Religious Special Pleading

On the contrary, society considers the "net" effect of good and bad effects. In the case of circumcision, most modern societies seem to conclude that the "harm" caused by circumcision is less harmful in the long term than the harm caused by trampling on individual freedoms. Good luck with that. I have no axe to grind here. I'm not in favour of circumcision, just like I'm not in favour of abortion. But I am in favour of preventing self-appointed do-gooders from meddling with individual freedoms. I'm just pointing out why your argument doesn't work.

Religious belief does not grant people rights to harm others that otherwise they wouldn't have. We know this because we do not allow fgm. It's simply a matter of history that the circumcision of male babies is allowed. If it didn't exist today, it would not be allowed for a new religion - an obvious point you have failed to challenge a dozen times or more.

And yet people clearly do have that right, so the justice systems must not be using the same definitions as you are. There's no need to challenge that. You might even be right about that. There's a first time for everything.But we can't undo the past based on what we probably would do in the future. There's a long history of the consequences of trampling on individual rights - in the case of Jews, a particularly horrendous history.Future religious sects have not been persecuted yet. If the Jews had never been persecuted, you might be able to get away with predicting that the slope will not be slippery. But we do remember history.

Some modern countries do not allow religions to have that right; it was removed because it was found to be harmful. Several modern countries are now challenging the right - Iceland is the current example in the news.Rights are granted and taken away by our secular laws, they are not god given and they change as we learn more. Currently the male cicumcision of babies is a historical anomoly which will be stopped eventually by all modern societies. Arguing for its continuance is merely special pleading. If we accept that a practice is so harmful that we wouldn't allowed it to start, why would we allow it to continue? We can agree then that this is purely a historic anomoly. We are prepared to continue harm babies because Jews were persecuted historically? Presumably then you would therefore have no objection to allowing jewish circumcision but not Muslim (male) circumcision?

That's what I'm sayng. in fact, it has little to do with religion at all. It's about individual rights. I doubt that. I certainly will not live to be proven wrong. I'm not arguing for circumcision. I'm arguing for individual freedom. For one thing, as I have already mentioned, we have learned that prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition of abortions didn't stop abortions from happening but it probably increased the bad effects. Same with prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of drugs, etc. And sensible people question whether the effect of prohibiting sugar or fat would be any different. We are prepared to recognize that it isn't very "harmful" if the Jews could survive the persecution and, Mother of Mercy!, survive the circumcisions too. I was thinking that might be your position.My position remains more or less consistent: individual freedom.

This isn't contrary to my position at all. Weighing conflicting interests is a social process. Whether or not harm is done - particularly physical harm - is not dictated by opinion.You missed of course another issue which is the individual freedom to not be circumcised, which neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision robs people of. So we're weighing a parent's freedom to slice other people's genitals vs the freedom to not have one's genitals sliced. Sure - that's a socially derived opinion. But whether cutting skin off or smoking causes damage or is harmful is less about opinion. Well indeed. Individual freedoms. I am saying the individual should be free to choose - not have it chosen for them - except where medically necessary.

Jewish circumcision is entirely religious.As for individual rights, you have put the superstition based rights of the parents above the rights of the child not to be harmed. What right have you to do this? You are arguing male circumcision. You have already conceded that parents do not have the freedom to circumcision females: your position is therefore not one of freedoms.People do not have a right to harm children. And the child has a right not to be harmed. The balance of freedoms is clearly in favour of the child. Well you're half right.As you have abandonned the special pleading argument of Jewish history, you're left with the personal freedom to harm another versus the personal freedom not to be harmed by another.It's very obvious where the balance lies. You're in an untenable position.

It isn't "other people's genitals". It's the freedom to make decisions for people who are dependent on them.

Jewish religion is also religious - but circumcision is not. As long as doctors do circumcisions for non-religious reasons, circumcision is not a religious issue. I haven't done that; society has. Society has the sense to understand that children can not make their own decisions. And society also has the sense not to let you dictate to them what is "superstition". They should. The reality is that I'm in the same position as the justice systems of most modern democracies. Your position may become tenable some day but now it is not.

It is. It really is. A child is a person, and they are seldom their own parent. Which we both support. And we both agree there are and should be limits to that freedom. We even agree, I'm sure, that deciding to cut a child resulting in scarring them goes beyond those limits in almost all cases that are not medically required goes beyond the freedoms we should grant parents.

A child is not an independent person. If we agreed on that, what have we been talking about?

According to the chief rabbi of the UK, Jews circumcise their boys entirely for religious reasons. It is a requirement of their religion. You're factually wrong. No. Society has never made a decision on it; it's a historical anomoly. Currently most countries are looking the other way but several Western democracies have already made it illegal. For very obvious reasons. Then your position is untenable. FGM is illegal in most Western democracies; the maiming of girls in this way is abhorrent. Parents do not and should not, have the right to harm their children. You're on the wrong side of history and I find it difficult to believe that you actually hold this obnoxious view. This is a silly argument. The correct position is what is morally right today, not what might be legally right in the future. If you admit that it will change - and we can see that it is - then it's a wrong today. The position is only as it is because of special pleading.

Immaterial to the point that we're weighing a parent's freedom to slice other people's genitals vs the freedom to not have one's genitals sliced. I didn't mention the word independent there. Circumcision. I didn't say we agreed on all cases. Unless you think scarring a child's face, arms, legs, etc by removing skin from them for no medical purpose should be something parents are free to do. It's certainly not something they currently are free to do.

Sadly ringo appears to think FGM is ok if the parents want it. If he'll allow that, he'll have absolutely no problem with a little facial scarring.

You should try reading what I wrote: "As long as doctors do circumcisions for non-religious reasons, circumcision is not a religious issue." You could say that slavery was a historical anomaly. One or two changes don't necessarily indicate a trend. History ain't over yet. It's premature to predict a final outcome. There is no "correct position", Mr. Absolute. I don't think it will change. I think - and hope - that freedom will prevail.