Religious Special Pleading

ie, you have no facts and are forced to admit that I have.And if the facts are that babies are dying because of an unnecessary operation, rational people decide against the operation. Individuals do not have a right to harm others.

Why do hospitals circumcise infants anyway? Isn't that the job of the rabbis?

I've no idea what happens in the US but here in the UK...

quote:

---

Not many NHS trusts fund circumcision for non-medical reasons, because the risks outweigh the potential health benefits. However, sometimes religious or cultural male circumcision is offered on the NHS, as it is safer than the circumcision being carried out elsewhere.

​

In Scotland, it's recognised that circumcision in a safe, sterile environment, by a skilled surgeon, is better than the risks associated with unsafe, unregulated ritual practices.

---

Circumcision in baby boys - BabyCentre UK

Cutting ears off is not the same as circumcision. A child with no ears will be reminded of it every time he looks in the mirror and every time the other children mock him. On the other hand, a circumcised child might not ever notice the difference. Yes, the Nazis are my forefathers. And yes, the German people were considered among the most enlightened in Europe except for the Nazi interlude. And yes, we can hopefully learn from their mistakes. But it has not been shown to be generally harmful, as the Jews and Muslims can testify. If banning circumcision was for the express purpose of persecuting Jews and Muslims, would it still be justifiable in your eyes? It's true enough for us to err on the side of caution and not ban things willy-nilly. No. Preventing the minority from tyrannizing the majority. Maybe I haven't mentioned this before but children are not capable of giving consent. Then let it be their problem and don't let them impose their solution on people who don't think it's a problem. Ask a parent. Most of them would rather be harmed themselves than see their children harmed. Obviously not, since most circumcised men don't consider themselves damaged or harmed. So deal with the ones that do do harm and leave the others to do their job. It pretty much does, unless you want to say that every car rolling down the street is damaged. It isn't damage at all unless the owner considers it damage. Then you might as well throw freedom of opinion out the window.

The fact I have is that circumcision is an accepted practice. So you're calling my parents irrational.

So was bear baiting, knuckle fighting, slavery, racial discrimination, homosexual imprisonment, speeding, drunk driving, smoking in public, urinating in the street, corporal punishment.....need I go on?

You could mention some things that used to be banned but the ban was lifted: abortion, alcohol, marijuana (in progress), interracial marriage, integrated schools, integrated restaurants, integrated buses, integrated water fountains.... Need I go on?

Although some percent of people say they don't know their circumcision status - most people do know. But no, the Nazis were not who you were referring to when you spoke of our forefathers who emphasized the freedom of religion. And if it was? No. 'Willy-nilly' is an unfortunate choice of words. But no, I'm not proposing we ban things willy-nilly. So parents are the minority? Yep, but that doesn't address the fact that it is still doing something to somebody else so arguments about harming ones self are irrelevant. It still defeats the argument that nobody is talking about the problem. So they're not equivalent. What people consider themselves is not a relevant consideration when it comes to whether the foreskin is damaged by circumcision. Thus you agree that just because doctors do it, doesn't mean it is not harm. Why would a car rolling down the street be considered damaged in my view? Again, not so. But as I have shown - there are plenty of penis owners that do consider it damage, and they were never given the choice. I'm just arguing that there is no reason to not give them the choice.If only 30% of child sexual abuse victims considered it harmful - would that justify its continuing practice - in your view? Why? I still say you are free to your opinions. But not free to carry out any action you like.

Then the question becomes, How harmful? Does the end (eliminating harm to penises) justify the means (persecuting religious groups)? No. People who complain about circumcision are the minority. Greater-than-or-equal is not equivalent? Of course it is. There isn't some absolute standard of damage that you can impose on everybody. Let the individual decide whether or not he is damaged. No. I'm saying that just because doctors are capable of doing harm is not justification for you to impose your idea of harm on them. Because the chances are that it has been damaged and repaired - e.g. worn tires replaced. Your view seems to be that once damaged, always damaged whereas mine is that once repaired, good as new. And I'm saying that it's no different than not giving them the choice to go to school. They are not capable of giving consent at the time consent is required. We've already been through that. Sexual abuse is demonstrably harmful in virtually 100% of cases.But if 30% of circumcised males considered it harmful, no, that would not justify banning circumcision for the other 70%.

Well I don't see it as persecutory, but I think any harm to a child should be prevented if the only justification is 'but my religion insists upon it'. Exactly. So using the majority position against the minority would seem to be the tyranny of the majority. Harming a child is not harming the parent. It might harm the parent, or it might not. Thus they are not equivalent. That's exactly what I'm proposing. And since children cannot consent, they cannot make this decision. Wait until they can consent, and they can make that decision. It sounds like a 'yes' to me. You did say doctors are capable of harm, after all. And that being the case 'Doctors do it' is not an argument against it being harmful. But you can't replace a foreskin like you can replace tyres. The healing of the body, only heals the wounds caused by circumcision - not the body part that was amputated. I think amputating body parts is very different from educating someone. Circumcision is not usually required, and it can thus be delayed until adulthood. Even with children who are too young to remember it? So tyranny of the majority then? Why not allow the 70% to circumcise when they are adults and thus the 30% don't have a lifetime of being unhappy about their genitals? If it were 51% rather than 30% would it then be justified?

You're making my point - progressive societies ban things that are proven to be harmful and unban or regulate/licence things that are not or that have been proven to be harmful when prohibited. We change things that are wrong as our knowledge grows about them.We currently allow some harmful things for financial/historical reasons but these are often under pressure from increasing regulatory restrictions, taxation and publicity campaigns. Examples would be smoking, alcohol, guns. Sugar will soon join them.When we know things are harmful but can't or don't want to prohibit them, we make them available only to adults who are capable of making informed decisions.Would we allow a new religious organisation to cut the penis's of baby boys? Of course we wouldn't, we'd lock them up for GBH or child abuse.

No. You're advocating that the minority, who oppose circumcision, should be allowed to impose their view on the majority, who don't. Parents say, "Nonsense." Then let them decide whether or not to go to school when they're old enough to give consent. I'll take a doctor's opinion about whether it's harmful over yours. And you don't need to. From the viewpoint of consent, I think they're the same.

And you are arguing that the views of the majority should be imposed on the minority. I see - so those parents that beat their children, rape them, murder them, neglect them, etc etc etc are only harming themselves - so it should be permissible? There is utility in educating children that is lacking in the circumcision discussion. That's fine - but the argument 'if Doctors do it, it is not harmful' is still defeated. The argument 'the human body is self-repairing' is still defeated as a justification for the practice. So if a parent consents to amputating a child's ears, legs, nose etc - where there is no medical need to do so -- that's cool with you?

The child may notice that he is different from other boys and men whom he sees in public lavatories, or in his school lavatory.

If Jews weren't circumcised, would it make any difference to the practice of their religion? Would it make being Jewish impossible if the Jews took to delaying the operation until the boy or man was of an age to decide for himself whether he wanted to be circumcised?