Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Christie: I still think the actions of the father were extreme. Not the wanting to block the circumcision but that he showed graphic pictures of the operation to the little boy. Not good dad, not good. What would have happened if the decision had gone the other way and the operation was considered essential?
Do we remember if the boy asked about what circumcision was or if the father just did it to scare the boy? What if the mother and stepfather were talking with the doctors about getting the boy circumcised but no one bothered telling (or, worse, refused to tell) the boy what that meant or what was involved, so he asked his father? And then his father told him and showed pictures?
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troodon: My atheism is a large part of my identity, and I would percieve being circumcised as a major humiliation, presumably the way a religious person would feel if he were forced to do something he considered ritually unclean. I would also be ashamed to let another person see that I was circumcised.
But such a small difference! I'm an atheist, and I'm mildly proud of the fact that I've never been baptised. Just never got taken to church by my parents.
Would I be somehow "less" of an atheist if I had been baptised?
Seems to me that *this* reason, at least, for opposing circumcision is extremely weak.
Silas
I don't know - I understand it. The fact that I was christened (and am now an atheist) does rankle with me quite a bit, although the whole story is a bit convoluted.
I was christened when I was three months old, so obviously I didn't have much choice in the matter. When I was 16, I was confirmed: to be confirmed you had to have been christened, no worries there.
Then I became an atheist.
I have no problem with me being a confirmed member of the Church of England: it was my choice and it felt right at the time. But I do have a problem with me being christened, even though I had to be christened in order to become confirmed Why? Because the christening wasn't my choice. If I had been unchristened and decided I wanted to be confirmed, I would have been able to make the choice to be christened - but by that time, that choice wasn't mine to make. It had already been amde for me, 16 years previously.
No, it hasn't left any permanent physical mark or scar or anything like that - and I can only imagine that my feelings would be much more vehement if it had - and I know my parents made my "choice" for me in the best of faith. But I still don't lik the fact that I was christened without being able to give my agreement on the matter. And I don't spend hours at home wringing my hands and bemoaning my christened status either, but it is a thought that occurs to me during dicsussions like this.
A bit confused, I know. It's not rational, it doesn't make much sense but it's still the way I feel. But who said feelings were rational?
For the record (again): I am as anti-child piercing, tattooing, scarring etc. as I am anti-circumcision (except in the case of medical need).
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Llewtrah: I have no problems with modifying the body as long as the choice to modify it is made by the person whose body it is and not by his parents or guardians while he is too young to make that decision (unless it is to save the infant's life or allow an abnormally formed body to function normally).
If a guy decides medical science can improve his health by removing his foreskin, let him make the decision. It is wrong for his parents to force their own decision on him.
I can't disagree more. Part of the responsibility of being a parent is making decisions for your child. The removal of the foreskin has a negligble impact on a person's life. If you believe that it is in your child's best interest to be raised according to the dictates of the Old Testament or the Hadith...why should other's in society get to deny you that decision?
Because you are permanently removing part of your child's body without your child's consent (and for a non-medical reason). It is up to the foreskin's owner he wishes to follow that religion and whether he wishes to permanently mark his body. The impact will not be negligible if the person does not wish to be marked as a follower of that religious belief.
posted
But how far can you extend that? As I said before, the lifetime psychological effect of religious instruction and indoctrination can far exceed the negligible effect of removing the foreskin. This is an issue of where religious freedom and the right to raise your child how you want ends, and where protection of the individual begins. It's not an easy line to draw.
Posts: 333 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleSpectre: I'm not sure how I feel about circumcision, but I take a great deal of umbrage at the description of circumcized penises as "mutilated." My boyfriend's penis is not "mutilated." It is just fine. Different from natural, perhaps, but not deformed or altered to the point of not working.
Body modifications are not mutilation, people. They are aesthetic choices. Calling them mutilation is supremely judgemental whether you mean it to be or not.
Mutilate: - to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts - to make imperfect by excising or altering parts
I'm not religious nor male, but if I were I would argue that Deity made my body perfect (even if Deity chose to make me disabled, that would be Deity's choice and in Deity's eyes I would still be perfect as I am the way s/he made me). To remove a part of that perfect body would be to disfigure it or make it imperfect.
If I chose to mutilate myself, that is up to me. However, if I had a firm belief in Deity having made me perfect and my parents cut a bit off because it was traditional or culturally normal, I would be mutilated.
Mutilation is a dictionary term, not a judgmental term. Sorry you don't like it, but cutting off the foreskin deprives a person of part of their body. Therefore it mutilation and disfigurement.
quote:Originally posted by ThistleSpectre: I'm not sure how I feel about circumcision, but I take a great deal of umbrage at the description of circumcized penises as "mutilated." My boyfriend's penis is not "mutilated." It is just fine. Different from natural, perhaps, but not deformed or altered to the point of not working.
Body modifications are not mutilation, people. They are aesthetic choices. Calling them mutilation is supremely judgemental whether you mean it to be or not.
Mutilate: - to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts - to make imperfect by excising or altering parts
I'm not religious nor male, but if I were I would argue that Deity made my body perfect (even if Deity chose to make me disabled, that would be Deity's choice and in Deity's eyes I would still be perfect as I am the way s/he made me). To remove a part of that perfect body would be to disfigure it or make it imperfect.
If I chose to mutilate myself, that is up to me. However, if I had a firm belief in Deity having made me perfect and my parents cut a bit off because it was traditional or culturally normal, I would be mutilated.
Mutilation is a dictionary term, not a judgmental term. Sorry you don't like it, but cutting off the foreskin deprives a person of part of their body. Therefore it mutilation and disfigurement.
Hey, great! So, in your church males won't get circumcised. Funny thing, though...I found out that not all humans agree with your religious philosophy! They follow other religious practices entirely!
Additionally, in regards to the dictionary definition: I think a couple of key words there are "irreparably damaging" and "make imperfect". If quality of life is not diminished, then nothing has been damaged. If one believes that the foreskin should be removed to relieve the body of an imperfection, then circumcision does not make one imperfect.
-------------------- "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton Posts: 1514 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Methuselah: Additionally, in regards to the dictionary definition: I think a couple of key words there are "irreparably damaging" and "make imperfect". If quality of life is not diminished, then nothing has been damaged.
Not true. Again, let's use the example of earlobes. If you were to cut them off, then you wouldn't have made any non-cosmetic alteration. The ears wouldn't function differently.
However, they'd still be "irreparably damaged". Because there would be damage to them, that cannot be repaired. Just like removing the foreskin damages the penis irreparably.
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by trollface: . . . Again, let's use the example of earlobes. . . .
If a religious cult arose that practiced the snipping of babies' earlobes, I would not consider this sufficiently intrusive to warrant the use of the law to prevent it. I wouldn't admire it, but I wouldn't support a ban.
Ear-piercing would meet the definition of "mutilation" as given above. There seems to be something about this debate that causes some people to discard the concept of "proportion" and to fall into the trap of ruthless dichotomism.
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by trollface: Not true. Again, let's use the example of earlobes. If you were to cut them off, then you wouldn't have made any non-cosmetic alteration. The ears wouldn't function differently.
However, they'd still be "irreparably damaged". Because there would be damage to them, that cannot be repaired. Just like removing the foreskin damages the penis irreparably.
I wouldn't consider the ears "irreparably damaged" either, anymore than I consider pierced ears to be "irreparably damaged".
-------------------- "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton Posts: 1514 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
What if it wasn't just ears then? What if parents wanted to get their infants... navels or noses pierced?
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't immediately think of a situation were this might happen (thankfully), but purely hypothetically: What would the reaction be if, say, a judge sentenced a man to be circumcised against his will as punishment for some crime? Would anyone accept the will of the person with the legal power to impose such things? What if that judge sentenced that same man to having his earlobes cut off... or even just pierced?
Wonko
-------------------- "It seemed to me that any civilization that had so far lost its head as to need to include detailed instructions for use in a package of toothpicks, was no longer a civilzation in which I could live and stay sane." Posts: 1462 | From: Outside the Asylum (Massachusetts) | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:What would the reaction be if, say, a judge sentenced a man to be circumcised against his will as punishment for some crime? Would anyone accept the will of the person with the legal power to impose such things? What if that judge sentenced that same man to having his earlobes cut off... or even just pierced?
No and since that never happens I'm not sure if I see your point.
The whole point is that its wrong to "make" someone alter their body in such a way.
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by YudanTaiteki: But how far can you extend that? As I said before, the lifetime psychological effect of religious instruction and indoctrination can far exceed the negligible effect of removing the foreskin. This is an issue of where religious freedom and the right to raise your child how you want ends, and where protection of the individual begins. It's not an easy line to draw.
philosophically, maybe, but not practically. I mean, if the government started trying to ban parents from raising their own children in their own religion in hte name of protecting their individuality, then americans, atleast, would have another revolution. It's just that simple. It's certainly not something I would tolerate either.
-------------------- a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: I wouldn't admire it, but I wouldn't support a ban.
I don't think I've seen anyone advocating a ban. I certainly haven't. However, I have seen people expressing distaste at the forced and unnecessary amputation of part of an infant's anatomy. I don't think it should be banned, but I'd hope that people had enough consideration for the basic human rights of their child to wait until he was old enough to decide for himself.
quote:Ear-piercing would meet the definition of "mutilation" as given above.
Which is also something that I think that someone should be old enough to decide for themselves before getting done.
quote:There seems to be something about this debate that causes some people to discard the concept of "proportion" and to fall into the trap of ruthless dichotomism.
What's disproportionate about the stance that a person's body shouldn't be cosmetically altered unnecessarily without them being able to give informed consent? I also think that the idea of tattooing a baby is the same. Would anyone support that? I imagine that anyone who did that to a baby would be locked up for child abuse. The same goes for the earlobe removal.
In fact, let's try a few hypotheticals. I'll give you my guess as to the outcome in each circumstance. Someone who tattoos a baby's foreskin - prison for child abuse. Someone who removes it - nothing. Someone who punches a hole in a baby's earlobe - nothing. Someone who removes them - prison for child abuse.
Sure, that's only my supposition, but I'm prepared to bet that I'm right. And doesn't that show, at the very least, a weird and inconsistent attitude towards the matter?
quote:Methuselah said: I wouldn't consider the ears "irreparably damaged" either, anymore than I consider pierced ears to be "irreparably damaged".
How do you cut a bit off of something without damaging it? If you harm something, or you injure it you have, by definition, damaged it. That's what the word means. The damage cannot be repaired (or, at least, not without risky, impractical and expensive surgery). Therefore it is irreparable.
So, how are you defining "irreparably damaged"? You're obviously not going by what the words mean.
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleSpectre: I'm not sure how I feel about circumcision, but I take a great deal of umbrage at the description of circumcized penises as "mutilated." My boyfriend's penis is not "mutilated." It is just fine. Different from natural, perhaps, but not deformed or altered to the point of not working.
Body modifications are not mutilation, people. They are aesthetic choices. Calling them mutilation is supremely judgemental whether you mean it to be or not.
Mutilate: - to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts - to make imperfect by excising or altering parts
I'm not religious nor male, but if I were I would argue that Deity made my body perfect (even if Deity chose to make me disabled, that would be Deity's choice and in Deity's eyes I would still be perfect as I am the way s/he made me). To remove a part of that perfect body would be to disfigure it or make it imperfect.
If I chose to mutilate myself, that is up to me. However, if I had a firm belief in Deity having made me perfect and my parents cut a bit off because it was traditional or culturally normal, I would be mutilated.
Mutilation is a dictionary term, not a judgmental term. Sorry you don't like it, but cutting off the foreskin deprives a person of part of their body. Therefore it mutilation and disfigurement.
Hey, great! So, in your church males won't get circumcised. Funny thing, though...I found out that not all humans agree with your religious philosophy! They follow other religious practices entirely!
Additionally, in regards to the dictionary definition: I think a couple of key words there are "irreparably damaging" and "make imperfect". If quality of life is not diminished, then nothing has been damaged. If one believes that the foreskin should be removed to relieve the body of an imperfection, then circumcision does not make one imperfect.
In the hypothetical "my church" the only person who could choose to have a body part removed (if they felt it an imperfection) would be the owner of that body part and it would be between that person and Deity. The choice would not be made by someone else without the foreskin-owner's consent (as it currently is). The decision would not be forced on them while they are too young to protest.
Circumcision does mean the penis is is "irreperably damaged". Cutting something off for non-medical reasons is damage. It does not regrow, therefore it is irreperable. The only person who is truly qualified to decide whether the foreskin is an undesirable imperfection is the person on whose body it grows.
Infant circumcision is non-consensual on the part of the infant. That is fundamentally wrong and I consider it abusive.
quote:Originally posted by Christie: I still think the actions of the father were extreme. Not the wanting to block the circumcision but that he showed graphic pictures of the operation to the little boy. Not good dad, not good. What would have happened if the decision had gone the other way and the operation was considered essential?
I think the impact of this case is going to be a whole lot less than what some think.
What we have (in my view) is a bio-father who still has the same feelings for his former wife that he did when they divorced. I think she has the same feelings for him (hate might be a good word for it). So this is less of a foreskin battle and more of a, "I can still make your life miserable, ha!" case (or a, "I can do ANYTHING to "your" son I want, and YOU CAN'T STOP ME!").
It all came down to the definition of 'elective' vs. 'non-elective' surgery and the fact of those words being used in the divorce decree.
I don't think either one of the "parents" had the best wishes of their kid in mind. They just wanted to "stick it to" the other bio-parent.
Any future ruling will look to this case and see the word "inconclusive" and then use whatever local medical advice they get to decide if it is STILL inconclusive.
Custodial parental rights were overruled because of the divorce decree, not because circumcision was "bad". It was just "not good enough" to overrule the divorce decree.
I also think the title of this thread is appropriate. The boy did not win, the "Dad" did. He now has the, "I can still screw up your life" card out and ready to show to his former wife.
-------------------- And now for something completely different... Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Methuselah said: I wouldn't consider the ears "irreparably damaged" either, anymore than I consider pierced ears to be "irreparably damaged".
How do you cut a bit off of something without damaging it? If you harm something, or you injure it you have, by definition, damaged it. That's what the word means. The damage cannot be repaired (or, at least, not without risky, impractical and expensive surgery). Therefore it is irreparable.
So, how are you defining "irreparably damaged"? You're obviously not going by what the words mean.
Um, did you read the definition of "damage". The definition states that it is 'harm or injury, or loss caused by injury'. I simply don't subscribe to the idea that any and all infractions into the skin are harmful. Since there is no proof that circumcision degrades functionality of the penis, nor degrages quality of life, and has a purpose, I don't think it constitutes harm or injury, any more than teaching the bible causes harm or injury (look at the definition of harm, by the way: physical, mental or moral injury or damage).
To address the other points made earlier, if there were a culture or religion that engaged in the practice of nose piercings or naval piercings, I would not take umbrage with it. It is not for me to force my morality onto another family...just as I don't stick my nose into another family's business when they teach their child that he or she will burn in hell for eternity if they don't accept that some carpenter' kid magically turned a couple of fishes and loaves of bread into a meal for 5000 people.
-------------------- "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton Posts: 1514 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleSpectre: I'm not sure how I feel about circumcision, but I take a great deal of umbrage at the description of circumcized penises as "mutilated." My boyfriend's penis is not "mutilated." It is just fine. Different from natural, perhaps, but not deformed or altered to the point of not working.
Body modifications are not mutilation, people. They are aesthetic choices. Calling them mutilation is supremely judgemental whether you mean it to be or not.
Mutilate: - to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts - to make imperfect by excising or altering parts
I'm not religious nor male, but if I were I would argue that Deity made my body perfect (even if Deity chose to make me disabled, that would be Deity's choice and in Deity's eyes I would still be perfect as I am the way s/he made me). To remove a part of that perfect body would be to disfigure it or make it imperfect.
If I chose to mutilate myself, that is up to me. However, if I had a firm belief in Deity having made me perfect and my parents cut a bit off because it was traditional or culturally normal, I would be mutilated.
Mutilation is a dictionary term, not a judgmental term. Sorry you don't like it, but cutting off the foreskin deprives a person of part of their body. Therefore it mutilation and disfigurement.
Hey, great! So, in your church males won't get circumcised. Funny thing, though...I found out that not all humans agree with your religious philosophy! They follow other religious practices entirely!
Additionally, in regards to the dictionary definition: I think a couple of key words there are "irreparably damaging" and "make imperfect". If quality of life is not diminished, then nothing has been damaged. If one believes that the foreskin should be removed to relieve the body of an imperfection, then circumcision does not make one imperfect.
In the hypothetical "my church" the only person who could choose to have a body part removed (if they felt it an imperfection) would be the owner of that body part and it would be between that person and Deity. The choice would not be made by someone else without the foreskin-owner's consent (as it currently is). The decision would not be forced on them while they are too young to protest.
Circumcision does mean the penis is is "irreperably damaged". Cutting something off for non-medical reasons is damage. It does not regrow, therefore it is irreperable. The only person who is truly qualified to decide whether the foreskin is an undesirable imperfection is the person on whose body it grows.
Infant circumcision is non-consensual on the part of the infant. That is fundamentally wrong and I consider it abusive.
As is ear piercing and all other cultural beautification?
quote:Originally posted by Methuselah: Since there is no proof that circumcision degrades functionality of the penis,
Well it certainly degrades functionality of the foreskin. You seem to be regarding the foreskin as just a little extra fold of skin attached to the penis that has no purpose or function.
quote: nor degrages quality of life,
As Sara has pointed out before, a man who has lived both ways is in a far better position to judge this than one who has been circumcised since infancy.
Then there is the trauma from the procedure and the recovery. There is at least one study that shows that pain experienced in infancy sets a person up for how they'll experience pain the rest of his/her life. Basically, they will have a lower pain threshold.
-------------------- Natural selection is a beguiling counterfeiter of deliberate purpose. - Richard Dawkins Posts: 620 | From: Alaska | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Llewtrah: Circumcision does mean the penis is is "irreperably damaged". Cutting something off for non-medical reasons is damage. It does not regrow, therefore it is irreperable.
I disagree that the simply act of cutting something off for non-medical reasons constitutes "damage".
The dictionary definition of 'damage' states: loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation. The definition of harm states: physical or mental damage. The definition of injury states: an act that damages or hurts. Using those definitions, vaccination is damaging to a child, and it's irreparable. Teaching religion is damaging to a child as it causes mental damage, and is irrreparable (without expensive, unproven psychological therapy methods). Lots of things are damaging...if you ignore the fact that there is a benefit that may not be understood by the recipient. It is a parent's right to make certain decisions for their child. The decision to include your child in your faith or culture in a way that does not detract from quality of life should not be considered damage or harm.
quote:The only person who is truly qualified to decide whether the foreskin is an undesirable imperfection is the person on whose body it grows.
The only person who is truly qualified to determine whether or not they want their skin punctured and body injected with varicella zoster virus is the person who owns that body, no?
quote:Infant circumcision is non-consensual on the part of the infant. That is fundamentally wrong and I consider it abusive.
Lots of things are non-consensual for infants, toddlers, adolescents, and teenagers. Non-consent alone cannot define abuse, injury, harm, or damage.
-------------------- "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton Posts: 1514 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Bentley: No and since that never happens I'm not sure if I see your point.
The whole point is that its wrong to "make" someone alter their body in such a way.
Exactly the point. We're in agreement, I think. We wouldn't dream of allowing a judge to impose mutilation as a punishment for a rational adult human, because the idea is that a person's body is their own. The question, then, is why can't children expect to grow up without having things done to them against their will?
Wonko
-------------------- "It seemed to me that any civilization that had so far lost its head as to need to include detailed instructions for use in a package of toothpicks, was no longer a civilzation in which I could live and stay sane." Posts: 1462 | From: Outside the Asylum (Massachusetts) | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Methuselah: Since there is no proof that circumcision degrades functionality of the penis,
Well it certainly degrades functionality of the foreskin. You seem to be regarding the foreskin as just a little extra fold of skin attached to the penis that has no purpose or function.
Actually, you seem to be regarding the foreskin as necessary for either sexual function, urinary function, growth and development, or social acceptance (I'm not sure which). I'm pointing out that its removal does not interfere with quality of life.
quote:
quote: nor degrages quality of life,
As Sara has pointed out before, a man who has lived both ways is in a far better position to judge this than one who has been circumcised since infancy.
No, someone who has the procedure late in life is not more qualified to speak about the experiences of someone who has been circumcised since birth.
-------------------- "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton Posts: 1514 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug4.7: I think the impact of this case is going to be a whole lot less than what some think.
What we have (in my view) is a bio-father who still has the same feelings for his former wife that he did when they divorced. I think she has the same feelings for him (hate might be a good word for it). So this is less of a foreskin battle and more of a, "I can still make your life miserable, ha!" case (or a, "I can do ANYTHING to "your" son I want, and YOU CAN'T STOP ME!").
It all came down to the definition of 'elective' vs. 'non-elective' surgery and the fact of those words being used in the divorce decree.
I don't think either one of the "parents" had the best wishes of their kid in mind. They just wanted to "stick it to" the other bio-parent.
Any future ruling will look to this case and see the word "inconclusive" and then use whatever local medical advice they get to decide if it is STILL inconclusive.
Custodial parental rights were overruled because of the divorce decree, not because circumcision was "bad". It was just "not good enough" to overrule the divorce decree.
I also think the title of this thread is appropriate. The boy did not win, the "Dad" did. He now has the, "I can still screw up your life" card out and ready to show to his former wife.
I think you have made an excellent point regarding the situation in the OP.
-------------------- "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton Posts: 1514 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Methuselah: Um, did you read the definition of "damage".
Yes.
quote:I simply don't subscribe to the idea that any and all infractions into the skin are harmful.
Then I suggest that you look up the definition of the word "harm". And stop ignoring the word "injury".
quote:Since there is no proof that circumcision degrades functionality of the penis[...]
Who said anything about functionality? I didn't. You can amputate the earlobes without changing the functionality of the ears, but it's still harm done. It's still an injury.
If I cut my finger on the page of a book, I've injured myself. It's what the word means.
quote:and has a purpose
Sorry, what purpose does it have? I don't think this has been explained yet, beyond "look like his dad".
quote:(look at the definition of harm, by the way: physical, mental or moral injury or damage).
Yes, and circumcision physically harms and injures a child.
quote:Using those definitions, vaccination is damaging to a child, and it's irreparable.
No it's not. It's repairable.
quote:Non-consent alone cannot define abuse, injury, harm, or damage.
Of course it can. If a girl likes being tied up and spanked, then that's one thing. To tie up and spank a girl who doesn't like it is another. The only difference between the two scenarios is consent. One is abuse, the other is not. One is harmful, and the other is not.
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Methuselah: Actually, you seem to be regarding the foreskin as necessary for either sexual function, urinary function, growth and development, or social acceptance (I'm not sure which).
The only one of those that comes close is the sexual functioning one, and that's not exactly how I'd phrase it. The foreskin is full of nerve endings. Extra nerve endings = extra sensation. It forms a protective hood over the glans which keeps it moist and is a barrier to chafing which would toughen up and desensitise the glans.
quote: I'm pointing out that its removal does not interfere with quality of life.
Since the baby boy is born with a foreskin, shouldn't the burden of proving that it's useless fall to those advocating its removal? Why would you not err on the side of leaving it intact?
quote:No, someone who has the procedure late in life is not more qualified to speak about the experiences of someone who has been circumcised since birth.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean that such men can speak about the experiences of those that were circumcised in infancy (not always at birth mind you - sometimes a week or 8 days later). I meant that they are most qualified to speak about the experience of both having and not having a foreskin. Actually, it is the man who was circumcised as an infant that can't adequately speak about the benefits (or lack thereof) of what he is missing.
ETA: a few words
-------------------- Natural selection is a beguiling counterfeiter of deliberate purpose. - Richard Dawkins Posts: 620 | From: Alaska | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Methuselah: Actually, you seem to be regarding the foreskin as necessary for either sexual function, urinary function, growth and development, or social acceptance (I'm not sure which). I'm pointing out that its removal does not interfere with quality of life.
There's a whole world between "necessary" and "useless".
Incidentally, what's the consensus here on removing the labia at birth? I assume that those who are for routine circumcision of male babies are also for the routine removal of the labia?
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is the supposed usefulness of the foreskin relevant?
It would not be wrong to say that my facial hair is useless - I shave it off every day. And yet I would not at all appreciate it if my parents had done something to me as an infant that would prevent me from ever growing facial hair, although I would actually consider such a treatment if it were avaliable now.
The issue, at least for me, is that a person's body is his own property from the moment he is born. Whenever it is medically possible, he should get to choose what happens to any and every part of it, useful or not.
-------------------- Fools! You've over-estimated me! Posts: 3745 | From: New York City | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Methuselah: Actually, you seem to be regarding the foreskin as necessary for either sexual function, urinary function, growth and development, or social acceptance (I'm not sure which).
The only one of those that comes close is the sexual functioning one, and that's not exactly how I'd phrase it. The foreskin is full of nerve endings. Extra nerve endings = extra sensation. It forms a protective hood over the glans which keeps it moist and is a barrier to chafing which would toughen up and desensitise the glans.
Except that medical science disagrees with you. Masters & Johnson performed a sesory perception study of the glans penis, comparing sensation perception between circumcised and uncircumcised men. They found no discernible difference.
quote:
quote: I'm pointing out that its removal does not interfere with quality of life.
Since the baby boy is born with a foreskin, shouldn't the burden of proving that it's useless fall to those advocating its removal? Why would you not err on the side of leaving it intact?
I do err on that side...as it relates to routine neo-natal circumcision. However, I'm talking about cultural or religious circumcision...not routine.
quote:Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean that such men can speak about the experiences of those that were circumcised in infancy (not always at birth mind you - sometimes a week or 8 days later). I meant that they are most qualified to speak about the experience of both having and not having a foreskin. Actually, it is the man who was circumcised as an infant that can't adequately speak about the benefits (or lack thereof) of what he is missing.
Because he is not missing anything.
-------------------- "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton Posts: 1514 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Rhiandmoi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
I don't think that anyone argues "since it's useless I'll just chop it off." I think people argue things like "leaving it on invites infections, and it's useless so I'll chop it off" or "leaving it on will mean that my son can't go to heaven, and it's useless so I'll chop it off". The infection thing can be proven or disproven. Going to heaven is not so easy. I don't know if it is the legal duty of a parent to make sure their child goes to heaven, but many parents feel it is their moral duty.
-------------------- I think that hyperbole is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of society. - My friend Pat.
quote:Originally posted by trollface: Then I suggest that you look up the definition of the word "harm". And stop ignoring the word "injury".
I'm not ignoring the word 'injury'. I'm calling upon it. Circumcision is not injury. Stepping on a needle causes injury, getting a flu shot does not...even though the skin is broken in the same manner in both instances. Get it?
quote:Who said anything about functionality? I didn't. You can amputate the earlobes without changing the functionality of the ears, but it's still harm done. It's still an injury.
Only if ear-piercing is harm and injury...and I don't believe it is.
quote:If I cut my finger on the page of a book, I've injured myself. It's what the word means.
Irrelevant.
quote:Sorry, what purpose does it have? I don't think this has been explained yet, beyond "look like his dad".
The inclusion into a family's established cultural and/or religious practices.
quote:
quote:(look at the definition of harm, by the way: physical, mental or moral injury or damage).
Yes, and circumcision physically harms and injures a child.
Only if religious instruction also harms and injures a child.
quote:
quote:Using those definitions, vaccination is damaging to a child, and it's irreparable.
No it's not. It's repairable.
Really? Can you come over and de-vaccinate me? You know, pull out all those antibodies that have formed? Can you repair the pits in the shoulders of those that received compulsory smallpox vaccinations?
quote:
quote:Non-consent alone cannot define abuse, injury, harm, or damage.
Of course it can. If a girl likes being tied up and spanked, then that's one thing. To tie up and spank a girl who doesn't like it is another. The only difference between the two scenarios is consent. One is abuse, the other is not. One is harmful, and the other is not.
You are correct. In that scenario, non-consent is not the issue. However, many children do not consent to vaccinations. Child abuse? Many children do not consent to going to bed at 8:00. Child abuse? Many children do not consent to eating their vegetables, brushing their teeth, going to church, having their hair cut...
-------------------- "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton Posts: 1514 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Methuselah: I do err on that side...as it relates to routine neo-natal circumcision. However, I'm talking about cultural or religious circumcision...not routine.
Actually, I think the argument is that there is a pretty blurry line between "routine" and "cultural". Someone who says "My God demands this bit of skin" is different from someone who says, "What if his girlfriend will think it's icky?", but you could argue that they're both cultural.
quote:Originally posted by Rhiandmoi: I don't think that anyone argues "since it's useless I'll just chop it off."{empahsis mine} I think people argue things like "leaving it on invites infections, and it's useless so I'll chop it off" or "leaving it on will mean that my son can't go to heaven, and it's useless so I'll chop it off". The infection thing can be proven or disproven. Going to heaven is not so easy. I don't know if it is the legal duty of a parent to make sure their child goes to heaven, but many parents feel it is their moral duty.
Unfortunately, I think that MOST of the people (in the US, anyway) who have their son circumcised at birth are thinking just that: "So what? It's just skin, and he won't miss it... Besides, his daddy had it done", by way of justification. Or they are uneducated about the medical non-necessity of the procedure. For the record, I don't feel that the "inviting infection" holds any water at all. I would argue that a comparatively small number of circumcisions are done for strict religious adherence.
Wonko
-------------------- "It seemed to me that any civilization that had so far lost its head as to need to include detailed instructions for use in a package of toothpicks, was no longer a civilzation in which I could live and stay sane." Posts: 1462 | From: Outside the Asylum (Massachusetts) | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: I wouldn't admire it, but I wouldn't support a ban.
I don't think I've seen anyone advocating a ban. I certainly haven't. However, I have seen people expressing distaste at the forced and unnecessary amputation of part of an infant's anatomy. I don't think it should be banned, but I'd hope that people had enough consideration for the basic human rights of their child to wait until he was old enough to decide for himself.
So long as you're just making a personal point, stating an opinion, and declaring that you find it yukky...I'm cool.
The language of "should not," especially with words like "mutilation" being thrown around, make it sound as if the argument is for a legislative ban.
If that isn't what anyone here is arguing for, then, hey, no prob. Everyone gets to follow their own morality, and the thread is pretty much moot.
(Except for the case in the OP, where a judge decided, and the decision is backed by the full force of the law.)
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Methuselah: ...{SNIP}...However, many children do not consent to vaccinations. Child abuse? Many children do not consent to going to bed at 8:00. Child abuse? Many children do not consent to eating their vegetables, brushing their teeth, going to church, having their hair cut...
The difference, of course, is that most of those things have well-established medical justifications, whereas circumcision has none. And having your hair cut and going to church are not physically scarring. Generally.
Wonko
-------------------- "It seemed to me that any civilization that had so far lost its head as to need to include detailed instructions for use in a package of toothpicks, was no longer a civilzation in which I could live and stay sane." Posts: 1462 | From: Outside the Asylum (Massachusetts) | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
