|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total) |
| |
danieljones0094 | |
Total: 920,790 Year: 1,112/6,935 Month: 393/719 Week: 35/146 Day: 8/8 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religious Special Pleading | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
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.
They don't need consent, according to you they're doing it to themselves. Tangle writes:
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.
We allowed surgical abortion because it as deemed by society that women should have the right to it. Tangle writes:
According to you it is causing unnecessary harm. Few legal jurisdictions agree with you. 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....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 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Psychological harm.
If you can show me the harm for doing it to an 8 day old child I'd be interested to see it. I'd be fascinated to see that applying pressure with lips and tongue is harmful but applying pressure with a wetwipe is not harmful.... Modulous writes:
Granted, my brothers are crazy but not half as crazy as I am, so there doesn't seem to be a correlation.
... and slicing bits off is not harmful. Modulous writes:
In the case of somebody who can not give consent, "myself' refers to somebody who can. Harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent.
I was questioning why your comment - "What I'm against is the government telling me not to harm myself." was relevant in a discussion about doing things to other people who cannot consent. Modulous writes:
Only a very small minority. More people are talking about UFOs but I wouldn't call them a problem.
But as has been established in this very thread, people are talking about this problem. Modulous writes:
As there should be. There are legal avenues to sue in some countries because of this problem. But if it is a problem for a minority, that's no reason to ban it for the majority.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 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
No. I meant what I said. Let's try it again: We banned A from owning slave B because it was harmful to B. You're advocating banning B from doing something that you deem harmful to B. It's the difference between harming yourself and harming something else. Thus, the comparison to slavery doesn't work.
ringo writes:
I guess when you said this, you actually meant A not B.... 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. Tangle writes:
What part of "consent" do you not understand?
You tried to say that A should not be able harm B. Tangle writes:
Why not wait until he can give consent to education? Why not start kindergarten at age 18? ... let's wait until he can give his consent eh?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 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Exactly. He requires his parents' consent for any medical procedure.
Baby B has not and can not give his consent. Tangle writes:
Consent is consent. How do you think they differ in terms of consent? You're attempting an equivalence between education and penile mutilation?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 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
No. it was your attempt to compare circumcision to slavery that was bollox.
So, as I said, you entire A and B argument is total bollox, give it up. Tangle writes:
That claim depends on circumcision being harmful. Medical practitioners and lawmakers don't agree with you. In the first (circumcision), consent is necessary because it involves only harm and risk. In the second (education) it is unnecessary because it is only beneficial.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 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
There are risks to any form of elective surgery. Medical practitioners and lawmakers do not agree with you that circumcision should be banned. I have provided the evidence - from medical practitioners - that it is harmful. 200+ deaths per year in the USA alone, directly attributable to circumcision.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 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
1. The necessity is a matter of opinion. The reason is that it's unnecessary, risky, damaging and there's an absence of consent.2. Everything is risky. 3. Damage is a matter of opinion. 4. Children can not 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
It isn't up to you do decide what's unnecessary. It's an unnecessary risk that adults are exposing 7 day old babies to for superstitious reasons. And there are doctors doing it for medical reasons, not religious.
Tangle writes:
It isn't banned. You lose. Many medical and lawmakers do agree with me. Now what?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 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
There's no clear line between "medically necessary" and "a good idea". There are doctors doing it, so let's let them decide.
Non-therapeutic circumcision is, by definition, not medically necessary. Modulous writes:
On the contrary, banning something because its risky has justified nothing. Crossing the street is risky but we don't ban it.
ringo writes:
A sentiment which has justified precisely nothing, ever. Everything is risky. Modulous writes:
That's a self-serving definition of damage. Not really - one has to cause damage in order to complete a circumcision. If you fail to damage the skin, it won't come off.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 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Making laws is restricted to those who make laws. Is conversation restricted to those who make laws now? You're entitled to blather whatever you want but if you claim something "is" harmful you can expect to be challenged.
Tangle writes:
We're already having the same problems with medical marijuana. There's no clear distinction between "medical reasons" and other reasons, which is one reason why the ban is being lifted.
All here agree that circumcision for medical reasons is perfectly fine. Tangle writes:
See above. It's changing in the direction of not banning things. Raising the consciousness of bad practices in the minds of others is how bad practices are stopped. It's already changing.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 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Those factors are already in there.
Doctors have done a lot of things. Let's also bring in the ethics and legal professions and of course, the people. Modulous writes:
Since the human body is self-repairing, there's no such thing as "the" definition of damage. "Damage" that the child doesn't even know about shouldn't be counted as damage. It's the definition of damage.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 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Sure it does. The child wouldn't even know anything happened if nobody told him.
First point: A circumcised foreskin does not self-repair. Modulous writes:
Babies cry about a lot of things.
Babies do know about it, that's why they cry.... Modulous writes:
Morality is a separate issue. What we're talking about here is damage. Try suing for damages in a court of law when you can't remember any "damage" happening.
So if I painfully pinch a baby constantly for two weeks is that morally OK if it grows up not remembering I did it? Is it even legally acceptable to torture a child...heck is legally or morally acceptable to inflict pain on anybody as long as they subsequently forget it happened? Modulous writes:
Up to 18 years old, the decision is up to the parent. It could be argued that, after infancy, psychological damage is done.
Are you going to argue that circumcising should only be done on the 2 year olds and younger or 18 year olds and older - but should be considered immoral or illegal for, say, a 12 year old? Modulous writes:
First, I haven't crafted any legal system; I'm just going with the one we have. If so - how do you avoid charges that you have crafted a legal/moral system that criminalises/demonizes Muslims (some of whom may circumcise early, but many wait until later) while allowing Jews to continue their practice as-is? Second, nothing I've said is about morality. Third, it's the Muslims and Jews that I'm defending. They make decisions for their children and if those decisions are actually harmful for their children, our existing legal system is capable of handling them equally.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 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
That's a bogus argument. It's the equivalent of saying that cars are harmful because some people die in cars. We don't ban something because it's harmful to a minority. I do claim it is harmful 200+ unnecessary deaths in the US alone.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 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I don't have a car. Neither do either of my circumcised brothers. Apparently their doctor thought circumcision had its value.
Circumcision is unnecessary surgery which carries with it a risk of direct harm. Using transport is a necessary part of modern life. Tangle writes:
It shouldn't be. That's discrimination against women. A woman should be able to choose. ringo writes:
Of course we do, female circumcision is banned. We don't ban something because it's harmful to a minority.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 739 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
We were talking about cars. Broadening that to all transport is like broadening circumcision to all elective surgery.
Right you and you brothers do not use any kind of transport...I think not. Tangle writes:
They can. And until they're of age, their parents choose for them. So we're agreed, let them choose when they're of an age to be able to.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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025