Religious Special Pleading

I'm saying that if the result is ludicrously bad, we shouldn't even consider making it an offense. On the contrary, it's history. But you've already drawn the line well beyond the pale. You think children growing up without parents is better than children growing up without foreskins. History shows again that you are wrong. As you said yourself, what is not explicitly prohibited by law is implicitly permitted. So yes, religious practices are protected by law unless explicitly excepted from that protection. And our society is becoming more sensitive toward stepping on religious and cultural toes, not less. Are you snickering to yourself as you compare circumcision to human sacrifice?

If you're trying to claim that a substantial proportion of circumcised men regret being circumcised, I think it's an entirely reasonable request. And 50% of the people support Brexit, which is why referenda are such a bad idea. I wouldn't have been surprised if it was higher than that. But there's not excuse for the 10% to impose their views on the other 90-%. If the 10% don't like circumcision, they're perfectly free to not circumcise their own children. Because I wanted to know. But even if you could demonstrate that 90% of the circumcised men in the Western world are against circumcision, that's not an excuse for imposing their will on the others. They're not relevant because it's none of their damn business. If I don't like vanilla ice cream that's no excuse for imposing my preference on you. Circumcisers are not trying to circumcise you. They are forcing nothing on you.Parents get to - and have to - make decisions for their children.

If you don't like their reasons, that's not an excuse for violating their freedom. No. There were no replies to that message. Yes. Your evidence shows that there is harm in some cases. You can not extrapolate some to all. So you think that justifies banning jelly beans?

If circumcising your children produces healthy and happy children up to 90% of the time, then depriving those children of their parents is a ludicrously bad result. The part that you can actually control is not taking their parents away from them. I think, "Religious practices are protected by law" covers that quite nicely. We already have laws that are working pretty well. Leave them alone. Since you're restricting the discussion to Western societies, there's no need to consider human sacrifice at all. There is no demand for human sacrifice, hence no need for prohibition. If a new sect arose that wanted human sacrifice protected, it would fall under existing laws. There would be no reason for new prohibitions. So, I'm in favour of the status quo - i.e. there is no need for new restrictions in a system that already works pretty well.

I was challenging your claim. As it turns out, if you narrow the focus of your claim far enough, it has some validity. And they're not. The 90% who aren't complaining had nothing to do with the circumcisions of the ones who are complaining. Nobody is imposing circumcision on anybody else. No, my penis is not your business. My child's penis is my business. We've been through that. We don't leave other decisions until the children are ready. That would be irresponsible. You think circumcision should be an exception. (Special pleading?) Others don't. First, it doesn't matter what you think is sufficient justification. Individual rights are protected whether you like it or not.Second, nobody is forcing anything on anybody. parents are making decisions for their children.

You haven't shown that the supposed harm outweighs the good. You can insist until the cows come home that millions of Jews and Muslims have been "harmed" by circumcision. As long as they disagree, your insistence is worthless. Of course. There are thousands of products on the shelf that have been "proven harmful". Tobacco is a prime example. Few people think that banning it is a reasonable response. Sugar, fat, cholesterol, glutin.... Read the ingredients on any package. Everything is harmful. That's why we give warnings. Warnings are a reasonable response. Prison is not.

You mean you wish you could. So far, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms stands. I'm not aware of any immigrants who want to practice human sacrifice. I can keep repeating it as long as you can keep asking: I don't believe in prohibition. I'm in favour of the status quo. If we change it, we should move forward, not backward.

Nope. The law still protects us from your opinion.

If that was true, why wouldn't you use your awesome powers to stop them entirely? Then maybe you can list some for us. As I said, "If we change it, we should move forward, not backward." Don't be obtuse. I'm in favour of the status quo but if we do make changes it should be to remove prohibitions rather than add them. As I have said, I am not in favour of circumcision. If we stopped circumcising, that might indeed be an "improvement" of some sort.But it ain't gonna happen.People are going to drink alcohol and prohibition isn't going to stop them.People are going to do drugs and prohibition is not going to stop them.People are going to have abortions and prohibition is not going to stop them.Even if reducing the number of circumcisions is a step "forward", disrupting happy families by depriving children of their parents is a huge leap backward into a very dark past. And yet you claim you can control how many circumcisions are performed.

You said you could control the number of circumcisions. Did you mean you could influence the number? And you can't. Beating one's spouse is a social and cultural taboo. Is there even a specific legal prohibition? If their is, by your own admission it isn't working. Sez you. Unfortunately, we can't rewind history and re-run it with different parameters, so the claim is pretty empty.

Yes. I'm saying, as I said, that it is not a prohibition, per se. It would be a social/cultural taboo with or without any specific legal prohibition. It is not clear that adding a specific legal prohibition would reduce the incidence. Hold on. Back up a minute there. Notice the plural "practices". You're the one who used it. The practices we were talking about in Message 346 were drinking alcohol, doing drugs and having abortions. Do we really observe that prohibition inhibits those practices? So now you're moving the goalposts to circumcision. But it isn't medical circumcisions that you want to prohibit, is it?

There was a line though. You could still be prosecuted for a sufficiently egregious assault. A similar situation exists to this day with corporal punishment for children. There is a growing social taboo against it but it is still legal in many jurisdictions. In fact, nobody is ever likely to be prosecuted for slapping their child's hand away from a hot stove.The legal response stems from the existing social change, not vice versa. Did they stop using it because it became illegal?