Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[Shadow Wolf]

If I'm happy that it was done as an infant then there's no violation.

Yes, it still means there was a violation of bodily autonomy as you did not choose to have this done. This means it cannot be ethical or moral.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In light of your later posts this reply may be superfluous but I want to be clear about a few things. I find male circumcision to be distasteful. There is no practical or medical (with exceptions) justification for the practice. The cultural insistence on circumcision you find in the U.S. is asinine and it should be stamped out. But I do think any restriction on male circumcision needs to make exceptions for sincere and established religious realities that exist among mostly Jews and Muslims. As far FGM is concerned, I reject the claim that it is a requirement of Islam. Prosecute anyone who performs it.

That's just blatant sexism to say it's ok to do it to males but leave females alone.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, it still means there was a violation of bodily autonomy as you did not choose to have this done. This means it cannot be ethical or moral.

I choose now, that my parents made the right choice for me.

ETA: Question: what does bodily autonomy mean? If I have autonomy, don't I have the authority to determine if I was violated?

 

[nPeace]

It actually comes from the State. Just as many States have also denied this right, with some killing over it. Sort of like how the State ultimately denied that "god given right" to slaves.

Actually, the State serves an important role under God's authority. Hence why some tyrants don't get away with 'murder'... every time.
The State does not always apply its dictates.
Say for example, tomorrow they did like Russia.
The authority of Jehovah's people remain the same, and does not change.

 

[nPeace]

Just cuz something is natural doesn't mean it should
be deemed acceptable, eg, disease, war, crime, religion.

Agreed. However, those who believe it's natural processes at work have no basis for claiming it is wrong, and should not be.

 

[nPeace]

Sounds you have very strong convictions and would see it as a great injustice if someone tried to stop you from following them.

So why would you ever want to deny someone else - your own child - the chance to follow their convictions?

What convictions does an two weeks old child have?

What do you think Jehovah says about hypocrisy?

I don't need to think on that. It's written.
(Matthew 7:4, 5) 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to remove the straw from your eye,’ when look! a rafter is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to remove the straw from your brother’s eye.

Hope you understood it.

 

[nPeace]

Why do you, or others who do this, post such a thing when clearly this is not the case?
Such "gotchas" are immature, don't you think?

Some of us can't help it. It comes naturally after repeated practice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What convictions does an two weeks old child have?

That is quite the red herring.

I don't need to think on that. It's written.
(Matthew 7:4, 5) 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to remove the straw from your eye,’ when look! a rafter is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to remove the straw from your brother’s eye.

Hope you understood it.

And there goes another irony meter.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I choose now, that my parents made the right choice for me.

ETA: Question: what does bodily autonomy mean? If I have autonomy, don't I have the authority to determine if I was violated?

Bodily autonomy means you have the right and ability to choose. You did not have a choice as it was just done before you could consent or refuse.
Edited to add: It must be very carefully weighed and considered to suggest violating it. A vaccine for a deadly pandemic, for example, is a situation when public safety comes first and you don't have the right to needlessly spread deadly germs.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't agree with you.
Are you ready and willing to face the consequences?, is the question.

It says a great deal that you don't think women who require a termination already face consequences, not least the unnecessary condemnation of people who want to insist on telling others how they should live their lives. You, might want to think about that.

You might also want to think about the consequences of women being denied safe legal terminations.

 

[Sheldon]

In many cases the doctor's opinion proved wrong.

Nothing like a made up sweeping generalisation.

Their opinions are not right because they wear white coats.,

What an idiotic straw man, do you think the white coat is why people visit doctors for their opinions then? So you don't bother with doctors then, just get someone to put on a white coat and give an opinion?

The joys of living and seeing the beauty of creation, as well as in some cases, the joy of knowing that there is that real hope of seeing its mom... sometime, was great. Worthwhile. For those who raised the child, they gained a joy they never expected.

So what? You seem to want to project your desires onto others, and women are more than capable of deciding for themselves what does and does not happen to their bodies.

 

[Sheldon]

It's more often the case than you claim. And it's not always necessary for the mother's survival.

That is pure speculation of course, and a woman must have the right to decide for herself, and clearly the best informed opinions come from medical science, not from those who wish to deny women a choice, based on their own subjective beliefs.

If someone doesn't want an abortion, they don't have to have one. However no one should have the right to dictate to a woman what she does with her body.

 

[Sheldon]

None, since abortions don't involve babies or children.

Nonsense. I suppose they are squirrels and chipmunks prior to birth?

You're being deliberately obtuse i assume, I'm not sure what you think such idiocy achieves, but if you think it strengthens your argument anymore than the ludicrous hyperbole then you've not thought it through.

A termination involves an embryo, blastocyst or foetus, never a baby or a child, your claim is ludicrously dishonest hyperbole, emotional rhetoric is not sound argument.

 

[Sheldon]

My mother had two children who only lived for a few weeks. She never regretted taking care of them.

Why are you telling others this? You alone see to be advocating taking away that choice from women.

 

[Sheldon]

Slavery isn't okay just because you treat slaves well. And I'm absolutely against treating criminals like slaves as well.

Okay. Your opinion is acknowledged.

You think slavery is acceptable? Well that rather proves the point KWED made, and that you ignored, with your ludicrous justification of slavery.

 

[Sheldon]

War is not something that the creator planned.

So you don't believe your deity is omniscient and omnipotent then?

Now consider the Atheist who doesn't believe God made anything, but we are just all animals, with some being more savage than others, and war is natural.

You may want to look natural up in a dictionary, as it appears to be entirely manmade to me?

When men act out their nature... why does the Atheist complain?

Well I can't speak for other atheists of course, but my morality involves empathy and cares about the consequences of our actions, rather than blindly adhering to archaic religious dogma from bronze and iron age Bedouins. So avoiding and where possible preventing unnecessary suffering is something I care about, perhaps you don't, and simply do as your religion tells you regardless?

 

[Sheldon]

I'm curious to know what you would do 3,000 BC, that's "better".

The countries whose criminal justice systems have the lowest rates of recidivism, set aside revenge and focus on rehabilitation. So I guess it depends on what you want to achieve, The US has a very high rate of recidivism in case you didn't know.

Well. I am not all wise. So I don't do what is wise in my own eyes.

You can empathise can't you, you can reason can't you? Give it a try, take responsibility for your own morality.

So I am grateful for the "security camera in the sky", which guides my step.

So you just blindly follow archaic doctrine and dogma, because you can't know what is and is not moral? That's a very scary admission.

Actually, I believe it's the reason I am alive today... and not hurting others, but helping them.

So you don't care whether you help or hurt, as long as it pleases a deity you imagine is real and watching you? The consequences of your actions beyond adherence to religious dogma don't matter to you then?

Are we not glad we can make choices.

You just implied that you're not making any moral choices though?

People do try their best. Sadly, their best oftentimes are lacking... but at least they try right? That's what counts right? Trying.
I don't think so.

You're suggesting we don't try to reason what is moral? Just blindly follow archaic bronze and iron age religions? Another very scary idea.

What count to me is accurate knowledge or truth, because then, that serves well, even in the long term.

Except you're not seeking knowledge, or truth, just blindly following what your archaic religion dictates, even to the point of your morally repugnant attempt to justify the egregious turpitude of slavery?

 

[KWED]

Why do you, or others who do this, post such a thing when clearly this is not the case?
Such "gotchas" are immature, don't you think?

But it is the case.
I suspect that the probably didn't mean to say that abortion is not murder and is morally acceptable, but that is what their words meant. It's not my problem if they don't understand the implications of their arguments.
Perhaps it will encourage them to think more rationally in clearly in future?

 

[KWED]

Slippery slope.

One man's "slippery slope" is another's "path to progress".

 

[KWED]

I think the right for Jews (and Muslims) to practice their religion is an important consideration. I think circumcision is distasteful, but I recognize its requirement in Judaism as coming from a genuine religious commitment.

Where do you draw the line (if you do at all) with exemptions to the law on religious grounds?
Should domestic violence be excused because the Quran instructs a husband to beat a wife for ill-conduct (under certain conditions)? Yes, it is distasteful, but it is the word of god.