It`s not! Actually i am really against that. I just showed respect for your opinion. If it was relativism, then i would be seeing my opinion and yours as having the same importance and obviously that`s not the case, for neither of us. :)
Sorry if it sounded like that.

Good, authoritarian people are afraid of relativism, so I was kinda confused there for a moment.

San Francisco supports the brutal dismemberment of human beings that are still in the womb but takes grave offense to circumcision ... go figure.

Lol, nice!

Seriously?

*eyetwitch* the faulty logic, bullshit claims, and overall ignorance in this thread astounds me. nothing I possibly say or argue would be even slightly considered or respected...What a waste of time.

Sorry, I haven't been able to respond to you earlier but real life asserted itself.

So if somebody circumcised an adult without asking his consent that would not be a big deal either, right?

i have no problem with people getting themselves circumcised for religious reason. I have a problem with people forcing others to be circumcised, whether it is done ofr religious reasons or not.

For me it is not so much the irreversability that changes thing (it just makes it that much worse) but the combination of the lack of a medical need for it and that absent either consent or medical need it is battery. If it was reversible it would not make it more right. For example, a bruise can resorb and is thus reversible, but this does not make it right that some parents beat the shit out of their kids/wives. The irreversability just makes things worse but is not the root of the wrongness.

No, it would be more like discussing an unnecessary medical procedure (in the vast majority of cases) that can lead to the loss of an arm, a leg or loss of life itself in extreme cases. Given the lack of medical necessity, has a parent the right to force his child to take that risk for religious reasons?

You can reason about your parent's (and other people's) teachings and come to your own conclusion that accept some of those, reject some others and partially accept/ partially reject others still but unless you were brainwashed in those believes then it can go away (unless you want it to stay). And if you were brainwashed, then it would also be a form of abuse. As for the bolded part, I disagree, I think the education has more impact, but the education can be done in a non-abusive way, infant circumcision cannot (barring real medical reason) as the only way for non-medically necessary circumcision not to be an abuse is for it to be done with the consent of the concerned, which cannot be given when they are an infant.

I can respect a kid being raised by other values than my own, what I cannot respect is forcing your values on others, even your kids. For example, I can respect a parent teaching a child about the bible, the  koran or the vedas but if said parents was using excessive coercive force like sleep deprivation to brainwash his kids then I would not respect that. One is teaching, the other is abuse.

I do. Children are not the property of the parents, they are their ward and risking their health for religious reasons is a breach of their duty. If the child is old enough to reason and make many of his own decisions (say, a teenager) and he concurs then I do not have any more of a proble mthan if a child of a similar age chose to get punched (say, in a boxing match). If the child is too young to make such an informed decision for himself then the parent's religion cannot trump the child's health.

It can be used as a personal justification but religion cannot be used as a justification for either permitting or banning something. That it all too often is used in such a way does not mean that it should or that it should be tolerated, otherwise we would have to have a legal system applying the strictest parts of all religions as said part would be justification for the law.

He was not talking about any religion in particular but whether all religious practices should be respected. Given that there were religions that had human sacrifice (whether they were virgins or not is irrelevant so I don't know why he added that part) the question is, do you respect such religious practice.

If you are more comfortable answering the question with respect to practices that would be part of religions that also practice circumcision then tell us whether you respect the killing of apostates as prescribed by Islam (google Salman Rushdie and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini) and whether you respect parents stoning their son to death if he disobey.

But why should the right of the child that wouldn't have made the same choice be infringed upon when the right of the child who would have made the same choice is preserved as he can still make said choice.

No, the faith part justify doing it to yourself (or, more realistically, have somebody do it to you on your behalf), but it does not justify doing it to somebody else any moer than if I believed that all men should have green hair would justify me dying your hair green.

The education part I already talked about above, but I just want to add that even if you were right arguendo that education cannot be undone it still wouldn't justify circumcision as it would need to stand by itself, not on whether undoable things are being done, jsut like said things would have to stand by themselves and cannot use the irreversability of circumcision to justify themselves.

The problem is not whether more harm is done than another procedure, it is that any harm coming from it is unnecessary and avoidable.

Also, that there may be deeper issues in parenting does not make this issue permissible, it would be like saying stealing is ok because there are deeper issues than stealing (like killing). We don't permit stealing because there are worst things, we determine whether stealing should be permissible on its own merit as well as determining whether killingshould be permissible on its own merits.

Here the thread is about circumcision so we discuss whether it should be permissible on its own merit and if there are deeper parenting issues they should also be discussed on their own merit, and if you want to do so you can start a new thread for it.

Again, you are trying to use religion to justify things. Killing your rebellious son comes from God itself, does that mean we should allow people to kill their misbehaving sons?

I agree. I totally respect that forcing circumcision on others is part of the jewish faith, like stoning misbehaving children, but it does not mean that we have to accept it. Accepting it because it is a religious practice is no more acceptable than rejecting it because it is a religious practice. The decision on whether to accept it or not should be divorced from its religiousity.

I do not see teaching as being inherently coercive, though you can teach in a coercive way. On the other hand, circumcision without consent is inherently coercive.

bolded: not true. Plenty of teenagers reject most of what their parents teach and what they represent. They are not rejecting themselves, they are rejecting their parents and are defining themselves i relation to them.

But I agree with you that it molds you, whether by acceptance of their teaching, rejection of their teachings or whether you come to your own conclusions by using their teaching as the basis of your thought process.

I also agree that it is more important than circumcision but like I said earlier, both need to stand on their own.

Again, you are only seeing this through your own religion's lense. The question is not whether your religion includes human sacrifice, the question is whether you respect the religious practice of human sacrifice. Or maybe you only respect your religion and those closely affiliated to it?

Again, you are trying to use religion as a justification when the justification (for or against) should be detached from religious reasons. To come back to sapphi's example, the Aztec practiced human sacrifice, and they did it for reasons that they saw as good (to prevent the end of the world) as well. If you don't believe or follow their religion then you'll never accept their premise. According to your logic, if somebody was to convert to the Aztec religion they should be allowed to perform the New Fire ceremony.

So if there was a rise of fundamentalist jews that demanded that they be allowed to live according to laws given by god in the tanakh (like some muslim want to be able to practice shariah law) you would be in favour of them being able to stone their rebellious children to death? It is in accordance to God's will and part of the covenant between god and the Israelites after all.

If you really believed that then you would be against infant circumcision as there is no freedom in it for the child subjected to it. If he is given the choice when older and takes it, then it is freedom.

We have: infant circumcision.

Bolded part: Exactly; your right to practice your religion by swinging a knife ends where another person's genitals begin.

I a priory disagree that you cannot fully live to that ideal but that is because I cannot think of any example where it is not possible. If you have any to share that would be welcome.

It is not germane to the discussion at hand but for me, most religion are the epitome of moral relativism as they apply a moral standard to whatever god they believe in that is different to the moral standard applied to other entities. For example, a god killing somebody is generally not regarded as immoral whereas someobdy else killing somebody is seen as immoral (with a few narrowly defined exceptions like self-defense...). In my view, the morality of killing somebody else is not dependent upon the divinity of the entity doing the killing.

So...Much....ANGER!

I don't even know why I keep coming to this darn thread, since I know nothing I say would be treated with even the slightest hint of respect. You'd have people who agree with me applauding, people who disagree with me telling me I'm an ignorant fool, and trolls laughing at all of us.

There are a few basic truths here that so few of the pro-circumcision people are willing to accept, and that's where the problem lies. it's like people saying Global Warming is a myth even though there are more scientists named steve who agree that it's real than there are scientists worldwide that think it's false, it's just a whole lot of stupid people altering facts to suit their opinions rather than altering their opinions to fit the facts.

Fact 1 - Being circumcised is NOT cleaner, therefore it is not a hygiene issue.

People have long believed that Circumcision results in gleaner penises, just like they believed in the 4 humors and mercury and cocaine and alcohol and feminine hysteria. when a theory is introduced that appears to have results, and people like it (like how people from the 50's thought smoking was good for you in spite of doctors always knowing otherwise, or how alcohol was a GREAT way to relax your baby...) it becomes tradition. Once something becomes tradition, two things happen: 1 - nobody EVER wants to give it up no matter what, so they throw the "it's tradition" mantra in your face as if it was in any way a logical or rational argument in their favor; and 2 - faulty claims, like above. People believe in something, so they will twist facts to support them and use the slightest confirming evidence as definitive proof in what they believe.

The fact of the matter is that a circumcised penis is no healthier, cleaner, or better equipped than an uncircumcised one. Modern studies have shown that infection rates are identical in both types, but each variation has different risks involved. Cutting off the foreskin and saying it protects against x infection is logically equivalent to cutting off a testicle and saying it protects against testicular cancer. The bottom line is that no matter how much people argue it, there are absolutely no medical benefits to circumcision. (Yes I have done the research, no I do not have the articles handy at the moment).

Fact 2 - There's no denying, you're committing genital mutilation on an infant

I know you don't want to think about it that way, but that's precisely what you're doing. you're cutting off a part of an infant's penis that's meant to protect the glans from the elements. remember, the glans is not skin, it's not protective, so exposing it to the elements actually could very well open it up to risk. People are doing this not for medical reasons (although some think they are, a belief that needs to be remedied), but because that's what they did, or that's what their religion tells them to. I'm not going to get into my anger and disdain for religion, but the fact of the matter is that you're taking a sharp blade to the penis of an infant because an invisible man in the sky told you to...this is insanity. If 'god' and 'religion' weren't attached to this logic, and 'tradition' wasn't cited, you'd be put into a mental institution for your insane beliefs.

This is an act that is virtually irreversible, and puts a child in a position where he 'just has to deal with it.' This isn't an ear piercing that has no effect on their day to day lives should they chose to keep the rings out, this is something that will permanently alter the physiology of a man's sex life for the rest of his life. The argument "but he wouldn't know any different, so he can't complain" isn't logical either. Should I cut your pinky finger off at birth? should I pluck your eye out just because you'd grow to adapt? No, that is wrong, isn't it? how is this any different.

Say your opinion is that it looks nicer, is that a good reason? No, it is not. if YOU want to have no foreskin, then all the power to you, should I walk up to my friend and cut his foreskin off because I think it looks better? No, I should not, I'd go to jail or a least be charged and sued for damages.

If you decide not to cut your child's foreskin off and they grow up to want to be circumcised, then they have every right and ability in the world to have the procedure. They can't get mad at you or the doctors because that choice was never taken away from them and they have the ability to experience both alterations throughout their adult life. If you circumcise them and they grow up to want to experience the feeling of having a foreskin, that option is not there. they are forced to spend the rest of their life living with a decision you made for them, and they will never regain a proper foreskin.

The bottom line is that this is something people do for stupid reasons, it has no medical or rational reason behind it, no benefits, and is an irreversible procedure that will permanently alter the sex life and physiology of the male in question. I'm damn glad it's being outlawed at birth, it's a barbaric act with no benefits, it doesn't matter if it's traditional, it's wrong.

I guarantee if it wasn't tradition and you went to a doctor asking him to do it, you'd be reported and have your children taken away from you. Try this, sometime: if you ever have a kid, ask to have his testicles removed. Tell them it's part of your religion or you're worried about the child getting testicular cancer...see how they react. This is the exact same thing.

If circumcision got banned and abortion was still legal I would freak. This is a sick society where people care more about Genital mutalation, then murder. But I doubt this will ever get passed. Their are far more activists calling for an end to abortion then morons opposed to a good medical procedure!

besides uncircumcized penises look all gooey and gross