Religious Special Pleading

"Feeling harmed" isn't what I was asking about, that's different from actually being harmed.OK I didn't know there is an uprising going on. But the guys in the second video aren't talking about any personal sense of harm, it's all abstract, the foreskin is necessary because.... They are protesting an idea rather than an actual harm.But that's OK, I can go with a law against circumcision for nonreligious reasons, but although there is really no reason for Jewish circumcision either since Christ came, I wouldn't want to prohibit it for them. It's really a political issue, there really isn't any harm, so let it be the parents' choice.

That's a poor example. Once the effect of thalidomide were known, nobody would have wanted it anyway.A better example is marijuana, which can have some harmful effects but is criminalizing the users an appropriate response? Prohibition of alcohol caused the organized crime problem that still exists today. So yes. Those are completely different situations. Murder is harmful to the victim, to his loved ones, even to society as a whole. I'm not banned from murdering because it's harmful to me. The same applies to Child Labour, Child Sexual Abuse, Infanticide, Child Neglect, Giving addictive recreational drugs to children and Corporal punishment. That's what I'm saying. I have no desire to stop you from doing anything that's harmful to only you.

Think it through. Slavery was banned because it was harmful to the slaves. A was banned from owning B because it was harmful to B. What we're talking about here is banning B from doing something that is harmful to B. Maybe you've heard of abortion. When it was banned, backstreet abortionists did it, some of them out of principle, maybe, but some of them for the money. If you ban circumcision, you criminalize mohels and make the business more lucrative for the unscrupulous ones.

Two of my brothers were circumcised at birth and two of us were not. I'm not even sure how I know that because I have never once heard either of them mention it.

How do you know if someone has actually been harmed? How do you know if you've been harmed? Before proceeding to that child's genitals with that sharp instrument I'd like you to prove there will be no harm, please. Sound reasonable?

Sounds like you do want people telling you that things can be harmful to you. Make up your mind! Yes it is. Babies should not be fed marijuana, it would be abusive. There are basically no benefits and there is risk AND they can't consent to accept those risks. I didn't realize you were for the legalization of murder and child sexual abuse. I think circumcision is the least of our disagreements. Yes, that's my point. Awesome - but what happens if someone else does something harmful to me?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Thanks for sharing?I have no idea what the state of my three brothers' penises are so I can't share back - two of them were born in the UK so probably they are intact though one moved to the US so maybe he had it cut since. The third was born in the US so its anybody's guess and I don't feel like asking.

I want health-care professionals telling me that thalidomide, alcohol and marijuana are bad for me. I don't want politicians jailing me for using them. I think it should be up to the parents, like it is for circumcision. To prove that it "is" harmful, you'd have to prove that it did harm. As I've said, that's an entirely different situation. I have no problem with the government telling others not to harm me and telling me not to harm others. What I'm against is the government telling me not to harm myself.

You make my point. There doesn't seem to be a problem.

And giving harmful things to non-consenting people? Is that OK? So having oral sex with a child is OK to do to as a parent as long as harm is not proved? I'm pretty sure children aren't circumcising themselves. Your point is that brothers don't tend to talk to one another about their penises?

I have thought it through and it appears that you think that 7 day old babies slice the end off their own penis. Oh sure - some mohels will carry on their work for the few fundamentalists but since when did we defer from trying to prevent a harmful practice because some criminals want to continue the harmful practice?

Nobody should force harmful things on non-consenting people - and nobody should prevent consenting people from doing harmful things if they so choose. It has been shown that such things are harmful. Children can not consent to sexual activity, education, medical procedures, etc. My point is that if nobody talks about a problem, it's hard to establish that there is a problem.

If you had thought it through, you wouldn't make such a statement. Seven-day-old babies do not have the capacity to give consent. Maybe you haven't heard of abortion? We deferred from trying to prevent that practice - which some people do deem harmful - partly because criminals were continuing the practice in a way that was more harmful. Eliminating the ban on abortion made abortions safe.Another example would be marijuana. Some US jurisdictions have legalized its use and the Canadian government is about to do the same. In Canada, the express purpose is to keep the profits out of criminal hands and to reduce harm to children.

They don't need consent, according to you they're doing it to themselves. What nonsense. We allowed surgical abortion because it as deemed by society that women should have the right to it. And so....? We have laws which we change when we know more about harm and benefit. Circumcision is one of those things that is causing unnecessary harm to children who have no choice as to whether they have their dicks cut for a religion they know nothing about.

Really, think it through. A child can not consent to a medical procedure. A parent must consent to any medical procedure performed on his/her child. It was deemed by society that women should have the right to choose, to give consent. That's what I'm saying. A person should have control over his/her own body. No law should prevent a person from treating his/her body as he/she chooses. And if the person is under age - i.e. incapable of making an informed choice - then the choice is made by the parent or guardian. According to you it is causing unnecessary harm. Few legal jurisdictions agree with you.