|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religious Special Pleading | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 300 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
You're making the same mistake as Tangle, trying to argue from the specific to the general. Nope. Your argument relied on a universal statement. I simply showed it was not universal. Since parents can harm children without harming themselves, one cannot say the two are harmed with equivalence and therefore you can't say that just because a parent consents it is not harmful.
But that doesn't change the fact that for most parents, if you harm their child you're also harming the parents. it's a pretty obvious point. And I have not disagreed with this obvious point. It's not a relevant point, so I'm not sure why you place such importance on it in this discussion. You can't justify all actions a parent takes against a child by saying the harm is equivalent so the parent's consent is all that matters morally. The problem we have here is about knowledge of harm. If a parent doesn't know their actions are harmful - they won't feel any harm - even if they are wonderful people. But if the actions are harmful, the child is harmed regardless of the parent's state of knowledge. Thus they are not equivalent and one cannot simply say 'the parent's consent is sufficient' or argue something similar. Parental consent makes sense for cases where a decision must be made (and even then, it is not always the ultimate decider). So if an infection occurs and the Doctor says there are two options1) Circumcise. Good chance of success of relieving the infection, but permanent bodily modification with it's own set of risks - the consequences of which can be lifelong. 2) Antibiotics. Also a good chance of success but if they fail the consequences can become increasingly severe, and antibiotics in the very young carry their own set of risks. However, on complete success there is little chance of long term problems and the child will grow up without having their body altered. At this point - it probably makes sense to seek parental consent as the child cannot consent and the parents are the next best advocate for the child's health etc. However, if the options are weighed heavily - eg., 90% chance of death if you don't circumcise - then the doctors may choose to overrule parents who decide to not circumcise through the courts. In cases where there is no compelling need to make a decision, I see no reason for the doctor to even entertain the notion - let alone seek parental consent. If a parent insists that their child be given a long term course of antibiotics - 'just in case' (ie as a prophylactic against infection rather than as a cure), it seems to me to be reasonable for a doctor to refuse. And any doctor that doesn't is probably doing more harm than good - regardless of the parent's wishes and consent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
I don't think anything I said implied universality. I simply said that when you harm a child you harm the parent. It's still a point that you should address if you want to discuss the topic honestly.
Your argument relied on a universal statement. I simply showed it was not universal. Modulous writes:
And I haven't.
... you can't say that just because a parent consents it is not harmful. Modulous writes:
The problem we have here is that you're trying to dictate what is harmful, even if the child, the parent and the doctor all agree that it is not.
The problem we have here is about knowledge of harm. If a parent doesn't know their actions are harmful - they won't feel any harm - even if they are wonderful people. But if the actions are harmful, the child is harmed regardless of the parent's state of knowledge. Modulous writes:
And the doctor sees no need to seek your consent. In cases where there is no compelling need to make a decision, I see no reason for the doctor to even entertain the notion - let alone seek parental consent.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 300 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I don't think anything I said implied universality. Well in that case, the argument instantly fails. If I'm wrong, make whatever argument you are making in the form of
Because parents are sometimes harmed when their child is harmed ....{your argument here}..... circumcision is either not harmful, or the harm is justifiable. I simply said that when you harm a child you harm the parent. Which is not true. It is only possibly true. There are cases where it isn't true.
It's still a point that you should address if you want to discuss the topic honestly. Which I did in the very post you are replying to.
... you can't say that just because a parent consents it is not harmful. And I haven't. Good news. Hopefully we can both agree this is a ludicrous argument.
The problem we have here is that you're trying to dictate what is harmful I'm not sure how expressing my opinion and providing evidence and reason in support of that opinion, as well as the informed opinion of relevant professionals in a variety of fields --- and hoping those reasons and evidence are persuasive to others such that social policy changes could be characterised as dictating anything.
even if the child, the parent and the doctor all agree that it is not. We agree thata) a child can't give an informed opinion on the matter b) a parent doesn't know with certainty whether everything they do is harmful or not c) a doctor can cause harm, unwittingly or deliberately. So although their opinions may have merit in a discussion - they aren't the final word. A doctor who persuades a parent into consenting to have a child's ears amputated is still causing a harm - even if the child is lead to believe they aren't harmed and the parent also holds that belief.
And the doctor sees no need to seek your consent. Obviously, I'm not asking the doctor to seek my consent. I'm busy enough as it is - I don't need to add reviewing every doctors' actions to it. I am however, advising why consent by proxy makes sense at times of need, but why I do not think it does for cosmetic purposes. And indeed, in every single other case of cosmetic surgery - everybody else seems to agree with me on this. Circumcision seems to have carved out (ahem) for itself an exception...and this largely seems to continue today because being uncool to Jews is a big problem. If it was just Muslims - I'm sure the practice would have been banned in the US alongside its female counterpart. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9624 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Rrhain writes: Circumcision seems to have carved out (ahem) for itself an exception...and this largely seems to continue today because being uncool to Jews is a big problem. Hence special pleading.
If it was just Muslims - I'm sure the practice would have been banned in the US alongside its female counterpart. In the UK similar reluctance was shown for fgm because of a fear of offending cultural practice. We can at least now see the start of an intolerance to cultural and religous harm.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 300 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In the UK similar reluctance was shown for fgm because of a fear of offending cultural practice. Are you sure? The practice panned in the 80s - my understanding - based up on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the UK, Moira Dustin, LSE GENDER INSTITUTE, 2010 (see page 8) is that the issue hadn't come to legislation due to a lack of public awareness and once the awareness came to light the delay in passing legislation was due to making sure the legal language was both tight enough to ensure it was effective, while also allowing for legitimate female circumcision to take place:
quote: The 'cultural sensitivity' charge is usually laid against the notion that there has been an unwillingness to detect and/or prosecute cases for that reason. {The article above raises an interesting point regarding the hypocrisy of the law which suggests that a western girl who is suffering mental anguish at the state of her labia as a result of cultural pressures to confirm more closely to the 'ideal' genital shape could opt to have genital surgery for mental health reasons - but someone who has also expressed mental anguish at their labia for cultural reasons (but from a different culture) may be prohibited - and (in principle) anybody aiding them could be prosecuted} That law had a large loophole allowing people to go overseas to have the operation - meaning prosecution was more or less impossible without direct evidence that the practice occurred on British soil (and few children of that background were ever likely to stand as witness against their family). This was corrected in 2003 (and it passed without a problem in the house). {again the article raises an interesting point:
quote: It concludes:
quote: So while there may be a reticence to prosecute or detect the practice there are 1) Actual cultural sensitivity issues surrounding the law2) Actual difficulties detecting the issue in children and securing prosecution when all parties are cooperating with one another against the prosecution. (And as the case you highlighted earlier demonstrates, even when this isn't the case, a successful conviction is not certain as proving criminal responsibility is still difficult in a he said-she said case).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined: |
ringo 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. That's odd, because I noticed the difference when I was at primary school. Also, if you google 'circumcised and uncircumcised penis' and look at the images you will see that there are obvious differences. Edited by Astrophile, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined:
|
ringo writes: That's for them to decide. Yes, I agree. Perhaps some of them would like to contribute to this discussion. Edited by Astrophile, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9624 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Rrhain writes: Are you sure? Pretty much, yes.
So while there may be a reticence to prosecute or detect the practice there are 1) Actual cultural sensitivity issues surrounding the law2) Actual difficulties detecting the issue in children and securing prosecution when all parties are cooperating with one another against the prosecution. (And as the case you highlighted earlier demonstrates, even when this isn't the case, a successful conviction is not certain as proving criminal responsibility is still difficult in a he said-she said case). There was and still are practical difficulties in prosecuting this offence but over and above this there has been a general reluctance to interfere in sensitive areas of religion and culture. The recent sexual abuse by Pakistani Muslims men on vulnerable white girls in the North of England had the same problem and this has been admitted by the services involved - police and social services.
quote: There were many variables at work here but significant ones involved race/culture/religion causing a reluctance to see the crimes for what they were.
quote: Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal - Wikipedia On fgm, similar things were happening. This is part of the Parliamentary Select Committee Enquiry summary
quote: Just a moment... Behind the excuses there's a similar reluctance based on offending a minority, in a similar way to not interfering with male circumcision. However, fgm being an obvious violent and life changing assault on children is beginning ti build some momentum and we'll eventually see some successful prosecutions.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 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Your argument takes the form, Some people are harmed by circumcision, therefore everybody should be denied the right to make their own decision. That's where I'm saying you're wrong.
If I'm wrong, make whatever argument you are making in the form of Because parents are sometimes harmed when their child is harmed ....{your argument here}..... circumcision is either not harmful, or the harm is justifiable. Modulous writes:
And I didn't say it was universally true. You're rebutting a strawman.
ringo writes:
Which is not true. It is only possibly true. There are cases where it isn't true. I simply said that when you harm a child you harm the parent. Modulous writes:
No doubt. All the more reason to tread carefully when intruding on individual rights. If it was just Muslims - I'm sure the practice would have been banned in the US alongside its female counterpart.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 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Astrophile writes:
Maybe it's because I'm old-school but in my experience, men don't look. Men don't even make eye contact in a public washroom. That's odd, because I noticed the difference when I was at primary school. Also, if you google 'circumcised and uncircumcised penis' and look at the images you will see that there are obvious differences.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 300 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Are you sure? Pretty much, yes. There was and still are practical difficulties in prosecuting this offence but over and above this there has been a general reluctance to interfere in sensitive areas of religion and culture Which is what I said:
quote: The 'are you sure' was about banning the practice - which was done in the 80s and I'm not aware that there was any problem banning the practice due to cultural sensitivity issues per se.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 300 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Your argument takes the form, Some people are harmed by circumcision, therefore everybody should be denied the right to make their own decision. That's where I'm saying you're wrong. So you can't construct such an argument? I'm not arguing what you claim I am, and have indeed already said as much. In fact my argument is that everybody should be allowed the right to make their decision - not have it made for them while they are not in a position to consent. The only exception to this rule should be if there is a pressing medical need to do so (ie., delaying for 18 years (or whatever) is likely to result in a greater risk of death or injury than not delaying). Your counter-argument went along these lines:
quote: quote: When it was pointed out that the circumcision in debate was done to other people - not to one's self you elaborated:
quote: The counter argument being - they are not equivalent. There are a whole bunch of things you are not allowed to give consent by proxy for (and things you can't even consent for yourself but that's another story). You can't argue as if banning parental consent by proxy for action x is the same as banning action x on a consenting individual. They aren't. Since you insist you aren't making a universal claim, it is necessarily true therefore that they aren't the same thing. This part of your argument therefore should be abandoned or shored up with further argumentation - which you have declined to provide.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 727 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
When I say that harming the child harms the parent, that is a general truth, not a universal claim that no parent in the history of the universe has ever harmed a child. Your point that parents can and do harm their own children does not refute the point that harming a child also harms the parent. You can't argue as if banning parental consent by proxy for action x is the same as banning action x on a consenting individual. They aren't. Since you insist you aren't making a universal claim, it is necessarily true therefore that they aren't the same thing. That has nothing to do with whether or not a parent has the right to make medical decisions for his/her child.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 300 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
When I say that harming the child harms the parent, that is a general truth, not a universal claim that no parent in the history of the universe has ever harmed a child. Your point that parents can and do harm their own children does not refute the point that harming a child also harms the parent. And I agree that harming a child can be said in general to cause harm to the parent - assuming the parent is aware of the harm. My contention is that this does not help us in determining whether a child is harmed and thus whether the practice should be permitted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9624 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Modulous writes: The 'are you sure' was about banning the practice - which was done in the 80s and I'm not aware that there was any problem banning the practice due to cultural sensitivity issues per se. You may be right, the cultural sensitivity thing - politically correct stuff - came later. Implementing the law seemed to become rather harder as time moved on.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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025