Religious Special Pleading

If so, I can picture you looking like this:

With glasses.

Just in case you think otherwise, I *have* noticed that you are attempting to avoid responding to the only point being made, which is that cutting off the foreskin of a baby causes severe pain and bleeding and occasionally death. ie physical harm.

Been there, done that. The issue here is not whether circumcision can occasionally have bad effects. The issue is who decides.

You seem to be developing Faith's convenient memory. I am responding to your denial that circumcision causes harm. I assume that having 'been there and done that' you no longer deny that bleeding, pain and death is harm?

And I'm saying that the issue is who decides what is harm. "Harm" is not something that is standing out in the middle of a field by itself. "Good effects" and "bad effects" are a spectrum. You can't just say that something "is" bad to justify banning it. You have to weigh the bad against the good.Edited by ringo, : Typos.

For any given definition of harm - whether something meets the criteria is either true or false, unless the definition is woolly, is pretty absolute. This may reference objective and subjective criteria - so certainty may not be perfect, but it is either harmful or not.For instance, smoking tobacco was as harmful in 1920 as it will be in 2020. It makes no difference if doctors were prescribing cigarettes in the twenties and everyone thought they were swell. Their harm remains the same - they reduce life expectancy by increasing risk of heart disease, cancers, bronchial conditions etc etc. That's just descriptive though. Obviously that's what happens. Who would think otherwise?Also - we're concerned here about harm to individuals, not necessarily to society. But yes, at some point society decides to deal with things. The central theme here is that even at the point when society has determined harm is being done (and that it always has been done) religion can often get a 'get out of jail free card' where non-religious people do not.Some examples:1) A parent's child is ill. The treatment is trivial, low risk and almost always works. The parent's don't seek treatment, but pray to their God. In some areas of the USA they may not be prosecuted if the child dies - and even if they are prosecuted, their God belief is an accepted defence. But if someone were to do that because they were busy with work, or because they don't like their kid or because any reason other than God - prosecution would likely follow and those reasons are not acceptable defence or in many cases even mitigation.2) We, as a society, have determined that it is harmful to society as a whole for public accommodations to refuse minority groups service because they are part of that minority group. There are those who are fighting to have 'but my God tells me to' to be a reason to ignore this requirement. Historically it was seen as a compelling defence, but thankfully it's becoming less and less tenable.So imagine, during the height of the American slave trade, a debate. one person stands up and says,'Slavery is harmful to the enslaved. It reduces their life expectancy, degrades their humanity, breeds misery etc etc etc'The retort comes'But most members of society disagree that it is harmful'Would you regard the retort as compelling? Useful? Does it mean anything? Is it relevant to the discussion about what we, as a society should be doing? Does it prove, in any way that actually matters, that slavery is not harmful to the enslaved?Likewise, in a debate about smoking would 'But many doctors not only think it is OK, but think it is actually healthy' be a statement that determines whether or not smoking is actually harmful? Or is it just a statement about what many doctors think about the harm? Yes. Bodily integrity is not compromised significantly in the case of nails and hair usually as they grow back. I would object strongly, to permanent alterations to hair and nail growth performed on children for mere cosmetic purposes. There is little to object to in the case of neonatal infants - especially for nails - which can cause injury if not attended to, so its not even purely non-therapuetic. However, cutting an older child's hair without their consent in a manner they strongly object to - for instance shaving 'I am an ugly boy' would be something I could object to.And I think we can all agree that damaging blood vessels, skin and nerves is more a violation of bodily integrity than hair or nails.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

No, harm - particularly physical harm - is objective not subjective. If you prick them they bleed. Attempting to pass harm off as dependant on who does it is simply special pleading. Would we allow this practice if it didn't exist is a good test Some things are really simple. Cutting the foreskin off a baby (obviously without its consent) for no medical, purpose causing pain, suffering and occasional death is the very definition of harm.Quite apart from that, there is no 'good'.

That's the point. There is no "given" definition of harm. The people who are doing circumcisions don't consider it "harm". Nor does society as a whole.

Obviously false. Are tattoos harmful? Are piercings harmful? Are some piercings "more harmful" than others? Is skydiving harmful? Is caffeine harmful? Is "too much" caffeine harmful?There are as many opinions about "harm" as there are people. If there was no "good" to it, why would millions of people be doing it? You're trying to impose your own narrow idea of "good" the same as you're trying to impose your own narrow idea of "harm".

Oh crap, I thought we'd made progress. (Not really.) Yes if done without consent. But we've done this, I'm not going round this more than a dozen times. No there aren't. Harm is a well defined legal concept, moreover everyone knows exactly what it means; particularly when they're harmed.

And circumcision is legal. Does shooting yourself in the foot "harm" your argument?

Yes, because of special pleading. If the cutting of the genitalia of 7 day old babies was proposed by as a new religious sect today, both you and I know that it would not be allowed. Consent.

Yes, that's the point. What people who commit an act, or society as a whole consider harmful is immaterial to whether it is in fact harmful. And I'd like to persuade people that it is harmful and that 'but it's my religion' is not a suitable excuse for committing that harm.

Special pleading hinges on whether or not the act is justifiable. Circumcision is justifiable on the grounds of religious freedom.