By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Circumcision ban getting people snippy.

DélioPT on 20 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:

@DélioPT:

That´s why i said it like this: "If it`s part of their religion it should be treated with respect and sincere consideration. It´s not just about the practice, it`s what leads to said practice.

Yes, what leads to the practice matters. And religion isn't something that justifies this practice.

And by your login, virgin sacrifices should be respected if their part of a religious practice.

Parents, who are religious, want it for their kids and that`s something that should be at least respected since what they are doing to their kids is no different than it would be done by themselves.

I don't understand what you mean in the underlined part.

If that`s forcing, than pretty much everything parents do, is forcing.

Some things can be justified as being in the best interest of the child. Other things are just authoritan manifestations of power.

This is an act where parents do what they think is best for their kids, no matter where they get the motivation from. It`s just one of many things parents decide for their kids.

This practice isn't done because it's believed to be "what's best" for the child (especially because it's only in the best interest of the child in the case of medical conditions like phimosis). At least not in the case of people who do it for religious reasons.

Body violated and mutilation are just big words that honestly don`t fit here. You make it sound like parents who do that are like criminals who only wish to hurt their kids. But as i said before, there are a lot of things that parents do that have more impact on a kid than a simple medical procedure.

You're just trying to make this sound less serious than it is. Unlike other things that parents do to children, circumcision cannot be remediated, which is why it should not be done on infants.

This is weird... i could swear i already replied to this, but the post isn`t here.

"And religion isn't something that justifies this practice. And by your login, virgin sacrifices should be respected if their part of a religious practice"
It does justify, not just to you.
I don`t know why you keep bringing that virgin sacrifice.
"Parents, who are religious, want it for their kids and that`s something that should be at least respected since what they are doing to their kids is no different than it would be done by themselves"
By themselves, i meant the kids, as in, the result would be the same.

"This practice isn't done because it's believed to be "what's best" for the child (especially because it's only in the best interest of the child in the case of medical conditions like phimosis). At least not in the case of people who do it for religious reasons."
It is, because it`s a wish that comes from God. At least in judaism. It`s meant to symbolize the union bewtween God and Abraham`s descendants.

"You're just trying to make this sound less serious than it is. Unlike other things that parents do to children, circumcision cannot be remediated, which is why it should not be done on infants."
And it is really not big of a deal. It`s a simples medical procedure. That`s it. No violence is used, no physical harm is done (no more than a normal procedure) to the child.

If some do it because of health benefits, so be it, if others do it for religious reasons, so be it.



Around the Network
Sri Lumpa on 20 June 2011

 

DélioPT said:

"Parents, who are religious, want it for their kids and that`s something that should be at least respected since what they are doing to their kids is no different than it would be done by themselves"
With themselves, i meant the kids. As in the result would be the same. I didn`t say the decision should be left to the kids. All i said is that i don`t see a problem in having the parents decide that.
That's what I understood. Replace themselves with kid in your sentence:
"Parents, who are religious, want it for their kids and that`s something that should be at least respected since what they are doing to their kids is no different than it would be done by their kids"
And my answer to your sentence makes perfect sense. If it wasn't what you meant then what did you mean (don't repeat the same sentence, try to express yourself with a different one please).
And yes, you didn't say the decision should be left to the kids, it is me who is arguing that it should be left to the kid (when he is old enough to be able to make such a decision so not a kid anymore).
And you don't see a problem with a person other than the one concerned taking a decision to undergo a surgical procedure in the absence of therapeutic necessity? So you wouldn't mind if I cut a few square centimeters of your skin to lower your risk of skin cancer, do you?
DélioPT said:

It`s not really a reversed situation. It`s a different one. No one`s life is in danger and no body is in danger of being crippled.

 

Sure it is, in one case you want a parent to have the right to force an unnecessary surgery on their child for religious belief, in the mirror case you want a parent to have the right to prevent a necessary surgery on their child for religious belief. 

The danger of being crippled or dying is not to compare to circumcision but because such a dire outcome for a lack of surgery is, in my opinion, a justifiable reason to force it upon a child that cannot make the decision themselves. If the lack of surgery had not such dire consequence then I would not see a need to force it on the child. Similarly, if the child is old enough to come to a reasoned decision himself and decides not to take the surgery then he definitely shouldn't be forced to take it as it is then his choice and forcing surgery on him would then be battery.

Now that I have clarified this (sorry if I caused confusion earlier), would you care to answer.

DélioPT said:

You know, not only religious people enforce a vision of the world, as they aren`t the only ones to put their kids through surgery.

Indeed, a lot of people in America seem to enforce their vision of the penile world on their sons for non-religious and non-medical reasons. However, the question is not whether they are doing it for religious reasons or not, for having something be religious is most certainly not a reason to forbid it, but whether, regardless of religion, they have the right to enforce such a vision of the world on a defenceless person.

 

DélioPT said:

Second, i honestly don`t think seeing statistics is the best way to evaluate the idea of having the operation or not. If you know that there is a risk, no matter how small it is, you either decide to do or not, based solely on the existence of such risk and consequences. Leaving it to chance might not be the best option.

Well, I go from a position of civil rights and one of them being the right of every human to their person. Consentless circumcision (such as when performed near birth as the child is too young to express coherent thought and thus too young to consent) violates that right, so for it to be justifiable there needs to be an overwhelmingly positive outcome as opposed to the lack of the procedure so all I tried was to show the lack of such overwhelmingly positive outcome without dwelling on the risks of the procedure.

However, if one does not care about the civil rights of underage persons, I can understand that they would prefer to examine both sides of the risk/benefit ratio. I showed that the benefit is, while present, rather paltry for circumcision at birth rather than circumcision when the child is old enough to decide for himself; but, as with any surgery, there is also a number of risks associated with it. I do not have statistics for them as I it is not the crux of my argument and thus I did not research it as much as the potential benefits but according to this (probably NSFW from 2:12) video  (@ 35s) the risks include: laceration, haemorrhage, penile amputation and urethral damage.

And that is not an anti-circumcision video but an ad for a new circumcision device that reduces these risks. Also note that I am not claiming that these risks are high as if they were you probably would have dozens of millions of people in the US clamoring for circumcision to be made illegal (in the same way that if the lack of circumcision was such a plague on malekind you would have dozens of millions of uncircumcised men in europe clamoring to have it be mandatory).

Note the haemorrhage one, if you do not know the word it means loss of blood. I find it particularly important in the context of infant circumcision as infants have a lot less blood than teenagers and adults and can die a lot more easily from the loss of just a few ounces of it; which is why they have to clamp the foreskin, to prevent the baby to bleed to death.

So if you ever have a baby boy on the way and only care about the risk/benefit analysis you should still do your research as the benefit of doing it before he can decide for himself are minimal and the risk are nonexistant.

Personnally, I would prefer if you based your decision on treating your child as a defenceless person with the same basic rights as you, even though some of those rights are curtailed until they are more mature, and to really ask yourself whether you have any right to cut a working part of your child's anatomy without his permission.

We used to routinely perform appendectomy, tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy on children too young to consent (though not as young as infants of course, as these are a lot more invasive surgeries) but these wholesale practices have mostly stopped and been replaced by surgery, IF NEEDED.

DélioPT said:

You say enforce religion, like other don`t "share" with their kids - whatever is the issue - their vision of the world. Everytime a parent raises a kid he is "enforcing" his ways onto the son. Being religious just gives you another mindset, if you will, for the same practice.

There is a difference in teaching a child what it is your believe in and why you believe it and forcing them to undergo a surgical procedure that cannot be fully reversed in pursuit of said belief.

If you merely teach them, then as they grow older and can reason they can believe it themselves, disbelieve it, or believe another person's teaching. Whatever the case may be, they have a choice.

If you force your belief on their body in an partially irreversible way (and only painfully reversible for the reversible part) then they have had no choice but were forced to participate in their parent's religion even if they later choose to reject it.

Ok, time for me to go to bed. good night (or day, as the case may be) and may nobody put a sharp instrument to your genitals today.

 

 



"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"

 

sapphi_snake on 21 June 2011

@DélioPT:

It does justify, not just to you.

Religion can't be used as a justification for just anything.

I don`t know why you keep bringing that virgin sacrifice.

See above. You keep ignoring this, because you know it weakens your position. If everything that is a religious practice should be "respected" then that means that virgin sacrifices would have to be respected too, if they were mandated by a religion.

By themselves, i meant the kids, as in, the result would be the same.

But what makes you think that the children would get circumcised if they had a choice? Sri Lumpa already answered this pretty well.

It is, because it`s a wish that comes from God. At least in judaism. It`s meant to symbolize the union bewtween God and Abraham`s descendants.

Again, you cannot use religion to justify just anything. And as you said, it "symbolizes", in other words it's pointless. Also, what if the child decides that he doesn't want to be a jew when he grows up? Will someone give him his foreskin back?

And it is really not big of a deal. It`s a simples medical procedure. That`s it. No violence is used, no physical harm is done (no more than a normal procedure) to the child.

A child's foreskin is removed against his will. And there is physical harm (the foreskin disappears, penis sensitivity is lessened etc.).

If some do it because of health benefits, so be it, if others do it for religious reasons, so be it.

Yes, as long as the person undergoing the procedure is old enough to give consent and is fully aware of the nature of the procedure and it's consequences, then there's no problem. However, this should not be done on infants (unless there are emdical complications that require it).



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

DélioPT on 21 June 2011
Sri Lumpa said:

 

DélioPT said:

"Parents, who are religious, want it for their kids and that`s something that should be at least respected since what they are doing to their kids is no different than it would be done by themselves"
With themselves, i meant the kids. As in the result would be the same. I didn`t say the decision should be left to the kids. All i said is that i don`t see a problem in having the parents decide that.
That's what I understood. Replace themselves with kid in your sentence:
"Parents, who are religious, want it for their kids and that`s something that should be at least respected since what they are doing to their kids is no different than it would be done by their kids"
And my answer to your sentence makes perfect sense. If it wasn't what you meant then what did you mean (don't repeat the same sentence, try to express yourself with a different one please).
And yes, you didn't say the decision should be left to the kids, it is me who is arguing that it should be left to the kid (when he is old enough to be able to make such a decision so not a kid anymore).
And you don't see a problem with a person other than the one concerned taking a decision to undergo a surgical procedure in the absence of therapeutic necessity? So you wouldn't mind if I cut a few square centimeters of your skin to lower your risk of skin cancer, do you?
DélioPT said:

It`s not really a reversed situation. It`s a different one. No one`s life is in danger and no body is in danger of being crippled.

 

Sure it is, in one case you want a parent to have the right to force an unnecessary surgery on their child for religious belief, in the mirror case you want a parent to have the right to prevent a necessary surgery on their child for religious belief. 

The danger of being crippled or dying is not to compare to circumcision but because such a dire outcome for a lack of surgery is, in my opinion, a justifiable reason to force it upon a child that cannot make the decision themselves. If the lack of surgery had not such dire consequence then I would not see a need to force it on the child. Similarly, if the child is old enough to come to a reasoned decision himself and decides not to take the surgery then he definitely shouldn't be forced to take it as it is then his choice and forcing surgery on him would then be battery.

Now that I have clarified this (sorry if I caused confusion earlier), would you care to answer.

DélioPT said:

You know, not only religious people enforce a vision of the world, as they aren`t the only ones to put their kids through surgery.

Indeed, a lot of people in America seem to enforce their vision of the penile world on their sons for non-religious and non-medical reasons. However, the question is not whether they are doing it for religious reasons or not, for having something be religious is most certainly not a reason to forbid it, but whether, regardless of religion, they have the right to enforce such a vision of the world on a defenceless person.

 

DélioPT said:

Second, i honestly don`t think seeing statistics is the best way to evaluate the idea of having the operation or not. If you know that there is a risk, no matter how small it is, you either decide to do or not, based solely on the existence of such risk and consequences. Leaving it to chance might not be the best option.

Well, I go from a position of civil rights and one of them being the right of every human to their person. Consentless circumcision (such as when performed near birth as the child is too young to express coherent thought and thus too young to consent) violates that right, so for it to be justifiable there needs to be an overwhelmingly positive outcome as opposed to the lack of the procedure so all I tried was to show the lack of such overwhelmingly positive outcome without dwelling on the risks of the procedure.

However, if one does not care about the civil rights of underage persons, I can understand that they would prefer to examine both sides of the risk/benefit ratio. I showed that the benefit is, while present, rather paltry for circumcision at birth rather than circumcision when the child is old enough to decide for himself; but, as with any surgery, there is also a number of risks associated with it. I do not have statistics for them as I it is not the crux of my argument and thus I did not research it as much as the potential benefits but according to this (probably NSFW from 2:12) video  (@ 35s) the risks include: laceration, haemorrhage, penile amputation and urethral damage.

And that is not an anti-circumcision video but an ad for a new circumcision device that reduces these risks. Also note that I am not claiming that these risks are high as if they were you probably would have dozens of millions of people in the US clamoring for circumcision to be made illegal (in the same way that if the lack of circumcision was such a plague on malekind you would have dozens of millions of uncircumcised men in europe clamoring to have it be mandatory).

Note the haemorrhage one, if you do not know the word it means loss of blood. I find it particularly important in the context of infant circumcision as infants have a lot less blood than teenagers and adults and can die a lot more easily from the loss of just a few ounces of it; which is why they have to clamp the foreskin, to prevent the baby to bleed to death.

So if you ever have a baby boy on the way and only care about the risk/benefit analysis you should still do your research as the benefit of doing it before he can decide for himself are minimal and the risk are nonexistant.

Personnally, I would prefer if you based your decision on treating your child as a defenceless person with the same basic rights as you, even though some of those rights are curtailed until they are more mature, and to really ask yourself whether you have any right to cut a working part of your child's anatomy without his permission.

We used to routinely perform appendectomy, tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy on children too young to consent (though not as young as infants of course, as these are a lot more invasive surgeries) but these wholesale practices have mostly stopped and been replaced by surgery, IF NEEDED.

DélioPT said:

You say enforce religion, like other don`t "share" with their kids - whatever is the issue - their vision of the world. Everytime a parent raises a kid he is "enforcing" his ways onto the son. Being religious just gives you another mindset, if you will, for the same practice.

There is a difference in teaching a child what it is your believe in and why you believe it and forcing them to undergo a surgical procedure that cannot be fully reversed in pursuit of said belief.

If you merely teach them, then as they grow older and can reason they can believe it themselves, disbelieve it, or believe another person's teaching. Whatever the case may be, they have a choice.

If you force your belief on their body in an partially irreversible way (and only painfully reversible for the reversible part) then they have had no choice but were forced to participate in their parent's religion even if they later choose to reject it.

Ok, time for me to go to bed. good night (or day, as the case may be) and may nobody put a sharp instrument to your genitals today.

 

 

Honestly, i don`t see this as a big deal.
Yes, some do it for religious purposes and honestly i don`t see nothing wrong with it because it´s done in a safe way - of course, like very medical procedure, it can go wrong. Do the parents, religious or not, have the right to do such a thing? I don`t think that making it an irreversible operation changes anything. It`s not like we are discussing if one`s arm or leg should be cut off.
Thing is, parents do decide/shape their kids in more ways than a single surgery and about stuff that also won`t go away. The problem is, it`s that a physical change is there to be seen whilst a parent education isn`t as visible and causes less impact.
When religious parents raise their kids on something they believe they do it because they believe it`s good or the best for their kids. This specific medical procedure is just one aspect of said upbringing. Honestly, there are more defining and deeper aspects of parents "raise of their kids" than a normal medical procedure.

You don`t think it`s fair. Ok, it`s an opinion that i respect and most people too, of course, but can you respect a kid being raised by other kind of values different than your own?

"Sure it is, in one case you want a parent to have the right to force an unnecessary surgery on their child for religious belief, in the mirror case you want a parent to have the right to prevent a necessary surgery on their child for religious belief."
I said it`s not a reversed situation because one is about life or death while the other isn`t. Also, no one is saying that parents either have full control or they have none.
In this case, like in many aspects of an upbringing, i don`t see a problem with their decision.



DélioPT on 21 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:

@DélioPT:

It does justify, not just to you.

Religion can't be used as a justification for just anything.

I don`t know why you keep bringing that virgin sacrifice.

See above. You keep ignoring this, because you know it weakens your position. If everything that is a religious practice should be "respected" then that means that virgin sacrifices would have to be respected too, if they were mandated by a religion.

By themselves, i meant the kids, as in, the result would be the same.

But what makes you think that the children would get circumcised if they had a choice? Sri Lumpa already answered this pretty well.

It is, because it`s a wish that comes from God. At least in judaism. It`s meant to symbolize the union bewtween God and Abraham`s descendants.

Again, you cannot use religion to justify just anything. And as you said, it "symbolizes", in other words it's pointless. Also, what if the child decides that he doesn't want to be a jew when he grows up? Will someone give him his foreskin back?

And it is really not big of a deal. It`s a simples medical procedure. That`s it. No violence is used, no physical harm is done (no more than a normal procedure) to the child.

A child's foreskin is removed against his will. And there is physical harm (the foreskin disappears, penis sensitivity is lessened etc.).

If some do it because of health benefits, so be it, if others do it for religious reasons, so be it.

Yes, as long as the person undergoing the procedure is old enough to give consent and is fully aware of the nature of the procedure and it's consequences, then there's no problem. However, this should not be done on infants (unless there are emdical complications that require it).


"Religion can't be used as a justification for just anything."
They are used as a justification when something is related to an aspect or more of said religion(s).

"See above. You keep ignoring this, because you know it weakens your position. If everything that is a religious practice should be "respected" then that means that virgin sacrifices would have to be respected too, if they were mandated by a religion."
You are raising an issue that doesn`t exist in said religion.
When i said "respect" it`s in a sense of asking people to take into consideration the context and that is the why it`s done and what is done. Then, make your decision.

"But what makes you think that the children would get circumcised if they had a choice? Sri Lumpa already answered this pretty well."
I was just talking about the cases where the child would do the same, not in cases where the child wouldn`t. I wouldn`t make sense if i was talking about the last part.

"Again, you cannot use religion to justify just anything. And as you said, it "symbolizes", in other words it's pointless. Also, what if the child decides that he doesn't want to be a jew when he grows up? Will someone give him his foreskin back?"
In this case the justification exists. It`s not pointless, it`s a question of faith.
He will be given his foreskin back as much as his education will be erased from him so he can re-educate himself. It`s just one thing you can`t undo.

"A child's foreskin is removed against his will. And there is physical harm (the foreskin disappears, penis sensitivity is lessened etc.).

Yes, as long as the person undergoing the procedure is old enough to give consent and is fully aware of the nature of the procedure and it's consequences, then there's no problem. However, this should not be done on infants (unless there are emdical complications that require it)."
no physical harm is done (no more than a normal procedure) - I was talking about medical complications.
This is where we differ: i honestly don`t see this medical procedure as a problem and i honestly believe that, looking at the big picture of an upbringing, there really are more deeper issues than having a parent decide for their kid this medical procedure.



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 21 June 2011

@DélioPT:

They are used as a justification when something is related to an aspect or more of said religion(s).

Yup, and if bodily harm is involved, it's usually forbidden.

You are raising an issue that doesn`t exist in said religion.

It's irrelevant. It could exist in other religions. Would it be acceptable to you in that case? Would you "respect" that practice?


When i said "respect" it`s in a sense of asking people to take into consideration the context and that is the why it`s done and what is done. Then, make your decision.

I did take everything into consideration. The ideea is that we have an infant, who's having a pointless medical procedure irreversable done against his will. I cannot find this acceptable.

I was just talking about the cases where the child would do the same, not in cases where the child wouldn`t. I wouldn`t make sense if i was talking about the last part.

But what makes you think that the child would get a circumcision if he had the choice? This is precisely why it shouldn't be done on infants. People should be allowed to chose what happens to their bodies.

In this case the justification exists. It`s not pointless, it`s a question of faith.

Religion is personal. You can't force it on others.

He will be given his foreskin back as much as his education will be erased from him so he can re-educate himself. It`s just one thing you can`t undo.

Do you hear what you're saying? It's a terribly weak anology. A person can chose to reject everything's he's been taught, and no harm is done. If that wouldn't be the case than people would be identical clones of their parents.  You can't compare something mental with something physiological. A person can choose to adopt a different set of beliefs, while a person can't regrow a part of their body that's been removed.

I was talking about medical complications.
This is where we differ: i honestly don`t see this medical procedure as a problem and i honestly believe that, looking at the big picture of an upbringing, there really are more deeper issues than having a parent decide for their kid this medical procedure.

We differ in several aspects, not just that. I see this forced mutilation as a huge problem.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

DélioPT on 21 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:

@DélioPT:

They are used as a justification when something is related to an aspect or more of said religion(s).

Yup, and if bodily harm is involved, it's usually forbidden.

You are raising an issue that doesn`t exist in said religion.

It's irrelevant. It could exist in other religions. Would it be acceptable to you in that case? Would you "respect" that practice?


When i said "respect" it`s in a sense of asking people to take into consideration the context and that is the why it`s done and what is done. Then, make your decision.

I did take everything into consideration. The ideea is that we have an infant, who's having a pointless medical procedure irreversable done against his will. I cannot find this acceptable.

I was just talking about the cases where the child would do the same, not in cases where the child wouldn`t. I wouldn`t make sense if i was talking about the last part.

But what makes you think that the child would get a circumcision if he had the choice? This is precisely why it shouldn't be done on infants. People should be allowed to chose what happens to their bodies.

In this case the justification exists. It`s not pointless, it`s a question of faith.

Religion is personal. You can't force it on others.

He will be given his foreskin back as much as his education will be erased from him so he can re-educate himself. It`s just one thing you can`t undo.

Do you hear what you're saying? It's a terribly weak anology. A person can chose to reject everything's he's been taught, and no harm is done. If that wouldn't be the case than people would be identical clones of their parents.  You can't compare something mental with something physiological. A person can choose to adopt a different set of beliefs, while a person can't regrow a part of their body that's been removed.

I was talking about medical complications.
This is where we differ: i honestly don`t see this medical procedure as a problem and i honestly believe that, looking at the big picture of an upbringing, there really are more deeper issues than having a parent decide for their kid this medical procedure.

We differ in several aspects, not just that. I see this forced mutilation as a huge problem.


But this "bodily harm" doesn`t apply since it came from God itself.
About the virgin sacrifice, no i wouldn´t agree. That`s why i said this "When i said "respect" it`s in a sense of asking people to take into consideration the context and that is the why it`s done and what is done." Respect doesn`t equal accept. I respect a lot of things, but that doesn`t mean i necessarily agree with them.
"But what makes you think that the child would get a circumcision if he had the choice?" I was just comparing the situations where it would be done by choice of parents or sons.
"Religion is personal. You can't force it on others." If a religious parents or parents live what they teach then everything will be forcing. But it will also be the case where a non religious parent or parents, who also live by what they teach, will also enforce something. Not enforcing a religion, a set of values, or whatever, can`t be done when you are raising a kid. You teach them something, it just changes from person to person. Some will find it ok to have this procedure, some won`t.

"Do you hear what you're saying? It's a terribly weak anology. A person can chose to reject everything's he's been taught, and no harm is done. If that wouldn't be the case than people would be identical clones of their parents.  You can't compare something mental with something physiological. A person can choose to adopt a different set of beliefs, while a person can't regrow a part of their body that's been removed."

I don`t think you read deeply into what i said. No you can`t reject everything, that would rejecting yourself. It`s not just a question of values. That doesn`t mean you are a clone, it means that it helped mold you. And that really is more important than this medical procedure. It`s important, but not as important as you put it.
"I see this forced mutilation as a huge problem."
I respect that even not agreeing with it, as i don`t think it`s important.



sapphi_snake on 21 June 2011

@DélioPT:

But this "bodily harm" doesn`t apply since it came from God itself.

The foreskin doesn't disappear through magic. It's removed by a human being. And if virgin sacrifices were a religious practice, they'd come "from God itself" too, so I assume they'd be OK and not harmful, no? The ideea is that in a secular society such arguments hold no water.

About the virgin sacrifice, no i wouldn´t agree.

Then you are a hypocrite.

Respect doesn`t equal accept. I respect a lot of things, but that doesn`t mean i necessarily agree with them.

Wait... are you saying you'd disagree with virgin sacrifices, BUT you would respect them if they werea religious practice? O_O Words cannot express the revulsion I feel right now.

I was just comparing the situations where it would be done by choice of parents or sons.

You're just beating around the bush.

If a religious parents or parents live what they teach then everything will be forcing. But it will also be the case where a non religious parent or parents, who also live by what they teach, will also enforce something. Not enforcing a religion, a set of values, or whatever, can`t be done when you are raising a kid. You teach them something, it just changes from person to person. Some will find it ok to have this procedure, some won`t.

You're using faulty analogies, as usual. You're comparing apples to oranges. There's no "teaching" involved in circumcision. It's the mutilation of a body. Parents aren't normall allowed to force such practices on their children. For example you can't cut your child's arm off, and circumcision is no different.

I don`t think you read deeply into what i said. No you can`t reject everything, that would rejecting yourself. It`s not just a question of values. That doesn`t mean you are a clone, it means that it helped mold you. And that really is more important than this medical procedure. It`s important, but not as important as you put it.

Society molds you as a whole. There's "modling" coming from every medium. And you can chose to embrace other values, and downright reject your parents belief. The ideea is that nothing is permanently and irreversably destroyes, as in the case of circumcision, which has nothing to do with "values", and is just a bodily mutilation, done for no good reason.

I respect that even not agreeing with it, as i don`t think it`s important.

Well I don't respect your opinion and, quite frankly, I'm disgusted by it.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

DélioPT on 21 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:

@DélioPT:

But this "bodily harm" doesn`t apply since it came from God itself.

The foreskin doesn't disappear through magic. It's removed by a human being. And if virgin sacrifices were a religious practice, they'd come "from God itself" too, so I assume they'd be OK and not harmful, no? The ideea is that in a secular society such arguments hold no water.

About the virgin sacrifice, no i wouldn´t agree.

Then you are a hypocrite.

Respect doesn`t equal accept. I respect a lot of things, but that doesn`t mean i necessarily agree with them.

Wait... are you saying you'd disagree with virgin sacrifices, BUT you would respect them if they werea religious practice? O_O Words cannot express the revulsion I feel right now.

I was just comparing the situations where it would be done by choice of parents or sons.

You're just beating around the bush.

If a religious parents or parents live what they teach then everything will be forcing. But it will also be the case where a non religious parent or parents, who also live by what they teach, will also enforce something. Not enforcing a religion, a set of values, or whatever, can`t be done when you are raising a kid. You teach them something, it just changes from person to person. Some will find it ok to have this procedure, some won`t.

You're using faulty analogies, as usual. You're comparing apples to oranges. There's no "teaching" involved in circumcision. It's the mutilation of a body. Parents aren't normall allowed to force such practices on their children. For example you can't cut your child's arm off, and circumcision is no different.

I don`t think you read deeply into what i said. No you can`t reject everything, that would rejecting yourself. It`s not just a question of values. That doesn`t mean you are a clone, it means that it helped mold you. And that really is more important than this medical procedure. It`s important, but not as important as you put it.

Society molds you as a whole. There's "modling" coming from every medium. And you can chose to embrace other values, and downright reject your parents belief. The ideea is that nothing is permanently and irreversably destroyes, as in the case of circumcision, which has nothing to do with "values", and is just a bodily mutilation, done for no good reason.

I respect that even not agreeing with it, as i don`t think it`s important.

Well I don't respect your opinion and, quite frankly, I'm disgusted by it.

You can`t treat the "if" like it`s real.
Wait... are you saying you'd disagree with virgin sacrifices, BUT you would respect them if they werea religious practice? O_O Words cannot express the revulsion I feel right now.You didn`t understand my words. Saying that i respect one`s practices, be it religious or not, is one thing. Not taking into consideration why i respect it is jumping ahead of yourself. And that makes you not understand what respect means.
I respect your opinions as a free thinking person, doesn`t mean i will agree with you.

"You're using faulty analogies, as usual. You're comparing apples to oranges. There's no "teaching" involved in circumcision. It's the mutilation of a body. Parents aren't normall allowed to force such practices on their children. For example you can't cut your child's arm off, and circumcision is no different."
You are too attached to words and not look at the message i try to pass.

What i try to say is that parents have a big influence on their kids, physically and emotionally. Talking about this medical procedure as mutilation is taking it out of proportions, way out of proportions. People do it for medical reasons and others for religious reasons aswell. I respect that, you don`t.
People won`t always see eye to eye.



sapphi_snake on 21 June 2011

@DélioPT:

You can`t treat the "if" like it`s real.

For the sake of this discussion, you should.

You didn`t understand my words. Saying that i respect one`s practices, be it religious or not, is one thing. Not taking into consideration why i respect it is jumping ahead of yourself. And that makes you not understand what respect means.

So you admit that you would "respect" virgin sacrifices if they were a religious practice, right?

What i try to say is that parents have a big influence on their kids, physically and emotionally. Talking about this medical procedure as mutilation is taking it out of proportions, way out of proportions. People do it for medical reasons and others for religious reasons aswell. I respect that, you don`t.

There's a difference between downright mutilation, and forcing somthing on someone. Also, I know people do it for medical reasons. I'm circumcised myself, because I had phimosis. In my case it was a MEDICAL NECESSITY, which is the only valid reason to circumcise an infant. An adult can get a circumcision for whatever reason he wants, however this practice should not be forced on an infant, unless it's a medical emergency. It's a violation of a child's body otherwise.

BTW, female circumcision is a religious practice in some places. Do you respect that practice?



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)