|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religious Special Pleading | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1767 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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? Yes, it would make a huge difference because circumcision is THE sign of their Jewishness, their belonging to Jehovah, decreed by God to Abraham, and decreed to be done on the 8th day after birth. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
And circumcision has not been "proven to be harmful". It can occasionally have harmful effects in some cases, just as abortion, alcohol, marijuana, etc. can have harmful effects in some cases. Progressive societies understand that you can't eliminate harmful effects just by banning something and they understand that sometimes the ban has harmful effects too.
... 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. Tangle writes:
And, in the case of medical procedures, we let adults make the decision for minors under their care.
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. Tangle writes:
We'd have to, because of the legal precedent. Would we allow a new religious organisation to cut the penis's of baby boys?An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
I agree with the principles of democracy, yes. And you are arguing that the views of the majority should be imposed on the minority. And remember that the minority is not forcing the minorities to circumcise their children. The majority is allowing the minority to make individual decisions.
Modulous writes:
I didn't use the word "only".
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? Modulous writes:
Sez you. Muslims and Jews could argue that their religions contribute to the general welfare much like education does.
There is utility in educating children that is lacking in the circumcision discussion. Modulous writes:
Nobody made that argument. My argument is that circumcision is an accepted medical procedure, so you can't override the medical profession with your view that it's yucky.
That's fine - but the argument 'if Doctors do it, it is not harmful' is still defeated. Modulous writes:
Congratulations on convincing yourself but the argument still stands. If it repairs itself to the extent that the recipient can't tell the difference, it can't be considered damage.
The argument 'the human body is self-repairing' is still defeated as a justification for the practice. Modulous writes:
We've already been through that. Those procedures make the child visibly different. 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?An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Astrophile writes:
I'm sixty-five years old and I've never noticed the difference in anybody. The only reason I know two of my brothers were circumcised is because mom said so. I don't know if I could pick a circumcised penis out of a lineup. The child may notice that he is different from other boys and men whom he sees in public lavatories, or in his school lavatory.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Astrophile writes:
That's for them to decide. If Jews weren't circumcised, would it make any difference to the practice of their religion?An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 308 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I didn't use the word "only". Then they aren't equivalent.
Sez you. Muslims and Jews could argue that their religions contribute to the general welfare much like education does. They can try to argue that the specific religious practice of circumcision has as much utility as education but I've never seen them try, and I'm pretty sure they'd fail.
Nobody made that argument. My argument is that circumcision is an accepted medical procedure, so you can't override the medical profession with your view that it's yucky. Well what you said was
quote: I pointed out that doctors doing it is insufficient. If you agree, then we can move on. I've never made the argument that one should 'override' the medical professionals on the grounds that in my opinion it is yucky. You'll note I've included ethical, legal and medical opinion as to why non-therapeutic circumcision is problematic.
Congratulations on convincing yourself but the argument still stands. If it repairs itself to the extent that the recipient can't tell the difference, it can't be considered damage. But the recipient can tell the difference, so...
We've already been through that. Those procedures make the child visibly different. As does circumcision. One of the reasons adults give for getting non-therapeutic circumcision (and the reason some parents give for imposing it on children) is that it looks better. I prefer the look of a circumcised penis, personally - if you can't tell the difference that's your affair - but the fact is that just about everybody else can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9632 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Ringo writes: And circumcision has not been "proven to be harmful". You have been shown evidence that at least 200 children die as a direct result of circumcision every year in the US alone. You have not challenged this evidence. You are therefore arguing disingenuously. At a minimum.
It can occasionally have harmful effects in some cases, Minor harms like, say, death.
And, in the case of medical procedures, we let adults make the decision for minors under their care. Agreed. Necessary medical procedures need to be agreed by parents.
We'd have to, because of the legal precedent. There would be no precedent. It would simply be a crime. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
I didn't say they were. I said that parents feel the harm that is done to their children.
ringo writes:
Then they aren't equivalent. I didn't use the word "only". Modulous writes:
Then leave it up to the medical profession to solve their own "problem". You'll note I've included ethical, legal and medical opinion as to why non-therapeutic circumcision is problematic.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
You can not argue from "circumcision is harmful in a small minority of cases" to "circumcision is harmful, period."
ringo writes:
You have been shown evidence that at least 200 children die as a direct result of circumcision every year in the US alone. You have not challenged this evidence. And circumcision has not been "proven to be harmful". Tangle writes:
A minority of cases.
Minor harms like, say, death. Tangle writes:
And the necessity also needs to be decided by the parents. Necessary medical procedures need to be agreed by parents.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9632 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Ringo writes: You can not argue from "circumcision is harmful in a small minority of cases" to "circumcision is harmful, period." Of course I can. 200 unnecessary deaths is harmful.
A minority of cases. 200 unnecessary deaths. (Which is an underestimate as circumcision is not usualy what is written on the death certificate.)
And the necessity also needs to be decided by the parents. It's never necessary, by definition. Would we allow this practice to start to today if we'd never done it? Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
But millions of successful circumcisions are not. So no, you can not argue from the specific to the general.
200 unnecessary deaths is harmful. Tangle writes:
Millions of Jews and Muslims are using a different definition.
It's never necessary, by definition. Tangle writes:
Apparently yes. Non-Jewish and non-Muslim doctors started doing it for non-religious reasons. Would we allow this practice to start to today if we'd never done it?An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9632 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Ringo writes: But millions of successful circumcisions are not. So no, you can not argue from the specific to the general. Yes I can. 200 unnecessay deaths. Unnecessary.
Millions of Jews and Muslims are using a different definition. Yes, that's the problem. They're harming children for irrational, non-medical reasons.
Apparently yes. Non-Jewish and non-Muslim doctors started doing it for non-religious reasons. Let's try that again. If it had never been done before and today a religion decided to cut mutilate boy's penises for non-medical reasons would we allow it?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
By that logic, all cars are harmful because some people are killed by cars.
200 unnecessay deaths. Unnecessary. Tangle writes:
And doctors are doing the same thing for rational medical reasons.
They're harming children for irrational, non-medical reasons. Tangle writes:
Same answer: if doctors were doing it for medical reasons, we couldn't stop people from doing it for religious reasons. Let's try that again. If it had never been done before and today a religion decided to cut mutilate boy's penises for non-medical reasons would we allow it?An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9632 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Enough.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 308 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Then they aren't equivalent. I didn't say they were. I said that parents feel the harm that is done to their children. quote: Message 78 Then leave it up to the medical profession to solve their own "problem". Nah, I think it's best if we include ethics and legal professionals among other stakeholders - including penis-owners. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025