|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 46 (9216 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,608 Year: 930/6,935 Month: 211/719 Week: 203/116 Day: 45/32 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religious Special Pleading | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If you can show me the harm.... Psychological harm. I'm not stopping you, please show me.
Granted, my brothers are crazy but not half as crazy as I am, so there doesn't seem to be a correlation. I remain persuaded that your family life is not going to provide us with any insights.
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. Huh?
Only a very small minority. About 10% of circumcised men. It's not that small. It also disproves the concept that 'nobody' is talking about it.
But if it is a problem for a minority, that's no reason to ban it for the majority. The reason is that it's unnecessary, risky, damaging and there's an absence of consent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
1. The necessity is a matter of opinion. Non-therapeutic circumcision is, by definition, not medically necessary. Even for those that believe the prophylactic argument, they wouldn't argue it was necessary.
2. Everything is risky. A sentiment which has justified precisely nothing, ever.
3. Damage is a matter of opinion. 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.
4. Children can not consent. Exactly my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
There's no clear line between "medically necessary" and "a good idea". There are doctors doing it, so let's let them decide. Doctors have done a lot of things. Let's also bring in the ethics and legal professions and of course, the people.
On the contrary, banning something because its risky has justified nothing. Crossing the street is risky but we don't ban it. Then we agree. Since I am not suggesting we ban something just because it is risky we can move on.
That's a self-serving definition of damage. It's the definition of damage. That it supports my position can hardly be used against my point. Feel free to put forward an alternative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Those factors are already in there. Yup. And this thread is part of that.
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. First point: A circumcised foreskin does not self-repair.Second point:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Sure it does. The child wouldn't even know anything happened if nobody told him. A healed wound (often with a scar) is not a self-repaired foreskin. Foreskins don't grow back, you remove it - no human self-repair mechanisms are going to cause its return.
Babies do know about it, that's why they cry and why it is recommended to use localised anaesthesia during the process, which everyone agrees does not eradicate the pain.
Babies cry about a lot of things. So that justifies inflicting pain on babies in your view?
Morality is a separate issue. What we're talking about here is damage. The thread is about the morality of causing that damage. But if we're talking about damage alone then in that case it is not defined by the state of knowledge of the one damaged. If you shoot somebody in the head and they survive but they are in a persistent vegetative state - it is still called brain damage.
Try suing for damages in a court of law when you can't remember any "damage" happening. Again - this justifies doing all manner of things to babies that most people would regard as immoral or illegal. So it must fail as an argument.
Up to 18 years old, the decision is up to the parent. It could be argued that, after infancy, psychological damage is done. Continuing the theme of being able to do many things to babies such as sexually abusing them, amputating body parts, inflicting pain through extended pinching, letting them sit in dirty diapers for hours etc etc But hey - it turns out that things that happen to babies can influence them, almost as if their brains are keyed in to learning at a tremendous rate. And well let's take a look at some evidence
Taddio et al conclude
quote: Boyle et al:
quote: Gemmel and Boyle:
quote: {This sounds trivially obvious but the question this conclusion is drawn from asks uncircumcised men about their state of happiness regarding their not being circumcised...}
quote: Hammond:
quote: quote: First, I haven't crafted any legal system; I'm just going with the one we have. So if the current legal system permits people to circumcise their 10 year old child for non-therapeutic reasons are you for or against that? The question in this thread isn't about describing what is, it is about what should be.
Second, nothing I've said is about morality. We're talking about harm. This thread is about the morality of circumcision. If you merely wanted to discuss what the present state of affairs is, this is not the thread for that.
Third, it's the Muslims and Jews that I'm defending. Yet the Muslims regularly wait until later in a child's life to circumcise. your argument has primarily hinged on points that only apply to neonatal circumcision - you have said "It could be argued that, after infancy, psychological damage is done." - and thus I asked you - what do you think should be the case...should this be something we should re-examine as legally or morally acceptable behaviour?
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. As it turns out, this is not true - except in a trivial interpretation. If it were proven today without any doubt that circumcision was harmful - the existing legal system would not handle them at all. So in that case it would be 'equally' but there would be no criminal consequences for the harm caused. If the case were proven - religious special pleading is likely to impede legislative reform or the will to prosecute in this matter as it has other situations in the past and present.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
It repairs to the point that the baby doesn't remember anything happening. Sure - but you could cut off a baby's ears and say the same thing. It's still causing damage regardless of the memories of the possessor of the body part.
It isn't about "justifying" anything. If the parents and the doctor agree on it and the baby doesn't remember it, it's nobody else's business. But you just tried to justify why its nobody else's business. So yes, it is about justifying things. This thread is about acceptable justifications for circumcising - and possibly other acts that would otherwise be considered immoral = and whether religious exemptions are acceptable special pleading or not. What you've said can be used to justify a wide range of unpleasant things to children that our current laws forbid. So are the current laws wrong - or is your argument?
Bad analogy. A better one would be stealing a penny from a billionaire. He can't detect the loss so he isn't really damaged. I'm talking about physical damage. But stealing a penny from a billionaire is illegal and he can sue for those damages so I'm still at a loss as to how your analogy is better.
And following the will of "most people" leads to oppression of minorities. That's not really relevant to the point. You just justified sexually abusing or otherwise torturing babies - that isn't defended or even addressed by a discussion of the tyranny of the majority.
If you can make circumcision illegal, you can also make it illegal to be Jewish, Muslim, etc. Our forefathers may not have been as dumb as you think when they emphasized the importance of freedom of religion. Reynolds v. United States (1878) already covered this, as I said to you back in Message 22. The government cannot make being Jewish illegal just like they could not make being a Mormon illegal in that case. They can however, make actions illegal - even ones associated with a religion - so bigamy can be illegal even if it is permitted or encouraged in Momonism or Islam. Human sacrifice can be made illegal even if some religions have had it as an essential part of their practices. Non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision is also an activity not a belief.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No, I have not justified sexual abuse of children, as I said explicitly in another post. So we are in agreement that the principle used in these statements:
quote: quote: quote: quote: Summarised as 'if you aren't aware of damage, then no damage has been done, therefore the government should not be intervening' is specious? Because we both agree that child sexual abuse or cutting a child's ears off is still harmful and/or damaging even if the child forgets the harm or damage as it grows older.
Our forefathers may not have been as dumb as you think when they emphasized the importance of freedom of religion. Reynolds v. United States (1878) already covered this, as I said to you back in Message 22. The government cannot make being Jewish illegal just like they could not make being a Mormon illegal in that case. They can however, make actions illegal Are the Nazis our forefathers who emphasized the freedom of religion? If not, this response misses the point.
But if you target an activity that belongs to one or two specific groups, it begins to look like you're targeting the group and not the activity. Circumcision does not belong to one or two specific groups. But even if it did the fear of appearing to target a group should not be a reason to tolerate practices by that group if it is shown those practices are harmful. Let's take a look at arguments so far you've put to me
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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. Although some percent of people say they don't know their circumcision status - most people do know.
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 no, the Nazis were not who you were referring to when you spoke of our forefathers who emphasized the freedom of religion.
But it has not been shown to be generally harmful And if it was?
If banning circumcision was for the express purpose of persecuting Jews and Muslims, would it still be justifiable in your eyes? No.
It's true enough for us to err on the side of caution and not ban things willy-nilly. 'Willy-nilly' is an unfortunate choice of words. But no, I'm not proposing we ban things willy-nilly.
No. Preventing the minority from tyrannizing the majority. So parents are the minority?
Maybe I haven't mentioned this before but children are not capable of giving consent. 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.
Then let it be their problem and don't let them impose their solution on people who don't think it's a problem. It still defeats the argument that nobody is talking about the problem.
Ask a parent. Most of them would rather be harmed themselves than see their children harmed. So they're not equivalent.
Obviously not, since most circumcised men don't consider themselves damaged or harmed. What people consider themselves is not a relevant consideration when it comes to whether the foreskin is damaged by circumcision.
So deal with the ones that do do harm and leave the others to do their job. Thus you agree that just because doctors do it, doesn't mean it is not harm.
It pretty much does, unless you want to say that every car rolling down the street is damaged. Why would a car rolling down the street be considered damaged in my view?
It isn't damage at all unless the owner considers it damage. 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?
Then you might as well throw freedom of opinion out the window. Why? I still say you are free to your opinions. But not free to carry out any action you like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Then the question becomes, How harmful? Does the end (eliminating harm to penises) justify the means (persecuting religious groups)? 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'.
So parents are the minority? No. People who complain about circumcision are the minority. Exactly. So using the majority position against the minority would seem to be the tyranny of the majority.
Greater-than-or-equal is not equivalent? Harming a child is not harming the parent. It might harm the parent, or it might not. Thus they are not equivalent.
Let the individual decide whether or not he is damaged. 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.
Thus you agree that just because doctors do it, doesn't mean it is not harm. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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. I think amputating body parts is very different from educating someone. Circumcision is not usually required, and it can thus be delayed until adulthood.
We've already been through that. Sexual abuse is demonstrably harmful in virtually 100% of cases. Even with children who are too young to remember it?
But if 30% of circumcised males considered it harmful, no, that would not justify banning circumcision for the other 70%.
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No. You're advocating that the minority, who oppose circumcision, should be allowed to impose their view on the majority, who don't. And you are arguing that the views of the majority should be imposed on the minority.
Harming a child is not harming the parent. It might harm the parent, or it might not. Thus they are not equivalent. Parents say, "Nonsense." 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?
Then let them decide whether or not to go to school when they're old enough to give consent. There is utility in educating children that is lacking in the circumcision discussion.
I'll take a doctor's opinion about whether it's harmful over yours. That's fine - but the argument 'if Doctors do it, it is not harmful' is still defeated.
But you can't replace a foreskin like you can replace tyres. And you don't need to. The argument 'the human body is self-repairing' is still defeated as a justification for the practice.
From the viewpoint of consent, I think they're the same. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
they aren't equivalent. I didn't say they were. I'm glad we can agree that you did say that harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent.
Parents feel the harm that is done to their children. You're harming your position by not understanding that. Harming a child is not harming the parent. It might harm the parent, or it might not. Thus they are not equivalent. Message 130 It can be shown they are not equivalent by referencing cases where children are harmed by parents, who themselves are not harmed. Further - killing a child causes more harm to the child than it does to the parent.
So why not be consistent and consult every stakeholder on the subject of abortion - instead of leaving it up to the woman and her doctor? We do consult the stakeholders, and I support that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'm glad we can agree that you did say that harming a child is equivalent to harming the parent. But you were the one who called it "nonsense". I called your claim 'nonsense', yes. You later denied making the claim. I showed that you made that claim. You then confirmed you had made that claim. I stated I was glad we agree that you did make the claim. I'm not sure how that merits the word 'but'. Were you trying to make a point or were you just confused? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You misrepresented what I said. You equivocated child molestation with circumcision. You said harming a child was equivalent to harming the parent. I used the example of parents who commit child molestation and other things to show that this was not true.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025