Oh No! It's Another Thread About Circumcision.

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

The reason courts uphold the right to abortion is because the risks and the surgery are consented to by the adult woman, and because they are satisfied that a foetus does not have, before a certain point in gestation, the attributes required to have any rights.

To apply the analogy the way you have to circumcision is misguided. You would have a better analogy if parents could force their adult daughters to have an abortion because their religion thought it was a good idea, or because they didn't want her to get stretch marks.

 

[bulge]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Being born with a foreskin is not a birth defect.

It even has an essential function: cock slides in and out it when the boy wanks and fucks. You can as well cut his thumb. You would deny him the same kind of essential function. And don't forget: boys are primarily made to wank and fuck.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

And yes. People, perhaps especially in America, remember the Puritans. They hit our shores and made an indelible impression on American freedom as they were an example of persecuted people who fled in pursuit of religious freedom.

Except the Puritans didn't come to America for religious freedom; that's a bit of their propaganda. They came to escape religious persecution, and so they could inflict their own.

The whole business about treating gays like crap, less than human, second-class citizens, and all? That's what the Puritans brought to America. That's the Puritan agenda still at work. Oh, and the worst period of violent crime in U.S. history, known as Prohibition? Puritanism at work.

They fled in pursuit of a place where they could impose their own religious oppression.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Texbo,apparently you haven't read all the responses.

Jewish and Muslim believers are REQUIRED to circumcise their sons, and they only have a certain time frame to complete that circumcision. Someone said "eight days". I don't know if that's the truth, but it does ring true.

It's correct. Interestingly, in post-exilic Judaism, a trend developed among some to wait until the eighth day, leading to the self-description by St. Paul, "circumcised on the eighth day". Occasionally I stop and ponder what virtue there was in waiting until the last permitted day -- but not for long.

I saw a direct analogy there, too, Hungkee, but I didn't want to derail the thread.

I agree with you on all points on the abortion analogy.

Ditto that agreement.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

So? That's totally not the point. No matter what your "job" is, even as a doctor, you may not mutilate a child because his parents ask you to do so.

So how is removing a piece of skin "mutilation" but removing an extra toe not? Both are cosmetic and elective.

Seems this is really about someone's concept of aesthetics.

 

[Corny]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

^ a quick google assured me that there are medical problems for six-toed people. and if you think about it, it's quite logical as your body/posture etc was made for five toes. i couldn't find any court rulings on it though, probably this has never come up.

as for the false abortion reasoning, bankside already explained it perfectly - the basis of the whole discussion is a different one.

 

[bort138]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

So how is removing a piece of skin "mutilation" but removing an extra toe not? Both are cosmetic and elective.

Seems this is really about someone's concept of aesthetics.

The difference is one is a birth defect that affects a small number of all births while circumcision is the removal of healthy tissue that all baby boys are born with. If foreskin could ever be classified as some kind of congenital physical anomaly your point would be valid but foreskin is not a birth defect and it never will be. If you can't see the difference between removing a birth defect and removing something all baby boys are born with I don't know what to say.

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Bankside, you have missed the point entirely, because you have spent too much time looking at the details, and not enough time looking at the big picture. "He can't see the forest for the trees."

The abortion analogy is actually a perfect one, when one looks at the big picture, because in both cases, you have

1. The aims of a well-meaning government directly contradicting
2. The aims of religion,
3. Which is a battle that could lead to social unrest or even domestic terrorism.

In the case of abortion, domestic terrorism in the United States is already taking place. Abortion doctors have been murdered in cold blood, clinics being bombed, and the ones still in existence are armed to the gills. This domestic terrorism has been effective in many areas, in which women have completely lost their access to legal abortion.

I personally doubt that Germany will experience this domestic terrorism in the area of Circumcision, but you can just bet that back-alley clinics will spring up.

Someone suggested an analogy between this war, and the Jehovah's Witnesses battle apropos blood transfusions. Although no one commented on that analogy, I find it an excellent one. Once again, in both cases, you find a well-meaning government directly contradicting the aims of a religion.

To the gentleman who suggested that blood-transfusion analogy: actually, I do believe that has been fought in the American courts. I don't remember for sure the outcome, but I do BELIEVE that the parents' rights were upheld.

Do y'all want a fourth example? Christian Scientists do not believe in allopathy. If a child dies because the parents are practitioners, are there legal consequences? Does anybody know?

You say "well-meaning government" like that has some kind of downside.

I don't mind using that phrase as long as we also use "ill-meaning religion" to describe any religion so maniacal and unhinged that it would engage in domestic terrorism.

So yes, we have the well-meaning aims of government contradicting the inept and odious aims of an otherwise legitmate religion. Well?

I don't recall there being any good reason to give into domestic terrorism. And that may be a problem in the States - perhaps other countries are just a bit better acquainted with civilized behaviour and the rule of law, places where access to abortion will not result in either domestic terrorism, or any notion that even for a second that sentiment should be pandered to. Yes, in any given situation, recognizing human rights may be uncomfortable for a bunch of rabbis or imams or priests. So what?

 

[bort138]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

I suppose abortion and circumcision can be tied together in some way in that they both deal with the human rights of the individual in relation to their own bodies. A woman has a right to her own body that nobody else has and is able to decide for herself and consent to what goes on with her body. As long as the fetus is a part of her body, the woman has the right to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy.

A clump of cells in the womb does not have the same rights as completely formed newborn baby that now lives independent of the mother. Once the child is born and is separate from the mother, this baby has its' own individual rights to his or her body. Genital cutting of a child, male or female, is violation of the individual rights of that child to their own body.

 

[bort138]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

It would not be a better analogy because the baby is not a fully developed adult capable of making the decision to have foreskin or not.
And slavery was legal at one point... does not mean it is right. I think you made the point that drunk driving at one point was considered acceptable. Because the courts consider something legal does not make it morally right.
To terminate the life of a living, breathing being who will become a citizen with full rights (when the life does not threaten the life of the mother) is to rob that being of a potential life.. MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than robbing a boy of his freaking foreskin.

There is NO way that someone can be against the legality of circumcision but for the legality of abortion past the first few weeks of conception.

Unless you are anti-abortion/anti-circumcision or pro-abortion/pro-circumcision you can be viewed as a hypocrite. If you are anti-abortion and pro-circumcision you believe that the child has unalienable rights to his or her body until he is born then the parents are free to violate the bodily integrity of the child. On the other hand if you are pro-abortion and anti-circumcision you believe that a child doesn't have rights to his body and can be killed as long as he is in the womb but once the child is born he has the right to bodily integrity. Which of the two is more hypocritical?

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Well once a baby is breathing on his own without needing an umbilical cord, he already is a citizen with full rights. And I'm glad we agree that the boy is robbed of his foreskin. Even if you think it's not a big deal. Kind of like being mugged of his lunch money. But at least we know it's theft.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

This boils down to a dispute between materialism and religion. The materialists believe life is only that which we experience between birth and death; their opponents say that's a mere introduction.

So to the materialist, a foreskin is precious, while to the religious, it may be a major determining factor in how the "introduction" turns out.

I'd say the burden has to be on the court to prove that the religious position is false before setting aside its practices.

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Unless you are anti-abortion/anti-circumcision or pro-abortion/pro-circumcision you can be viewed as a hypocrite. If you are anti-abortion and pro-circumcision you believe that the child has unalienable rights to his or her body until he is born then the parents are free to violate the bodily integrity of the child. On the other hand if you are pro-abortion and anti-circumcision you believe that a child doesn't have rights to his body and can be killed until he is born. Which of the two is more hypocritical?

I believe there is no child which can be the subject of rights until the pregnancy is relatively well advanced. Before the brain differentiates and fires up complex though patterns, abortion should be available at the mother's whim. After that point, a series of progressive restrictions are appropriate. Note that respecting maternal choice to terminate a pregnancy does not in any way imply being "pro-abortion."

One might wonder why someone who is against abortion overall would be in favour of aborting just the foreskin.

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

This boils down to a dispute between materialism and religion. The materialists believe life is only that which we experience between birth and death; their opponents say that's a mere introduction.

So to the materialist, a foreskin is precious, while to the religious, it may be a major determining factor in how the "introduction" turns out.

I'd say the burden has to be on the court to prove that the religious position is false before setting aside its practices.

Courts don't have burdens, plaintiffs or defendants have burdens. The court is the one weighing the evidence.

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

^I see this point.

Also, interested parties don't seem to realiize that, with their zeal to enact de facto anti-religious laws, they are playing with dynamite.

What powder-keg of crazy religious nutbars do you live on top of that this seems even like a realistic concern to you. We allow shopping on "the Lord's Day" now too. Who is that going to piss off?

 

[bankside]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

No.. I am pro-abortion rights and pro-circumcision rights. I believe the mother has a right to make decisions concerning her body and I believe that same mother has the decision to make whatever parenting decisions for her child (as long as the child is not done some terrible harm) until that child is of age.

Nice try at phrasing it in a slanted way though.

See, to me a "terrible harm" is an irreversable harm...particularly when it is easy enough for the child to make up his own mind later. If it's a big deal to him, he'll get circumcised when he is of age.

 

[bort138]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

No.. I am pro-abortion rights and pro-circumcision rights. I believe the mother has a right to make decisions concerning her body and I believe that same mother has the decision to make whatever parenting decisions for her child (as long as the child is not done some terrible harm) until that child is of age.

Nice try at phrasing it in a slanted way though.

I bet being circumcised without anesthesia feels pretty good, huh?

 

[bulge]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

All right, You dragged it out of me.

This ruling bothers me because I see it as directly anti-religious.

That's a fact, Jack.

I have personal reasons for being concerned about the fate of Germany. I think she's playing with dynamite.

And now I'm done.

Where would it be antireligious?

Countries allowing circumscision clearly play with dynamite.

 

[hungkee]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Except the Puritans didn't come to America for religious freedom; that's a bit of their propaganda. They came to escape religious persecution, and so they could inflict their own.

The whole business about treating gays like crap, less than human, second-class citizens, and all? That's what the Puritans brought to America. That's the Puritan agenda still at work. Oh, and the worst period of violent crime in U.S. history, known as Prohibition? Puritanism at work.

They fled in pursuit of a place where they could impose their own religious oppression.

They weren't quite using the term "gay" back then. But then again, the Puritans weren't called that for no reason.

 

[hungkee]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

The reason courts uphold the right to abortion is because the risks and the surgery are consented to by the adult woman, and because they are satisfied that a foetus does not have, before a certain point in gestation, the attributes required to have any rights.

You and Corny would be completely wrong and rather naive to think that all abortions are available to and performed on adult women. That is the caveat you each make certain to insert into your posts regarding legalized abortion.

But I hate to break the news to you. It is also minor girls obviously - not infants but not "adult" - who also get abortions.

Poverty tends to skew that perception though as so many teen moms are out there. But there would be more teen moms seen among the better educated and privileged if abortion were not an option for them. Its just quieter. And the point would be that no one would know they were even pregnant.

So the demographic of those able to get an abortion - even with need of parental consent - remains available to minor girls.

And its legal. And that legality is defended by the same sorts of "human bodily rights" persons who would oppose circumcision even in the instances of religious freedom.

And again, we're discussing the attack on religious practice and freedom.

Interestingly, in general, abortion is NOT considered to be a religious practice. I don't know of any religious text dictating that girls cut out their fetuses. It actually is a practice which opposes most religious tenets.

And yet in some countries, oddly enough, its defended to the hilt as a "right".

Yet circumcision, generally stemming from a religious rite, is viewed as "mutilation" and the violation of human rights?

Interesting sliding scale there both morally and legally.