operation, that's all. You can (and the NHS does) apply the same logic to kids suffering tonsillitis.
Well yeah, but it does contradict what Baggins said, he said that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Yes, unless it's objectively unjustifiable. Luckily, circumcision has significant health benefits while the dangers and harms when practiced at birth are negligible.
There is no compelling medical rationale for the procedure in healthy boys
Now let's see your source, Bagginses.
Just a heads up, that might read like "there's no point" but what they're actually saying is that the potential for benefit does not outweigh the potential for harm as a routine operation, that's all. You can (and the NHS does) apply the same logic to kids suffering tonsillitis.
That's certainly not my intention, only to point out that it's far from the supposed "significant benefits" he was positing as fact.
I also get the feeling doctors have to walk a fine line when it comes to something like this that can be very dear to certain cultural sensibilities.
Luckily, circumcision has significant health benefits while the dangers and harms when practiced at birth are negligible.
citations on that first part, please.
The significant health benefits are mostly apocryphal. It's really just cosmetic at this point, unless there is some manner of medical need for it, like in Spool's earlier post regarding his second kid.
Well, it's been pretty well documented to cut back on AIDS transmission, but in the USA I'd agree. It's a decision we arrived at too late for our first son, and while I don't really have what I'd call regret, I'm glad we'd matured in our opinions by the time we had a second son.
It did create an interesting interpersonal dynamic between the boys, because being uncircumcised means you appear larger when flaccid, at a casual glance. Having his little brother look bigger than him created some self-esteem issues in my oldest that took us by surprise and required a decent amount of conversation to mitigate.
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
I cannot imagine getting a surgical procedure to reverse male circumcision. Like... it's just not a very big deal?
A lot of dudes get very invested in their junk (as do some ladies, a la labioplasty to remove the roast beef). It does play into sexual identity, and as such has a far amount of effect on people's mentality.
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
0
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Also not really on board with labelling it genital mutilation or seeing it as an analogue to female circumcision - one's a procedure with negligible health benefits and a negligible impact on sexuality, the other has zero health benefits and an obvious negative impact on sexuality.
Yes, unless it's objectively unjustifiable. Luckily, circumcision has significant health benefits while the dangers and harms when practiced at birth are negligible.
There is no compelling medical rationale for the procedure in healthy boys
Now let's see your source, Bagginses.
Just a heads up, that might read like "there's no point" but what they're actually saying is that the potential for benefit does not outweigh the potential for harm as a routine operation, that's all. You can (and the NHS does) apply the same logic to kids suffering tonsillitis.
Well yeah, but it does contradict what Baggins said, he said that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Actually, what it says is that it doesn't advise for or against it and leaves the decision up to parental guesswork. Other, mainly international, groups advise for it. I can't seem to remember the name of the biggest one, though.
Also not really on board with labelling it genital mutilation or seeing it as an analogue to female circumcision - one's a procedure with negligible health benefits and a negligible impact on sexuality, the other has zero health benefits and an obvious negative impact on sexuality.
Yeah, it's about as much "mutilation" as a vaccination is "puncture wound."
Let's not forget that this is a practice whose biggest promoter in the United States pushed it for the express purpose of preventing boys from masturbating.
Kellogg worked on the rehabilitation of masturbators, often employing extreme measures, even mutilation, on both sexes. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying phenol (carbolic acid) to a young woman's clitoris.
Let's not forget that the guy who most promoted cars in America was supporting the Nazis. Clearly, ayone who owns a car is an antisemite.
As for why waiting for the child's majority isn't viable, your own link helps:
For older children and adolescents, healing may take up to 3 weeks. In most cases, the child will be released from the hospital on the day of the surgery.
At home, older children should avoiding vigorous exercise while the wound heals. If bleeding occurs during the first 24 hours after surgery, use a a clean cloth to apply pressure to the wound for 10 minutes. Place an ice pack on the area (20 minutes on, 20 minutes off) for the first 24 hours after surgery. This helps reduce swelling and pain.
I really should ask my two adult cousins who decided to get circumcised as adult, if it feels any different when having sex. Pity we are quite repressed about that kind of conversation
Yes that certainly seems preferable to simply letting the child keep his a foreskin and waiting until adulthood to decide whether or not he wants to be circumcised.
It's not a part of that debate (and I suggest reading my previous posts).
I'm just pointing out that it's not irreparable.
No, I know what you're saying but until the process involves the actual regrowth of lost nerve receptors, suggesting that complete restoration is possible is disingenuous at best. We're not replacing lost car keys here.
But you're also acting as if those nerve receptors are the only one that a man has below his waist. Why aren't you up in arms about how the poor serving staff has lost quite a bit of sensation in their hands (which we use a little more frequently; most of us at least) from handling hot dishes? That seems much more impactful (and less widely known?) than some receptors on your business.
If your religion involves placing hot frying pans in the hands of 8 day old infants to desensitize their hands, well, I don't like that either.
I don't like genital manipulation, and just because religion says its ok means shit all to me. I happen to be reading the bible right now (im not religions) and just passed the part about circumcision. At the same time god said all the men children must be circumcised, he said all the slaves must be too. Awesome. Will I respect what this book tells me? Fuck no.
0
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited June 2012
I think the reason this debate gets so heated is that both the benefits and detriments of circumcision are essentially nil, or can be dismissed easily ("well, who cares about religion?" or "it's no riskier than any other minor surgery").
So we end up with ridiculous statements like this:
Are we really going to ignore that this is a German court attempting to outlaw a pillar of Jewish identity and tradition? I'm not religious at all, but I absolutely feel that this is an attack on the Jewish identity.
When your 'identity' is forcefully removing pieces of another person without their consent, you really need to reconsider whether that's the most important aspect of your ethnicity.
Believe me, the Jewish 'identity' has been quite happy to forfeit a number of Hassidic practices by and large. Indeed, only actually Hassidic Jews (or certain other Orthodox Jew denominations) - who most Jews acknowledge as batshit insane - practice the literal interpretation of all the social aspects of the 'Jewish identity'.
Should we shut down every church and temple that allows children to drink a sip of wine as part of services?
Children are allowed alcohol if accompanied by a parent in a large number of countries. The expectation is that a reasonable parent will prevent the child from abusing the alcohol.
So not even close.
It's the first covenant with god. It is a requirement to be a Jewish man. If you outlaw it, you are going to have to arrest mohels, parents, family members, etc. just for practicing their religion. To be clear, we are literally talking about the Germans rounding up groups of Jews and arresting them for practicing Judiasm. Is this really a route people think we should be pursuing?
Does this apply to all religions and practices, or only the ones you personally approve of? Do I get to sacrifice my firstborn to the Great Juju at the Bottom of the Sea?
No, and that's not a logical extention. You might be okay with sacrificing TenektheSecond's tonsils to the GJatBotS or possibly removing one fingernail or something semi-comparable. Luckily, human sacrifice isn't the issue here.
The point is that a line must be drawn somewhere. And tradition is the worst argument for where to draw a line. We should use reason instead.
How can we use reason to determine our attitude towards an act of faith? By that rational, no one should be allowed to force their children to observe any religious traditions, since they are rarely rational.
I fully understand that there is a slippery slope here, but I don't think we need to come to a satisfying normative rule that is generally applicable. In this case we are talking about an exceedingly important and clearly mandated act of faith prescribed under one of the world's oldest religions, the practicing of which does not seem to have substantial negative impacts on people, and which the majority of men in the US undergo regardless of religion. We don't need to talk about cutting off a baby's arm to conclude that ritual circumcise isn't a problem.
I would like to state for the record that a number of people in this thread, including myself, do not give a flying fuck about the religious implications of banning circumcision. Hence the human sacrifice example: something that is not acceptable does not magically become so just because of it's part of somebody's religion.
There are some of us who give zero credence to "well it's my religion", apparently, and there are some of us who give a very very tiny bit of credence--not enough to outweigh a human sacrifice, but enough to justify not banning a practice whose harm is, at most, exceptionally minimal. I doubt you'll find anybody in this thread arguing that all religious practices should be allowed, no matter how harmful or illegal. So the whole "but what if it was cutting off an arm?" thing is a strawman.
And as for the whole "what if it were a tattoo" thing somebody brought up, well, then we'd have specific arguments about the dangers of tattoos and it would come down to about the same place--some people are comfortable doing permanent things to their kids, some people aren't. I'd argue those people are forgetting that most of the choices parents make for their children are permanent. My parents, for example, moved my brother and I when I was four from New Jersey to Texas, and the specific people and places there indelibly shaped who I am today. Parents make crucial choices for their children often; if they can't be counted on to generally act in their kids' best interest, who can?
Let's not forget that this is a practice whose biggest promoter in the United States pushed it for the express purpose of preventing boys from masturbating.
Kellogg worked on the rehabilitation of masturbators, often employing extreme measures, even mutilation, on both sexes. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying phenol (carbolic acid) to a young woman's clitoris.
Anecdotally, it didn't work. But whatever, let's just discard things because the people who invented them were regressivedicks.
Edit: Actually, screw my snarky links. John Harvey KELLOGG, as in, who cares what he thought about masturbation, his cereals are delicious. Would you have us reject cereal?
I guess my opinion really is that there isn't enough ammo on either side to ban or enforce it. We're throwing pillows here people. From my standpoint, it achieves a few minor health benefits and means one less embarrassing parental conversation, from your side it's cutting off a tiny piece of skin that doesn't really seem to have much purpose anyway. My benefits are tiny, your costs equally so. Just do what you want and don't judge others for doing it another way. This is about as equivalent to female genital mutilation as ear piercing is.
Yes that certainly seems preferable to simply letting the child keep his a foreskin and waiting until adulthood to decide whether or not he wants to be circumcised.
It's not a part of that debate (and I suggest reading my previous posts).
I'm just pointing out that it's not irreparable.
No, I know what you're saying but until the process involves the actual regrowth of lost nerve receptors, suggesting that complete restoration is possible is disingenuous at best. We're not replacing lost car keys here.
But you're also acting as if those nerve receptors are the only one that a man has below his waist. Why aren't you up in arms about how the poor serving staff has lost quite a bit of sensation in their hands (which we use a little more frequently; most of us at least) from handling hot dishes? That seems much more impactful (and less widely known?) than some receptors on your business.
If your religion involves placing hot frying pans in the hands of 8 day old infants to desensitize their hands, well, I don't like that either.
I don't like genital manipulation, and just because religion says its ok means shit all to me. I happen to be reading the bible right now (im not religions) and just passed the part about circumcision. At the same time god said all the men children must be circumcised, he said all the slaves must be too. Awesome. Will I respect what this book tells me? Fuck no.
Don't most parents have their kids wash the dishes at least once in a while?
Posts
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002998.htm
Now let's see your source, Bagginses.
At some point you're going to have to admit that anecdotes and traditions aren't enough reason to continue a practice that involves genital mutilation. Yes, there are cases where the procedure should be performed, such as conditions like Phimosis. But to prescribe it to all healthy boys at birth defies reason.
Let's not forget that this is a practice whose biggest promoter in the United States pushed it for the express purpose of preventing boys from masturbating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg
Taking off a piece of someone's genitalia is objectively irreparable physical bodily harm.
... in your opinion.
I want citations on the second part too!
"negligible" is way lower when a procedure is unnecessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration
And at the end of the day... you're cutting off part of your goddamn penis. Fuck, man.
Probably, depending on cost and possible repercussions. Isn't there something about the mortality rate/age being worse for those without appendices for unknown reasons? Preventative medicine is the best medicine.
I also plan on installing a backup hard drive and laser cannon.
I like The Dude as much as the next man, but do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion, or can we just assume that all of your posts will consist of "yeah, well, that's just like... your opinion, man..."?
Yes that certainly seems preferable to simply letting the child keep his a foreskin and waiting until adulthood to decide whether or not he wants to be circumcised.
I'm just pointing out that it's not irreparable.
Well, I could take your approach and make sweeping statements assuming people will accept it as gospel because I said it, and then get uptight when people call me out on it, but I think you've sufficiently got that market covered.
Certainly doesn't sound like the perfect fix.
I didn't even know that it requires 'additional maintenance' if it isn't done. What an enormous waste of time!
Previously I was of the opinion that it just did nothing either way and was just silly, but now this thread has made me aware that it does actually have minor benefits. I'd probably still not have it done to any kids I had, although I'm going to curse the moral majority whenever I had to supervise any cleaning. And with the first UTI I'd let them know that there is a way to pretty much guarantee that the horrible burning pain will not come back until they start doing other 'activities' later in life which had no downside.
No, I know what you're saying but until the process involves the actual regrowth of lost nerve receptors, suggesting that complete restoration is possible is disingenuous at best. We're not replacing lost car keys here.
20 seconds in the shower isn't exactly destroying your livelihood. 8D
So rather than respond with anything that enhances your case, you're going to downgrade your argument to be even less convincing?
Doctors have largely stopped preventative operations as a general practice because (and this is very important) every operation carries risks.
Also, in the case of a tonsillectomy (and with appendices too actually) we discovered that they do actually have a function so we're kinda leaning away from just cutting shit out we think is useless.
But you're also acting as if those nerve receptors are the only one that a man has below his waist. Why aren't you up in arms about how the poor serving staff has lost quite a bit of sensation in their hands (which we use a little more frequently; most of us at least) from handling hot dishes? That seems much more impactful (and less widely known?) than some receptors on your business.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Better than nothing I suppose.
And mercury themometers are fine as long as you aren't breaking them and lead paint it fine as long as you aren't eating it.
I would like to state for the record that a number of people in this thread, including myself, do not give a flying fuck about the religious implications of banning circumcision. Hence the human sacrifice example: something that is not acceptable does not magically become so just because of it's part of somebody's religion.
Just a heads up, that might read like "there's no point" but what they're actually saying is that the potential for benefit does not outweigh the potential for harm as a routine operation, that's all. You can (and the NHS does) apply the same logic to kids suffering tonsillitis.
Well if you want to start a thread on that too, be my guest. But at least those serving staff made a conscious choice as adults (one would hope) to desensitize their hands through prolonged usage. And last I checked, losing a bit of sensation in the hands doesn't reduce sexual pleasure. But don't quote me on that.
Well yeah, but it does contradict what Baggins said, he said that the benefits outweigh the risks.
That's certainly not my intention, only to point out that it's far from the supposed "significant benefits" he was positing as fact.
I also get the feeling doctors have to walk a fine line when it comes to something like this that can be very dear to certain cultural sensibilities.
Well, it's been pretty well documented to cut back on AIDS transmission, but in the USA I'd agree. It's a decision we arrived at too late for our first son, and while I don't really have what I'd call regret, I'm glad we'd matured in our opinions by the time we had a second son.
It did create an interesting interpersonal dynamic between the boys, because being uncircumcised means you appear larger when flaccid, at a casual glance. Having his little brother look bigger than him created some self-esteem issues in my oldest that took us by surprise and required a decent amount of conversation to mitigate.
Actually, what it says is that it doesn't advise for or against it and leaves the decision up to parental guesswork. Other, mainly international, groups advise for it. I can't seem to remember the name of the biggest one, though.
Yeah, it's about as much "mutilation" as a vaccination is "puncture wound."
Let's not forget that the guy who most promoted cars in America was supporting the Nazis. Clearly, ayone who owns a car is an antisemite.
As for why waiting for the child's majority isn't viable, your own link helps:
If your religion involves placing hot frying pans in the hands of 8 day old infants to desensitize their hands, well, I don't like that either.
I don't like genital manipulation, and just because religion says its ok means shit all to me. I happen to be reading the bible right now (im not religions) and just passed the part about circumcision. At the same time god said all the men children must be circumcised, he said all the slaves must be too. Awesome. Will I respect what this book tells me? Fuck no.
So we end up with ridiculous statements like this:
There are some of us who give zero credence to "well it's my religion", apparently, and there are some of us who give a very very tiny bit of credence--not enough to outweigh a human sacrifice, but enough to justify not banning a practice whose harm is, at most, exceptionally minimal. I doubt you'll find anybody in this thread arguing that all religious practices should be allowed, no matter how harmful or illegal. So the whole "but what if it was cutting off an arm?" thing is a strawman.
And as for the whole "what if it were a tattoo" thing somebody brought up, well, then we'd have specific arguments about the dangers of tattoos and it would come down to about the same place--some people are comfortable doing permanent things to their kids, some people aren't. I'd argue those people are forgetting that most of the choices parents make for their children are permanent. My parents, for example, moved my brother and I when I was four from New Jersey to Texas, and the specific people and places there indelibly shaped who I am today. Parents make crucial choices for their children often; if they can't be counted on to generally act in their kids' best interest, who can?
Anecdotally, it didn't work. But whatever, let's just discard things because the people who invented them were regressive dicks.
Edit: Actually, screw my snarky links. John Harvey KELLOGG, as in, who cares what he thought about masturbation, his cereals are delicious. Would you have us reject cereal?
Don't most parents have their kids wash the dishes at least once in a while?