Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Circumcision

foxxhajti
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 11:54:50 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
"Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin from the human penis. In the most common procedure, the foreskin is opened, adhesions are removed, and the foreskin is separated from the glans. After that, the circumcision device (if used) is placed, and then the foreskin is cut off." [1]

Male circumcision tends to be a controversial subject, so I wanted to know people's diverse opinions about it.

Some pros that are generally connotated to it (as quoted from a website which I'll be linking below) [2]:
- "Protects against urinary tract infections (UTIs) during the first year of life. However, UTIs are rare and easily treated.
- Prevents infections under the foreskin. It also prevents persistent tight foreskin. Both of these problems are rare and are usually due to pulling back the foreskin too often or too hard.
- Decreases the risk of getting some sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) later in life, including HIV. However, it does not completely prevent any STD.
Lowers the risk of cancer of the penis. However, good hygiene offers equal protection against this very rare cancer.
- Keeps your son's appearance "like other boys" or "like his dad." Boys may not mind looking different from other men in their family. However, they do mind being harassed in the locker room or shower about their foreskin. This could happen if most of their buddies are circumcised."

Cons related to it [2]:
- "Problems with surgery. Problems that may occur are skin or bloodstream infections, bleeding, gangrene, scarring, and various surgical accidents. One study showed that 1 of every 500 circumcised newborns suffered a serious side effect.
- Pain. The procedure causes pain. However, the doctor can use some anesthetic around the area to block some of the pain.
- Cost. You may have to pay for the surgery yourself because many insurance companies do not cover the cost.
- You must decide quickly. If you initially decide not to have your son circumcised, and then change your mind after your son is 2 months old, the procedure will require a general anesthesia. So try to make your final decision during the first month of life."

(If you have any other pros and cons you would like to add, feel free to do so)

Since in my country, it isn't a popular procedure [3], I would like to see people's views from other countries which have higher rates of circumcision, to understand it more and apart from that, I also thought it would be an interesting discussion. Also, is it ethical/moral or not? Do you think it should be a legal procedure or should it be outlawed?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.wsupgdocs.org...
[3] http://www.photius.com...
[4] http://www.webmd.com...
"It's interesting to observe that almost all truly worthy men have simple manners, and that simple manners are almost always taken as a sign of little worth" - Giacomo Leopardi

"It is more honorable to be raised to a throne than to be born to one. Fortune bestows the one, merit obtains the other." - Francesco Petrarca

"You too must not count too much on your reality as you feel it today, since like yesterday, it may prove an illusion for you tomorrow." - Luigi Pirandello
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 12:03:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Simple. Forced circumcision done on a baby when they cannot consent is immoral and disgusting quite frankly.

There may be a multitude of pros and cons to the operation, but in my opinion they should get it done when they are old enough to make the decision for themselves. when they are old enough, it is their own choice and no issue of mine, if done for religious reasons or otherwise.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 9:46:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Parents should have the choice of having their male children circumcised, and to outlaw the practice would be a form of religious persecution against Jews, perhaps Muslims, and perhaps certain sects of Christianity. That is my opinion on this matter.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 3:03:39 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Our Forefathers had foreskins and it worked out well for them. Any argument to cut it off is rather contrived.
zaarbuc
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 8:34:01 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 11:54:50 AM, foxxhajti wrote:
"Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin from the human penis. In the most common procedure, the foreskin is opened, adhesions are removed, and the foreskin is separated from the glans. After that, the circumcision device (if used) is placed, and then the foreskin is cut off." [1]

Male circumcision tends to be a controversial subject, so I wanted to know people's diverse opinions about it.

Some pros that are generally connotated to it (as quoted from a website which I'll be linking below) [2]:
- "Protects against urinary tract infections (UTIs) during the first year of life. However, UTIs are rare and easily treated.
- Prevents infections under the foreskin. It also prevents persistent tight foreskin. Both of these problems are rare and are usually due to pulling back the foreskin too often or too hard.
- Decreases the risk of getting some sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) later in life, including HIV. However, it does not completely prevent any STD.
Lowers the risk of cancer of the penis. However, good hygiene offers equal protection against this very rare cancer.
- Keeps your son's appearance "like other boys" or "like his dad." Boys may not mind looking different from other men in their family. However, they do mind being harassed in the locker room or shower about their foreskin. This could happen if most of their buddies are circumcised."

Cons related to it [2]:
- "Problems with surgery. Problems that may occur are skin or bloodstream infections, bleeding, gangrene, scarring, and various surgical accidents. One study showed that 1 of every 500 circumcised newborns suffered a serious side effect.
- Pain. The procedure causes pain. However, the doctor can use some anesthetic around the area to block some of the pain.
- Cost. You may have to pay for the surgery yourself because many insurance companies do not cover the cost.
- You must decide quickly. If you initially decide not to have your son circumcised, and then change your mind after your son is 2 months old, the procedure will require a general anesthesia. So try to make your final decision during the first month of life."

(If you have any other pros and cons you would like to add, feel free to do so)

Since in my country, it isn't a popular procedure [3], I would like to see people's views from other countries which have higher rates of circumcision, to understand it more and apart from that, I also thought it would be an interesting discussion. Also, is it ethical/moral or not? Do you think it should be a legal procedure or should it be outlawed?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.wsupgdocs.org...
[3] http://www.photius.com...
[4] http://www.webmd.com...

Circumcision is the norm in America and I'd have to say appearance is really the only factor for many with religion being the second most common reason, other excuses are mostly just that, poor attempts to justify an outdated practice. That said the non-circumcision movement is becoming more popular. I can understand why some people worry about appearance but I think the concern is overrated. I only have a daughter and am not likely to have any other children but if I had a son I would not get him circumcised. I think outlawing the practice on minors would be a good move and religious discrimination be damned. We do not allow female genital mutilation on religious grounds so why should we allow it on boys?
keithprosser
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 9:33:20 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Fgm is not comparable to circumcision. There are good practical reasons for male circmcision and it generally has only a short term soreness and no long term downside.
Fgm has no medical benefit and its intended purpose is to reduce female sexual pleasure. Nor is it required by any major faith and where it exists it is a holdover from more primitive tribal culture.

I can get worked up about the evil of fgm but I don't think circumscision as a big deal.
foxxhajti
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 9:41:00 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 9:46:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Parents should have the choice of having their male children circumcised, and to outlaw the practice would be a form of religious persecution against Jews, perhaps Muslims, and perhaps certain sects of Christianity. That is my opinion on this matter.

Do you think it's ethical to do so? (Just want to know your opinion, not trying to be rude or anything like that)
"It's interesting to observe that almost all truly worthy men have simple manners, and that simple manners are almost always taken as a sign of little worth" - Giacomo Leopardi

"It is more honorable to be raised to a throne than to be born to one. Fortune bestows the one, merit obtains the other." - Francesco Petrarca

"You too must not count too much on your reality as you feel it today, since like yesterday, it may prove an illusion for you tomorrow." - Luigi Pirandello
foxxhajti
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 9:43:51 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 8:34:01 AM, zaarbuc wrote:
At 9/12/2016 11:54:50 AM, foxxhajti wrote:
"Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin from the human penis. In the most common procedure, the foreskin is opened, adhesions are removed, and the foreskin is separated from the glans. After that, the circumcision device (if used) is placed, and then the foreskin is cut off." [1]

Male circumcision tends to be a controversial subject, so I wanted to know people's diverse opinions about it.

Some pros that are generally connotated to it (as quoted from a website which I'll be linking below) [2]:
- "Protects against urinary tract infections (UTIs) during the first year of life. However, UTIs are rare and easily treated.
- Prevents infections under the foreskin. It also prevents persistent tight foreskin. Both of these problems are rare and are usually due to pulling back the foreskin too often or too hard.
- Decreases the risk of getting some sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) later in life, including HIV. However, it does not completely prevent any STD.
Lowers the risk of cancer of the penis. However, good hygiene offers equal protection against this very rare cancer.
- Keeps your son's appearance "like other boys" or "like his dad." Boys may not mind looking different from other men in their family. However, they do mind being harassed in the locker room or shower about their foreskin. This could happen if most of their buddies are circumcised."

Cons related to it [2]:
- "Problems with surgery. Problems that may occur are skin or bloodstream infections, bleeding, gangrene, scarring, and various surgical accidents. One study showed that 1 of every 500 circumcised newborns suffered a serious side effect.
- Pain. The procedure causes pain. However, the doctor can use some anesthetic around the area to block some of the pain.
- Cost. You may have to pay for the surgery yourself because many insurance companies do not cover the cost.
- You must decide quickly. If you initially decide not to have your son circumcised, and then change your mind after your son is 2 months old, the procedure will require a general anesthesia. So try to make your final decision during the first month of life."

(If you have any other pros and cons you would like to add, feel free to do so)

Since in my country, it isn't a popular procedure [3], I would like to see people's views from other countries which have higher rates of circumcision, to understand it more and apart from that, I also thought it would be an interesting discussion. Also, is it ethical/moral or not? Do you think it should be a legal procedure or should it be outlawed?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.wsupgdocs.org...
[3] http://www.photius.com...
[4] http://www.webmd.com...

Circumcision is the norm in America and I'd have to say appearance is really the only factor for many with religion being the second most common reason, other excuses are mostly just that, poor attempts to justify an outdated practice. That said the non-circumcision movement is becoming more popular. I can understand why some people worry about appearance but I think the concern is overrated. I only have a daughter and am not likely to have any other children but if I had a son I would not get him circumcised. I think outlawing the practice on minors would be a good move and religious discrimination be damned. We do not allow female genital mutilation on religious grounds so why should we allow it on boys?

I think what you're saying, sounds pretty plausible. I didn't know it was the norm in America (silly me). Is it also a common practice amongst Christians? (excuse my ignorance about the matter)
"It's interesting to observe that almost all truly worthy men have simple manners, and that simple manners are almost always taken as a sign of little worth" - Giacomo Leopardi

"It is more honorable to be raised to a throne than to be born to one. Fortune bestows the one, merit obtains the other." - Francesco Petrarca

"You too must not count too much on your reality as you feel it today, since like yesterday, it may prove an illusion for you tomorrow." - Luigi Pirandello
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 10:22:49 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 9:43:51 AM, foxxhajti wrote:
I didn't know it was the norm in America (silly me).
That's what you get for living on that pirate boat, and for thinking the rest of the world is modeled on its norms.

Is it also a common practice amongst Christians? (excuse my ignorance about the matter)
In Europe, the opposition to male circumcision as a practice is mainly due to lingering anti-Semitism. When that same crowd finds out that circumcision is basic practice for Christians in America, they go silent.
foxxhajti
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 10:32:47 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 10:22:49 AM, NHN wrote:
At 9/13/2016 9:43:51 AM, foxxhajti wrote:
I didn't know it was the norm in America (silly me).
That's what you get for living on that pirate boat, and for thinking the rest of the world is modeled on its norms.

Useless claim and out of place in a forum post which is talking about circumcision, not my "pirate boat".

Is it also a common practice amongst Christians? (excuse my ignorance about the matter)
In Europe, the opposition to male circumcision as a practice is mainly due to lingering anti-Semitism. When that same crowd finds out that circumcision is basic practice for Christians in America, they go silent.

My country IS Semitic to a certain extent. I'm just trying to inform myself here, and you're acting unnecessarily rude. I didn't say anything against or for the practice, I kept my stance pretty objective, so your behaviour is unwarranted. Unless you have an insightful argument without any personal attacks about my "pirate laden country" and whatnot, don't comment. Thank you.
"It's interesting to observe that almost all truly worthy men have simple manners, and that simple manners are almost always taken as a sign of little worth" - Giacomo Leopardi

"It is more honorable to be raised to a throne than to be born to one. Fortune bestows the one, merit obtains the other." - Francesco Petrarca

"You too must not count too much on your reality as you feel it today, since like yesterday, it may prove an illusion for you tomorrow." - Luigi Pirandello
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 10:46:11 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 10:32:47 AM, foxxhajti wrote:
At 9/13/2016 10:22:49 AM, NHN wrote:
That's what you get for living on that pirate boat, and for thinking the rest of the world is modeled on its norms.
Useless claim and out of place in a forum post which is talking about circumcision, not my "pirate boat".
Or, a playful swipe at someone who missed the fact that the first Americans (puritans) fled the European lands due to religious persecution. And that is what circumcision ultimately comes down to: religious freedom v. religious tyranny. That is also why Christians and atheists in Europe, especially in Germany, have been looking to prohibit circumcision among Jews and other religious minorities.

My country IS Semitic to a certain extent.
The Maltese ship of state comes with a mixed bag of tricks. But it's wrongful to take a term "anti-Semitism" (hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews) and water it down by introducing a pointless remark such as, "Well, I'm of Semitic origin (Arabic), so I can't be an anti-Semite." That's not how word definitions function.

Unless you have an insightful argument without any personal attacks about my "pirate laden country" and whatnot, don't comment. Thank you.
My point is that this issue falls under the practices of religious freedom and therefore shouldn't be an issue at all.
foxxhajti
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 10:56:27 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 10:46:11 AM, NHN wrote:
At 9/13/2016 10:32:47 AM, foxxhajti wrote:
At 9/13/2016 10:22:49 AM, NHN wrote:
That's what you get for living on that pirate boat, and for thinking the rest of the world is modeled on its norms.
Useless claim and out of place in a forum post which is talking about circumcision, not my "pirate boat".
Or, a playful swipe at someone who missed the fact that the first Americans (puritans) fled the European lands due to religious persecution. And that is what circumcision ultimately comes down to: religious freedom v. religious tyranny. That is also why Christians and atheists in Europe, especially in Germany, have been looking to prohibit circumcision among Jews and other religious minorities.

Still don't see why you had to mention my "pirate boat" country. You mention it as a "pirate laden country" every time you reply to me on a thread.

My country IS Semitic to a certain extent.
The Maltese ship of state comes with a mixed bag of tricks. But it's wrongful to take a term "anti-Semitism" (hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews) and water it down by introducing a pointless remark such as, "Well, I'm of Semitic origin (Arabic), so I can't be an anti-Semite." That's not how word definitions function.

How the hell did I come across as anti-Semitic? Did I say anything anti-Semitic? No, so your statements are still pretty unnecessary.

Unless you have an insightful argument without any personal attacks about my "pirate laden country" and whatnot, don't comment. Thank you.
My point is that this issue falls under the practices of religious freedom and therefore shouldn't be an issue at all.

And did I say anything against it at all in this post? No. I was being objective. I posted the pros and cons of it, and sourced them in my OP. I haven't picked sides. I just thought that a post about this, would be interesting since it's a controversial topic.
"It's interesting to observe that almost all truly worthy men have simple manners, and that simple manners are almost always taken as a sign of little worth" - Giacomo Leopardi

"It is more honorable to be raised to a throne than to be born to one. Fortune bestows the one, merit obtains the other." - Francesco Petrarca

"You too must not count too much on your reality as you feel it today, since like yesterday, it may prove an illusion for you tomorrow." - Luigi Pirandello
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 12:26:56 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 10:56:27 AM, foxxhajti wrote:
Still don't see why you had to mention my "pirate boat" country. You mention it as a "pirate laden country" every time you reply to me on a thread.
I've said it once before, in that thread where you outrageously suggested that America should introduce a Cuba-styled subsidization of tertiary education, tripling current costs.

And yes, when it comes to issues like the ban on topless beaches, or divorce (legalized in 2011) and blasphemy laws (repealed in July 2016!), I do find Malta to be outright backwards. But it's a double-edged sword: one part Catholic Sparta, one part casino and nightlife culture sponsored by the Russian mob. That ship of state takes some maneuvering.

How the hell did I come across as anti-Semitic? Did I say anything anti-Semitic? No, so your statements are still pretty unnecessary.
You're speaking from the vantage of the European Union, which constitutes the high seat of Malta's laws (ECJ), its currency (ECB) as well as its foreign and security policy (CFSP).

And in Germany, one of the two core nations of the EU, circumcision was termed a crime in May 2012 (http://www.loc.gov...). Instead of categorizing circumcision as falling under religious freedom, it was instead determined as "bodily harm." That move was condemned by Jewish and Muslim communities, and it struck me as odd that you didn't take it into account.

Regardless, following condemnation from doctors, human rights advocates and aggrieved parties, circumcision was reinstated as a practice in Germany in December 2012 (http://www.bundestag.de...).

And did I say anything against it at all in this post? No. I was being objective. I posted the pros and cons of it, and sourced them in my OP. I haven't picked sides. I just thought that a post about this, would be interesting since it's a controversial topic.
You turned a blind eye to the deep-seated anti-Semitism that drives many political forces in Europe to oppose kosher slaughter, male circumcision, religious private schools, or any other manifestations of religious freedom. And when I mentioned this aspect, you just mumbled that your country is partly Semitic, effectively dismissing religious freedom as a factor instead of addressing it.
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 1:52:25 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 10:46:11 AM, NHN wrote:
Or, a playful swipe at someone who missed the fact that the first Americans (puritans) fled the European lands due to religious persecution. And that is what circumcision ultimately comes down to: religious freedom v. religious tyranny. That is also why Christians and atheists in Europe, especially in Germany, have been looking to prohibit circumcision among Jews and other religious minorities.

I think this is an unacceptable framing of the problem, since it biases the analysis to exclude the factor of the bodily integrity of the baby whose penis or clitoris is being mutilated. Our scope of "free decision" obviously crosses the bounds of ethics where the action encumbers the material integrity of another person's identity. If both the religions want to enforce some form of genital mutilation, then we should frame it as religious tyranny v. religious tyranny, right? If the "issue" was just one of religious freedom, then in a parallel case where my religion advocated rape, we would just be framing it in terms of whether all religions were able to rape equally without impeding the ability of others to do the same. If the people criticizing the rape practices of my religion were hypocritical Christians who didn't make the same criticisms of the embedded violent practices of their own religions, the solution would not be to silence that criticism, but to apply it more consistently. Personally, I could give less of a 'damn' about the religious freedom of Jews to play with a baby's penis. Especially when the weight of evidence suggests that the benefits are nowhere near substantial enough to justify the removal of an organ which clearly exists because it serves an evolutionary benefit. Regardless, my problem with the metric you are recommending here is that it wouldn't even enable us to pose the question.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 2:28:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 9:41:00 AM, foxxhajti wrote:
At 9/12/2016 9:46:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Parents should have the choice of having their male children circumcised, and to outlaw the practice would be a form of religious persecution against Jews, perhaps Muslims, and perhaps certain sects of Christianity. That is my opinion on this matter.

Do you think it's ethical to do so? (Just want to know your opinion, not trying to be rude or anything like that)

Sure. It's a one-time thing, and we live in an era of widespread anaesthetics.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
foxxhajti
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 2:29:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 2:28:33 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 9/13/2016 9:41:00 AM, foxxhajti wrote:
At 9/12/2016 9:46:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Parents should have the choice of having their male children circumcised, and to outlaw the practice would be a form of religious persecution against Jews, perhaps Muslims, and perhaps certain sects of Christianity. That is my opinion on this matter.

Do you think it's ethical to do so? (Just want to know your opinion, not trying to be rude or anything like that)

Sure. It's a one-time thing, and we live in an era of widespread anaesthetics.

Thanks for replying constructively unlike some other people on this thread. I appreciate that.
"It's interesting to observe that almost all truly worthy men have simple manners, and that simple manners are almost always taken as a sign of little worth" - Giacomo Leopardi

"It is more honorable to be raised to a throne than to be born to one. Fortune bestows the one, merit obtains the other." - Francesco Petrarca

"You too must not count too much on your reality as you feel it today, since like yesterday, it may prove an illusion for you tomorrow." - Luigi Pirandello
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 2:45:14 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 1:52:25 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/13/2016 10:46:11 AM, NHN wrote:
Or, a playful swipe at someone who missed the fact that the first Americans (puritans) fled the European lands due to religious persecution. And that is what circumcision ultimately comes down to: religious freedom v. religious tyranny. That is also why Christians and atheists in Europe, especially in Germany, have been looking to prohibit circumcision among Jews and other religious minorities.
I think this is an unacceptable framing of the problem, since it biases the analysis to exclude the factor of the bodily integrity of the baby whose penis or clitoris is being mutilated.
First off, this regards male circumcision -- not female genital mutilation -- which means you ended up framing the matter incorrectly (har har).

Our scope of "free decision" obviously crosses the bounds of ethics where the action encumbers the material integrity of another person's identity. If both the religions want to enforce some form of genital mutilation, then we should frame it as religious tyranny v. religious tyranny, right?
Every religious system is a nightmare, an index of oppression in its own right. But as a free and open society -- a liberal democracy -- bases itself on the coeval plurality of worldviews and religions, the term religious freedom involves the right for a minority to exercise its customs (within reason) without persecution from the society's majority. And a society in which the majority, however atheistic and enlightened, effectively confines the minority in all of its practices is, therefore, performing an act of religious tyranny. Especially as the act in question -- male circumcision -- is not considered "bodily harm" by medical professionals but only by spurious politicians and lawmen (re: the German example).

Regardless, my problem with the metric you are recommending here is that it wouldn't even enable us to pose the question.
It would be, most assuredly, had respected medical professionals -- rather than your garden-variety European anti-Semite or Islamophobe -- drawn this to our attention.
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 3:53:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 2:45:14 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/13/2016 1:52:25 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/13/2016 10:46:11 AM, NHN wrote:
Or, a playful swipe at someone who missed the fact that the first Americans (puritans) fled the European lands due to religious persecution. And that is what circumcision ultimately comes down to: religious freedom v. religious tyranny. That is also why Christians and atheists in Europe, especially in Germany, have been looking to prohibit circumcision among Jews and other religious minorities.
I think this is an unacceptable framing of the problem, since it biases the analysis to exclude the factor of the bodily integrity of the baby whose penis or clitoris is being mutilated.
First off, this regards male circumcision -- not female genital mutilation -- which means you ended up framing the matter incorrectly (har har).

There's no principle that I can see in your framing of this issue to account for that difference. Surely, if we could all agree that circumcision was completely ethical, or that it wasn't, then the question should be resolved. Your framing, which moves the hinge of the problem to a concept of "religious freedom" - makes the ethical issue of harm extraneous to the question of circumcision. The question is how the issues of female and male genital mutilation can be significantly distinguished in principle, according to the coordinates of what you've laid out.

Our scope of "free decision" obviously crosses the bounds of ethics where the action encumbers the material integrity of another person's identity. If both the religions want to enforce some form of genital mutilation, then we should frame it as religious tyranny v. religious tyranny, right?
Every religious system is a nightmare, an index of oppression in its own right. But as a free and open society -- a liberal democracy -- bases itself on the coeval plurality of worldviews and religions, the term religious freedom involves the right for a minority to exercise its customs (within reason) without persecution from the society's majority.

What is considered "within reason" becomes deeply problematic where children are involved. I would consider basing heavy medical decisions upon tradition or scripture rather than purely upon biological evidence to be totally beyond any reasonable measure. If this leads to an unnecessary and irreversible mutilation of the penis, then the child's ethical autonomy has been breached.

And a society in which the majority, however atheistic and enlightened, effectively confines the minority in all of its practices is, therefore, performing an act of religious tyranny. Especially as the act in question -- male circumcision -- is not considered "bodily harm" by medical professionals but only by spurious politicians and lawmen (re: the German example).

Again, even if what you said is accurate, this is not why they make that decision, and it's not the metric you seem to have been advocating. If what is at issue in circumcision is "religious freedom" then the authority to defer to for an answer would be a theologian, not a medical professional.

As for whether it is bodily harm, the definition is ambiguous. In some cases, plastic surgery would not be bodily harm. But anyone reasonable should agree that unnecessarily subjecting a baby to plastic surgery would be - if not bodily "harm" - an encroachment of their bodily integrity. Regardless, I would say that the issue is not just whether circumcision poses an obvious enough threat to be called unilaterally unacceptable (even to a willing participant) - but rather the question is whether the benefit is extreme enough to warrant such a severe physical intervention. And no, helping deluded parents to feel less insecure about their faith does not count as a benefit.

Like the foreskin, the appendix has certain downsides, and sometimes can cause infections, so can be removed. Whereas both have been thought unnecessary, we later found that the appendix has essential functions related to gut bacteria and microbes, which are one of the most fundamental determinants of physical and mental health. If we just trusted the "medical consensus" at a particular time, that it was "not harmful" to remove the appendix, rather than allowing millions of years of evolution to dictate our decisions, we might have instituted widespread appendix-removal, and this would have led to inflation in obesity and probably increases in things like autism and schizophrenia. Not just that, but it may have been very difficult to trace these problems to their real cause. Since these are even now very young fields of research, no medical professional, certainly until very recently, would even have been able to get a notion of this complex interplay of forces affected by that kind of bodily interruption of the natural order.

To leave decisions like this up to even medical professionals, deciding based upon insufficient evidence that it's "not harmful" to whatever they deem a significant degree, I would still call unacceptable. To proceed upon scripture or tradition is inexcusable.

Regardless, my problem with the metric you are recommending here is that it wouldn't even enable us to pose the question.
It would be, most assuredly, had respected medical professionals -- rather than your garden-variety European anti-Semite or Islamophobe -- drawn this to our attention.

I'm not sure what you mean here.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 4:14:00 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 3:53:20 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/13/2016 2:45:14 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/13/2016 1:52:25 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/13/2016 10:46:11 AM, NHN wrote:
Or, a playful swipe at someone who missed the fact that the first Americans (puritans) fled the European lands due to religious persecution. And that is what circumcision ultimately comes down to: religious freedom v. religious tyranny. That is also why Christians and atheists in Europe, especially in Germany, have been looking to prohibit circumcision among Jews and other religious minorities.
I think this is an unacceptable framing of the problem, since it biases the analysis to exclude the factor of the bodily integrity of the baby whose penis or clitoris is being mutilated.
First off, this regards male circumcision -- not female genital mutilation -- which means you ended up framing the matter incorrectly (har har).
There's no principle that I can see in your framing of this issue to account for that difference.
It was fully accounted for in the OP. Revisit it if you're uncertain.

Our scope of "free decision" obviously crosses the bounds of ethics where the action encumbers the material integrity of another person's identity. If both the religions want to enforce some form of genital mutilation, then we should frame it as religious tyranny v. religious tyranny, right?
Every religious system is a nightmare, an index of oppression in its own right. But as a free and open society -- a liberal democracy -- bases itself on the coeval plurality of worldviews and religions, the term religious freedom involves the right for a minority to exercise its customs (within reason) without persecution from the society's majority.
What is considered "within reason" becomes deeply problematic where children are involved. I would consider basing heavy medical decisions upon tradition or scripture rather than purely upon biological evidence to be totally beyond any reasonable measure. If this leads to an unnecessary and irreversible mutilation of the penis, then the child's ethical autonomy has been breached.
Incorrect. Male circumcision is customary in the United States (55% of males) and is fully supported by the medical profession. In Europe, however, where male circumcision is undertaken by minorities (Jews and Muslims), there is an added element of majority-minority tension which underlies the opposition. And it is common that European bigots hide behind a mask of "bodily harm" to further their cause.

And a society in which the majority, however atheistic and enlightened, effectively confines the minority in all of its practices is, therefore, performing an act of religious tyranny. Especially as the act in question -- male circumcision -- is not considered "bodily harm" by medical professionals but only by spurious politicians and lawmen (re: the German example).
Again, even if what you said is accurate, this is not why they make that decision, and it's not the metric you seem to have been advocating. If what is at issue in circumcision is "religious freedom" then the authority to defer to for an answer would be a theologian, not a medical professional.
Incorrect, since the procedure is accepted under the consensus of informed medical practice.

Regardless, I would say that the issue is not just whether circumcision poses an obvious enough threat to be called unilaterally unacceptable (even to a willing participant) - but rather the question is whether the benefit is extreme enough to warrant such a severe physical intervention. And no, helping deluded parents to feel less insecure about their faith does not count as a benefit.
Then this is an opinion which both rejects the established consensus of medical professionals and, by extension, restricts the rights of religious minorities.

To leave decisions like this up to even medical professionals, deciding based upon insufficient evidence that it's "not harmful" to whatever they deem a significant degree, I would still call unacceptable. To proceed upon scripture or tradition is inexcusable.
Then your contention is with the field of medicine and its established consensus, not to mention the 55% of American males who are circumcised (and laugh at this thread).

Regardless, my problem with the metric you are recommending here is that it wouldn't even enable us to pose the question.
It would be, most assuredly, had respected medical professionals -- rather than your garden-variety European anti-Semite or Islamophobe -- drawn this to our attention.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
The push against male circumcision is often followed with an opposition to, e.g., the rights for minorities to establish religious schools of their own. It is the bigoted majority finding ways to crowd out the minority.
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 4:55:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 4:14:00 PM, NHN wrote:
To leave decisions like this up to even medical professionals, deciding based upon insufficient evidence that it's "not harmful" to whatever they deem a significant degree, I would still call unacceptable. To proceed upon scripture or tradition is inexcusable.
Then your contention is with the field of medicine and its established consensus, not to mention the 55% of American males who are circumcised (and laugh at this thread).

There is no established consensus that it's significantly beneficial, just that it's not completely harmful. You didn't really address the way I handled the logic of that. If all that's needed to justify major biological interventions upon newborn babies, is to prove that they are "neutral" in the sense of not posing any immediately obvious risk, then wouldn't all manner of obviously unacceptable things become allowable? As for 55% of American males being wrong, I'm not a democrat who thinks that anything over half equals a correct opinion.

Then this is an opinion which both rejects the established consensus of medical professionals and, by extension, restricts the rights of religious minorities.

What is the significance of that? I want to restrict the rights of the minorities and the majorities.

Take my example about plastic surgery. If there was a "medical consensus" that we could give babies plastic surgery without "significant" risk of physical "damage" - would you support me in starting a new religion tomorrow which practices changing our children to look more beautiful upon birth? If no, I'm afraid you are restricting the rights of my one-man religious minority.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 5:20:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 4:55:30 PM, sdavio wrote:
If all that's needed to justify major biological interventions upon newborn babies, is to prove that they are "neutral" in the sense of not posing any immediately obvious risk, then wouldn't all manner of obviously unacceptable things become allowable?
What would be "obviously unacceptable" in such a way that it would fit as an example?

As for 55% of American males being wrong, I'm not a democrat who thinks that anything over half equals a correct opinion.
Rather, a batch so large gives researchers plenty of opportunity to investigate whether there is any harm done. And as there is no harm done, this is not an issue.

Then this is an opinion which both rejects the established consensus of medical professionals and, by extension, restricts the rights of religious minorities.
What is the significance of that? I want to restrict the rights of the minorities and the majorities.
If the agenda isn't supported by consensus, then it's likely bigoted as it targets religious minorities. And if it is an act of bigotry performed by a majority upon a minority, then it can be dismissed out of hand as unworthy of any attention.

Take my example about plastic surgery. If there was a "medical consensus" that we could give babies plastic surgery without "significant" risk of physical "damage" - would you support me in starting a new religion tomorrow which practices changing our children to look more beautiful upon birth?
In theory, yes. But you would first have to point out an existing consensus within the medical community.

By extension, abortion can be viewed as one such measure, as the person-to-be is surgically removed. And I support it unequivocally and for whatever reason, from the risk of rearing a malformed or underdeveloped child to that of a simple "meh." What is a mere beauty implant compared to that?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 5:52:27 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 5:20:41 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/13/2016 4:55:30 PM, sdavio wrote:
If all that's needed to justify major biological interventions upon newborn babies, is to prove that they are "neutral" in the sense of not posing any immediately obvious risk, then wouldn't all manner of obviously unacceptable things become allowable?
What would be "obviously unacceptable" in such a way that it would fit as an example?

Like, tattooing a swastika on their forehead or something.

Take my example about plastic surgery. If there was a "medical consensus" that we could give babies plastic surgery without "significant" risk of physical "damage" - would you support me in starting a new religion tomorrow which practices changing our children to look more beautiful upon birth?
In theory, yes. But you would first have to point out an existing consensus within the medical community.

But I think a society that lives under such a paradigm is in conflict with nature. As illustrated by my example of the appendix, the body has systems more complex than can be comprehended by a quick survey of "medical consensus" for cases of obvious harm.

By extension, abortion can be viewed as one such measure, as the person-to-be is surgically removed. And I support it unequivocally and for whatever reason, from the risk of rearing a malformed or underdeveloped child to that of a simple "meh." What is a mere beauty implant compared to that?

If the child is gone, the parents' decision can't haunt the child for the rest of their life, the way that permanently tampering with their living physical body can. All I'm asking for is a significant reason for doing so. It's like any other issue of consent - in absence of their ability to verbally articulate consent, we must default to whatever the most reasonable metric is. Just because someone is in a coma, we aren't justified in tattooing something on them if we feel like it, whatever amount of medical consensus you get that it won't cause physical "damage"...
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 6:20:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 5:52:27 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/13/2016 5:20:41 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/13/2016 4:55:30 PM, sdavio wrote:
If all that's needed to justify major biological interventions upon newborn babies, is to prove that they are "neutral" in the sense of not posing any immediately obvious risk, then wouldn't all manner of obviously unacceptable things become allowable?
What would be "obviously unacceptable" in such a way that it would fit as an example?
Like, tattooing a swastika on their forehead or something.
A tattoo is not a medical procedure. Try again.

Take my example about plastic surgery. If there was a "medical consensus" that we could give babies plastic surgery without "significant" risk of physical "damage" - would you support me in starting a new religion tomorrow which practices changing our children to look more beautiful upon birth?
In theory, yes. But you would first have to point out an existing consensus within the medical community.
But I think a society that lives under such a paradigm is in conflict with nature.
Of course it is "in conflict with nature" -- it is religious. But what matters to the argument is not whether the religious tradition is in agreement with nature but whether the practice is harmful and the child therefore requires protection by the state.

As illustrated by my example of the appendix, the body has systems more complex than can be comprehended by a quick survey of "medical consensus" for cases of obvious harm.
No, it didn't illustrate that. It was an obfuscation on your behalf in which you attempted to overlook the obvious: that male circumcision is a perfectly fine medical practice.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 12:23:05 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 11:54:50 AM, foxxhajti wrote:
"Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin from the human penis. In the most common procedure, the foreskin is opened, adhesions are removed, and the foreskin is separated from the glans. After that, the circumcision device (if used) is placed, and then the foreskin is cut off." [1]

Male circumcision tends to be a controversial subject, so I wanted to know people's diverse opinions about it.

Some pros that are generally connotated to it (as quoted from a website which I'll be linking below) [2]:
- "Protects against urinary tract infections (UTIs) during the first year of life. However, UTIs are rare and easily treated.
- Prevents infections under the foreskin. It also prevents persistent tight foreskin. Both of these problems are rare and are usually due to pulling back the foreskin too often or too hard.
- Decreases the risk of getting some sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) later in life, including HIV. However, it does not completely prevent any STD.
Lowers the risk of cancer of the penis. However, good hygiene offers equal protection against this very rare cancer.
- Keeps your son's appearance "like other boys" or "like his dad." Boys may not mind looking different from other men in their family. However, they do mind being harassed in the locker room or shower about their foreskin. This could happen if most of their buddies are circumcised."

Cons related to it [2]:
- "Problems with surgery. Problems that may occur are skin or bloodstream infections, bleeding, gangrene, scarring, and various surgical accidents. One study showed that 1 of every 500 circumcised newborns suffered a serious side effect.
- Pain. The procedure causes pain. However, the doctor can use some anesthetic around the area to block some of the pain.
- Cost. You may have to pay for the surgery yourself because many insurance companies do not cover the cost.
- You must decide quickly. If you initially decide not to have your son circumcised, and then change your mind after your son is 2 months old, the procedure will require a general anesthesia. So try to make your final decision during the first month of life."

(If you have any other pros and cons you would like to add, feel free to do so)

Since in my country, it isn't a popular procedure [3], I would like to see people's views from other countries which have higher rates of circumcision, to understand it more and apart from that, I also thought it would be an interesting discussion. Also, is it ethical/moral or not? Do you think it should be a legal procedure or should it be outlawed?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.wsupgdocs.org...
[3] http://www.photius.com...
[4] http://www.webmd.com...

I'm not entirely convinced about everything you've stated, but don't care enough to discredit your sources.

I have at least three things to say about this subject:

1. It is genital mutilation - make all the excuses for doing it that you want, doesn't change what it is.

2. I am very grateful to my dad for leaving me intact.

3. If I ever had a son, or someone asked my opinion in regards to their son, I would leave them intact as I am sure they would thank me later on, even if only in thought.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 4:27:00 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 10:22:49 AM, NHN wrote:
At 9/13/2016 9:43:51 AM, foxxhajti wrote:
I didn't know it was the norm in America (silly me).
That's what you get for living on that pirate boat, and for thinking the rest of the world is modeled on its norms.

Is it also a common practice amongst Christians? (excuse my ignorance about the matter)
In Europe, the opposition to male circumcision as a practice is mainly due to lingering anti-Semitism. When that same crowd finds out that circumcision is basic practice for Christians in America, they go silent.

This is perhaps the most nonsensical thing I have stumbled across today.

I have noticed you seem to act like a SJW with better English. Looking deeper into your arguments, I can clearly see you are pitching insults such as "authoritarian, white nationalist, alt-right, anti-semitic, racist, etc." against right wingers.
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 5:34:02 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 6:20:37 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/13/2016 5:52:27 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/13/2016 5:20:41 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/13/2016 4:55:30 PM, sdavio wrote:
If all that's needed to justify major biological interventions upon newborn babies, is to prove that they are "neutral" in the sense of not posing any immediately obvious risk, then wouldn't all manner of obviously unacceptable things become allowable?
What would be "obviously unacceptable" in such a way that it would fit as an example?
Like, tattooing a swastika on their forehead or something.
A tattoo is not a medical procedure. Try again.

How is that semantic distinction ethically relevant? Both are interventions upon the body of the child. It's not relevant to just set up a distinction without showing that it somehow logically affects the principles involved. The underlying principle you seem to be affirming is, that any action upon a child is acceptable as long as it can't be shown to pose an immediate medical harm by whatever the medical consensus is at that point in time.

Take my example about plastic surgery. If there was a "medical consensus" that we could give babies plastic surgery without "significant" risk of physical "damage" - would you support me in starting a new religion tomorrow which practices changing our children to look more beautiful upon birth?
In theory, yes. But you would first have to point out an existing consensus within the medical community.
But I think a society that lives under such a paradigm is in conflict with nature.
Of course it is "in conflict with nature" -- it is religious. But what matters to the argument is not whether the religious tradition is in agreement with nature but whether the practice is harmful and the child therefore requires protection by the state.

Whether or not state intervention is possible, I would argue that it is ethically unjustifiable, in that, all other factors being the same, a society is better off refraining from circumcision than engaging in it. If religion is obscuring people's judgment regarding this, by inputting an extra bias one way or the other, then that religion has overstepped its bounds. I would say that, even if I was wrong and circumcision could be shown to have a definite, unqualified medical utility, the point about religion would still hold, in that it is an intervening factor adding bias, rather than a central point which sustains the ethical principle in question.

As illustrated by my example of the appendix, the body has systems more complex than can be comprehended by a quick survey of "medical consensus" for cases of obvious harm.
No, it didn't illustrate that. It was an obfuscation on your behalf in which you attempted to overlook the obvious: that male circumcision is a perfectly fine medical practice.

Just because it analogizes to a slightly different case, doesn't mean it's an obfuscation. What is important here is the principles that are being socially legislated. If the principle behind being pro-circumcision is that a "perfectly fine" medical practice - in the sense of being one which has no obvious risk in the current state of knowledge - may be imposed upon babies without limit, then I have outlined cases where this principle, followed through in different situations, would lead to a fall in well being. The child is an ethically autonomous actor, and as such the basic standards of consent apply, including those where the person cannot articulate their consent verbally. It's the same reason that it wouldn't be ethically justifiable to rape people when they're asleep, even though they can't articulate their state of consent or non-consent, and whether or not the sex can be shown to pose any obvious "medical risk" physically. Other than my original contention about the central principle being medical rather than religious (which you have somewhat addressed by adding the caveat that there must be some medical limit upon the free action of religion), this is my basic point about the medical problem: that your distinction regarding "harm" is insufficient, and would lead to an anemic ethical view of personal bodily autonomy. In any other situation, I presume that you would find analogous cases obviously unacceptable, as I have outlined via examples.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 8:04:23 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Being anti-Semitic for opposing forced circumcision is about as logical as saying you're Islamophobic for opposing Sharia law.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 9:42:56 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 4:27:00 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
I have noticed you seem to act like a SJW with better English.
According to your Bible (http://en.rightpedia.info...) a "Social Justice Warrior" is the euphemistic term for a "Cultural Marxist" (https://en.wikipedia.org...), that is to say, the kooky conspiracy theory which credits Jewish intellectuals with the task of destroying Western society.

And as far as the thread topic is concerned, read up on anti-Semitism in Europe and how it masquerades as a concern for "human rights," regarding anything from male circumcision to Orthodox private schools.

Your ignorance isn't my burden.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 10:04:37 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 5:34:02 AM, sdavio wrote:
How is that semantic distinction ethically relevant?
Because this regards a surgical procedure.

Whether or not state intervention is possible, I would argue that it is ethically unjustifiable, in that, all other factors being the same, a society is better off refraining from circumcision than engaging in it.
How is it unjustifiable? How did you make that leap?

If religion is obscuring people's judgment regarding this, by inputting an extra bias one way or the other, then that religion has overstepped its bounds.
That's a majoritarian/authoritarian position in which you imagine there to be such a thing as an "objective point of view" in society. There isn't one. Rather, practices are termed harmful or not by professionals and then corrected accordingly. The justification according to some "objective location" is at best superfluous, at worst invasive.

I would say that, even if I was wrong and circumcision could be shown to have a definite, unqualified medical utility, the point about religion would still hold, in that it is an intervening factor adding bias, rather than a central point which sustains the ethical principle in question.
The WHO considers it a core part of the HIV prevention program, so you can hardly claim that there is no benefit (http://www.who.int...).

If the principle behind being pro-circumcision is that a "perfectly fine" medical practice - in the sense of being one which has no obvious risk in the current state of knowledge - may be imposed upon babies without limit, then I have outlined cases where this principle, followed through in different situations, would lead to a fall in well being.
"Fall in well-being" is a spurious category. The ones that count are (1) hard medicine and (2) the theologico-political framework of a community within society at large.

The child is an ethically autonomous actor, and as such the basic standards of consent apply, including those where the person cannot articulate their consent verbally.
The child is not an autonomous actor until reaching the age of majority.

It's the same reason that it wouldn't be ethically justifiable to rape people when they're asleep, even though they can't articulate their state of consent or non-consent, and whether or not the sex can be shown to pose any obvious "medical risk" physically.
Informal fallacy. This regards medicine.

Other than my original contention about the central principle being medical rather than religious (which you have somewhat addressed by adding the caveat that there must be some medical limit upon the free action of religion), this is my basic point about the medical problem: that your distinction regarding "harm" is insufficient, and would lead to an anemic ethical view of personal bodily autonomy.
In the German example, "bodily harm" was a legal opinion that didn't take into consideration the expert opinion of the German pediatrics association. This led to an outcry from the Jewish and Muslim communities, as well as medical experts, which all pushed to overturn the decision within seven months.

And it wouldn't "lead to an anemic ethical view of personal bodily autonomy," it would simply keep things the way they are.

In any other situation, I presume that you would find analogous cases obviously unacceptable, as I have outlined via examples.
Name one such case, for the sake of debate.