|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: German judge rules child circumcision as child abuse. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Have you ever heard of the expression, "Silence is a form of consent"? By remaining aloof in the manner you state above, you are consenting to allow it (someone other than the owner of the penis to choose to do the procedure) to happen. If you'll pardon another use of hyperbole, you know the bit about "when they came for the Jews, I did nothing...when they came for the Gypsies, I did nothing...."? But how is any of that relevant to Panda and bluegenes's inability to distinguish defense of an action from defense of the right to perform an action?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Jazzns writes:
Look, there is a continuum of things a parent can do to a kid. Somewhere on that continuum I believe there is a line which should stop allowing things. For me, ear piercing and circumcision fall on opposite sides of the line and I believe my argument justifies that opinion. Here is where we have a difference, Jazzns. I think my feelings are that even earlobe piercing should be up to the owner of the ear. And that should be at the time they have the ability & understanding to give consent to it. The only infant external body modifications that I might accede to are things like fixing cleft palates and the like - procedures that fix things. I suppose there still are parents who believe they are "fixing" the penis somewhere out there. But not very many, I would think.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3932 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined:
|
I agree with you in principle. I think where I may differ is in the pragmatics. It's going to be much more acceptable to people to eventually ban circumcision before they would ban ear piercing if ever.
It's also a recognition that there is a real difference. No one should pretend that there is zero daylight between female circumcision, male circumcision, and ear piercing. There is a big difference in risk, pain, permanence, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Jon asks:
But how is any of that relevant to Panda and bluegenes's inability to distinguish defense of an action from defense of the right to perform an action? Defending the right to perform an action is giving consent to perform that action. You are standing by, doing nothing, while you let them do it. You are being silent. You argue that they should have that perceived right rather than have me or bluegenes or Panda take away that perceived right. This is a false dichotomy. We argue that your perceived right DOES NOT EVEN EXIST and never did. We cannot take away what does not exist. Nobody has this right except the owner at that time in the future when he is old enough to have the ability and understanding of what it's all about. For example, even a boy - say 8 years old - is still too young to make that decision for himself. Maybe by voting age or something like that - then he can go please the ladies in his certain way if he likes (so Oni's argument would hold no water anyway).- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3932 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined:
|
Of course we don't need a justification to stop. No one is asking you to justify your decision to not circumcise your male children. If the entire country stopped circumcising their infant males tomorrow, no one in this thread would demand justification for people making that decisionBuz and oni being possible exceptions. If your going to interject, please follow what CS and I were discussing. It was he who suggested that we would need a good reason to stop. Your reply makes no sense because I wasn't the one suggesting that we need a reason. I believe we have plenty of reasons to stop the practice.
No one has yet provided any evidence to support the often repeated claim that circumcision is a major procedure that 'disfigures' or 'mutilates'.
Well actually yes I did. You stopped responding to my posts about what constitutes mutilation and started being a troll and calling me a pedophile. Remember? We can go back to that if your would like but I think in need to insist you stop being such an asshole just because we are having a disagreement about something.
We aren't talking about 'original justifications'. Stop trying to bring other people's arguments into the discussion.
CS and I are trying to get on the same page with respect to what we mean when we talk about circumcision. Our discussion is actually progressing which is a nice change for this thread. If you would like to assist with that, I believe the main point that was under discussion was what actually happens in the various forms of FGM, that there are different forms, and yes I do believe it is relevant to point out that the justification for both male and female mutilation come from the same cultural superstitions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3932 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined:
|
Moreover Jon,
In other words, if it's a clitorectomy you want to discuss, talk about a clitorectomy. In fact I did that. I did exactly as you suggest IN THE MESSAGE you are replying to. See...
Jazzns to CS writes: Lets back up to just a clitorectomy. What about that? ... What is your problem exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Jazzns writes:
I agree with you in principle. I think where I may differ is in the pragmatics. It's going to be much more acceptable to people to eventually ban circumcision before they would ban ear piercing if ever. True. One step at a time. I do recall school girls being terrified that their moms might find out they got their ears pierced, because back in that day, they were not considered to be mature enough to make that decision for themselves. I don't know what today's consensus line of allowable body modification is.
It's also a recognition that there is a real difference. No one should pretend that there is zero daylight between female circumcision, male circumcision, and ear piercing. There is a big difference in risk, pain, permanence, etc. Yes: 1,000,000 > 1,000 > 1. But they are still all > 0.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
We've been through that already. You're getting boring. The parent has both the right and the responsibility to make individual choices on behalf of the child until the child is capable of making those individual choices on his own. (1) Quite so. When he reaches the age of discretion, he can say: "I choose not to be circumcised". At which point ... wait, the foreskin doesn't then magically grow back, does it? (2) I would have said that it was the parents' responsibility not to make choices that are pointless, painful, and irrevocable. In fact, just pointless and painful would be too much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3932 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined:
|
True. One step at a time. I do recall school girls being terrified that their moms might find out they got their ears pierced, because back in that day, they were not considered to be mature enough to make that decision for themselves. I don't know what today's consensus line of allowable body modification is. Heck I remember them doing it themselves with a lighter and a sewing needle. For on thing at least, if there were some kind of restriction on ear piercings, I am sure the age of consent could be pretty dang low. Again given the issue of reversibility, risk, etc.
Yes: 1,000,000 > 1,000 > 1. But they are still all > 0. Right. And the IRS won't fine you for paying your taxes late if they are under $1000. We draw lines in the sand in gray areas all the time. I think that is the point I am trying to make back to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kairyu Member Posts: 162 From: netherlands Joined:
|
I propose to specifically debate the pros and cons of circumcision instead of going around in circles about rights, clearly caused by a rift about how negative/neutral/positive the practice actually is. Jon and Jar are neutral, while the rest is negative. It's impossible to agree on parental rights like this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Kairyu writes:
Bluegenes has supplied evidence against circumcision way back in message 174. I propose to specifically debate the pros and cons of circumcisionNo-one has been able to counter it; no-one has even tried. And, noticeably, no-one has supplied any evidence in favour of circumcision.When Oni's tongue-in-cheek argument about blow-jobs is the best argument put forward; you would expect all those defending circumcision (jar, etc.) to realise that they do not have a leg to stand on. CRYSTALS!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kairyu Member Posts: 162 From: netherlands Joined:
|
Bluegenes has supplied evidence against circumcision way back in message 174. No-one has been able to counter it; no-one has even tried. Yeah, I've taken notice of it. However, since Jar and Jon brushed over specific counterarguments against circumcision, it seemed needed to specifically focus the subject. Especially since the last.. 5 pages or so can be mainly summarized as a yes/no argument that doesn't seem to advance in any way, although Modolous did a very good job stating the sore points of the controversy. I can imagine a adult who doesn't know any better may not really care, or have a very good motive to try not to, but there's both evidence that the lost foreskin forfeits some sexual sensitivity forever, and that, aside from religious reasons, this effect was a important goal to start with secular circumcision. I hope Jar and Jon will take note of this post and try to make a argument why the reduction of sexual sensitivity is a irrelevant factor. It's my stance(and of others) that this needless loss in function, combined with the lack of real advantages, make circumcision objectively undesirable, and as such, it violates bodily integrity and parents do not the right to inflict this on infants, unless there's a real medical condition that threatens the child. You could try to assert the parental freedom side again, but I'm personally requesting to review the arguments against circumcision as a purely neutral or positive procedure. Edited by Kairyu, : quote coding fail Edited by Kairyu, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
Jon writes: I'm not defending circumcision. I am defending a parent's right to choose circumcision for their child. I am not arguing about circumcision. I am arguing about the right to circumcise. Yes, you are defending the circumcision of babies. People will only defend the right to actions if they find the actions defensible. If, for example, you find FGM indefensible, then you won't defend the parent's right to do it. You could have considered it a grey area from your perspective, as in "I'm not sure whether there should be a right of parents to infant circumcision or not. I don't know enough about it to decide." That would mean that you can't decide whether the specific action is defensible or not. You, jar and I have not taken that neutral position. I've come down on the side of the right of the penis owner to have a healthy organ left intact, and you've come down on the side of the right of parents to interfere with it in a way which is irreversible (don't suggest that surgery can reverse the process again without checking out the science of what a real foreskin actually is).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
Kairyu writes: I propose to specifically debate the pros and cons of circumcision instead of going around in circles about rights, clearly caused by a rift about how negative/neutral/positive the practice actually is. It's important to remember, when talking about pros and cons, that when doctors are faced with a perfectly healthy organ, the default position is that you don't interfere with it surgically. It requires a very good positive reason to do so. I mention this because when circumcision has entered into a culture, the point can often be lost, and some people wrongly expect a strong "con" case.
Kairyu writes: Jon and Jar are neutral, while the rest is negative. It's impossible to agree on parental rights like this. They are not neutral on the "rights" issue (penis owner versus others). If they are neutral on whether or not circumcisions do more harm than good, then they should learn what the default position of surgery on a healthy organ is, especially when you can't gain the consent of its owner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
The question was about "disfigure". The question was what you had seen. So show me where you see the foreskin of the penis on the right.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024